2008.11.25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETIING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 25, 2008
INDEX
Freshwater Wetlands 9-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC /Michael Chrys 1.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-30
Freshwater Wetlands 11-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC/Michael Chrys 1.
Tax Map No. 226-19-1-30
Subdivision No. 8-2008 Christine Mozal 3.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27
Site Plan No. 44-2008 Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. 14.
Tax Map No. 314.-1-3
Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 27.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 25, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
THOMAS SEGULJIC, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the second meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board for Tuesday, November 25, 2008. I’d like to welcome all members of the
public. If you didn’t pick up an agenda, there’s agendas on the back table. On the back
side of the agenda is information on the public hearing portion of each item that we will
discuss this evening.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
FW 9-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
FW 11-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda under Administrative Items is tabling
consideration for Garner Holdings, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 9-2008 and
Freshwater Wetlands No. 11-2008. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for?
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. I assume they didn’t submit their information?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they did not submit their information. In fact, they have written an e-
mail to myself, stating that they are indefinitely withdrawing those submittals. So at this
point, they didn’t ask for any specific date. They basically let me know that the Garner
Holdings two properties, the two Freshwater Wetlands, 9 and 11, have been withdrawn
indefinitely.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, instead of tabling, should we?
MR. HUNSINGER-Deny without prejudice?
MR. SEGULJIC-There you go.
MR. OBORNE-Deny without prejudice. You can acknowledge their letter, and, you
know.
MR. SEGULJIC-That would clean up the back log.
MR. OBORNE-If you want to deny without prejudice, I think that would be fine, if you
want to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don’t have a tabling date. They’ll have to re-publish anyway.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 11-2008
GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 4290 sq. ft. single family dwelling
including well, wastewater disposal and stormwater mitigation. Freshwater
Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/28/08; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not
comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive
Declaration; OR if the 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
6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution.
7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2008
GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC [226.19-1-30], Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a similar motion for Number Nine?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 9-2008
GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes construction of a 4290 sq. ft. single family dwelling
including well, wastewater disposal and stormwater mitigation. Freshwater
Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland.
2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/28/08; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not
comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive
Declaration; OR if the 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
6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution.
7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
and
8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and
9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 9-2008
GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC [226.19-1-30], Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
CHRISTINE MOZAL AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; M. O’CONNOR ZONING
WR-1A, WR-3A LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 2.42 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
PLANNING BOARD TO OFFER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS PER SECTION 277 OF TOWN LAW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 34-91, AV
70-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA/NWI GLEN LK CEA, NWI
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 3.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION A-183
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 8-2008. This is a Sketch Plan, applicant
Christine Mozal. Requested action, Sketch Plan Review for a two lot subdivision.
Location is 99 Fitzgerald Road. The existing zoning is, to an extent, bifurcated. It’s
Waterfront Residential One Acre and Waterfront Residential Three Acre. SEQRA Status
is an Unlisted. A SEQRA determination will be required eventually, not at this point,
though. This is Sketch Plan. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a
3.42 acre parcel into two lots of one acre and 2.42 acres. The lot is located adjacent to
Glen Lake. I do want to tell the Planning Board that the Zoning Board is seeking a
recommendation, with relation to this application. Specifically, the Zoning Board is
looking for the proposed construction of an existing three car garage that is proposed.
They are proposing on taking this three car garage, possibly in the future, possibly now,
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
and expanding that to a single family dwelling. We’re looking for a recommendation, the
Zoning Board of Appeals is. After that there are some basic notes on this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant. With me is Christine Mozal who is
the applicant and the owner of the property at this time, and Matt Steves, from Van
Dusen an Steves, who are the surveyors for the project, who are working with Tom
Hutchins as we go through this project. We’ve got a little bit of the egg and the chicken,
and I’m not exactly sure what we’re addressing tonight, because I understand that you’ve
been asked to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board on the request for variance,
and you have also taken on the position of SEQRA Lead Agent for, or they’ve asked you
to take on Lead Agency status for the project. We were coming to you for Sketch Plan
approval with the idea that we wanted to get your input before we spent five, ten
thousand dollars on engineering, and try to proceed in an orderly type manner. So that’s
where we’re at. I’ll try and keep it simple. I did a cover letter, when we submitted the
application, and I don’t know if that was included in your packet or not. It was included in
the packet that went to the ZBA. Basically, the Mozals purchased the lake lots in 1985.
They then, sometime, and I’m not exactly sure, and we didn’t have the minutes the other
day, but a three acre lot was created by the Nolan family sometime prior to 1987, that
adjoined part of the Mozal property, and that was done, I presume, by Planning Board
approval in 1980 or 1996 or 1997. They were two freestanding, separate parcels at that
point. The Mozals chose to buy that three acre parcel that adjoins their parcel, and at
that time construct a garage, if you will, on there. They built the garage in a manner that
it could be converted to a residence without any real expansion of it. The footprint of the
garage is 1,050 feet. It has enough height so that it has two floors within it. It would be
two 2100 square feet, which is probably larger than most of the homes that are on Glen
Lake, but it was built with that idea. It had windows on the second floor area, that would
be sufficient for a residence, but they used it solely as a garage. They didn’t choose, at
that time, to put in a kitchen. They didn’t choose to divide parts of the interior, which they
could have, or put in a septic system with the property. There’s now come a time in their
life where they would like to down size, and one of the most significant things that they
have to try and down size is this particular property. They would like to go back to the
1997 status of the property where they had two freestanding lots. Now this is a difficult
piece of property. We understand it’s a difficult piece of property, and we understand
that it is going to be subject to close scrutiny by this Board and by the Zoning Board. In
order to go back to the 1997 status, like most of the properties on Glen Lake, we have to
get an Area Variance because it doesn’t front on a Town road. If you’ve gone out and
done your site visit, as you came down the hill on Fitzgerald Road, the end of Fitzgerald
Road, where the pavement ends, or not where the pavement ends, where the pavement
turns, is the end of the actual Town road. Everything beyond that, there are probably
about seven or eight houses on this particular spur we used to call Rose Lane. I’m not
sure what we call it now. Zack is the first one. A person from New Jersey’s the next one.
Gore, which is now Pat and Jennifer Rowley are there, and there’s Van Schoick and a
couple of other pieces that are there. They’re all on basically private right of ways. They
have deeded right of ways. The same thing if you actually turn to the left, and you heard
me talk about my place on Glen Lake many times when I’m here. I’m right here on that
little Pioneer Point. There are, in fact, four homes on Pioneer Point, or five if you count
Floyd Rourke’s property, all which are, again, on private right of ways. That’s the way
Glen Lake was developed. So, I don’t think getting the variance for not having frontage
on a Town road is a big lift in this particular instance, and in many instances we’ve done
it before. So you’re being asked to give your recommendation on that. The other area
that we’re looking for a variance is lot size, and part of this property is in a three acre
zone. Part of this property is in a one acre zone. In order to create these two parcels,
we would have to have four acres. We have 3.42 acres. So what we did is we actually
expanded the lake lots so that they would be conforming, and they would be one acre,
and we put all of the shortage on what we call the garage lot, and that’ll be 2.42, as
opposed to three. Now we could juggle that if somebody said, you know, they’d rather
have it closer on each one. Where we draw those lines is very arbitrary, and it doesn’t
really make a difference to us. The third area that we’re looking for a variance, which is
probably the most significant Area Variance, is density. If you’ve been to the site, there’s
no doubt that this is a very steep slope site, and if you were looking at this for a
subdivision, for a general subdivision, you’d discount from the density the sloping over
25%. Now, that came up in probably some discussion last week when we were before
the Zoning Board. They wanted to know exactly how much of a density variance we
were requesting. They didn’t necessarily say that they weren’t going to grant that, unless
somebody stuck a big red foot out or something, but they wanted to know exactly what
the percentage is so that they only give us what we need, they give us the minimum
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
variance that we need. I said that I didn’t, we have put in a request for you to allow us a
waiver for topographical mapping. We have also put in a request for waiver from you for
stormwater planning, because we aren’t, in all this exercise, proposing any new
construction. So we didn’t necessarily know what the benefit of those two exercises
would be, except that we would spend a lot of money. We’d make Mr. Steves happy.
We’d make Mr. Hutchins happy, and make Mrs. Mozal not too happy, I guess, and I don’t
mean to make light of it, but that’s, so we didn’t do a sloping analysis. Now, I’ve done
sloping analysis before, and I’d show you, we did a subdivision. If you’ll recall a
subdivision we did out on West Mountain Road. We did sloping analysis and it was fairly
simple and easy to see, when it was a large, 290 acre tract. I tried to do the same thing
on this lot. It’s not very easy to do on this lot. I had said that I would try and get it to
Keith by Friday. I received it today, having ordered it the day after the meeting, whatever
the day after the meeting was, and I don’t agree with it. If I understand the shading, and I
do understand the shading, they’re still mailing me the original. So I don’t have a colored
one, but the shading on it that shows the areas that are in excess of 25% slope include
the flat area.
MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying that came from the Town?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. This came from Chazen Companies.
MRS. BRUNO-Chazen did do it. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Chazen did it. They can do it off of their GIS mapping or whatever. I
have copies for you. That shows that, of the two parcels that we’re talking about, of the
3.42 acres, 2.5 acres are sloped in excess of 25%. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I
think for belt and suspenders purposes, we will use that figure and say that we are
looking for a variance based upon that figure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. What did you say the area of slope was?
MR. O'CONNOR-The area of slope that’s in excess of 25% is 2.5 acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. O'CONNOR-Out of the 3.42.
MR. STEVES-It plateaus in the top, behind the Surrey Fields Homeowners, but from the
back of the road up to the top, it’s 30 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look through the shadows, you can see the garage that’s there
now, and you can see the area in front of the garage. That’s all flat, but that’s still
included in this, and I think it has to do with the fact that, when they do it using a USGS,
which is what the Zoning Board said that they thought they would be satisfied with, the
scale isn’t close enough that it gives you real detail on a small lot.
MR. STEVES-Your contours are only 10 and 20 foot. So we’re kind of, when you tin it,
what is called mathematically you take an average between the two contours, it doesn’t
give you the flat areas at all.
MR. TRAVER-What would your estimate be?
MR. STEVES-My estimate is probably about a half acre more of usable space. I just
walked the entire property, just before dark tonight. I would say probably you’re
probably, you know, three tenths to half an acre more than what the USGS analysis
comes up with, because it’s too much of a broad brush approach, but using it, as Mr.
O’Connor has stated, as the variance, go ahead and go with the conservative approach
in that manner. That way we avoid having to do actual topography on the entire site. So
if you drive up there, like he was saying, in the front of the garage is completely flat. You
can turn your car around, but yet the slope analysis doesn’t show that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Those are the variances that we’re asking for, that you’re being asked
to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board on. I would want you to make your
recommendation in this light. This building is a pre-existing, nonconforming building.
The building itself, or the footprint of the building itself, cannot be expanded, except by
Site Plan Review. So if anyone comes in here, or anybody wants to put a deck on it,
wants to put a patio on it, wants to put another room on it or something of that nature,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
even if it’s away from the lake and not within the setbacks, they have to come to you
down the road for Site Plan Review. So you’re not giving a blank check. You’re giving
approval to use the building that’s there, and as I said, the building, I think, is very easily
converted into a single family home, as it sits.
MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t currently have a septic? Is that correct?
MR. O’CONNOR-It does not, no.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why we’ve retained Matt and Tom Hutchins to do that exam, and
that’ll also come back to you, too, for that approval. That’s not necessarily a part of the
variance. Again, and I don’t mean to make light of it. I don’t know which is the chicken
and which is the egg.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, we do need to make sure that the lot is buildable, as with any
subdivision.
MR. SIPP-Is there water there now, from the lake or from a well?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. The intention is to draw water from the lake. I had a conversation
this afternoon. Keith brought up a comment that Dave Hatin made that, for vacant
property, the Board of Health would not allow drawing water from the lake and will
require a well. Matt has walked the property and thinks that he can place the septic at
the top of the ridge without doing a lot of fancy work or whatever. That might even allow
us to do a well on it. Typically on these lots, I’m thinking of the separation between well
and septic. Typically on these lake lots you try to do the well down by the lake. Mr.
Marshall, who owns this little piece that’s in between us, came in the other day, or was at
the Planning Board. His septic system, although I think it’s not a septic system. It’s a
seepage pit, is located on the lake side of the road. His house is actually right on, it
crosses the line. He encroaches upon the Mozal property on his west line, his house,
and from what he said the other night at the meeting, his septic system is probably 25 or
30 feet off the lake, and it’s a seepage pit. So, even if we could get a well truck down
there, I don’t think we, we wouldn’t be able to make the separations. So, if Matt puts the
septic on the top of the ridge, we can put the well back by the house itself, we hope.
We’ve got to work on that. We don’t know that, and I talked to Dave Hatin, and Dave
was going to call, is it Mike Shaw from the Health Department. Because the rules and
regulations that he’s reading from says that they can be waived by the local Health
Department, and I also, and I’m not sure, and I haven’t gone all the way through it, I
know the Health Department’s definition of a vacant parcel of land is different than what
we’re talking about, because they haven’t, we’ve gotten involved in this before for
reconstruction of septic systems, and where you have a tear down and a total rebuild,
the Town looks upon it as being new, the Health Department says, no, it is replacement
of an existing septic system, even though it’s a new structure. So that’s something we’ve
got to explore. I can’t sit here and tell you, but we understand we need to do water. We
need to do septic. We think we can do them.
MR. OBORNE-If I may add, if a septic is up slope, you need 200 feet of distance. I just
want to make sure that’s clear, if you’re going to go that route.
MR. SIPP-What about a holding tank?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a possibility. That’s a possibility.
MR. SIPP-I mean, the local Board of Health, that seems to be their solution, in areas
where you don’t have the space.
MR. O'CONNOR-I look upon that as being the solution of last resort. I’d rather have the
engineers tell me that you can’t do all this other stuff that we’ve been trying to do. We
don’t want to put so many bells. The whole idea here is that Christine would like to stay
on the lake. She’d like to be able to sell off this parcel and cut down the operation, but
we don’t want to put so many bells and whistles on that you can’t sell it. It doesn’t do,
we’ve got to have a buildable lot that somebody comes in and says that they understand
it and they can use it.
MRS. BRUNO-So, my understanding, when you were first giving your presentation, was
that you were going to keep the garage and change it into a house. It’s the other way
around.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s the other way around.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I have two questions for you. Your line for the one acre and three
acre ends at your property line, and I was wondering, does it extend out pretty much as
you would think? Right by the approximate septic system.
MR. STEVES-I think it only, it goes to the Marshall property, and that line goes along the,
that 60 foot line on Marshall then back down to the lake.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So there’s no deduction out of?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That three acre zone does not extend through the Mozal property to the
east. It only includes the Marshall property. What the zone line did there, and I think
Keith can back me up on that, I believe, is they went to the lots on the lake that had
residences on them at that point, because they were existing, and if you look at the
zoning map, it includes only the Marshall piece and then comes back to the lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-Actually I think they went to the end of the Nolan property. Nolan Road
comes in from Hall Road, I think, and it comes around the bay, and it’s probably the
biggest most vacant parcel, and when they made that change, that was all one tract.
That was before they subdivided off this three acres that ended up going to Mozals.
MR. STEVES-In other words, Lot Two is completely within that three acre zone.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. The other question is, I
know you mentioned that the second floor has windows. I’m assuming since you, the
way that you had described it, you meant that they were egress. What is the
construction of the garage right now? Typically when people build their garages, they’re
two by four. Are they built with two by sixes?
MR. O'CONNOR-Those were built by Dan Barber.
MRS. BRUNO-I haven’t worked with him. I don’t know how he builds.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s probably about 150 ton of concrete retaining walls. I think the
retaining wall goes, steel beams and two by tens or two by, this is full construction.
MR. STEVES-This is a fortress.
MR. O'CONNOR-Full house construction.
MR. STEVES-Two of the walls, being the southerly wall and the easterly wall, are poured
reinforced concrete right into the floor, and then they are eight inches thick, and then with
a steel beam carrying across to the concrete, and then it’s all two by six and two by eight
construction.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m primarily thinking about in terms of.
MR. STEVES-Insulation values?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, and, no, it would meet today’s Energy Code if you insulated
the walls that were currently there.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, as far as what we’re looking at here, we’re just looking at
the Area Variance, correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and then we come back to you for the Site Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just the area. Well, density relief I guess.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-I think also you were asked to do the SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-You’re looking at it for Sketch Plan right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a subdivision before you for Sketch Plan. Obviously then you have to
go to Preliminary and Final. Right now what we’re looking for is a recommendation back
to the Zoning Board. If you feel you have enough information to do SEQRA, that’s fine.
Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but the Zoning Board, in particular, is just looking for the density
relief.
MR. OBORNE-They’re looking for density relief. They’re looking for a recommendation
for that, yes, specifically.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, that’s all we’re technically doing tonight. Correct?
MR. OBORNE-You can do Sketch Plan. You can give your blessing or you can table it.
There is no tabling or approving a Sketch Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, because we’re doing Sketch Plan as we talk, but ultimately we
want to give them back a recommendation.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just on density, and then you’ve got to get that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t come back to you unless we have a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now I understand what we’re trying to do.
MR. O'CONNOR-But I thought they threw in SEQRA?
MR. OBORNE-You need to do SEQRA before a variance can be heard. So, right now is
the make or break point, because you need to do SEQRA tonight or table this application
and ask for additional information in order for you to make a proper SEQRA declaration,
that being negative or positive. The applicant wants a negative one obviously.
MR. KREBS-I’ve got a question. In looking at this and having driven out and looked at
the property, Christine’s house is to the lake side of the private road or the extension of
Fitzgerald Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct.
MR. KREBS-Why not, is there any reason to make that a one acre lot?
MR. O'CONNOR-The only reason we made it was to cut down on the number of
variances being requested. We could leave it, I think it was .82, no, it was .42 tenths of
an acre combined. There were two different lots that the Mozals bought there when they
built their house. We could leave that at .42 and leave the other at three acre. If that
was your recommendation.
MR. KREBS-Well, I was saying, then you wouldn’t need, on the second lot, it’s in the
three acre zone, then it would be three acres. The other lot is basically a pre-existing lot
anyway.
CHRISTINE MOZAL
MRS. MOZAL-I thought of that, and I think I asked that, and he said we’re flexible on
that.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s not really a pre-existing. It may have been years ago, but it’s no
longer. Right?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. STEVES-Yes, it was in ’97, I believe it was.
MR. O'CONNOR-’97.
MR. OBORNE-The applicants have to prove to you that, upon the subdivision of this lot,
that this is a buildable lot.
MR. TRAVER-And that’s the issue with regards to the well and septic system.
MR. OBORNE-I think so.
MR. KREBS-Well, if you go look at the site, continue down this ridge, there are two
houses that have been built, very nice homes that have been built, and have long sloping
driveways up to them. So I don’t see that this piece of property is significantly different
than where those other two people have already built.
MR. OBORNE-That is what you’re going to decide.
MRS. BRUNO-But they might be drawing their water from the lake, which as I’m
understanding might no longer be applicable. In that case, we need the proper
separation.
MR. OBORNE-Which during Preliminary subdivision, as we go through this, those type
of issues will be addressed.
MR. STEVES-There is, and I’m not saying it’s not easy and a nice flat site, but there is
separation room. If you’ve been up there to the garage, you go around to the left hand
side of the garage, there’s a little gravel area in the back there where they had excavated
to put the garage. You can easily go to the left of that garage and put in a well right next
to the garage, lake side of the garage, and then the septic would have to have a pump
system obviously to get up to the top, but the top is, there is plenty of level area up top.
It’s just getting up to the top there. It’s very steep. In meeting with the engineer on site,
it’s not an issue putting in a force main up that steep of a slope because it only has to be
two feet deep. There’s not going to be any effluent left in there, you know, on a
continuous basis. It gets pumped out, flushed back out. So it only needs to be two feet
deep. So, going up the slope, you could almost hand dig it there. So there is plenty of
room to put it up top. It’s not the most ideal situation, but the soils up there are more
than suitable, your typical older (lost word) on Glen Lake.
MRS. BRUNO-I guess I feel like we’re weaving a tangled web. We’ve got all these
things that have to come first. We’re thinking SEQRA but yet we don’t see enough to do
SEQRA, but we need to send something back and the ZBA can’t do anything.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am.
MR. O'CONNOR-You now understand the chicken and the egg, but let me just say this.
Hopefully the scenario here is that we go back and we get the variances. We then
proceed, but we then are still proceeding under your Subdivision Regulation, and you
can then either decide or not decide either yes or no at that point, but we can’t get to that
point until we get the Area Variances.
MRS. BRUNO-And you can’t get the Area Variances until you get our SEQRA passed,
the neg dec.
MR. STEVES-Because they referred it to you.
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-But we have to do SEQRA before we can do a recommendation?
MR. OBORNE-You could do it at the same time. I mean, you certainly could do a
recommendation before or after SEQRA.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think that you need SEQRA for a recommendation.
MRS. BRUNO-No, but if they were to act on it, we would need to have decided.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but the Zoning Board can’t act on it without SEQRA.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-They can do Short Form SEQRA on an Area Variance. They don’t
need to do a Long Form.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the variances are a Type II at this point. So where the Chairman
was going during the ZBA meeting last week with their coordinated review, as stated
during that meeting, it’s not a coordinated review because it’s a Type II SEQRA for the
variances. It’s an Unlisted because this is a subdivision, in a CEA, and that’s the
difference. You are required to do a SEQRA review tonight, or when you have, or you
feel you have enough information to make a cognizant decision.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you go back to what Tom says. Basically what you’re doing is
making a recommendation on the Area Variances. That’s the simplest thing to look at.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and then it goes, and we don’t have to do SEQRA for that. It
goes back to them, and then what happens, and then they grant the variance?
MR. O'CONNOR-And then we come back to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-If it’s Type II for Area Variance.
MR. STEVES-You have a Short Form for Sketch Plan, irregardless. Then you go to the
Long Form when you come in for Preliminary on SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-What a tangled web we weave.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting. Short Form for Sketch Plan and a Long Form for
Preliminary?
MR. STEVES-That’s what they have done, and I’m not saying that’s always the correct
way to take care of this, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you think it through, it kind of makes sense, because the only
action being taken is the Area Variance.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Whereas when you’re doing the full subdivision, that’s a different
action.
MR. STEVES-Right. Then if we cannot prove that we can accommodate your conditions
or your standards for subdivision, then at that time, it doesn’t move forward, but in the
Sketch Plan with the Short Form, you can pass that with your recommendation back to
the Zoning Board for us to get the variance to allow us to come back for the subdivision.
Then at least we know and the client knows that it’s worthwhile to move forward to prove
the septic and the water system up.
MR. O'CONNOR-The lots that we propose are in keeping with that neighborhood. If you
take a look at the location map that’s up in the corner of the big maps, the maps that
we’ve given, most of those lots are 50, 60 foot lots. I think the only, the Barton lot that
remain, what they kept out of everything was like five acres, and they built a building, a
garage building, storage building almost near our property line in the back. They’re
aware of this application and they basically said apply to the Boards and if they approve
it that’s fine. Mr. Marshall, and Keith was here the other night, had some questions that
had more to do with whether we were going to have some impact on his septic, his
septic, not our septic. He said basically he had no objection to what we were trying to
do.
MRS. BRUNO-Where is his septic?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s in front of his place towards the lake.
MRS. BRUNO-You said Marshall. I’m sorry. I’m thinking Nolan that was there.
MR. STEVES-If you look where it says Lands Now or Formally of Marshall, it’s lake front
of that.
MRS. BRUNO-Right. I just heard it wrong. I thought you were talking about the larger
piece of property.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-Barton, that house is quite a ways from the line.
MR. TRAVER-So, Mr. Chairman, if I could just make sure I understand. It sounds like
we’re looking at essentially a two phase SEQRA process where we would do Short Form
only on the subdivision, without regard to the well septic issues. Then we would do
another SEQRA on the Site Plan, which would address the specifics of the placement of
well and septic. Is that correct? No.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. You could ask us to do a Long Form on your subdivision when we
get back to you for the subdivision. That’s required. We would anticipate that.
MR. OBORNE-I think the easiest thing to do tonight, Chairman, and members of the
Board, is to make the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and leave it at
that. That would be my, pardon the expression, my counsel for you to do that, for it to be
clean, that is all that the Zoning Board is recommending right now. Do you approve this
Sketch Plan? Do you want to give them your blessing for the Sketch Plan? Well, that’s
up to you. Do you have enough information? Do you feel that it doesn’t matter at this
point you’d like to have that information at Preliminary? That’s up to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think there’ve been enough comments made. There are
concerns from the Board about well and septic for sure, whether or not you can
accommodate the required distances and, you know, where those facilities would be.
We haven’t really talked much about stormwater issues. You said you asked for a
waiver, but we haven’t really explored, you know, what that would mean.
MR. O'CONNOR-The waiver request was for the subdivision application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Understood.
MR. STEVES-I mean, as far as, like Mr. O’Connor said, beginning with no physical
changes are happening to the property with this application at that this time. So that’s
why the stormwater. Obviously, you know, we’re only saying leave the existing building
where it is, utilize making a residence above where it is. If somebody was to come in
here and say we want to tear that building down and move it or add another building
behind it or whatever they wanted to do, obviously this Board has to look at that again,
and then obviously stormwater measures should be imposed or in place at that time.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I just have to say that you’re in a CEA. So I’d be uncomfortable
with that.
MRS. BRUNO-And even if we can’t touch the footprint of the building, you’re still going to
change the area around it and the use, the area around it in that, you know, there could
be some landscaping done and I thought of that, too, the use, you’re going to have
people moving around there more. So I’m uncomfortable with waiving stormwater down
the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Like you say, it would probably be pretty minimal at this point, but I think
I’d want to see something.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, this is what Sketch Plan’s about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly.
MR. O'CONNOR-Tell us what you want.
MR. SEGULJIC-As far as survey goes, I mean, I think we need to see something, maybe
five foot contours or something.
MR. STEVES-That’s why we’re here. Sketch Plan is to see what your concerns are and
we can address them.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, once again, it’s because we’re in a CEA. We’re on a lake. We
want to protect our lakes. That’s what holds economic values. That’s why people want
to visit us, and our lakes are not doing very good anymore.
MR. STEVES-So, predominantly like from the garage toward the lake, in that area, and
then like detailed topography of that area? Where any use and maybe any type of usage
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
would be around that and then the USGS the remainder of the property something along
those lines?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-That would work, give us an idea.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. No, I understand.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you’re going to need that anyway for your septic system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to suggest if there’s any way to take the USGS map
that you had and just kind of.
MR. SIPP-Because we’ve got to have some test pits.
MR. STEVES-Like I just did?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and put some real life.
MR. SIPP-We have to have some test pits done, too. The soil is decent soil, but, still and
all, we want to know what depth to water might be in the.
MR. STEVES-I can’t dig that deep.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess where I’m coming from, I’m okay with the Area Variance. It’s
just I need a lot more details.
MR. STEVES-For the subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with the recommendation for the Area Variance, but to get past
that, I need more information.
MR. STEVES-Understood.
MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that, but until we get the variances, it’s kind of tough to
say do the engineering that’s necessary to prove that we can do this. Because as I said,
this is a difficult piece of property, and we probably are going to have to do some
extensive engineering to make it work to satisfy the concerns that legitimately are going
to be raised, but you don’t do that and just hope that you’re going to get there.
MR. STEVES-And we have looked at it and we are prepared to move forward. We will
show you a septic system location with the test pit data and topography, topography
around the existing garage, with some stormwater controls, because now you are saying
that you have concerns with. Not a problem. We can move forward with that at
Preliminary, but we can’t even get there, like I say, without the variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just so I understand this. So Lot One’s going to end up being one
acre, under the proposed scenario, and Lot Two’s going to end up being 2.42 acres?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now and then Lot Two is going to be in the three acre zone.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. STEVES-What the Zoning Board typically asks is the minimum amount of relief
necessary, and we know that sometimes that’s a double-edged sword. Why not we
leave it the way it was, but then we’re asking for two variances, both lots substandard in
size. We’re trying to make one standard in size.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The one acre lot is not considered substandard at this point. This is
considered a conforming lot that way it is drawn.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to remind the Board of a recent application that, where many of us
on the Board felt very strongly about what is zoned should stay that way. I just want, I
wasn’t here last week. I don’t know how it ended up. So I don’t want to mention names,
but just in terms of what we’ve done in the past, and what we’re requiring.
MR. O'CONNOR-But this is what we basically have done. I’m sorry. We’ve stolen 5.8
out of the three acre zone, and stuck it on to the 4.2 lot.
MRS. BRUNO-Currently you have a conforming lot because you have 3.42 acres.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-And you’re making one conforming and one nonconforming. My point
was just that we have a recent application which they split lots up between similar zones,
and there were a number of us that just felt very strongly, in terms of remembering why
the zoning was put there and in this case, you know, we are, like Tom said, in a CEA.
I’m not saying I’m going in one way or the other. I just wanted to bring that up.
MR. O'CONNOR-If the Board feels strongly about picking up what Don said, that we go
back to the, leave the lake lots as they were, and leave the three acre lot as it was
created in 1997, it doesn’t make, it really doesn’t affect us, and I don’t know.
MRS. BRUNO-And I’m not saying that’s the answer, either.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think if you went up and you looked at behind Christine’s house, all
that little cleared area is within the old line. It is within that old line. So, again, I say, it
doesn’t make a difference to us, but the only difference was some people, when they sit
and look at variances, count the number of variances you’re looking for, and say, you’ve
got too many that you’re looking for so it’s automatically a substantial application, as
opposed to looking at the impact of each of the ones that you’re looking at. I’ve always
avoided trying to get numbers.
MR. STEVES-Plus the reality, and I understand what you’re saying, but the reality of it
also is that no matter where that line ends up being on that lot, does it affect the 2.2 acre
being 2.42 or being three? Does it affect the usage of that property and what whether
they’re going to be able to build? Not at all.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not unless you can climb like a Billy goat.
MR. STEVES-In other words, if you’re reducing the lot to the point where you’re forcing
them to build in some place where they shouldn’t be, because of the fact that you’re
making it substandard here, it really doesn’t make any difference at all. What is there is
the only place you’re going to build anyway, and it’s already existing.
MRS. BRUNO-I guess what I’m getting at more than shifting property lines or anything,
is, and I know this isn’t what the applicant wants to hear, but you created a conforming
lot, and now you’re asking us to, or asking the ZBA to grant you a variance to then undo
what you’ve already done, and to create a nonconforming lot.
MR. O'CONNOR-But not in a substantial manner. It was a three acre lot, and it’s now
2.42. You make it back to three, you don’t have anymore building area because what
the area that we’re not taking is the sloped area. So I think the purpose or the intent of
when they said, all right, from this line over it’ll be three acre, we’ve kept within that
intention. We’re not creating three building lots here. It was two building lots. We’ve got
two building lots now.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I didn’t bring it up as a real cause for concern or alarm
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a good time for discussion.
MRS. BRUNO-It was more just to put it on the books that.
MR. OBORNE-Can I clarify one more thing?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to clarify my words from before. As far as SEQRA goes, you’re
not required to do SEQRA at this point. The Zoning Board of Appeals, this is not a
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
coordinated SEQRA, and as such, the variances can be approved prior to SEQRA being
accomplished. I misspoke earlier, and I do apologize for doing that.
MRS. BRUNO-I would just like to say, because I was just interrupted. I don’t know what
just happened down there, but I wanted to just get it on the books that that has been
something that we have been doing historically, and I just think that it’s necessary that
we have it on record file or in the minutes that it’s been taken into consideration. That’s
all I, that’s where I was headed with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So noted.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THEY APPROVE THE
REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE THAT WILL ESTABLISH LOT ONE AT ONE ACRE
AND LOT TWO AT 2.42 ACRES, AS REQUESTED BY CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced
by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the
following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of
1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and
approval. Planning Board to offer a recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals per Section 277 of Town Law.
2)MOTION TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR SUBDIVISION 8-2008 AND AREA
VARIANCE 70-2008 FOR CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
That the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approves the requested Area
Variance that will establish Lot One at One acre and Lot Two at 2.42 acres, as
requested by Christine Mozal.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of November 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHERN BROADCASTING
CO., INC. AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) R.D.2 TRAILS, LTD.
ZONING RC-3A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT AND OPERATION OF A 195 FOOT TALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TOWER/BROADCAST TOWER. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY
ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND BEGIN SEQR REVIEW. CROSS
REFERENCE USE VAR. 79-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE
247.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 314.-1-3 SECTION 179-5-130; 179-4-020
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 44-2008, Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. Site Plan Review for
a 195 foot tall telecommunications tower. The location is on the top of West Mountain.
Recreation Three Acres is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The
Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status and commence SEQRA review
tonight. The project description. The applicant proposes to erect a 195 foot tall
telecommunications tower, and a 336 square foot support structure. The tower is
stabilized by three guy wires set 120 degrees apart. The existing support structure
would be eliminated and both the tower’s machinery and power will be located under one
proposed support building. The size of the parcel is 247.33 acres with limited access
and no residential areas in the immediate vicinity. The tower is accessed by vehicular
using a dirt road off of Cormus Road. The approximate distance to the site is one mile
by road. This should be verified by the applicant. The site was chosen due to the
existence of a 140 foot tower on the site. The third in the protocol of placement, as well
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
as clear sight line availability with the broadcast center. I’m just going to complete this
here. During construction, the applicants have stated that trees will be removed in order
to fasten the guy wires to their bases. The applicant may be required to inventory the
size and amount of trees to be removed. The applicant has stated that upon
discontinuance of use, the Zoning Administrator will be notified and actions will be taken
to remove the proposed tower within four months. Intermunicipal notification has been
accomplished. See supporting documents.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’ll, again, state that I’m
Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and
with me is Jesse Jackson who is a principal of the applicant. Basically, I think they’ve put
together a rather detailed booklet, which I hope that you all got a copy of, which says that
they wish to construct a 195 foot tower on a parcel of land that presently has a 140 foot
tower on it. It’ll be within a couple of hundred feet of that tower. That tower was looked
at to see whether or not it could be expanded, and it could not structurally be expanded
to be usable for our particular project. I think probably the most two telling things that we
have is the video or the pictures that were shown. You can ride around West Mountain
and look for the existing tower that we’re going to locate next to, and there are probably
two sites that it’s visible from, and it’s visible like a pencil, if you will. These are towers
that are built in a triangular, lattice type work, and there’s a diagram of it there. They
don’t have a large presence where you see them. The first set of photos they brought to
me, they had heavy lined where the tower was going to be, and say from a half mile or a
mile, and I looked at them and I think Keith, we were with Keith at that time, I said, wait a
minute, guys, you can’t see the first one, why can you see the second one? And he said,
well, we wanted to be sure you knew where it was going to be, and I said, well, that’s not
the idea of the photos. So I think the photos are very representative of what you will see
and what you won’t see. Probably the thing that I thought most interesting was the two
area maps, if you will, that show where they broadcast. Right now they are a low power
TV broadcast operation, with a must carry designation by the FCC, which means that
cable companies within their territory, if they can beam a signal to that cable company,
must carry them. If you looked at what they are reachable by air, on the first map, and
it’s Page Two of Three, and I’ve highlighted mine probably in the middle. We probably
should have put tags on them or tabs on them. They don’t reach all of Queensbury, right
now by air, and then if you go back a few pages, you will see what they will be able to do
with their proposed range with the new tower. They will reach all of Queensbury, which I
think gets them within that case that everybody looks at when you talk about
telecommunication towers. They’re constructing this with the basis that it can be used
for collocation purposes. The tower is 195 feet tall. The top five feet of the mass will not
be used. It comes that way because that’s the segments that they sell the towers in. So
you end up with 195 or you end up with 115 or something else like that. To hit their
signal, they need to hit at the center of their antenna, which is at 180 feet. So their
antenna is going to be 20 feet. So they will use the five feet for mass, 20 feet for their
antenna, and then they need 10 feet separation so that they don’t have interference with
somebody else. So the first 35 feet of the tower is going to be utilized for their operation.
Below that, that tower is available for others for collocation. We think that it’s someplace
in the area of probably 150 to between 60 feet and 150 feet, others will be able to go on
there. Now I know Verizon was looking to go up on Aviation Road. We sent them, they
asked for us, and we sent them our coordinates. Their first look at it said that they didn’t
think that they could locate there. It would not be useful for their system that they were
trying to put together, but then they came back to us and asked again for the
coordinates, and I’m not sure where they are. They haven’t given us a definite yes or no
at this point, but we’ve also talked to Brian LaFlure, who is the head of the Warren
County Emergency Services, as to whether or not we would be of benefit to them, and
whether or not they would have an interest in locating on the tower. As part of this
system, and I think we tried to dot the “I’s” and cross the “T’s” of the telecommunications
provisions, we sent letters to the Village of South Glens Falls, the Town of Moreau, the
Town of Lake Luzerne, the Town of Lake George, and the Town of Fort Ann, Kingsbury,
and I think we had a conversation specifically, I had a conversation with Brian LaFlure.
He said he had no objection to it, and that he would look to see whether or not it would
be of use to him, or the County, not him, and I know Jesse had conversations with Jean
Merlino from Lake Luzerne, who is the closest township, which is the one I thought would
be most impacted, and we don’t know, you know, he had no problems with it. It’s not
visible from Lake Luzerne either, because of the topographical features that there’s a lot
of woodland between this site and any road. I think Staff made a comment, or somebody
made a comment, that you travel about a mile off a Town road to get to this site, through
the lands to get there. So the County Planning Board actually made a positive
recommendation, as opposed to their typical recommendation of No County Impact.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
They thought because of the increased coverage that would be allowed to Queensbury
and to other parts of the Town, now parts of the Bolton, parts of Hague, they aren’t
necessarily things that you consider under your Telecommunications regulations, but
those people don’t have cable, and most of them get their TV by air, air transmission.
We will now be able to get to them with our local transmissions. So it’s quite an impact,
a positive impact. It’s not something that you’re setting a precedent with, either. The
FCC franchises, if you will, territories, and they have franchised this territory by
frequency to Channel 8, or TV 8. So you aren’t going to have six other channels, or six
other TV stations come in looking for towers for this purpose. A good par t of this is all
here because of, and I’m over my head, folks, and I admit that I’m over my head because
we’re getting into the technical parts of some of the engineering of this. Jesse can
maybe answer your questions better than I can, or Jim Bergeron, who’s the engineer for
the station can answer them, and Jim had some other thing tonight so he couldn’t be
here. A good part of this is because of the February requirement that everybody go to
high density or digital transmissions, and in order to go to digital transmissions, that’s a
very expensive investment, and also it’s a requirement. It’s not necessarily an
investment of choice, because if they don’t go to that, they aren’t going to have an
advertising base. If you’re not broadcasting with the digital, your sponsors aren’t going
to stay with you. In order to afford or make economic sense of going for that equipment,
you need to broaden your area. That’s part of the reason, I think, that the FCC has
allocated to these lower power TV stations basically a franchise or a territory. So we
have no problem with Staff comments or engineering comments. The limits of clearing
should be shown on the Site Plan for installation of the guy wires. Let’s see. We’re here
tonight, I guess, for SEQRA, and this is kind of interesting. This will be the third, no, this
is the fourth meeting we’ve been to. We have two others scheduled after this, as part of
this process, to get the chicken and the egg lined up. It’s a great relief act for lawyers.
Lawyers and engineers can stay out every night of the week if they want, but I’m looking
at the schedule I made up, and I think we’re here for SEQRA tonight. As I understand it,
there’s very little clearing. There’s probably a couple of trees or something like that that
will be taken down so the guy wires can be put up. We can show them. We’re going to
th
be back to you, we hope, on December 16, for Site Plan, and if you want to condition
anything on that, we don’t have a problem with it. An area should be reserved or shown
for equipment needs of other telecommunications providers anticipated for collocation on
the proposed tower. I thought one of the more interesting things was the shanty. Have
you seen the picture?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, you really didn’t think that that was part of some big
communications system. That’s coming down.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can’t understand why.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I thought they could get a couple of more years out of it, but that’s
coming down, and this small building is going to be constructed in its place. The building
that’s going to be constructed in its place has enough room for the existing users of the
existing tower, ourselves and our equipment, and future people to come on our tower.
We don’t think we’ll need anything additionally than that, and it says it’s not clear if an
easement exists or if any easements are needed for this site. We have a lease with the
owner of the site that allows us access through this property, and we believe that that
access, he actually owns the whole site. So I don’t think there are any necessary
easements, and we did file, as Keith indicated, the letter that says that if we discontinue,
we will take down the tower within a certain period of time. From a SEQRA point of view,
if you’re under 200 feet, you don’t need to light the tower. So you won’t have blinking
lights there. You don’t need to have special painting. It doesn’t have to be a red and
white tower. Again, it can be a tower that will blend in with the skyline, whether it be gray
or blue or something of that nature, but there are no FAA requirements. We did submit, I
think to Keith, after we submitted the entire application, a screening that said that no FAA
permit was required. So I don’t know if you have specific questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-I was going to say, from a visual standpoint, when we went out to do the
site reviews, I couldn’t find the tower. I mean, looking at the tree line, I couldn’t find it.
So I can’t imagine that adding a few feet is going to make a significant difference.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t think so. I mean, we tried to get representative pictures of
what’s there. There is one place, I think from a subdivision that’s part of Old West
Mountain, that you have some visibility, and I think from the ski lift area itself, the top of
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
the mountain on the ski lift, you have some visibility, but other than that, there’s very
little.
JESSE JACKSON
MR. JACKSON-We had to go up to the top of the mountain, the top of the ski lift, to
actually get a shot where you could see the tower so we could put an enhancement next
to it about what this tower would look like, and the footprint of the tower, by the way, is
two feet. It’s literally not even called a tower. It’s literally called an antenna.
MR. OBORNE-If I may. Was there an issue as to how this is attached? I know that Mr.
Bergeron was having some difficulty. Can you elaborate on that? Were you able to
figure out what the ramifications, if there are any, on the base? Do you recall that at all,
Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-Someone, I don’t know if it was you or somebody else suggested that
we come in with an engineered stamped set of plans for construction, and we got into
some discussions about that with the tower manufacturer and with some other people,
and found that it’s not something that these people do ahead of time. They have the
engineering that’s set forth as to the make up of the towers, but they don’t design the
actual anchor system until you get your approvals. We’ve had somebody there twice
already from the company. They’ve looked at our tower site, which is within 50 feet or I
think it’s 90 feet is it? How far is it?
MR. JACKSON-Sixty feet from the existing tower.
MR. O'CONNOR-Sixty feet from the existing, and looked at the system that the existing
tower has and says that soil is okay. We’ll do the same thing for you when we get there.
We have a letter from them to that effect.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes. I was just wondering if you could speak to that. I know it’s a
pretty unique situation. I don’t know if the Board is aware that it’s almost a floating
system I believe.
MR. JACKSON-Right. When we had the conversation it was about really, what does it
look like, and the structure itself, and it’s outlined in the packet, the antenna meets,
where it comes close to meeting the ground, it actually falls into a ball joint, so that it
does have the flexibility, under different kinds of weather conditions, to be able to adjust
to that, and it’s a pretty trick system, it’s very simple, but it really is like it lands into a ball
joint at the bottom, and then that footing has to be there, and then they put the guy wires
down, and the guy wires can actually go in any rotation, and we’ve been analyzing what
would be the least impact on the area, in terms of putting the guy wires down, and
there’s only three of them, and they are wires.
MRS. BRUNO-Did I read somewhere that they were 20 degrees off of the top of the
antenna?
MR. JACKSON-Yes, coming down, yes, that’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of, while we’re on the guy wires, in terms of removal of trees,
what’s the expectation of how many trees may need to be removed? Do you have to like
cut a swath, or is it the wire’s coming down where a tree is so we might have to take one
or two trees out?
MR. JACKSON-You know, the best way to answer it honestly is if any of you are
campers, and you pitch a tent, you know, you run it down and you stake it, you know,
and that’s really what it is. The wire comes off the antenna, travels down, and we have
flexibility of putting those guy wires, like I said, we’ve been up there many times, looking
around to see how, what the distance is from the base and what, the least amount of
impact, I keep saying that, so that we don’t have to do, no, not like when you see power
companies come through and they clear a path to run.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s more like you might have to trim some trees, rather than?
MR. JACKSON-Sure. As a matter of fact, the trees up there are not very tall. We looked
at where the guy wires were for the existing tower, and we looked at the footings. We
saw how they were put in, and it’s the same geography, you know, it’s 50 feet away from
it, and it is a very minimal impact. I can’t say to you we can’t take any trees down, but it’s
not like we’re in Crandall Park and we would have to take down some of those big pines.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. JACKSON-Absolutely nothing like that, saplings or something.
MR. SIPP-This wire has to be hooked to some kind of dead man, in other words. It has
to go into a concrete pillar or concrete block, that’s buried.
MR. JACKSON-Well, we’re fortunate up there in that it’s rock up there, and that it does
have to, they do have to put it down in, and I’m not enough of a technician. I’m a creative
guy. I’m not enough of a technician to really describe the kind of footing, but it is really a,
the way it was described to me, it’s a pinning, you know, and my best way of describing
that to you is if you’re pitching a tent and you drop a pin, you know.
MR. SIPP-Somewhere I read in here about the collection of ice which has brought down
some towers in the past. I assume they’ve learned their lesson.
MR. O'CONNOR-I read some place in here that this is designed for, I think, a 70 mile
wind with a half inch of ice on the facility.
MR. SIPP-It’s surprising how much extra weight you get with a half inch of ice on the
height of this tower.
MR. JACKSON-The company, and we have a letter from them also. We picked, not the
least expensive company to do the antenna, but we did pick the number one company,
and it’s evident in the letter that they really know what they’re doing. They’ve put
hundreds of installations up, all around the country, and up in Canada. So they
understand the wind issues. They understand the load issues, and the construction
issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I had questions about the height. What would happen if it were a
little lower? Like what’s the tradeoff?
MR. JACKSON-The tradeoff is quite substantial.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it?
MR. JACKSON-Yes, and the reason is that, as a broadcaster, we’re a line of sight, and
anything that gets in the way of that line of sight really just kills the signal. I could tell you
so much about this we’d all be asleep in a half hour.
MR. TRAVER-Well, especially if you’re going to the digital format.
MR. JACKSON-That’s exactly the point. It’s called a cliff effect, and literally an analog
signal, and you might even remember this from your radio days, you’re going and the
further away you get from the signal, you start to lose the signal. A digital signal is 100%
until it’s zero percent, and if it hits anything, it’s over. It can’t get over it, it can’t get
around it. It’s done, and we calculated that. One of my objectives in this was that, you
know, I’m sort of a tree hugger myself. I did not want this tower to go over 200 feet and I
didn’t want to light it and I didn’t want to paint it red. I didn’t want anything like that at all,
and we calculated it really down to the foot, that if we could get to 195 feet, we’d drop
down 20 feet, and we can just clear the mountains to be able to hit people that don’t
have any cable service, and would absolutely benefit from the news and the weather and
the kind of programming that we do, and that’s the reason we exist. We’re a low power
television station which is community based.
MRS. BRUNO-We get two stations at our house, no cable, and yours isn’t one of them
because it doesn’t reach.
MR. JACKSON-Where do you live?
MRS. BRUNO-On Gurney Lane.
MR. JACKSON-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-So that’s not even that far, really, the way the crow.
MR. JACKSON-You would get us now.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. O'CONNOR-You would get it now, after this tower is up. That’s surprised me, that
they don’t get outside the city by air transmission, and they looked at a number of
different other, trying to find other alternatives.
MR. JACKSON-We tried existing towers. We tried other locations. We really looked
around, and the issue is because of where our building is. You know our building is
down on Glen, across from Burger King. That’s our shot. That’s a clear shot to West
Mountain from there, from the top of our building, and it’s the most efficient on both
ends, on our end and on the receiving end.
MR. KREBS-But to understand that, it’s just like using your cell phone. If you’re driving
down the road and you go into a dead area, you lose your signal. That’s because you
don’t have line of sight between your cell phone and the tower, and that’s exactly what
he’s facing.
MR. O'CONNOR-I never figured out how that works, though, when you go in a building
and your cell phone still works. I know that.
MR. KREBS-Well, if you go in the right building, you wouldn’t get a signal because you’d
have too much shielding.
MR. SIPP-What is, you know, I’m thinking back to, I used to carry a company radio in
the Army, and you had the same problem with the radio systems in the hilly areas, once
you got over the crest of a hill, anybody in back of you couldn’t hear a thing, or you
couldn’t transmit to them. It seems like we’re, 40 years, we should have improved our
way of broadcasting here somehow.
MR. JACKSON-You know, the joke is, about that, is that you just can’t bend the signal.
Meaning that if I was trying to get you line of sight here and the microphone is in the way,
it would be really wonderful if that signal would just, you know, curve over the top of the
microphone.
MR. SIPP-Well, those were all FM signals.
MR. JACKSON-It’s still the same.
MR. SIPP-Still the same.
MR. JACKSON-Yes. Still the same.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to go from Downtown Glens Falls and beam up to this
tower then?
MR. JACKSON-Yes, correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then broadcast from there?
MR. JACKSON-And then broadcast from there.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then how does it get into the cable system?
MR. JACKSON-We shoot them a signal to their head end.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So if someone were to build a tall building between you and
the tower.
MR. JACKSON-That could be a problem.
MR. SEGULJIC-How do you control that?
MR. JACKSON-Well, unless somebody in Glens Falls is going to put up a 30 foot, 30
story building. No, we’ve got good clearance. Our building is on the corner of Glen and
Park, and we’re a three story building. We’re right up there, and as a matter of fact The
Mill, even with the penthouses on it, we clear that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-They watched very carefully when The Mill went up.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. JACKSON-I looked every day just to see what they were doing.
MRS. BRUNO-They’re advertising a lot of rental space. You may have had to have
moved.
MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned you spoke to Verizon. Have you talked to anyone
else, in terms of collocating?
MR. JACKSON-We’ve had inquiries.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’ve, as long as I’ve been on the Board, which is eight years,
I think we’ve only sited one other similar type antenna, and it was for the local AM radio
station, and they ended up putting a tower, and I think we only approved it temporarily.
Keith, you weren’t here. So you wouldn’t remember. Anyone else remember that?
MR. SIPP-On French Mountain?
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’m sorry, South Queensbury.
MR. TRAVER-Was it Dix Avenue?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s a whip antenna.
MR. JACKSON-Yes. That’s a totally different animal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JACKSON-Yes, really a much different animal. No, this is a tower that others could
collocate on. I reviewed the history of towers in the area. All the towers are at capacity,
and they’re at capacity because they’re carrying everything from National security to
ambulance cars to EMT’s, and I think that once the people know that the tower is
available, nobody really knows about it, that I’m positive we’ll get calls. We already got a
call from Verizon, and, you know, Verizon’s intentions are very clear. They’re trying to
build a network that’s a solid shot up the Northway, and that’s a different beast. Those
towers are the size of this room at the base. These are big towers. This is a much
smaller unit, but it could satisfy the needs for us and others, and we would have the
ability to put eight, maybe, another eight on our tower. It depends on what their needs
are, and there’s interference studies. You have to be careful there. You just can’t jam
everybody on there. You have to be certain distances, and it’s a whole bunch of
engineering stuff.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Chairman, so, I guess the first thing we need to do is
acknowledge Lead Agency status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Acknowledge Lead Agency status. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then if we’re ready we do SEQRA, and then we do Site Plan Review, or
no?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not tonight. We have to get a variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have to get the variance, okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the reason we have to get the variance is there’s a mistake, I think
there’s a mistake that was made in the definitions, but some powers to be didn’t agree
with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Administrator I take it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if you look at collocation, in one place you talk about collocation
being on the same property as another tower, and then if you look some place else it
says being on the same tower, not the same property with the tower.
MR. OBORNE-Well, with all due respect, sir, it’s not in an industrial area. It is in an LC-
10. So that’s the reason.
MR. O'CONNOR-Except there’s an exception to the siting that says towers will be in an
industrial area, or on a property where there is an existing tower. That’s, so, again, the
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
simple thing is we’re applying for the variance. Then nobody will come out of the
woodwork and say you should have done this or you should have done that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We try to comply.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wanted to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and seeing no takers, if it’s coming
back, this is where I would keep it open.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we accept Lead Agency, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a resolution to accept Lead Agency status.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY
STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO.
79-2008 FOR NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS, in connection with the Northern Broadcasting project, the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community
Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board
to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have
been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead
agent, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the
resolution prepared by Staff.
MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE
PLAN NO. 44-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 FOR NORTHERN
BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’d ask you to do SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, are we ready to do SEQRA, then? Is everyone
ready?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. Long Form.
MR. O'CONNOR-We filed a Long Form with a Visual Addendum. I have an extra copy if
you don’t have one.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to go through the Visual Addendum?
MR. OBORNE-You should have the Long Form on your application.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-But do we have to do the Visual Addendum, also? That’s only if you do
a Positive Declaration on Visual we do the addendum, correct?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not quite sure on that.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Telecommunication Regulations said file the Visual with the Long
Form. It didn’t say whether you were going to review it.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m saying I don’t think we have to. Are you saying we should? I’m
confused. I don’t think we have to. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would just as soon have you. It’s only about three or four pages.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Visual Addendum you’re referring to?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Visual’s at the back of the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the
project site?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. TRAVER-Putting a tower up?
MRS. BRUNO-I believe that should be a yes always. I had mentioned that one other
time when I came back from a workshop. Because no matter what you do, you’re
changing the site.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, small to moderate?
MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by Site Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate, addressed during Site Plan. Okay. Will there be an
effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MRS. BRUNO-Mitigated by Site Plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that what I’m hearing from everybody?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they provided some information on the Visual EAF Addendum,
but the rest is to be completed by the Lead Agency, and the only other time that we’ve
completed a Visual EAF Addendum is when we checked yes here and said that there
may be significant impact. So I think that we need to say that there’s impact, but that the
impact is small to moderate.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to say, small to moderate, can be mitigated during Site
Plan Review. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. OBORNE-Can we hold for a second? As far as Number Eleven, what was the
answer on that, yes or no?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, small to moderate.
MR. KREBS-Small to moderate.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR.SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics
of a critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, once again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to go through the Visual, or can you just go to a
resolution?
MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want me to make a motion to have a Negative Declaration?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why you can’t.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 44-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., 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,
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
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.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of, November, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess you’ve gone as far as you can with us tonight.
MR. O'CONNOR-Unless you can figure out some way how to do Site Plan approval, yes,
and I don’t think you can. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, before you leave, I would just ask the Board, for your benefit,
if there were any issues that are outstanding that we didn’t discuss, either during this
discussion or Staff comments or the engineering comments?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think the only thing was, being, as you pointed out, I mean, the color is
going to be important. Just have it blend in as much as you can. Don’t make a silver
thing that shines or a white thing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. TRAVER-And address the engineering comments, which you’ve already indicated.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay. Maybe by that time we’ll, I don’t know if we’ll be back up
there or not, figure out what trees, if anything, more than what we’ve been there, but I
know Jim has been there a couple of times with the other engineering people. They
don’t think there’s much clearing. Can we simply, the one question I guess I’d have it
says limits of clearing should be shown on the Site Plan for installation of the guy wires.
Erosion and sediment control measures should encompass all areas to be disturbed.
Can we simply say yes to that?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, is this area flat? I mean, we have no contours, but I assume it’s fairly flat
from what I can read off the topographic map. So you’re not going to get any big erosion.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no heavy duty excavation.
MR. SIPP-And you’ve got a silt fence already on the site.
MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t want to get, they apparently screw something into the rock.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. JACKSON-Their comments, we’ve been up on site many times, and outside of
wondering whether the shack had historic significance, which I don’t think it does, we,
no.
MR. SIPP-Is it sandstone basically? It’s not layered rock like shale?
MR. OBORNE-It’s I’m sure it’s igneous.
MR. SIPP-Cheap granite.
MR. OBORNE-Cheap granite, exactly.
MR. JACKSON-Yes, but when we did bring the engineer up from Jam Pro, which is the
antenna company, his comment, when we were on top, he said, boy, I wish they were all
like this. I mean, he was looking at this, it’s on a flat surface. If anything is disturbed, it’s
not like you’ve got to bring timber people up there and start whacking trees.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe by just clarifying what exactly is going to get done there,
because I get excited if you’re going to do any digging and things like that, but it sounds
like it’s going to be very minimal, if you’d clarify that. With regards to clearing, the ideal
thing for me is if you could zero in on an aerial photograph and just say this tree is going
to get taken out, this tree, this tree is going to get trimmed, and that’s it.
MRS. BRUNO-That was almost exactly what I was going to say. I calculated, it’s about
70 feet to the base, well, it would be 140 feet.
MR. JACKSON-Yes, right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but they don’t plan on clearing that.
MRS. BRUNO-I know, but I was, exactly what, I’m agreeing with Tom, and then putting it
over the aerial or whatever and just saying, gee, there are only three trees that we have
to take down and they’re of caliper.
MR. O'CONNOR-You must have better aerials than I do.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, you could use the different data. You could use the aerials, the
drawing, you know, the site drawing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Check Google, that might get you in close.
MR. SIPP-Yes, Google would give you a good map there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I know Google does your house.
MR. TRAVER-If there’s high res coverage of that particular area, you’ll find that it’s in
patches, and even up around Lake George there’s large areas where there’s no high res,
which is what you need to see your houses. So it may not.
MR. JACKSON-We did that. That’s right, it wasn’t high res. I just remembered when we
kept blowing it up and kept blowing it up, and we were actually trying to find the actual
location. There may be a photo in here, or a photocopy of that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mike Barbone has some information that we’ve been trying to get from
him as to when they built the other tower, too, and we haven’t been successful in getting
that. If we can get that from him, it might help us.
MR. SIPP-A couple of questions. What does that other tower do? What is the other
tower for?
MR. JACKSON-The same thing. He has clients on there. I think he might have Cellular
One on there and some other radio stations.
MR. SIPP-Now, is there a need for electricity within your?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. JACKSON-Yes, for sure.
MR. SIPP-How is that going to be?
MR. JACKSON-And there is plenty of power on top. Remember, it’s a ski resort also.
MR. SIPP-You’re coming off of a chairlift.
MR. JACKSON-They have enough power at the top of that chairlift to light up the city.
There’s a lot of power up there. You just reminded me of one other comment that the
engineer made. He said, look, he said, they put a ski lift up here. I’m very aware of the
issue of the trees, and I would not sit here. I’m glad you asked me the question about,
are they going to cut a path and do anything like that. This is really running a wire down
and finding a space to be able to screw that thing down into the ground, and like I said,
we can shift that thing around so that, if there was a beautiful tree in the way or
something like that, we can shift it a little bit and run the wire down that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-So maybe you’ll come back and say there’ll be no impact, then.
MR. JACKSON-I didn’t think there was any impact, and I’ve been up there plenty of
times, but I just want to make sure that we answer your questions fully.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. We thank you very much for your patience.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
MR. JACKSON-Thanks for your consideration.
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT.
LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT
CHILI’S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING
11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-4-
020
st
MR. HUNSINGER-And we did receive a fax letter, I guess it came in on the 21,
requesting that we table it, and they requested that we table it until our second meeting
in December. Have they submitted new information, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, they have not. They have submitted the Chili’s, and they’re rotating
that 90 degrees counterclockwise from where it exists on the plan today, and we have
not received anything about the Walgreens rotation. I feel that they need to be rotated
also, they feel they need to be rotated also, and they need to have their due process.
That’s my understanding. So the short answer is, no, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I had asked Keith earlier today was to, I hadn’t
seen any information yet on what the pipeline was, and there’s already eight projects that
are going to be bumped to January because the December meeting, the two December
meetings will be full.
MRS. BRUNO-Let’s not fill December up anymore.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, especially if they haven’t submitted information. So, my
inclination would be to say, you know, you’re back in the hopper. If you can get the
th
materials in by December 15, we’ll hear you in January. Unless someone has an
objection, put them on the second meeting in January, so they can go to the Zoning
Board ahead of time.
MR. SEGULJIC-So table them until January, what’s the date, then?
th
MR. OBORNE-I’ll pull up a calendar. The 27?
MR. SIPP-Chris, would it be to our advantage to know what happened with Home Depot
and the agreements that were made on the cemetery side of this piece of property? I
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
know there was quite a bit of talk there about the drainage and the, because they’re all
wetlands back there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SIPP-And I don’t remember it all, but I know there were conditions laid down about
the east side of this piece of property, which is on the cemetery.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t recall, but that’s going to be important, especially when Site Plan
comes in. Do you want me to bring that up?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we might want to include it as part of the tabling resolution, that
part of the requested materials will be information on.
MR. SIPP-I mean, there was certainly talk about a buffer zone being laid between the
two, and I don’t know as that’s ever been done or.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t recall the details on that. I remember vaguely, being in the
audience.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The second meeting in January is January 27.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-With submission by January 15?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-December 15.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do you recall anything else about that?
MR. SIPP-I don’t know who’s responsibility it is, Staff or them.
MR. OBORNE-What’s the question?
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Sipp was bringing up that he believes there were some conditions
about buffering along the cemetery, and he doesn’t know if they’ve been addressed.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll do some research on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So I won’t include that in the motion.
MR. SIPP-Home Depot Site Plan, I think that was all part of that, and there are some
wetlands.
MR. OBORNE-Now Home Depot is it’s own separate property now.
MR. SIPP-Right.
MR. OBORNE-The parking lot is not, but as far as the Home Depot and their stormwater
management, that’s separate from this issue here. Now as far as the cemetery buffering
it, it is a Type C buffer, that’s listed in my Site Plan, but I’ll look into that.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Thomas
Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
To the Planning Board’s January 27, 2009 meeting, with a submission of information by
December 15, 2008.
Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a couple of sort of housekeeping items. We did have, tentatively
nd
scheduled a meeting on December 2 with the Mall. I understand that that, now, has
been postponed.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. OBORNE-Correct. That has been postponed or has been asked to be postponed
by the applicant, and we have not received anything to date as far as any new materials.
It is specifically speaking to Pyramid Mall’s, and again, we have not received anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-So since we had tabled the project to that date, you’ll have to re-
publish and post the public hearing.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding, unless you left that open. I don’t think we ever
even.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we left the public hearing open, but we tabled it to
nd
December 2.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-So if it’s not heard on December 2, they’ll have to re-publish it and
post the public hearing. The only other item I had is, Mr. Krebs brought up, and that is
on the agenda review that we had started, I think in January of this year. I know it was
before your time.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes, I’ve seen a couple come through.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I don’t know if we’ve done it the last two or three months.
MR. OBORNE-No, sir, we haven’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone know who’s turn it was, who did it last?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, why don’t we start with the bigger picture. Is it valuable?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I know I met with Keith over the summer. I think I marked that
appointment down. I could probably tell you when that was, and I might even tell you
st
who was, I think Tom was scheduled after me. Yes. I’m sorry, I had August. July 31.
MR. HUNSINGER-You might have been the last one.
st
MR. TRAVER-Perhaps. I can only speak to, I know Keith and I met on July 31, and,
you know, I’ve got all kinds of reminders to go to that meeting, what happened after that,
I don’t know. Sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have any idea, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, I do not have that list, and I’m not quite sure what the purpose of it is,
since I wasn’t here earlier. Was it to set the agenda?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was to make sure that the projects that came before the Board
were ready, more than anything.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because there’s a lot of gray area as to whether a project is considered
ready or not.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s gotten much better, though.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and when Tanya did hers, I was relatively new, and I’m still
relatively new, but when I did it with Mr. Traver, we did a very thorough review.
MRS. BRUNO-It was either ready, yes.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MR. TRAVER-It was very helpful. I found it helpful, both for me, personally, it was
almost like a workshop, in the sense that I got to see more workings of the plans in
general, and as I recall the agenda had already been set.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-So we didn’t really review, in terms of the time management aspect of it,
and there were many issues with regards to completeness, but I thought it was very
much worthwhile, myself.
MRS. BRUNO-I think mine was right before Steve’s, and then I think Tom, Tom and I
ended up switching and I can’t recall what the order was.
MR. OBORNE-Who would have that order? I mean, would that be Pam?
MR. SEGULJIC-It was based on seniority.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was seniority.
MR. TRAVER-I think we did it by seniority.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did it by seniority. We did do a couple of trades.
MR. TRAVER-I think I was the junior man on the team at that point.
MRS. BRUNO-You were up, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so it sounds like it’s my turn. Has it been done, have you done
reviews yet for December?
MR. OBORNE-Well, we have done our completeness review, which we do every month,
for the Zoning Board and Planning Board, to make sure that the applications have
everything that they need to be heard by the Board, and basically if you want to come on
in and be informed of every applicant, that’s fine. That’s the question I had, what is the
purpose of it.
MRS. BRUNO-I think it was getting messy before you started. Not messy, I don’t want to
say it that way, but we were getting some things that didn’t have all of the information,
and then there were things that were gray areas. People would turn in certain plans that,
yes, technically that answers it, but it really doesn’t answer the questions that we need.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, as I recall there were two things that we had discussed. One was
looking at the agenda just from a time management standpoint, in terms of how to load
up the different meetings. The other was that there was the feeling, and it may have just
been a period of time where we had some applicants come before us where we had
discussed the checklist for deciding that they were complete and therefore could go on
the agenda, and there was some concern that Staff were perhaps being put in a position
of having to make, in effect, this gray area that’s been talked about, what might be
considered a Planning Board decision. So the feeling was that perhaps if someone from
the Planning Board participated in that process that, you know, there could be some
discussion with Staff, and should there be such an issue arise, it did not when I met with
you, and of course since we did that, we haven’t really had that issue come up, but there
was a period of time when we had a number of applications where really, as soon as we
reviewed it, and even based on some of the Staff comments it was clear that this
application wasn’t really ready to be heard, and all that ended up doing was we were
tabling them, and it added to our agenda and so on and so on. The thought was well
maybe this will possibly, in some circumstances, contribute to reduce that.
MR. KREBS-And my feeling, Steve, was I’d like to see us even go beyond that, and I
don’t know if this is something we can do legally, but like NPA tonight, there’s like 29
engineering things that have to be answered, okay. There were a whole slew of Staff
comments that had to be answered.
MR. TRAVER-That’s a good example.
MR. KREBS-I would like to say we would not want to see that applicant until the majority
of those are answered.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-But the engineer doesn’t really review it until it’s set on the agenda.
Right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, the applicant would have to be heard, because a date has
been set for them. If you chose to make conditional approvals based on what I say or
what Dan Ryan says, you know, that’s been pretty much the status quo.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I do understand where you’re coming from. In a perfect world, that would
be great if they came up to you and everything was taken care of.
MR. KREBS-Well, I’m not saying that all issues would be resolved, okay.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. KREBS-But there are a list of things that they just need to do on the drawings, etc.,
that the engineer wants on the drawing and we come here and we spend the time to
bring this client, I mean, bring the applicant here, and then I know before we start the
meeting that we’re going to table this and we’re going to send him back to answer those
questions.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And in this case they realized that themselves.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. TRAVER-But perhaps in review, that if that had happened as you point out, if that
had happened in review, we might have been able to hear another applicant tonight.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-And that could reduce our workload.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Although we didn’t have any others to hear. So would it be
worthwhile to come in on Friday or to wait until next month? It sounds like December.
MR. OBORNE-Friday is going to be an extremely slow day. That would work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I plan on being there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll come in Friday and we’ll go through the December agenda.
MR. OBORNE-Now, I may be using some flextime on that day. If you can give me a time
that would work?
MR. HUNSINGER-You tell me.
MR. OBORNE-Ten o’clock? Ten a.m.?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Now, Mr. Chairman, we are not with the benefit of administrative
personnel at this point. So basically what we have are raw files for you to look at. We
can just look at the applications and go through them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. That’s fine. Any other business this evening? Hearing none,
anyone want to make a motion to adjourn?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 25, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Krebs:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
32