Loading...
1996-10-22 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-86 Herald Square, Phase III 1. Subdivision No. 5-87 PRELIMINARY STAGE Cedar Court, Phase II S. Tax Map No. 48-6-36.20, 36.21 36.22, 36.23 Site Plan No. 30-96 Sprint Spectrum, L.P. 6. Tax Map No. 93-2-4 Site Plan No. 59-95 Michael Cantanucci 23. Tax Map No. 6-1-17 Site Plan No. 62-96 Torren L. Moore 29. Tax Map No. 19-1-18 Site Plan No. 68-96 Dave Abbott 31. Tax Map No. 93-2-13.2 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 WOULD STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER DAVID WEST ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: WEST OF HERALD DRIVE, SOUTH OF LUZERNE ROAD REQUEST IS FOR THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE TO THE TOWN OF A 20.35 ACRE PARCEL FOR THE HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III IN LIEU OF PAYMENT OF RECREATION FEES. LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-86, Herald Square, Phase III, Meeting Date: October 22, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to convey an approximately 20 acre undeveloped piece of property to the Tow in lieu of recreation fees for development of Phase III of Herald Square subdivision. This piece of property which contains two 20 foot wide "entry" points off of Wayne Court would be able to serve as a recreation site for residents in this neighborhood. Residents would be able to access this property by using the local streets within the overall subdivision. Staff feels this property could adequately serve as a recreation site for this area. Herald Square Phase III has received an extension for filing the subdivision map until October 31, 1996. Because the discussion on whether or not to accept this parkland may last longer than this date, the Planning Board may wish to consider granting an extension of this time period for another two months. By this time, the parkland issue should be resolved. If an extension were granted, the applicant would be able to file the subdivision once a decision is made by the town board concerning the proposed land dedication." MR. HILTON-Attached with your notes is a letter from Harry Hansen, Director of the Department of Parks and Rec., stating that his Department will not be able to comment on this until their regular meeting in November. So at this point I think that the Planning Board should probably wait until that time and act 0 this in November, but they may wish to consider the extension for the subdivision filing this evening. MR. PALING-Okay, and do we have any other correspondence on this, George? - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. HILTON-At this point, no, we don't. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here representing the applicant? Okay. Now you're saying that because the Town Board has to act on it finally, plus the fact we haven't heard from the Rec Commission or from the Town Board, either, as requested? MR. HILTON-Correct. Right. MR. PALING-So there's not much we can do, but we would take any comment that the applicant. MR. STARK-They wanted an extension, like, until the first of the year. So give them an extension until the first of the year, and then, in the mean time. MR. PALING-We can do that. I just want to see if there's any comments that anyone would like. Leon, do you want to make any comments? MR. STEVES-No. We hate to keep asking for extensions. MR. PALING-Yes. don't believe. Well, you don't have a choice in this case, I MR. BREWER-I've got just one question. I don't know if you can see it or not, but this checkered, is that all Town property, all the way down through, Leon, or just the hatched marks? MR. HILTON-The hatched marks is the Town property, to the north. The checkered is the wetland. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. PALING-Who owns the property on Luzerne Road that that wetland goes through? MR. HILTON-I believe the last name's Barber. MR. PALING-Barber? That occupies a very high percentage of that piece of that land there. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. STEVES-And (lost word) owns the western side of the property. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there any other comment anyone wants to make on this? Yes, sir. Come to the microphone and identify yourself, please. ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-Yes. My name is Roger Ruel. I live at 10 Mabel Terrace, and I want to bring to your attention something that's not on the map that was given to you, and that is in the center of this park land that is for dedication is Clendon Brook, all right. It's not even shown there. Now I want to show you a cross section of the proposed parkland. This is the road, Wayne Court, and then property owner, there are several of them along there. Then there's about, on one of the properties, there's about 20 feet from the end of the property to where this land drops off southerly. There's a 15 to 20 foot drop which is not even shown there. At the bottom of this is C1endon Brook. On the other side of Clendon Brook is where most of this parkland is being dedicated, and you can't even get to it, all right. The access roads are on this side, very small piece of property. Most of the parkland is on other side of Clendon Brook. It's absolutely useless. You can't get to it. - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. PALING-Well, then you disagree with the statement in the Staff comments, "residents would be able to access this property by using the local streets within the overall subdivision"? MR. RUEL-I agree that the 20 foot wide access roads would make a very small part of this parkland accessible, but only perhaps about, no more than 20 or 30 percent of it, because that's only this section up here, this flat section, and all of this drops off, and it's quite a drop, Clendon Brook on the bottom, and on the other side of Clendon Brook is a considerable amount of land, proposed parkland, which is not accessible, and this is somewhat in line with the comments that were made back in 1992 by the Recreation Commission, and an identical plan was rejected July 21, 1992 because area has significant wet areas, and that's true, a very large area, I would say from about to over here, it's all wetlands, and it's not a suitable plan for an active recreation facility. Those were their words. In addition they said it was not compatible with the Recreation Commission Master Plan, per a letter dated June 26, 1992. Any questions? MR. PALING-Any questions by the Board? MR. BREWER-On the other end, where it goes on Arrow Drive, does it drop off the same up there? On the northern part, where there's another access on Herald Drive, where you go in there, does it drop off the same? MR. RUEL-Yes. I live at one of those lots there, and at the end of my property, it drops down about 20 feet at least, at quite a steep angle, about 50 degrees. MR. PALING-Well, lets see what the Board feels overall, but this, evidentally, is, we're going to get a postponement of this, and we're going to get an input from the Rec Commission and the Town Board, and I think that we better go back and walk this site, and get a better look at it. MR. RUEL-I just wanted you to know not against parkland, believe me. dedication, the area that's being portion is accessible. this. It is not usable. I'm It would be great, but this dedicated, only a very small MR. WEST-There's no access from the west at all? MR. RUEL-No. There's no roads back there. MR. PALING-All right. Roger, are you satisfied that we do have the two more inputs, plus the fact I think the Board members better go back and walk this site again. MR. RUEL-A topographical map of this section would be very helpful. It seems to me it would behoove us to advertise this and have public comment, in cases where we have parkland to be dedicated, that the people that live near it should have a say so in whether it should be dedicated or not, since their properties are right next to it. MR. WEST-Adjoin it. Yes. MR. PALING-I'm going to refer that to, Mark, would you comment on that, please. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure I have any comment, Bob, other than to say that of course the final acceptance of land rests with the Town Board, and that decision, is of course, considered at a public meeting at the Town Board. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that was true of Indian Ridge. It's cases where, - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) when it gets to the Town Board and has a public hearing, a lot of people show up, and there's a lot of static about it, and we're not even aware of it here on the Planning Board, because we haven't advertised it. We don' t have the public comments. How can it hurt to have public comments? MR. SCHACHNER-I certainly did not say it would hurt to have public comment. What I said was that the ultimate decision rests with the Town Board, and that that consideration happens at a public meeting. I don' t think anything I said could be construed to suggest that I said that. MR. BREWER-I thought that was our policy anyway, that we decided, months ago, that any recommendations for anything to the Town Board, we were going to have public meetings. MR. PALING-Definitely where a SEQRA is involved. MR. BREWER-No. I think we said, well, there's a SEQRA involved in this, Bob. MR. PALING-Then why wasn't this done in that way? MR. HILTON-The Code book does not call for any type of public hearing to be held by the Planning Board in this situation. It will be considered at a public meeting of the Town Board, and it was the decision of the Planning Department that this was a different case than Indian Ridge or any of the other high profile recommendations that this Board has had to make, and that a public hearing was not warranted or needed with this particular application. MR. PALING-All right. I think we better change it, then. postponement, we're going to ask for a public hearing. public meeting as long as there's public notification. In the Well, a MR. BREWER-I thought that was our policy. When we recommend something to the Town Board, lets get it straight tonight if we can, when we recommend something to the Town Board, I thought we said that we want to notice, I mean, lets not pick and choose, whether it's high profile, like Indian Ridge. MR. STARK-It's not a public hearing. It's public comment. MR. PALING-Well, there's got to be public notification, whatever you call it. MR. HILTON-Well, we may have to discuss this further, maybe at a special meeting of the Planning Board. Because I know with all public hearings, there's a cost involved that is usually billed back to the applicant, and if we start taking everything that is a recommendation and making it a public hearing, you are asking for increased fees, and I think we have to get some authorization for that from the Town Board. I will look into that. Staff will look into that, and I think we can, you know, your desire is obvious. You want a public hearing for any type of recommendation. We'll certainly look into that. MR. PALING-In the interim, we're going to call for one here, until it's clarified. MR. STARK-You want to move on, and we'll get the extension out the way. MR. PALING-We need a motion on this. MR. HILTON-I had a comment, just before we leave this item. Who's to say what development will happen in the future, if the missing - 4 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) link here, if you will, of land is dedicated, possibly there could be some access on the other side of the Brook. You don't know. There are areas on the site that maybe a bike trail could go in, but stopping short, I would wait for comment from the Parks Department and the Town Board, as you're doing this evening. MR. PALING-Well, we can then just table this, but with a request. No, we want to grant the postponement and we want to ask for public notification. All right. MOTION REGARDING HERALD SQUARE PHASE III SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: That this matter be postponed until the meeting of the Planning Board on November 19, 1996, and second that Staff undertake public notice so that a public meeting can be held on this matter on the same date, and that the approval for this be extended to December 31, 1996. Duly adopted this 22rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Kladis is not on. The next item is Cedar Court. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE CEDAR COURT, PHASE II OWNER: LAD ENTERPRISES C/O ROBERT LENT ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF BAY & HAVILAND IN THE CEDAR COURT SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT PROPOSES PRELIMINARY STAGE APPROVAL FOR PHASE II OF CEDAR COURT FOR 10 TOWNHOUSES. TAX MAP NO. 48-6- 36.20, 36.21, 36.22, 36.23 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-87 Preliminary Stage, Phase I I, Cedar Court, Phase I I, LAD Enterprises, c/o Robert Lent Meeting Date: October 22, 1996 liThe applicant is seeking preliminary approval for the second phase of Cedar Court townhomes. This second phase proposes four new lots with a total of 10 new units. This current phase conforms to the setback and density requirements of the 1982 Zoning Ordinance which this development was originally planned under. Staff anticipates no adverse impacts associated with this subdivision. Recreation fees for this phase have no been paid and must be prior to the recording of this plat with Warren County. Staff recommends approval of this second phase of Cedar Court subdivision. II MR. BREWER-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this tonight? MR. STEVES-The SEQRA was done. MR. HILTON-Yes. SEQRA was done with the application beforehand, that included this land. MR. STARK-Okay. Leon, do you have any comments? MR. STEVES-No. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. BREWER-This is basically, you've lessened the density on this, didn't you? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. I have no comments. At this point, then, I'll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public that wishes to comment for or against this project, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 PRELIMINARY STAGE CEDAR COURT, PHASE II, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: That recreation fees must be paid prior to recording this plat with Warren County. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-96 TYPE: UNLISTED SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. OWNER: WILLIAM & CATHERINE EHLERT ZONE: LI -lA LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF LUZERNE RD. AND I-87. PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 150' HIGH COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA AND PLACEMENT OF UP TO 5 RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS, EACH MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 30" X 30" X 60" HIGH. ANTENNA AND CABINETRY WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN A CHAIN LINK FENCE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-4 LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION: 179- 26 TONY STELLATO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-The next item on the agenda is for Sprint, or Site Plan No. 30-96. Now we haven't got it on the schedule, the agenda. So I'll just explain it. There's been a change in the property line, reducing the size of the lot that the tower is on, resulting in the tower being moved 10 feet, and this hearing is to approve the movement of that tower, but we've got to realize that there has been no public notice on this, and we might bear that in mind when we consider how far we want to take this tonight. MR. STARK-I have a question for Mark. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. STARK-Mark, does this require a public hearing, the modification? MR. SCHACHNER-I'll give you the same answer as in other situations. It's discretionary with the Planning Board. If you feel that the proposed modification is minor or non material or nonsignificant, there's no requirement that you have a public hearing. If you feel - 6 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) that the proposed modification is material, it's major or significant, then you should have a public hearing. It's at your discretion, here. MR. PALING-Lets bring it to a point. We'll hear from Staff and the applicant, and then face up to that question as to how far we'll go or if we can. George, do you have comments on this? MR. HILTON-The only comments I have, first of all, are that the applicant, I hope, will clarify what has happened out here. There has been some concern from a member of the public who is here this evening, and I think that he would like to speak, just to let the Board know that. So with that, I would let the applicant explain what's going on. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STELLATO-I'm Tony Stellato from Clough Harbor and Associates. I'm going to refer to some exh~bits on the Board. The plan that's up on the easel right now lS the actual site plan that was presented to the Planning Board back when approval was granted. It shows the property outlined in green, that's the Ehlert property, and the Arrowhead Truck center is in this location, colored brown, and there's an existing driveway and a gravel yard associated with that facility. Our parcel, our site is located in the back corner, it would be the northwest corner of the property, and it's portrayed on this drawing, and what we show here in darker green is what we were portraying as an existing tree line that we believed we were going to be located within. Now I will explain how we got to this point, but I'd like to put up next for your consideration actually what we're looking for. I'll put this up. This is the revised site plan. It shows the same piece of property, the Ehlert property. The parcel is identical in size and shape, with the exception that we're also showing another line along the northerly property boundary, and it's offset from the original property line 12 feet on the west end and four feet on the east end, plus or minus. What that line represents is where our neighbor to the north, Mr. Drellos, and his surveyors believe that property boundary is, and the long and the short of it is we're giving them the benefit of the doubt, and we have re-Iocated our site about 12 feet to the south, to maintain the setbacks from that property line that were originally shown which is 38 feet to the center of the monopole from this northerly property line. Now we're maintaining 38 feet from that reputed boundary, which we mayor may not agree with. The other difference between the two drawings is where the existing tree line is, and this drawing, the revised drawing shows the tree line in its actual position, which is not actually on the Ehlert property, but actually a little bit to the north of there. So we've compensated for that by adding proposed planting around our site, to achieve the same result as the existing trees where we thought they were. Those are really the two differences. One is the location of the existing trees is 100 feet to the north, and two is we've shifted 12 feet to the south on the entire site, so that we can give Mr. Drellos the benefit of the doubt as to where he claims the property line is. I just wanted to have three versions of the same plan, just to give you the chronology of where we were and where we are. On the left is we're calling Site Plan Number One, and again, we've shown the tree line where we originally thought it was. What happened was, and I have to take the responsibility for that, we did a field survey, and we surveyed a limited portion of this property. The portion where we got the topography from was pretty much the northwest corner of the property. When we put that field data, and we inserted it into the property map, we misread one of the field monuments, and we wound up inserting the tree line and the topography 100 feet south of where we should have. Mr. Drellos actually brought our attention to that fact, because we had some stakes pounded into the ground on what was actually his property, where we thought our tower, our - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) monopole, or our equipment was going to be. We responded to that by moving the site plan 100 feet to the south, so that we would, in fact, be where we showed it on the site plan that was approved on Mr. Ehlert's property, and we proposed to add some plantings in this location. As we were developing this plan, Mr. Drellos came out again and he had some stakes, again, in the ground in the new location, and he brought to our attention the fact that he still disagreed with our stake out, based on the fact that he believed the property line still to be somewhat further south of where we were showing it. We had a meeting out in the field with Mr. Drellos and his surveyor and our surveyor were there, and we agreed to do some more field investigation and try to find out exactly what the source of the discrepancy was. What we found was is that there is an overlap in the two pieces of property. The Drellos property, which lies to the north, and the other property, which is the piece of property we're on, if you put the two deeds together and try to plot the two surveys on the same piece of paper, the properties overlap by that 12 feet on the west end and about four feet on the east end. In an effort to try to resolve that, we offered to Mr. Drellos to actually settle that by a quick claim deed where he'd be paid a sum of money to actually quick claim that piece over to Mr. Ehlert, and resolve the dispute, giving him a right to that strip of land that was in dispute, and he declined to do that, which is when, I think, Mr. Martin from the Town got involved. At Mr. Drellos' request, we had a meeting in the field. We went over the whole thing with Jim Martin and John Goralski. We agreed, this was on the 10th of October. We agreed at that meeting to do a number of things. We agreed that there was an overlap in the property. We agreed that Clough Harbor would go out and survey both properties. We would do an exhaustive amount of field work to determine exactly where the boundary was, that we would resolve any discrepancies with Mr. Drellos' survey. We also agreed that if we did document where that overlap was, if we could document that it was that 12 foot overlap that we thought it was, that we would just pull our site plan down the 12 feet, so that we'd maintain the original setbacks that were presented to the Town, and we would also add some landscaping on the north side of the property, so that Mr. Drellos would have some additional screening there, should he ever decide to develop his property. We did that. We did an exhaustive amount of survey, and what we found was that the overlap, I'll take you to the end, and what we found was that there's a very old deed to the Ehlert property, to the property that we're on, and that deed has a very old description that includes meets and bounds description, very detailed for (lost words). The deed for the Drellos property did not. That was, if you go back through the historical progression of deeds to that property, the deed is described from a pile of rocks to a knot in a tree stump to a fence post. So it was not a protractable description. In 1959 there was a survey of the Drellos property that was done, and at that time, they prepared a protractable description of the property, and the best that we could recover, what they did was when they got to this common boundary between the two properties, there was an old fence line that was there, and it appears to us that the surveyor held that fence line as the property line, and computed those meets and bounds of that line, instead of putting the Ehlert deed in and making the two pieces of property fit together. The older, protractable deedship, in our opinion (lost word) taken into consideration. That wasn't done. We believe if we pursued it that the property boundary discrepancy, that the dispute would be resolved in Mr. Ehlert's favor, but again, we did agree that if we could document the overlap that we would give Mr. Drellos the benefit of the doubt. We'd just move our site down. So that's where we are. That's the plan that we're at today. This plan was discussed at a meeting in the field, a week after that initial meeting, and at that time, Mr. Drellos advised us that he would no longer agree to those conditions. What we're asking the Board to do is to consider the two plans, the original plan where we're at today, which is this one, and to - 8 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) recognize that there are two differences, one being where the tree line actually is, and the other being the fact that we have moved down the 12 feet, and we would ask that you find that these are very, very minor, inconsequential changes to the site plan, and we would ask that you uphold that previous approval of the site plan, and if we could, we would ask that you decide on that tonight, because, for a number of reasons, and one is that this site is important to Sprint, as part of their system, and it's important to the launch of their system, which is forthcoming here shortly. We have a contractor that's involved with this facility. He's on board. He's been awarded the contract. He's done some mobilization, and we're facing a delay plane, and thirdly, in good faith, after that meeting on the 10th with Mr. Drellos and the surveyors, when we discussed the additional landscaping that we would do, we went ahead in good faith and ordered the trees. The trees have been cut at the nursery, at paddington' s Nursery. They're involved in burlap and they're sitting there waiting to be transplanted, and every day that ticks by, we get a little more nervous about the survivability of those trees. So we would ask that if this Board could come to a determination tonight that this is not a substantial change in the site plan and that the original site plan can be upheld. We respect the comment from the public. Mr. Drellos is here. So he will have the opportunity to say his piece. We would ask that the Board act tonight. MR. PALING-Well, you realize, I trust, that no matter what the Board decides tonight, it has nothing to do with the decision regarding that property line. That's something we just don' tenter into. It's not part of our responsibility. MR. STELLATO-We understand that there is an ongoing dispute between the two property owners, as to where that property line lies, and we agree that that is between the two property owners, and we also agree, actually our client, Sprint Spectrum has agreed not to pursue that. MR. PALING-Okay. That's up to you, but the Board cannot enter into any kind of a dispute like that. We'll make a decision, based on what we're told, but not on the property line. MR. STELLATO-We understand that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-Just to clarify here, Bob, for a second. What is actually happening here is that the applicant has recognized Mr. Drellos' property line and moved their site to the south, and in effect, that is a modification and you would be voting on that this evening, if you so chose. So they're not approving the old site plan with the old dimensions. They're actually approving a modification. I just thought I'd clarify that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STELLATO-However, just let me enter a point. If we do recognize that relocated property line, the dimensions, the setbacks and everything are identical to the original approval, which is really essentially the same plan. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess what I'm just trying to say, though, is that it will actually be in a different physical location, the tower itself. So that the Board, in effect, be approving a different, a modified plan. MR. PALING-But we would be approving it in a new location, and that's going to be a fixed location, no matter what happens. MR. HILTON-It's going to be a fixed location. Yes. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. All right. Go ahead. MR. STELLATO-I'm at the end of where I wanted to leave off with the Board, and I'll turn it back to you, if you have any further questions. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets, I think there are those that would like to comment on this. So we better allow that tonight, regardless of what our decision is, whether deciding it tonight or at another meeting. I'll open a public meeting on this. We'll take public comment, if there's anyone here that cares to comment. DAVE LITTLE MR. LITTLE-I'm Dave Little, from Little and O'Connor, representing George Drellos. I brought nine copies of the survey map that VanDusen and Steves did for our client, Drellos, showing the 100 foot variance between the initial application and the one that's being shown here this evening. The preceding occasion when the presentation was made to you, in fact, the location was not on the property belonging to the applicant but in fact on Mr. Drellos' property, quite a different set of circumstances than represented to you in the past. In addition, there were other factors presented to Mr. Drellos at that point which make him believe that it has nothing to do with this property, he now has great concern about. I would like to give you a minute, to hand these out to you, then everybody can get a look at them. MR. PALING-This is one you have already George? MR. LITTLE-You don't have those drawings. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Make sure George gets a copy. Okay. MR. LITTLE-There are issues that would have, had the identification of this tower been correctly set in the first instance, have been considered at the hearing, that were passed by reason of no comment on Mr. Drellos' part, with the understanding that the tower itself was going to be placed within a treed location on the applicant's parcel instead of on Mr. Drellos' parcel. There's also another philosophical aspect of this that this Board, and I think Mr. Schachner, would like to look at, and that is that I don't know that any public necessity was shown for this tower to exist in the first instance, and if in fact, and we recognize that as a matter of law that it may well be a public utility, but it still has to show adequate necessity in order for you to approve the variance. MR. PALING-Sir, a variance is not our prerogative. MR. LITTLE-I understand that, but that's part of the issue. The other aspect of the situation is that in the Ordinance itself we have a 30 foot setback in this zone, side and or rear setback, and there's also a limitation in the Ordinance for the height of the building, and the height of the building is 50 feet, and here you're talking about a tower that is 150 feet on a 30 foot setback, and I think that those considerations all put together show that we're not talking about the proposition that was originally presented to you for hearing. Our endeavor this evening is to request you to have them commence anew, with notification so that it can be proper input placed on it, and the considerations of public necessity and all that be heard. It's our intent, in establishing the boundary line and showing you the difference on the map, and I have Mr. Steves here this evening who can certify the correctness of the map in his opinion, that you are definitely - 10 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) considering a different item, even though in concept it's the same. The location itself is at least 100 feet further away than the original application considered by you folks, on a different parcel of property. MR. PALING-You said the need, the height, and you had a third point, I believe. MR. LITTLE-The public necessity. MR. PALING-Well, the need, the necessity, and the height of the tower. Did you have another one? MR. LITTLE-Yes, the height of the tower against the setback. The regulations require a 30 foot setback and a building not higher than 50 feet. MR. PALING-Okay. This is not a building. It's not a structure. MR. LITTLE-I understand, but in the same context. Were it a structure, it would be placed no closer than 30 feet and it would be allowed no higher than 50 feet, and I'm suggesting you that, since the tower is 150 feet, that the setback should be correspondingly taken away from the property line, so as not to impose on or impact on the property of the Drellos', and that's the real situation here. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LITTLE-So there are actually three items that I'm bringing up. MR. PALING-Need, height, and setback. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob? MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, do you want to comment on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think George and I feel we should. Myself on the necessity and George on the height and setback. The necessity comment is very simple and very straightforward. Contrary to the individual's counsel's position, that is totally not an issue for consideration by this Board. The only place where that could legitimately be an issue would be in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals, in the context of granting the variance. That's already happened. Nobody's seeking modification of that. If they have a problem with the way the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the issue of public necessity, they can pursue that elsewhere, if they want, but not with our Board. MR. HILTON-And just as far as Planning Staff is concerned, with the setback and the height, building setback and building height are exactly that, for buildings. This has been deemed a structure, not a building, which is not, those setbacks do not apply in the situation, and this is similar to what has been done with the rides at the Great Escape, just for your information. MR. PALING-All right. Well, do we have numbers for setbacks on something like this? MR. HILTON-Requirements, we only have the building setbacks that are listed in the zoning district, the zoning. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you have anything further? continue with the public hearing. We'd like to MR. LITTLE-The corresponding aspect of this situation is that if Mr. Drellos erects a building within the legal setback on his property, in conformity with the Ordinance, and you have a - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) structure on Mr. Ehlert's property that is located at the distance which has been permitted under this application, or previously presented, then should there be any damage that occurs, certainly it can have dire impact on Mr. Drellos' parcel and the suitability of his parcel for future construction, and that's what Mr. Drellos is concerned about. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Then we'll cease the public comment for tonight and we'll go to a Board discussion. I don't know. I think I'd say two things. JOHN KURBOLOK MR. KURBOLOK- I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, might we address some of the points raised by counsel? MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Go ahead. MR. KURBOLOK-My name is John Kurbolok from the law firm of Crane, Kelly, and Clemente. I'm here on behalf of Sprint Spectrum. With regard to the location of the property, the location of the site on Mr. Drellos' property, as contended by Mr. Drellos' attorney, that is in fact not the truth. The original site plan properly located the tower. What was improperly located was the trees around the tower, and if you look at the revised site plan, the tower is in exactly the same place, and the trees are properly located to the, I believe it's the south. The trees have been moved south, but the site is essentially in the same position. The only moves with regard to the actual location of the tower site was to accommodate this discrepancy with where the property line was drawn, and our client has agreed to move the site 12 feet, such that even if we were found to be wrong, in other words, even if Mr. Drellos is right, which we don't agree with, but if he were right with regard to the property line, we would still be in compliance with all zoning requirements. With regard to the 50 foot requirement for building, which we've already addressed, we've agreed that it does not apply to a tower. In regard to all other Zoning Ordinances, they're all met with regard to the proposed tower. With regard to location of other future buildings on Mr. Drellos' property, this doesn't present a problem with the tower, as similar situations occur in numerous properties within this County and elsewhere in New York State. We have one point of clarification on the survey that's provided. I've just had an opportunity to glance at the VanDusen and Steves survey and I think it's important to note that we're not contesting the boundaries shown in that survey. The only thing that I think is a little bit misleading is the fact that it shows our original power location as being on Mr. Drellos' property, and that's an interpretation that Mr. Drellos or his surveyor has made (lost words) proposed. I believe that the proposed site location as shown in the northerly location on that map is something that was never proposed by us. It was purely an interpretation made by them. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. George, you wanted to? MR. HILTON-No, I'm all set, and it's entirely up to the Board how they feel about this. If they'd like to. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think we've got a couple of situations here. One is that there seems to be quite a bit of feeling on this, and it may not seem it right now, but for the applicant's protection and our protection, everyone else's, I think we better go to a public meeting on this, with notification. I understand the applicant's problem with time. We would offer to them a special meeting, if this'll help, and we would do it as quickly as the proper public notice can be made and another meeting held, but I want to poll the Board to see how you feel about that. - 12 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. BREWER-I feel exactly the same way, Bob, but I have other concerns. MR. PALING-All right. If we do, lets bring them out now, so that the applicant knows from all of us. MR. BREWER-I wasn't here for the original site plan. I was on vacation at the time. Had I been here, I think I would have had some concerns about the setbacks. We've been through this with a structure and buildings. Whether anybody agrees or disagrees, in my mind, I think it is a structure, and structures, to me, is something that's affixed, just like the definition says, the setback is 30 feet. MR. PALING-Excuse me, but that's been ruled on, and I don't think it's our individual choice to dispute it. MR. BREWER-Well, it has to do with the site plan, Bob, as far as the setback. If we have a site plan, can't we state our opinion as to whether we should move things or not? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think we're talking apples and oranges here. I think that what Bob is pointing out is that it's not up to the Planning Board to decide what the required setbacks are, and I think what Tim is saying is that, or is asking, is whether the Planning Board can consider, in some instances, requiring as part of a site plan approval more than the what is required by law. Is that right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And the answer is yes to both of you. The answer is yes to both of you. MR. BREWER-Yes, right. I know that we can't change it. I'm just saying that I would have had concerns about setbacks. It's 150 feet tall. I was at the site. There's plenty of land. I mean, if Mr. Drellos has a concern about the closeness, I don't see what the problem is moving it. If there's a dispute, I think we ought to review it again. MR. PALING-All right, but you're in favor of the second meeting and the? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Dave? MR. WEST-I'm also in favor of the second meeting. Was its original location, the intent there was to kind of hide it in amongst the tree line? Was that part of its original intent? MR. KURBOLOK-Whether it was intentional or accidental, that's what the original site plan was LARRY CALLENDAR MR. CALLENDAR-I think I'd like to address that for the Board. My name is Larry Callendar, and I work for Sprint Spectrum as a Property Specialist. Part of what entered into our discussions with our landlord, we are, in fact, leasing this parcel from the individual who owns this site. Part of our discussion was concerns about his usage of his land, and the fact that he wanted to have this site as far away from his existing operations because it was unclear to him what his future use would be. We obviously did not want to put our facilities in the middle of this site. Consequently, that lead us back to that corner of the lot which is largely underutilized. Certainly, a consideration when we site the - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) tower is if we can take advantage of existing vegetation. The vegetation that's there is pretty sparse anyway, and you're not going to hide a 150 foot tower (lost words), and certain that was something that was presented in our original site plan. As a result of the fact of the existing vegetation being shown incorrectly on the plan, we made that decision, at Sprint Spectrum, to add the landscaping that's proposed here. This is fairly significant landscaping. These are 24 inch trees. We're proposing seven to eight foot trees, White Pines, Austrian Pines and Blue Spruce. So they're fairly significant and will grow quite rapidly. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. MR. WEST-No. Dave, did you have any more? MR. PALING-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-I wasn't before the Board. have a lot of postponement, so present at the time that this application came This is the first time I've seen it, and I would questions. So therefore, I'm in favor of that I'd have an opportunity to review it. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think I need a little more time, too. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-I disagree with everybody on the Board, Bob. As you know, you and I were here then, and I think Cathy was here also, and they made a pretty nice presentation, as far as sighting it from the Northway, from West Mountain Road. MR. WEST-Yes. that, yes. They did all kinds of view shed analysis and all MR. STARK-And about the view shed and so on, and I don't consider this (lost words). Grant it, they made a big mistake, whoever their surveyor was. Doing something like this, you'd think you'd want to know where your property line was, but I don't think it's that major a problem. MR. PALING-If there weren't so much concern by people opposed, yes, I'd agree with you, but because of that, I think you're actually protecting the applicant from some trouble down the road. If we go ahead and approve this and something new comes up, and then they're in trouble, and we're in trouble. MR. STARK-Wait a second. Mark, how could we be in trouble further on down the road if we approve this? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think the Board is at any risk at all if you deem this to be a minor modification. I think, I'm not sure where Bob's coming from, but I think Bob is addressing that the applicant might be better off, and that's between, I mean, that's up to the applicant, but I don't see the Board at risk either way on this decision. MR. KURBOLOK-Mr. Chairman, one more, with regard to the purpose of site plan review, obviously the public at large has an interest in seeing what the proposed project is and having input. That was done at the public hearing. The proposed modification is quite minimal, and the person that it would certainly affect is here tonight. I think that the purposes of a public hearing were served at the earlier meeting, and the gentleman's here tonight who is - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) obviously effected by this, and with regard to the location of the trees, and I think that the Board has heard his comments, and we've had an opportunity to lend some input. Obviously the Board has to make its own decision on that, but I don' t believe there is a necessity for a second public hearing. MR. STARK-You know yourself at the first meeting, when this first came up for approval, it was a pretty good presentation. Roger and Timmy weren't here. Fine. These guys did their homework in every aspect except where the property line was, which is very bad on their part. MR. BREWER-So that's why I feel we should have another meeting, George. MR. PALING-Well, I think the poll has been completed, and I think it's pretty heavy to another meeting, which I think, you know, may be, and I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm not against it. I'm in favor of it, as I voted before, but. MR. STARK-The public hearing was closed, was it not? MR. PALING-Yes, the public hearing was closed. MR. RUEL-So why are we having another meeting? MR. PALING-Well, we would look at final plans, and we would have a final, I'm sure they would finalize it by then, the exact locations, boundary lines and that stuff, which we don't enter into, and then the public would have an opportunity to comment on the modification. MR. BREWER-And if we had any other concerns we could bring them up. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Do you think that it's necessary to have public comment on the modification since there was a public hearing on the plan originally? I wasn't here, but I'm just asking. MR. PALING-How would I like to see it happen? I would like to see it go through tonight, but I don't think it's the best way to go. I think the better way is the conservative way and have another public hearing. MR. BREWER-We polled and we decided to do that, so lets do it. MR. PALING-Well, the poll is done, unless somebody wants to change. MR. STARK-Well, I don't think we need another public hearing. Notices went out the first time. MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't think you need a public hearing, really. MR. BREWER-Why did we poll the Board? MR. STARK-Ask Mark what he thinks. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not a legal call. I mean, we've explained the legal parameters. I think you understood them. The way Roger just phrased the question is the correct way to phrase the question. It's up to you to decide whether you feel the modifications are significant enough to warrant another public hearing, but that's up to the Board. MR. PALING-Well, Roger, do you want to see a public hearing? - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. RUEL-No, not for a modification. No. MR. PALING-That's all this is is a modification. They're moving the tower 12 feet, and I think you can say they're changing the vegetation a little bit, but the only real move is the tower 12 feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, I had a selfish motive in asking for a postponement, in that I wasn't at the initial application meeting, and I wanted an opportunity to review all of the paperwork. MR. PALING-George stated very accurately, did an excellent job of explaining the whole thing, and those of us here were very much in favor of it at the time, and we're talking about a minor "modification". All right, Dave? MR. WEST-Well, my main concern was the increase in visibility of the tower with its being moved away from the tree line. MR. PALING-But they've, I think, more than compensated for that. MR. BREWER-Bob, why did we even poll if we're going to debate it all night? We're either going to do it or not. MR. RUEL-Well, the Board gave approval, right, on the application, the initial one? So all they're talking about modification here? site is a MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-AII I say was the modification, and I would vote yes. MR. PALING-All you're doing is moving the tower 12 feet and you're changing the vegetation. MR. RUEL-AII right. Assuming that the first go round that the Board agreed that everything was in order, I would say yes on the modification, and therefore I would see no need for another meeting, if that's the case. MR. PALING-Okay. So you're saying public hearing. You're saying no. MR. BREWER-I'm saying, we polled the Board. We made our mind up, and now we're debating it again. MR. PALING-That's all right. There's nothing wrong with that. MR. WEST-Okay. My position, again, was the visibility. If there is a negligible impact with respect to visibility as a result of this modification, then I would have no, would not be opposed to the modification. MR. RUßL-If all criteria was met the first time, and it was approved, and all I'm looking at is a modification, I would say yes to the modification, and I find no need for another meeting. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think if we're kind of changing that way, then my suggestion is that we re-open public comment now, and let, there seems to be feeling in the audience now. MRS. LABOMBARD-I've got to hear a few more things right now. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then is that agreeable to the Board? I'm going to re-open it to both the applicant and to the public and take additional comment, and then we'll go through the exercise again. MR. RUEL-But I don't see why. Aren't we going to hear the same - 16 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) thing? MR. PALING-Well, I'm sure they're not going to, we'd ask them not to come up and repeat themselves, but if they feel there's something new they want us to hear or someone else wants to talk about it, then let it be. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with that. MR. PALING-All right. We'll re-open the public hearing, first. MR. SCHACHNER-Which is not a public hearing at all. allowing additional public comment. You're MR. PALING-I apologize. MR. SCHACHNER-No, that's okay. purposes of our ultimate record. public comment. I'm only doing this for the You're going to allow additional MR. PALING-Yes. I'll never make that mistake again. MR. SCHACHNER-Don't go out on a limb. MR. LITTLE-Just so Mr. Drellos' position is clear, if they wish to move that tower 150 feet, so that it will not have any possibility of having any impact on his property, he has no objection whatsoever to this location. He would not have been in a no comment position in the first place if representations that were made to him were true and accurate in the first place, but they were not. The other thing I could tell you is that the survey you are looking at shows where the test holes and the types or the flagging were located by VanDusen and Steves, which was placed on the property by someone representing Mr. Ehlert or rather whoever it was. They were not put there by anyone else, and if you tell me that 112 feet and the wrong property location is minor, that's the decision that the Board can make, but I can tell you Mr. Drellos would not have, in the first instance, been silent in the matter if he had, in fact, representation as to what was going on. Now if he didn' t, how could anybody else have? That's the whole point. Now, we will concede that if they would move that tower, move it back another 100 feet, we have no objection to it at all. We would shake hands and say, everything is satisfactory. We're in good shape. I don't think they would call that minor. The issue now gets to be, is it major or is it minor. Is it significant or insignificant, and I think it's significant. MR. PALING-Okay. George, you have a question? MR. STARK-Yes. Mr. Little, would Mr. Drellos be amenable, you know, you're saying 150 feet south of his south property line. MR. LITTLE-Away from his boundary, correct. MR. STARK-That puts the tower practically in the middle of Mr. Ehlert's property. Could you reach an agreement, maybe 75, 80 feet or it has to be the 150 feet before he agrees to it, or what? MR. LITTLE-The concept is that the location of the tower 150 feet in the proximity of the boundary line, places the property of Drellos at risk from its existence. It has the potential for falling over on a building or otherwise impacting the utilization of this property. I'm saying, Mr. Ehlert, you can do whatever you want with your property, just don't have an adverse impact on the Drellos property. That's the only thing we're talking about, and that's why I'm saying what I'm saying. MRS. LABOMBARD-Could you point out on there approximately where? - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. LITTLE-I can't. Mr. Steves probably can. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where you would be satisfied with it? MR. LITTLE-Could you tell them approximately where it would have to be located on the Ehlert parcel to meet the requirements? MR. STARK-Leon, how far is that from the building there, just rough? MR. WEST-It's about 150 feet, isn't it? MR. STARK-No, no, from that building right there, the northern part of that building. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-120 feet. MR. STARK-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-What is , it says "See Note One Proposed location of tower fence and drive as originally stated by Clough Harbor and Associates". That's not a dwelling or anything on your property. GEORGE DRELLOS MR. DRELLOS-George Drellos. I own the property we're talking about. That's where the tower was originally going, where they made the mistake, whatever you want to call it. They were putting it on my property. They dug test borings and cleared some trees and that's where it originally was going. That's how far they were on my property. The trees that were around it were actually mine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why weren't you here the last time? MR. DRELLOS-Why wasn't I here the last time? MR. LABOMBARD-When they made their presentation? MR. DRELLOS-Well, a couple of reasons. I thought that I was protected. I thought there was laws and zonings for these things, but I guess I was wrong. I figured if it was 150 feet high, it would be 150 feet away. MRS. LABOMBARD-So back then, when they were making the test borings and things, you did not know it. MR. DRELLOS-No. I didn't know until I just happened to go out there and see it. MRS. LABOMBARD-So that was after the fact that they made. All right. Okay. Now I'm putting it all together. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, anyone else from the public that cares to comment on this, for or against? Okay. MR. KURBOLOK-The point that I'd like to reiterate is that we did not propose the tower to be on Mr. Drellos' property, because the stake was made when we staked it out, and we staked out on his property incorrectly, not as it was shown on the plan that was approved. It was a mistake. The mistake resulted from the fact that we had the tree line in the wrong spot, and therefore when we went out to stake out the property, we tied into some (lost word) that was in a different location than where we thought it was. It was a mistake which they rectified. The actual difference between - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) what was proposed and what we're here for tonight is 12 feet, and the only reason it's 12 feet is that we're giving Mr. Drellos the benefit of the doubt and we're recognizing his version of the property line instead of ours. That is the only location change that's presented here tonight. The only other change that is before you is the fact that we have incorrectly shown the tree line. MR. STARK-Would the applicant be amenable to moving the tower further south, or what? MR. STELLATO-We have a lease with Mr. Ehlert, and we're leasing a 100 by 100 square foot parcel. We approached Mr. Ehlert about the possibility of relocating that site further away from Mr. Drellos' property line, and Mr. Ehlert has indicated that he's not willing to do that. So it was impossible for us to move our site without being able to get a new lease with our landlord, and he's indicated he's not interested in doing that. MR. PALING-George, I have a question. I think it's for you. Have we done any towers in the past like this? MR. HILTON-As far as I've been here, I have not seen one, but the one that exists, off of, I think it's south of Luzerne Road, I'm not sure if that's a radio tower or a cellular tower, but I guess the answer is, no, I haven't seen any cellular. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. I don't care who answers it. When you say "his" version of the property line versus "your" version of it, you didn't use the word, versus your version of the property line, but I have a problem with this. I mean, a property line is a property line. Now, if it's been surveyed and you've gone through all the records, don't we have a true property line? Obviously, you're not happy with this property line because, and you're saying, well, we'll just move it the 12 feet, because you're saying we're qivinq them the 12 feet, for their version of the property line. So that implies, I'm inferring from you that you don't really buy this idea of the property line where it is. Is that correct? MR. STELLATO-It's very common for there to be discrepancies between adjoining pieces of property, especially when the deeds go back so far. Surveying techniques have evolved over time and become much more accurate. Many of your old surveys don't fit together. There are overlaps between properties. (Lost words) back me up on this. We do have a bonafide overlap in the survey. Really, if you take Mr. Drellos' deed and you take Mr. Ehlert's deed and you plot them, they do overlap. The issue becomes, why do they overlap and where does that overlap originate from, and we believe that because the Ehlert deed is a much older deed, it's a much older protractable deed, and the Drellos deed only picked up its meets and bounds description in 1959, we believe that the error was made in that 1959 translation. We believe that the Ehlert deed, it wasn't the Ehlert property at the time, but we believe that the deed to that property at the time was not considered when that Drellos survey was done, and again, we're not contesting that. We're saying, it's only 12 feet. We don't care. We'll go with it. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt and we'll recognize his version of the line, even though we feel that if we pursued it we could prove our version of the line. It's not an important enough issue for us. MRS. LABOMBARD-That 100 square feet that Mr. Ehlert's willing to give, that you're going to lease from him, where are the minimum lines for that? MR. STELLATO-It's 100 foot by 100 foot parcel. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. STARK-Okay. You said he would agree to lease you a 100 by 100. So you're actually up in the northwest corner of that 100 by 100. Why can't you just drop down another 50 feet and be 27 feet off the south part of your lease? MR. STELLATO-The reason is that within that 100 by 100 property parcel we have to bury a grounding grid that will protect the tower from lightning. MR. STARK-Bury it on the north side of the tower. MR. STELLATO-It needs to surround the entire facility. We need room on all sides to get that in. So we've essentially pulled the tower and the equipment as far south as we really practically can while staying within our leased area, already in the site plan. MR. RUEL-This tower is in the center of the property? MR. STELLATO-No. It's not. It's pretty close, yes. MR. STARK-It's three quarters of the way north of your southern boundary line. I'm talking about on the 100 by 100 that you're leasing. MR. STELLATO-It's pretty close to being in the center. It's 38 feet from the reputed property line, which is 12 feet from our original property line, which puts it 50 feet from the edge of the leased parcel, which makes it just about in the center. MR. RUEL-What's the diameter of the lightning ring? MR. STELLATO-It's going to be almost the full 100 feet. We've pulled it back. We actually did have to pull it back to keep it out of the 12 foot area in dispute, but it will go to the limits of the (lost words) . MR. RUEL-It'll be smaller on the southern site. MR. STELLATO-And it's only comprised of buried copper wire with some ground rods driven in it. MR. RUEL-It's buried, right? MR. STELLATO-It's buried. You won't see it. MR. RUEL-You couldn't bury that on the gentleman's property? MR. STELLATO-We don't have permission to do that. Our lease is only 100 by 100 and we have to contain our equipment within that area. MR. PALING-Okay. George, do you have any comments on the setbacks of this tower? MR. HILTON-As I said before, it has been deemed a structure which is, you know, the setbacks are building setback. The requirements do not apply to structures such as this, as has been the case with other areas such as the Great Escape. The only other comment I can offer, and I know Niagara Mohawk's situation may be different than Mr. Drellos', but in the process where there was a Use Variance and a site plan, Niagara Mohawk was notified, and they had no concerns whatsoever about the tower falling over and with their wires on their property, I think if they had some serious concerns, they would have, in some way, let the Board know. MR. PALING-What's the distance between their wires and the tower? MR. HILTON-It's under 150 feet. - 20 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. PALING-It's under 150 feet. MR. HILTON-So, as far as it falling over, I don't these fall over, but, you know, Niagara Mohawk, weren't concerned enough to provide comment, and previously, building setbacks do not apply to this know how often obviously they as I've stated tower. MR. PALING-I think we've had exhaustive discussion on this thing. One more thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-One more thing. We've polled the Board, and five of us wanted to spend a little more time on this. During the course of spending a little more time, you could now present the situation to Mr. Ehlert that the circumstances have changed. In other words, he just said to us that he has no intentions of letting you go to another part of his property. Well, that's because he daeol1' t know that your project could be, lets just say, hypothetically, in jeopardy. So maybe, as a good business man, he would like to have the rent that your company's going to pay him and maybe he would reconsider in this little interval of time, and you could do some homework in that respect. MR. STELLATO-Again, that was my first concern here, because we've already initiated construction, the fact that some of the equipment is due to be delivered to the site, and I thought that the day that this problem (lost words). One of the things that we tried to do is resolve this problem without coming back before this Board. All efforts failed. I would have liked nothing better than to work out all the issues so that we wouldn't have to be back before here. After negotiations between us and Mr. Drellos broke down, I did speak to Mr. Ehlert again and I did ask him if he would consider allowing us to relocate the site. He indicated that he did not want to do that because he had equipment stored in that area, trucks and what not, and he really did not feel that that was a viable option. I hear what you're saying, but again, we tried very hard to try to work this out. We were unsuccessful, and that's the reason why we're here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Bob, we're spinning our wheels. Lets have, granted, they're in a hurry and so on. Okay. Then we can recognize that. Give them a special meeting, maybe next week. Can we notify by then? The public hearing or public comment period, and if I were you guys, I would make sure, I'd have, on the map that you give us, setbacks from all sides, from the south, where the 100 foot by 100 foot parcel is, the side setback, the front setback, and all that, and we'll get the ball rolling here. MR. PALING-George, what's the earliest November date, with public notification, that we could accommodate a meeting? MR. HILTON-Well, we need five days for public notification. I don't think we can do this as soon as next week, but at this point, maybe the first week of November. I think we'd have to take care of this tomorrow and contact the Board members individually, contact the applicant, and then at such time we would send out the notices. Now, would the Board prefer an evening meeting, a day meeting? MR. BREWER-Evening. MR. PALING-Evening would be preferable, yes. All right. Lets expend all conversation, and lets just take it to a consensus vote. Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes, table it, get to another meeting. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. PALING-Dave? MR. WEST-Public meeting. MR. PALING-Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-That's it. The best we can do is to accommodate you with a special meeting as early as we can, and as long as we can get a quorum, I want more than a quorum, we will accommodate you the earliest we can with proper public notice. MR. KURBOLOK-Is there anything additional you would like us to do? MR. BREWER-Could I get a copy of the original site plan, and then what you propose now? I probably got it. I'm sure I did, but I don't have it now. MR. STELLATO-Could I hand these out tonight, so that you have what we propose now, and I'm sure the existing plans you have? MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. Go ahead if you want to hand them out. Make sure we get a copy over here. MR. STELLATO-Do you want us to submit the whole thing together, would that be easier? MR. PALING-Probably. We know exactly what we're getting. MR. STELLATO~I'11 do that. In addition to that, is there any other information that was not discussed tonight? MR. PALING-You heard what George asked for. MR. STELLATO-Right, and I believe that'll be covered on the plan. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy, what else do you want? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm set enough. MR. PALING-All right. Tim? MR. BREWER-The only thing I'd like is a copy of the old site plan. MR. PALING-I might have that here. MR. STELLATO-We'll include it in the submission. MR. PALING-Dave? MR. WEST-Setbacks, George covered it. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-I need a copy. I wasn't here. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. That's two copies. They were both absent. MR. STELLATO-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. That's all we know. Do we need a motion to table? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, more importantly, a motion to schedule a public hearing, table it and schedule a public hearing. - 22 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. PALING-All right. Do I have a motion on that. MR. BREWER-How can we schedule it when we don't know when we're going to have it, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-We don't have a date? MR. PALING-No. We don't have a date. MR. BREWER-When's the earliest we could do it in November? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, we can do it probably the first day of November, but right, you know, we've got to find out when this room is free and coordinate some things. MR. PALING-And make sure the Board's available and that kind of thing. Can we say, prior to a certain date? Is that all right? MR. SCHACHNER-If you don't have a date, then you can just table it and then schedule your public hearing. MOTION TO TABLE THE RECONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN NO. 30-96 FOR SPRINT SPECTRUM, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: That this be tabled until a meeting can be called with proper public notification. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 TYPE II MICHAEL CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A MODIFICATION LOCATION: BRAYTON LANE PROPOSAL IS TO MODIFY APPROVED PLAN TO INCLUDE MODIFIED BUILDING FOOTPRINT, LANDSCAPE PLAN, STONE STEP LAKE ENTRY AND DRY STONE WALKWAYS WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-1995, SP 59-95, AV 37- 1996 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-17 LOT SIZE: 1.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 DENNIS MACELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Do they have the ZBA approval for this? MR. HILTON-They have an existing ZBA approval from 1995. that approval, they came in with a site plan, 59-95. they're seeking to modify it. After Tonight MR. PALING-Okay. Does the ZBA variance carryover? MR. HILTON-It does carryover, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. So there's no problem there, we can go ahead? MR. HILTON-Right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-95, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: October 22, 1996 "The applicant is seeking to modify an existing site plan, Site Plan 59-95, for his property located on Brayton Lane on Lake George. This modification involves changes to the previously approved landscaping plan, the addition of a stone step lake entry and dry stone walkways which will be within 50 feet of the shoreline. The revised landscaping plan seeks the removal of some of the existing vegetation within 35 feet of the shoreline - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) of this property. The applicant is proposing an alternate cutting and planting plan for this area of the property. Section 179-60B subsections 1 to 5 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedure for review and approval of an alternate cutting plan for areas within 35 feet of a shoreline. A review of the previously approved plan shows 16 trees would be left in the 35 foot no clear zone. The new plan seeks to cut this number by 8 trees, a removal of 50%. The Zoning Ordinance allows for 30% of the trees to be removed, anything more would require a variance from the ZBA. II At this time, the applicant has some plans which he will have up this evening. I believe the Board also has them. They indicate that the amount of trees that he will be removing will be under 30%. So that this plan will not have to go back before the ZBA to modify, to seek another variance. II If the applicant plans to replant trees once existing trees are removed, in order to meet the 30% mark, staff would recommend that the new plantings be a 'like replacement' of what is being removed. The applicant also plans to construct a stone walkway and stone step lake entry. This would increase impervious area in front of the home but overall lot permeability would still conform to the standards of the WR-IA district. Staff is concerned about direct runoff into the lake and would recommend that some berming be provided in front of the portion of the walk closest to the shore. This would redirect water and cut down on direct runoff into the lake. The Planning Board may wish to consider any condition which they feel would help promote the purpose of the WR-1A zoning district and Section 179- 60B of the Zoning Ordinance. II MR. RUEL-Was there a Warren County statement in there? MR. PALING-What else do you have, George? MR. HILTON-Warren County was not required to comment on this. It's a modification, but we do have some public comment, when we get to that point. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourself, please. MACELROY - Yes. My name is Dennis MacElroy, from Environmental Design Partnership. We represent Mr. Cantanucci on this residential property. Mr. Cantanucci is unable to be here tonight, and apologizes. Also with me tonight is Gary Gillespie who is a landscape designer representing Mr. Cantanucci, and Robert Stewart, an attorney. MR. PALING-Are you familiar with the Staff comments that George just read? MR. MACELROY-Yes, I am. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any comments on those? MR. MACELROY-Well, I would like to clarify one, George had prepared those comments, and subsequent to that we met and clarified the count, the number of trees within that 35 foot area, and issued the letter which probably is included in your packet, the letter of October 17th. MR. PALING-Yes, but there's a little contradictory sentencing. Are you, the burned trees that are on that property, are you taking credit for those in the 30? MR. MACELROY-They are part of the 30%. MR. PALING-I don't think they should be. MR. MACELROY-They're not part of dead and diseased trees. - 24 - -- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-That's what I'm saying. diseased trees. They're not part of dead and MR. MACELROY-No. There are four trees that qualify and have been documented by Mr. Gillespie as being dead and diseased trees. Those other trees referred to in the letter are not part of those. MR. PALING-Those burned trees are coming down? MR. MACELROY-Correct. MR. MACELROY-They've been recommended for removal, and Jim Martin has been to the site as well. MR. HILTON-Right, and he's counting those as the 30% that he can remove, without having to go for another variance. The diseased trees are separate and can be removed without any, that's just normal property maintenance. MR. WEST-So these are live, unburned trees that we're worried about, right, as far as the SO%? MR. MACELROY-That would be remaining. MR. WEST-Yes. MR. MACELROY-Certainly. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-And you're saying that the burned trees are part of the 30%. I'm not hearing good tonight. MR. HILTON-Yes. No, I guess that's what we're both saying MR. MACELROY-I could bore you with the specific numbers. There are 22 trees of six inch deviation or greater within the 35 foot setback. MR. PALING-Right. MR. MACELROY-Four qualify as dead and diseased, that's documented by Mr. Gillespie. That leaves 18. Thirty percent is the maximum removal, according to the Ordinance. Thirty percent of 18 is 5.4, five trees, basically could be removed without exceeding the 30% maximum. There are four trees that have been damaged by the fire, but those four are within the permissible five. MR. PALING-I don't buy it. If you're telling me that four is part of the S. that can be removed, I don't agree. MR. STARK-What don't you agree with, Bob? MR. PALING-The trees shouldn't have been burned in the first place. MR. STARK-They could have taken them down without being burned. MR. HILTON-Well, that's a separate issue, I think, because what we're looking at here is that the applicant, under our Ordinance, has the ability to remove 30% of the trees within 35 feet without having to go for a variance or any kind of action by a Board. So of those trees that are on this property right now, five can be removed. Four of those five that he's planning on removing happen to be the burned trees, and he's counting those toward that five - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) that he can ultimately remove. MR. PALING-How convenient. I guess I've got a high prejudice on this thing that that should never have been handled this way in the first place, and how do we know that those were the ones that would have been removed if they weren't burned? Those are big, mature trees that were burned and ruined. MR. STARK-He could have taken them down. MR. PALING-Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. MR. BREWER-Regardless, he could still take them down. If he's allowed 30%, whether they're burned or unburned, he could pick those trees and take them down, by the Code. MR. RUEL-Yes. If they weren't burned, he could take them down. MR. BREWER-So regardless of whether they're burned, or he did it intentionally, or not. MR. STARK-Bob, we looked at his planting list. The guy's planting a million trees, I mean, you know, and shrubs and this and that. MR. PALING-Any time trees are removed, I don' t like it. Okay. Any questions from the Board on this? Comments? George, do you want to read the public comment? We'll open the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-Certainly. I don't know if there's anyone here, first of all, that wants to speak. MR. PALING-No, go ahead. We'll do those first. MR. HILTON-Okay. First of all, I have a letter dated October 21, 1996. It's from Florence Conner. It says "Dear Planning Board: This letter is in reference to Site Plan No. 59-95. The applicant is Michael Cantanucci. The location is Brayton Lane. Purchasing shoreline property automatically gives one the unique responsibility to preserve and protect the lake that property borders on. However, purchasing that property does not automatically give one the know-how to in fact preserve and protect that lake. Therefore, it is the planning boards and the zoning boards of the lakeside communities, that with wisdom, direct the owner in the proper direction. By covering the permeable soil with stonework, runoff is guaranteed. Runoff is one of the major sources of pollution of the lake. Stone steps at the shoreline can preserve the shoreline, however, stone walkways cover the land where gravel would be a better choice. In addition, I understand Mr. Cantanucci intends to remove established vegetation. Whenever vegetation is disturbed erosion occurs. New plantings do help; however they cannot replace the loss of the established root system for years to come. If in fact new plantings are put in, the owner invariably tends to manicure and fertilize the new ' lawn' and again, the runoff is extremely detrimental to the lake. Especially in this area where milfoil is presently only a number of yards away. I welcome Mr. Cantanucci to the neighborhood. I feel it is important that he preserve the area attracted him in the first place. Pavement and walkways are necessary on city streets but we must remember our front lawn borders a lake not a roadway. A very sensitive lake that needs us all to understand and protect it from ourselves. I urge you to curtail any plan that reduces the absorption of runoff to Lake George or streams that board it. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor" And before I continue, you don't have these comments in front of you because they came, one, via the fax and the other, the gentleman sat here and wrote the letter in our office today. So, the second letter is a letter from - 26 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) Robert Walden, dated October 22, 1996, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, from Robert Walden, Christopher Walden, Claudia Friedman, Kevin Walden, Leigh Walden Herrmann, Mark LaPore and Greg LaPore, the subject is Site Plan No. 59-95 "Dear Members of the Queensbury Planning Board: We sincerely wish to be good and friendly neighbors to our new neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Cantanucci and their children, as we have been to our many neighbors over the past thirty years. We have supported almost all the requests that Mr. & Mrs. Cantanucci have made to the Planning Board, except those which we believe, in principal, are injurious to the physical and aesthetic well being of Lake George. The people of N. Y. State own Lake George. The people's regulations are meant to protect the aesthetic and physical welfare of their lake. There has to be a very good reason to set aside these regulations. I believe that the Queensbury Planning Board, in their wisdom, can discern when and why a regulatioll should be aILe.t'ct!. Lake Oeo~'ge is famous for its natural wilderness topography. Anything which appears to interfere with the retention of this aesthetic from the land or from the lake should be questioned! I ask the Board to deliberate just how the proposed front walkway, as submitted, will impact the aesthetic and physical appearance and purity of Lake George. Very cordially submitted, Robert L. Walden" MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here that would care to comment on this from the public, for or against? Okay. If there is no comment, then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. MR. STARK-Would you point to the walkways up there, please. MR. MACELROY-The proposed walkways are those areas in gray, going from the main house to the boat house, the main house to the existing lake cottage, and to the dock. MR. STARK-How much does that reduce the permeability of the whole lot? Do you have percentages? MR. PALING-George, the stone walkways they're talking about are considered zero permeable, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. They would be listed as paved area, within the calculations of permeable area on the site. MR. MACELROY-Let me just describe (lost words) for those walkways. They were interlocking stone dry jointed walkway, bounded in stone dust type beds. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now the one along the water, that was a sea wall. MR. MACELROY-There is an existing sea wall. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the walkway is on top of the sea wall or adjacent? MR. MACELROY-In back of that. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's behind it. MR. MACELROY-And in response to conversations we've had with Staff, we have shown a berm now in this area of the lawn, slightly raised area, which would help to retain stormwater as it may, in a heavier - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) event, tend to sheet toward the down gradient toward the lake, and this would tend to retain and recharge stormwater in that capacity. MR. STARK-So what is the permeability before the walk and after the walk? MR. MACELROY-Well, specifically related to the walk? MR. STARK-Yes. Do you know, off hand, rough? MR. BREWER-It's an addition of. MR. MACELROY-13 percent. MR. MACELROY-Well, that's with all the permeable surfaces on the entire 1.9 acre site, driveways, walkways. MR. HILTON-According to the figures that I have in the application, it's an increase, this site plan modification represents an increase of 3.3% in the paved area, bringing the total site green area down to a level of 73.4%, which is well within the figures for WR-IA. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff, I guess. The agenda indicates the modified building footprint on the landscape plan modification. Your notes didn't cover that. MR. HILTON-Okay. The modification of the building is such that it stays within the previously approved setback under the ZBA, and it also now conforms to the new WR-1A regulations. The applicant may want to discuss what modification is happening, with the building specifically. As far as the landscaping, I have indicated that he is planning on removing some vegetation, and you have a plan indicating what his new planting scheme is, and how that differs from the old plan. MR. RUEL-Should we have a new set of plans showing this modification to the footprint and landscaping? MR. HILTON-I think you do have a plan, actually, that shows the new footprint. MR. PALING-Right here, Roger. MR. MACELROY-You have a site plan which is the modification, shows the new footprint. You have a landscaping plan, Sheets One and Two, which supply the landscaping. MR. RUEL-I'm sorry. I was looking at an old plan. Okay. doesn't look like, red is the previous? This MR. MACELROY-Outlined in red is the previous. MR. RUEL-So this is the new one and the plant list is the new plant list. MR. BREWER-Just out of curiosity, why all the change? MR. MACELROY-Well, this plan was originally approved last October. Mr. Cantanucci had just purchased the property, or was going through the process of getting approvals prior to closing, to obtain a variance and site plan approval, and at that point in time was before the final design of the house was completed. So through this evolution, the design of the house, we have a slightly different footprint. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments or questions by the Board? - 28 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. STARK-Bob, maybe the Board would want to decide whether this is a real, material modification or a slight modification. MR. PALING-Well, it's a Type II. So we don't need a SEQRA. Is that a question in your mind, Cathy, stormwater? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm sure that the roof pitches and all that will have, will take care of the stormwater management, but have you ever thought of not using concrete and using a real nice pressure treated lumber and doing some artistic workings with the wood, with I ike a, I've seen some wonderful walkways that are almost flush to the ground, made out of the lumber, out of decking, but they are slippery, I suppose. MR. MACELROY-Right, and you'll find that wood decking is the type as this proposed stone, and you'd be dealing with the same permeability. MRS. LABOMBARD-Maybe. MR. MACELROY-I will tell you that the owner has though considerably about a lot of different options on the design of the house and the site. I think there's a relationship between the stonework and the walkway and the stone that would be part of the design of the house. It's an Adirondack style, like the stone, timber, paned glass. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, and I'm sure that he's probably realizing that he's going to be the first one to feel the effects on the lake frontage if the stormwater is doing any negative impacts, but may I make a suggestion, just having, my own family having a place on the lake for many, many years? We're talking two acres of grass. We have never once put one gram of fertilizer on that lawn, and you'd be surprised how Mother Nature takes care of it. Really. So that's something to really consider. Especially when somebody has the resources to have their own gardner and have people come in and take care of it. You just have to watch out with that fertilizer. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. The public hearing has been closed. We do not need a SEQRA. We can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To modify previously approved plan to include building footprint, landscape plan, stone step lake entry, and dry stone walkways within 50 feet of shoreline, with the condition that berming be provided in front of the portion of the walk closest to the shore, as indicated in Staff notes. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 62-96 TYPE II TORREN L. MOORE OWNERS: ARTHUR & JILL SPIERRE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: HANNAFORD ROAD - RT. 9L TO PILOT KNOB ROAD. BOATHOUSE IS ON LEFT APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE FROM RT. 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING ROOF FROM - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) BOATHOUSE AND REPLACE WITH 1/3 STORAGE ROOM AND 2/3 OPEN SPACE OPEN DECK. HEIGHT OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE NOT TO EXCEED EXISTING HEIGHT OF BOATHOUSE. PER SECTION 179-16, BOATHOUSE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 88-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-18 LOT SIZE: 24,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 62-96, Torren L. Moore, Meeting Date: October 22, 1996 "The applicant is seeking to remodel an existing boathouse on Pilot Knob Road. The height of the boathouse will remain the same, but the pitch of the roof will be changed allowing more space within the boathouse. The applicant has received a variance from the ZBA in order to allow this modification to the proposed height. At the public hearing held before the ZBA regarding this item, no one spoke in opposition to this proposal. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this request and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 62-96." MR. PALING-There was a modification to the height which was approved. Right? MR. HILTON-Yes, it was approved, and the resolution that I have from the Warren County Planning Board, dated October 9, 1996, the County Planning Board voted on this item, and the recommendation was of No County Impact, signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything else you have, George? MR. HILTON-I have just some public comment, but we may want to wait until the public hearing. MR. PALING-Yes. We'll wait for the public hearing. MR. RUEL-The ZBA granted a modification for what, proposed height? MR. PALING-Height, as I understand it. MR. HILTON-Well, it was a modification to the structure itself, that he is increasing the pitch of the roof to allow more area, and at the same time, retaining the height of this building, and the ZBA approved it. MR. RUEL-The total height is the same, right? MR. HILTON-It's the same, yes. MR. RUEL-1098, before and after? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-What has changed is what, the sides are up higher? MR. HILTON-The area. MR. RUEL-And the pitch. MR. HILTON-Right. The pitch of the roof, allowing more area within the building. MR. RUEL-And he needed a variance for that? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Would you identify yourselves please. - 30 - '- ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. MOORE-Hi. My name is Torren Moore, the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Unless you want to say something for now, I'll just open the public hearing on it. Okay. Is there anyone here who'd care to speak for or against this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. George, you have some letters. MR. HILTON-Yes. I actually have one letter. It's from Ed Henning. It's dated October 18, 1996, regarding modification to boathouse for Torren Moore "To Whom It May Concern: I am the neighbor adjacent to the property owned by Art & Jill Spierre. Torren L. Moore has made an application to modify the roof structure and add a deck to the existing boat house on this property. I wish to express my approval for the proposed modifications. I have reviewed the plans and believe that the modifications will improve the aesthetics of the existing structure and would be an overall improvement to the property and neighborhood. Sincerely, Jacqueline Henning" MR. PALING-Okay. Then we do not need a SEQRA on this. I think we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-96 TORREN L. MOORE, Introduce by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To remove existing roof from boathouse and replace with 1/3 storage room and 2/3 open space open deck. Height of proposed structure not to exceed existing height of boathouse. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 68-96 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVE ABBOTT OWNER: EAST END ENTERPRISES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A 5,940 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE REAR YARD, ALSO ADD A 1,686 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE. PER SECTION 179-26 ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 4-1994, SP 5-92 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/7/96 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-13.2 LOT SIZE: 2.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 DAVE ABBOTT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 68-96, Dave Abbott, Meeting Date: October 22, 1996 "The applicant proposes to build a 5,940 sq. ft. commercial building and expand an existing garage by adding 1,686 sq. ft. in the rear yard of an existing lot zoned LI-1A. The proposed expansion conforms to the density, setback and permeability standards of the LI-1A district. The use contained in the existing commercial garage and the proposed use of the new building to be constructed on this site must be identified in order to determine the parking requirements for this location. Comments from the Beautification Committee and Rist Frost must be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application." MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. ABBOTT-Dave Abbott, the applicant. FRANK JELLEY MR. JELLEY-My name's Frank Jelley. I'm representing the applicant. MR. PALING-Are you familiar with the Staff comments, as well as those by the Beautification Committee and Rist Frost? MR. JELLEY-Yes, I am. MR. PALING-Go ahead and tell us what you want and address those comments. MR. JELLEY-Okay. My name's Frank Jelley, and I'm representing Dave. As far as the Beautification Committee, I did go before them. I only had a couple of days notice before I went in front of them. I did not show the proposed landscaping and the existing landscaping on the plan that I showed them, and I'd like to make the submission of the site plan to their approval. I tried to get another meeting, because I didn't know what they were looking for, and I tried to get another meeting before the Beautification Board before this planning meeting, and they didn't have another one. So I'd like to, again, leave the approval conditional to the Beautification Board, until I can get another meeting. MR. PALING-All right. aside for the moment. Then we'll put the Beautification Committee How about Rist Frost comments? MR. JELLEY-I did address many of the comments from Rist Frost, as soon as I could, many of them. I don't have a list that, I had a meeting with the representative, Bill, from Rist Frost today, and he faxed over comments, and the things that are concerning him now are, as far as the site plan goes, are calculations of stormwater management. There is no more impervious areas being proposed. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go down their comments one at a time. He talks, first, about "The design basis for the sewage system is not clear (number of persons served?; number of restrooms?)." And so on. MR. JELLEY-Yes. When I had a meeting today with him, I did notify him of the amount of people. There will be two employees, other than me. MR. PALING-Okay. Excuse me. Was this filtered back through you, George? MR. HILTON-Yes, and I have these comments. I was planning to go over them with the Board. If you'd like to do it with the applicant. MR. PALING-All right. whichever the best way Maybe we'd better let George talk first, is. MR. HILTON-Okay. First, what I think I'd like to do is read into the record the first Rist Frost letter, dated October 8th. The comments regarding Site Plan No. 68-96 are as follows. "I. The design basis for the sewage system is not clear (number of persons?; number of rest rooms?). The location of the test pit and percolation test is not indicated. We recommend that the orientation of the septic tank and field be changed to eliminate to the extent possible the bends in the line from the septic tank to the distribution box. 2. No spot elevations or contours showing existing and proposed grades are shown. It is not clear what paving exists and what is proposed. Existing vegetation, if any, and clearing limits are not shown. 3. No stormwater management - 32 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) plan was submitted. 4. Proposed site lighting is not clear. s. Only (4) parking spaces are indicated. Additional spaces may be required depending on the use, occupancy or number of employees. At least one handicapped accessible space should be provided. wider driveways (20 ft.) may be advisable, depending on use. 6. Plans should refer to Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas of New York State." And today we received an updated letter from Rist Frost, and I will also read that into the record. It says, "Drawing SP1 ' Site Plan' Revision 1 was delivered to our office this afternoon. The revisions to the plan addressed some of the comments contained in our letter of October 8, 1996. Specifically the plan now shows: 1. Existing and proposed grading. 2. Limits of existing gravel drives and parking areas. No additional paving is proposed. 3. Existing vegetation. No clearing is proposed. 4. The location of the perc test and test pit. S. Parking has been increased and one handicapped accessible space is provided. 6. Lighting proposed consists of (4) Wall- paks. Our previous comments regarding the design basis for the sewage system, the orientation of the sewage system, the absence of a stormwater management plan and a plan reference to erosion guidelines have not yet been addressed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P. C. William J. Levandowski, P. E. " Now, as far as the parking goes at this location, as the applicant has indicated, the use, well, he's indicated to me, anyway, the use is going to be such that it's considered a warehouse where he would only need parking for, and let me get this straight here, he would need one for each two employees on the maximum working shift, plus one for each company vehicle. The four spaces that are being provided are adequate for the expansion. He's providing a handicapped accessible space. The only comments, at this point, that seem to be outstanding are Mr. Levandowski's closing remarks in his letter dated October 22nd. MR. RUEL-How many parking spaces? MR. PALING-And that refers to the sewage system, the stormwater management, and erosion control? MR. HILTON-Right. To answer your question, Roger, he's proposing four on the site. According to the Ordinance he would only need three, one of which has to be handicapped, and he's indicated that. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-That is the sewage system, the stormwater management, and erosion control? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Now those, if they're going to be addressed tonight, have they been to you yet, or to Rist Frost? It's going to be hard for us to judge these technical matters, I think. MR. HILTON-Right. I understand that. I don' t know if the applicant has prepared any kind of presentation to address those issues, and possibly try to put the Board at ease, but those are the remaining comments from Rist Frost. MR. PALING-Okay. We're not engineers, and good luck if you want to try it, but. MR. JELLEY-What I would like to suggest is if we could have the approval process conditional to my working it out with Rist Frost, being that it's very difficult to explain the technical aspects of it, and being that Rist Frost is involved to be able to work with these technical issues, again, conditional to my working these - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) issues out with Rist Frost. MR. PALING-Well, I would say there would have to be written approval from Rist Frost, name the three items in the motion. MR. HILTON-Well, you know, it's certainly up to the Board, as to which way they would like to take this, but as you stated, you're, this isn't an engineering review board. I, personally, would feel uncomfortable, as far as the SEQRA Reg's and review goes, if this were reviewed without some definitive answers from Rist Frost. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. This is an Unlisted. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. See, that's one of the things we were just talking about is we also have SEQRA review here. So it seems like we might be missing some information. MR. PALING-I missed that. MR. BREWER-I've got a suggestion, Bob. If we can get the comments to Rist Frost, we could put him on with our meeting for the tower. MR. PALING-The special meeting, that's right. Along those lines, just let me divert for a moment, I have on my calendar November 6th, a workshop at 7 o'clock. What is that? MR. SCHACHNER-You know what I'll bet that is? I only know this because I had one crossed out for then. I think it was one of the dates you and I spoke about for the thing that Jim Martin and myself and Rick Missita talked about last month. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right. MR. PALING-Yes. to clarify that. We've done it. Okay. All right. Yes. I think you're right, Mark. I just wanted MR. SCHACHNER-I only remembered that because I have the one, that crossed out on. MR. BREWER-Can I get some questions? I/ve got a question for Mark and George. How many principal buildings can he have on this piece of land? It says in the Ordinance that maximum density, one principal building up to 12,000 square feet of gross floor area for a single story building, and 15,000. MR. RUEL-Yes, it's per acre, though. There's 2.66 acres there. MR. BREWER-Right. So he's got a house. He's got the garage, and now he wants to put this building. That's three. It doesn't cut it, does it? MR. HILTON-Well, as far as the number, he's allowed that. If he is under the 12,000 square foot per acre, his density would be okay for this location. MR. BREWER-Even though it's a building? MR. HILTON-Even though it's a building. He's not limited to one principal structure for X amount of acres MR. BREWER-I guess to me it means that you can have a building up to that size, ª principal building. MR. HILTON-I think, and it's been, in past applications we've applied it, that that's a density figure that, you know, you're allowed 12,000 square feet of building per acre. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say that, though. - 34 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. BREWER-It doesn't say that. It says one building up to 12,000 square feet. MR. SCHACHNER-Where is it? What Section? MR. BREWER-Page 17985, right at the top of the page. MR. HILTON-That's how we've done it in the past. 179-26A. MR. BREWER-Well, I'd like to get that in writing from Jim. I disagree with that. MR. STARK-Why don' t we table it until the special meeting in November, put it on after Sprint, before Sprint, it doesn't matter. That way there it'll allow Rist Frost to answer his answers. Then we'll have everything right in front of us. Then we'll have enough to do the SEQRA. You can get your questions answered. MR. BREWER-Well, I'd just like to get the questions out now. MR. STARK-Fine, but then Jimmy will have the answer. MR. PALING-We'll see what Mark and George say on this now? MR. SCHACHNER-On the issue you raised? It's not really my call. It's really the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Department call, and George has relayed to you how it's been interpreted, I guess. MR. HILTON-That's how it's been interpreted in the past. If you'd like some clarification, we can provide that. MR. BREWER-I'd like a determination. MR. PALING-Would you go ahead and do that as a separate item, maybe Jim could just write us a letter. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. BREWER-Also, what is the use of this building you're putting up, two buildings actually? MR. PALING-Warehouse. MR. BREWER-Warehouse for both of them? Warehouse of what? MR. ABBOTT-Glass, metal. MR. BREWER-Recyclable glass? MR. ABBOTT-No. It's new glass, storefront, things like that. MR. BREWER-In both of them, right? MR. ABBOTT-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone have any concerns other than what Tim has voiced and what's in the Rist Frost letter? MR. RUEL-The Beautification Committee gave a preliminary approval. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-So we should get final approval. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. HILTON-I will read that in right now, actually. The comments I have are from the Beautification Committee, dated October 7, 1996. It says that they have reviewed Site Plan No. 68-96, with the following comment. "Frank Jelley presented the site plan. He explained current site makeup and proposed changes and addition of new building to the rear of the property. He explained the surrounding property (vacant on all sides) is very wooded and currently not occupied or improved at all. The Committee stated concern with maintaining sufficient buffer zone around site in consideration of future development of the surrounding properties. Mrs. Gosline asked what the exterior of the building would be built from. Mr. Jelley explained the exterior building and roof would be all metal. No business sign is planned on the property except something small for deliveries. Mrs. Gosline requested specifics as to the sign size and Mrs. Wetherbee requested what kind of landscaping would be on the road frontage around the proposed building. The Committee determined, since no landscaped plan was available to review and Mr. Jelley could not provide specifics as to the site plan and signage, only PRELIMINARY APPROVAL was recommended. Mr. Jelley only received his notice Saturday, October 5, 1996 and was not able to prepare for this meeting and Mr. Abbott was sick and also unable to attend. Motion made by Mrs. Gosline deferred review of this project until Mr. Jelley can go before the Planning Board. The Beautification Committee will review the site plan at the November meeting in order to make recommendations at that time. Motion seconded by Karen Dougherty. II MR. PALING-When do they meet in November, do you know, George? MR. HILTON-The date on this was October 7th. MR. SCHACHNER-The first Monday. MR. PALING-That's the first Monday. Maybe they'll meet the 4th, then. MR. HILTON-Yes, probably the fourth. MR. PALING-All right. So we'll, one way or the other, and you'll go to that meeting. Okay. That'll be part of the motion, also. MR. HILTON-Well, yes, I don't know if the Board's prepared to, at some point, if they're ready to approve this application, approve it with the idea that a revised landscaping plan receive approval from the Beautification Committee before a building permit, and that's one way we could handle this. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. leave it open, I would hearing, and it'll just have no problem there. We should re-open the public hearing and think. Okay. So I'll re-open the public be continued in the next meeting. So we PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. RUEL-I've got a question for you, George. The Beautification committee seems to be taking responsibility for signage? MR. HILTON-Well, they're just indicating that they're not approving it. They do that all the time. MR. PALING-Yes. That's just part of what they do. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-That's out of their jurisdiction though, right? MR. PALING-Yes. - 36 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) MR. RUEL-So this will be tabled. MR. PALING-Yes. Do you want to make a motion? MR. RUEL-Yes. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 68-96 DAVE ABBOTT, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until a special meeting in November, for engineering comments to be addressed and for final approval from the Beautification Committee, and for clarification of the number of buildings allowed, 179-26 Letter A. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. We'll see you, then, at the next meeting we have in November, at the special meeting. MR. HILTON-If you'd just like to, I mean, I will contact you, or you can call me. I should know, tomorrow, when that meeting will be. MR. PALING-Now, the meetings in November, we're going to, and, George, be sure that Pam is aboard on this. The site visits will now be Saturday mornings. November 16th, 9 a.m., site visits, and the regular meetings will be on the third and fourth Tuesday which is the 19th and the 26th, and site visits, Saturday morning, 9 a.m. MR. RUEL-And this special meeting? MR. HILTON-To be determined. MR. PALING-Will be as soon as it can be called. MR. RUEL-And we'll be notified of that. It'll be some time before November 16th then? MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. PALING-I hope so. MR. WEST-What about Indian Ridge? MR. HILTON-Well, we don't know until they submit their application. We're assuming they're coming in for November. We still haven't seen an application though. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Now what would the Board think of, Saturday morning, adding Indian Ridge to the site visit? MR. STARK-When Saturday morning? After the site visit, so you're saying noon time have Indian Ridge? MR. PALING-No, no, I'm saying visit Indian Ridge. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. Visit Indian Ridge Saturday morning, along with - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/22/96) all of our other site visits. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like to do Indian Ridge at another time. MR. STARK-Indian Ridge should be Indian Ridge, period. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, because my daughter's swimming sectionals is that day, and I have got to leave. Well, I suppose it doesn't matter. Whatever everybody wants. MR. PALING-We'll know by then. MR. BREWER-If they put an application in, fine, we'll go do it at a different time, but if not, then we'll wait until the next month, but closer to the application is better with me, I would think. MR. PALING-All right. Meeting adjourned. We'll leave it open, then. All right. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 38 -