Loading...
1996-11-12 SP QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 INDEX Subdivision No. 5-87 FINAL STAGE Cedar Court, Phase II Tax Map Nos. 48-6-36.20, 36.21, 36.22, 36.23 1. Site Plan No. 68-96 Dave Abbott Tax Map No. 93-2-13.2 3. Site Plan No. 30-96 Sprint Spectrum Tax Map No. 93-2-4 8. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-- ~.~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL DAVID WEST TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 FINAL STAGE CEDAR COURT, PHASE II OWNER: LAD ENTERPRISES c/o ROBERT LENT ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF BAY & HAVILAND ROAD IN THE CEDAR COURT SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT PROPOSES FINAL 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 Final Stage, Cedar Court, Phase II, Meeting Date: November 12, 1996 "The applicant is seeking final 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 not 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." MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves. I'm here representing the Michaels Group on Phase II of Cedar Court, the last 10 units, which is in the center of the cul-de-sac, if you will. You said the Rec Fees have to be paid prior to filing of the map? MR. HILTON-No problem. MR. STEVES-I'm not paying them, so I have no problem with that. MR. BREWER-The only comment I had, George, was, didn't we have discussion about the drainage problem, and I think you told me after the meeting it was straightened out, but can we get that on the record, that the drainage problem is straightened out? MR. HILTON-Well, if Leon can speak to that. I assume, and from what I understand in reviewing this with the previous phase, all drainage problems have been addressed, and so that this is just coming in and laying out the lot lines and constructing, and connecting in to existing utilities. MR. BREWER-I know Jim mentioned something about drainage. I don't know the specifics, but I think Jim said that's the reason they came back was because there was something, drainage problems. - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. STEVES-No, this didn't come back because of that. MR. BREWER-No. I MR. STEVES-But drainage came up again this year, because the drainage pattern was being changed, there was an easement to the west, southwest, and it was dug up, and naturally that's the time it would rain, and it did, and it eroded, and the erosion took place and DEC came in and the Town came in and said, hey, stop work, and they did. Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, laid out a plan with erosion control and new drainage pattern in there. They built it, and to my knowledge the Town has accepted it and John Goralski's been over there and has signed off on it, and so has DEC. MR. BREWER-That's fine. I don't know the specifics, like I said, but I know that Jim mentioned something about drainage, and I didn't know what it was all about. MR. RUEL- I have a question for Staff. I notice here that the applicant is conforming to the requirements of 1982 Zoning Ordinance. Under what conditions, if any, do we have an applicant conform to the latest Zoning Ordinances? MR. HILTON-If they were to subdivided the property, under the current Ordinance, they would be subject to this Ordinance. This whole development was begun and planned and the subdivision process started, under the old regulations, and seeing as how this is the final stage, itrs subject to those old regulations. MR. RUEL-So even if it was 10 or 15 years old, we would still adhere to the old ordinances? MR. HILTON-Still adhere to the old ordinance. MR. RUEL-Regardless of whether they've been changed radically? MR. HILTON-Yes. I wouldn't anticipate any radical change, but they would still apply to that. MR. RUEL-It always reverts back to the original? MR. HILTON-Yes. In this situation, yes. MR. RUEL-And it seems to me under certain conditions here, we had an applicant change the radius on roads and cuI de sacs and things like that. MR. HILTON-In this application? MR. RUEL-No, no, others. How does that come about, that we allow a change? MR. HILTON-I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. If they change something, if they re-zone a property? MR. RUEL-No. I don't recall the particular application, but it was one of the phases, and they were about ready to go under construction. We made them change, or someone made them, engineering made them change, radius on the corners of roads and the turn around on cuI de sacs and things like that, because they did not conform to the latest ordinances for that. MR. HILTON-That may have been the Subdivision Regulations. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. MR. HILTON-I'm not really too familiar with which project you're - 2 - ~-' ~~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) speaking of, but my only. MR. MACEWAN-I'm familiar with what you're talking about. That subdivision wasn't approved some time ago. That was new when it came in. Even though it was an addition to an existing subdivision, it wasn't something that had been previously approved. MR. RUEL-I see okay. All right. Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. I'm pretty sure we closed the public hearing on this, but if there's anybody who wishes to speak for or against this project? Okay. Fine. I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 CEDAR COURT, PHASE II, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For ten townhouses. Duly adopted this 12th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. WEST-Do you want the stipulation about the recreation fee? MR. RUEL-Yes. Do should that be a condition? MR. HILTON-Actually, you don't have to include that as a condition. These notes were written before the law was recently changed, and now they just have to pay before each building permit. So you can disregard that. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. STEVES-Thank you. 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, 11/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 93 -1-13.2 LOT SIZE: 2.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 FRANK JELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing on the 22nd of October was tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-Well, first of all, there were a couple of loose ends to tie up on this application from the last time, and I guess we can start with the easiest ones. We were still looking for some comments from Rist-Frost, and you have attached, or given to you a letter, and I will read that. It's dated November 12, 1996, to Mr. Jim Martin, Town of Queensbury Office Building. It says "Dear Mr. Martin: Drawing SP-1, Revision 3 "Site Plan," Drawing S-l, Revision 1, "Septic Design" and "Stormwater Management Report", dated November 7, 1996 for the above referenced project have been resubmitted and reviewed. All of our comments have been satisfactorily addressed. If you have any questions please feel free to call." And we have plans on file, the applicant has - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) submitted, that show these additions, and Staff feels that these comments have been satisfactorily addressed. MR. PALING-Okay, and what else do you have, George?' MR. HILTON-Secondly, we have a Beautification Committee letter. The applicant needed to receive approval from the Beautification Committee and at last night's meeting, November 11th, this was reviewed by the Beautification Committee. The comments say that "Frank Jelley presented the site planting plan and proposed construction of commercial building in rear section of lot. Approximately 50 bushes will be installed and he assured committee the site property existing plantings would not be touched. There will be no sign on the front of the lot. Committee requested a buffer on all boundary lines of 1 feet to be preserved in order to maintain privacy of the property from future development of the surrounding lots. Mrs. Reese made motion to accept as presented, seconded by Mrs. Carpenter." And the letter that I have is signed by Mary Lee Gosline, Chairperson. MR. PALING-What is that one foot, boundary line of one foot? MR. HILTON-That's a little odd. I don't know if that might be a typo. Maybe the applicant who was there last evening can clarify that. MR. PALING-Yes. We can ask that. We'll leave that for a question. MR. HILTON-Okay'. Lastly, what we had was some Planning Board members were seeking a determination from Jim Martin concerning the number of buildings that are proposed to be built on this lot, and you have also a letter from Mr. Martin, and if you'd like, I will read that into the record. MR. PALING-Yes, please. MR. HILTON-Okay. It's dated November 12, 1996. MR. PALING-George, do you want to tell them just what the basic question that this letter answers. I think it might help. MR. HILTON-Okay. There was some concern that because the applicant will have three principal buildings on the lot, that they were limited to one principal building per lot, as outlined in the Ordinance. Staff's position was that it did not, the Ordinance did not limit the number of buildings. It only limited the density that any building or buildings could have, based on the size of the lot. It says, "I am in receipt of your verbal request concerning a zoning determination regarding the number of buildings and density of buildings associated with the above referenced application. It is my understanding that the plan for the above referenced project, if built, will result in six (6) buildings for a total of 10,702 square feet located on a lot of 2.669 acres. Furthermore, the lot is wholly within the Light Industrial - One Acre (LI-1A) zone. The density for LI-1A provision allows for one principal building of up to 12,000 square feet of gross floor area for single story buildings for each acre within the lot. It is my understanding all buildings, either proposed or existing on the lot, are single story buildings. In this specific case principal buildings totaling 32,742 square feet could be built on this lot. This figure takes into account 12,000 square feet of single story buildings for each one acre of property as well as a bonus of 150 square feet of building area for each 500 square feet of additional lot area. The density provision in the code provides for regulation of building size in relationship to the size of the lot. The plan proposed provides just over a third of the allowed gross floor area on this particular lot. The number of buildings is not a factor when considering the density or size of the building(s) - 4 - -- - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) allowed. Therefore, it is my determination that the building plan proposed with this application is in conformance with the density regulations of 179-26A." And that is a determination addressing that issue. MR. RUEL-So we could have any number of buildings as long as it didn't exceed the total square foot area which is about, what, 32,000 for this lot? MR. HILTON-Right, the 12,000 square feet per acre. MR. RUEL-So you could have 30 or 40 buildings, all small buildings, it's conceivable, right? MR. HILTON-If you could make them that small, yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Why do they use the word "one" is what I don't understand, one principal building. MR. HILTON-Because that's the way it reads directly in the Ordinance. It says one principal building of 12,000 square feet per acre. What you're saying is you can have, that's a density. that's a relationship of the amount of square feet per building applied over the entire lot. That doesn't necessarily limit it to say that you can only have one for the entire piece of property. MR. RUEL-But why do they say one? MR. WEST-Well, they say one principal. MR. BREWER-A principal building up to that square footage. That's the way it strikes me. MR. HILTON-Well, the determination has been read, and it's a density factor that we have used in other applications, in other plans in the past. MR. PALING-Jim researched that pretty good. That's Jim's letter that he wrote. I'm comfortable with it. If somebody did want to put 50 buildings on a lot, I don't think I'd be comfortable with it, but this kind of thing, I don't see any problem. Okay. MR. HILTON-That addresses everything that we have. As I said, we had plans that satisfactorily addressed the Beautification and Engineering comments, and if you have any questions. MR. RUEL-Except for that one foot, whatever it is. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. JELLEY-Yes. My name is Frank Jelley. I'm representing Dave Abbott tonight, he couldn't be here, and the question about the one foot, I'm not really sure. They never specified a distance for me last night, but what they were referencing is for the existing tree line to be maintained, and no trees are going to be removed from the property. MR. PALING-Okay. No trees are going to be removed, and that does have a one in it, doesn't it, when they quote that? MR. HILTON-We can certainly check that, and if the Board wishes to make a motion to approve this, we can just double check with Mary Lee, the Beautification Chairperson, and make sure that she has. MR. PALING- It's in accordance approval, and it will be okay. with Beautification Committee's Yes, because I think there is a - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) typo there. It looks like there's a space left there. All right. Tim, any comments? Dave? Roger? Craig? George? Okay. This was unlisted, but the SEQRA has been done. MR. HILTON-This is actually, I believe we had it listed as a Type II. MR. PALING-Right, and the public hearing is still open. MR. HILTON-No, pardon me. This is an Unlisted Action and we have a short form attached. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we'll have to do a SEQRA. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right, then we'll go to the, did you have any comments of the applicant or us before we go to a public hearing? MR. JELLEY-No. MR. PALING-All right. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, if there's anyone that cares to speak, for or against. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we can do a Short Form on this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 68-96, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: DAVE ABBOTT, and WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no - 6 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 12th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Would you like a motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-96 DAVE ABBOTT, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To build a 5,940 square foot commercial building in the rear yard, also add a 1,686 square foot addition to the existing garage, with the condition that the Beautification Committee comments be met. Duly adopted this 12th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Before we start this one, I'd like to address a question to the Board. Does anyone want to take a few minutes? There's quite a bit of this information that was received today on the application we're about to take. Does anyone want to take a 10 or 15 minute break and do a little reading? MR. RUEL-Can I comment on the information that 1 received today? I don't see that it has any bearing on the modification to this application. MR. PALING-Okay. That may be. MR. RUEL-Because all that information is the type of information that should the time that the application was modification to move the tower. information is relevant. is basic information, which have been made available at okayed. This is only a I don't think that this MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, don't you think it pertains to the site plan as a whole? If it pertains to the site plan as a whole, shouldn't we consider it, or not? MR. PALING-We can't ignore anything. All I'm asking is, do you want a few minutes to read it? That's my only question. MR. MACEWAN-I haven't had a chance to read it. ! got this at three o'clock this afternoon. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets take ten minutes and go ahead and read it. MR. HILTON-Okay. !' d just to let the Board know that we only - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) recei ved this information today, too, and so, you know, my apologies. MR. MACEWAN-I'll be honest with you, I'll go on record right now, ten minutes isn't going to be enough for me to go through this. MR. PALING-Well, lets see how long it takes. MR. STARK-Who provided the information? MR. HILTON-We had various public comment. We had some information come in from the applicant. We had responses back and forth all day. I believe the applicant's representative would like to just address you for two minutes before you take your break, if you'd allow that. MR. PALING-All right. I'll tell you what. Lets open this case, Cathy, lets open it. Let the applicant say something, and then we can still go to a break. Go ahead, why don't you open this. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 30-96 TYPE: UNLISTED SPRINT SPECTRUM OWNERS: WILLIAM & CATHERINE EHLERT ZONE: LI -lA LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF LUZERNE ROAD AND I-a7 MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN PROPOSAL IS 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. MODIFICATION IS FOR ANTENNA AND CABINETS TO BE MOVED TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE SITE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-4 LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JOHN KAHULIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing on June 25th, and there is one this evening. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself please. MR. KAHULIK-Sure. My name is John Kahulik. I'm with the law firm of Crane, Kelly, Green, and Perrente, Albany, New York. I represent Sprint Spectrum, L.P. in regard to this application. MR. PALING-Okay. You've heard us say we might want to take a ten or fifteen minute break, but you'd like to comment prior to that? MR. KAHULIK-I would. In fact, I'd like to provide the Board with some additional materials, unfortunately, and actually materials which will replace a portion of the materials you probably have in your possession. As you know, at our last meeting, there were certain objections raised to the proposed site of the tower. Late today, unfortunately late today, but we did achieve some agreement as to a possible location and a more proper location for the tower which will alleviate the objections that went on record at the last meeting. We have reduced that proposal down to a site plan, and we have all the additional materials that the Board had requested at the last meeting. We'd like to share with the Board the proposed site plan showing the new proposed location of the tower, and I believe, and I don't mean to put words into Mr. Drellos' mouth or his counsel, but I believe that the current site and the new proposed site this evening will alleviate any of the concerns that he had raised during the last meeting. MR. PALING-Okay. think we need to going to explain difference. I think if we were to take time to read, I don't look at all the prints, because I think they're them quite well. Okay. Well, that does make a - 8 - --" '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. KAHULIK-We realize that the Board would want as much time as possible, prior to making a decision on this matter. However, if I could stress that, you know, we have been quite patient. We've tried to provide this Board with all the information that's requested, and we do have our own time constraints, and we'd appreciate if the Board could consider the matter this evening. MR. PALING-All right. I guess the question I have, if I can interject this, does this effect the exchange of correspondence between Mike O'Connor and Jim Martin? It does, then would you both agree that we should not take a break and just move right into the meeting, and ask for full explanation, rather than stop? MR. STARK-I'd like to take a couple of seconds to look over the new material, rather than just get right to it. MR. PALING-All right, but I think, okay, the new IDllt@riäl we juøt got? All right. Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a couple of questions. MR. STARK-Save it until after we look at the stuff, Roger. MR. PALING-Well, I'll tell you what. Lets go to George, so we can get to the point where we properly get this new information. Go ahead, Roger. MR. RUEL-Well, I was just wondering, what was approved at the first application versus what we are looking at now? Is what we're looking at now strictly a modification for taking an approved site and just moving it? MR. HILTON-Yes, exactly. MR. RUEL-AlI right. I want to get that clear. I wasn't here at the time that the approval was given for the first site, but the first site was a definite approval for the tower, everything that goes with it? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Then why do we have all this correspondence now? All this correspondence has nothing to do with the modification. MR. HILTON-There have been some concerns with the placement of the tower at this location. There was a disputed boundary line between the owner of property to the north and the owner of the property that this site will be located on. MR. RUEL-Right. I understand that. MR. HILTON-In the course of that, and as that's taken place, there have been, you know, concerns have been given to us from Mr. Drellos and from some surrounding property owners because this was advertised for a public hearing this evening. MR. RUEL-But I don't see where a dozen pages on electromagnetic radiation has to do with the movement of a tower. MR. PALING-That doesn't matter now, though, because this is a different site plan that we're reviewing. The fact they moved the tower 12 feet or not doesn't matter. We're looking at a newly modified site plan, and I think we should go at it. MR. RUEL-This is a new site plan? MR. PALING-This is a new site plan. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. HILTON-Well, I would disagree. We have an existing approval for a site plan. MR. RUEL-You can't discount the first approval, can you? MR. HILTON-No, certainly, that's what I'm trying to say. We have an existing approval for a site plan, and what the applicant is seeking is a slight modification by moving it 12 feet to the south. To tell you the truth, I haven't seen these new plans, and if you'd like to have those distributed, we can. MR. MACEWAN-I don' t mean to split hairs here, but the first approval of the site plan was given on someone else's property, then this would be, to me, a new application because you can't modify something that, to me, we couldn't approve to begin with. MR. STARK-Well, an example of why I think what he said was wrong is that a lot of times people come in for a modification of a lot line, okay, and what are they doing? They're just changing a lot line. That's a modification. It's not significant or anything. I don't see where this is any different. So they moved from here, 50 feet to the south to 100 feet, you know, you're modifying the lot line, the location. I don't think it's a brand new application. MR. PALING-No. modifying the correctly. They're not modifying the lot line. They're location of the tower, if I understand them MR. KAHULIK-Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful to distribute the materials, and I think we can walk you through and show you exactly what's been changed and what's the same. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. MR. KAHULIK-I think these will replace what you have. MR. HILTON-And, Craig, I think that the applicant may be able to answer your concerns that it was placed on someone else's property to begin with. MR. KAHULIK-Yes. We don't believe it was originally placed on another person's property, but we are here tonight to address some of the concerns raised, and I think that the proposal in front of you satisfies those concerns. MR. PALING-All right. Why don't you run us through it, then. MR. HILTON-Would you like to take a break? MR. PALING-Well, no. I thought we decided to go, because this is all new information. Lets let the applicant run us through it, and if we still break, we'll take a break. MR. BREWER-Now, Bob, now, to me, now that we've got this and they're moving it now 150 feet, to me, that's a whole new site plan. MR. RUEL-Well, is it or isn't it? MR. BREWER-I'm sorry, but to me it is. MR. STARK-Bob, poll the Board and see if it's a new site plan. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. Now lets say it is a new site plan. It's a modification. This was advertised as a modification. Why do you think it's a new site plan, Tim? - 10 - -~ _.--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. BREWER-Well, because it's completely different. I mean, it was back in the corner, in an area where three surrounded it, and now you're moving it back toward the other buildings on the property. To me, it's completely different. MR. RUEL-But is everything else the same? MR. BREWER-I don't, I haven't looked at it yet, Roger. MR. KAHULIK-Everything else is substantially the same, other than the actual physical location on the property. MR. PALING-Lets let the applicant run us through it, in total, and lets see what it looks like. Then we'll come back and address the question, okay. MR. BREWER-It was 100 by 104. Now it's 70 by 100. MR. RUEL-Have you got the old ones there? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. The floor is yours. You might note the differences as you're going along, what it was and what it is now. TONY STELLATO MR. STELLATO-Okay. I'm Tony Stellato from Clough Harbour and Associates. We're the engineers for Sprint Spectrum L. P . The plans that I just handed out show the new monopole location, as Mr. Drellos had requested, more than 150 feet from his property line. Now if you recall, he had the old plans in front of you where we had the original monopole location, 30 feet from the northwest corner of the property. We've now added a setback line to the property that is basically 150 feet from the Drellos line, from the southerly Drellos line. We will have no improvements on the north side of that 150 foot setback line. Now, our proposed facility layout is essentially the same as on the original plan, save for the new location. We still have a 150 foot high monopole, with some equipment located next to it, and a fenced area measuring 21 feet by 26 feet. None of that has changed. MR. PALING-Well, you had 10,000 square feet before. MR. STELLATO-We've modified the lease area somewhat, and the reason for that was because Mr. Ehlert has some concern about his ability to maneuver and to turn trucks around on his property, and so we've scrunched our lease area as narrow as possible, to allow him the maximum amount of room possible, so that he can get his trucks turned around. It doesn't really work as well as we would like from that standpoint, but we feel by narrowing it down everybody's needs are met. So we can't have the 10,000 square feet and we really don't need it. Prior to this plan, we had a substantial amount of landscaping in and around, in that 10,000 square foot area. We feel that that's no longer appropriate, given that this location is at the middle of the site, and we're really not trying to now extend that wood line down. So what we've proposed is an arborvitae hedge around the fence line, and that's shown on Page Three, to screen the base of the facility and the base of the tower. Any more planting in this location would, again, would create a use of the space that would be inconsistent with Mr. Ehlert's needs, to maneuver his equipment. We really need to keep it thin here. Okay. MR. RUEL-What are you screening? MR. STELLATO-Well, we have a fence. We have a fence that's 21 feet by 26 feet, and everything that we propose, our monopole and our - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) equipment cabinets, are inside that fence. MR. RUEL-Yes. How tall are these cabinets? MR. STELLATO-They're lower than the fence. The fence is eight feet high, and the cabinets are about 60 inches high. Okay. They're not unattractive. However, we feel that in screening them, it's just going to make the whole proj ect more appealing, from a distance. MR. RUEL-You can't screen the tower, so what's the difference? MR. STELLATO-We couldn't screen the tower in its original location either. By design, the tower needs to extend above the top of the trees. MR. RUEL-So these cabinets are, what, six, eight feet high, something like that? MR. STELLATO-About five, six feet high. MR. RUEL-Metal cabinets? MR. STELLATO-Yes. MR. RUEL-On a concrete slab? MR. STELLATO-Yes. MR. WEST-What about that grounding ring that you had to bury? Would that extend into the 100 foot setback area? MR. STELLATO-Yes, it will, but it will be all underground, and again, that area is really Mr. Ehlert's property. So we will pretty much fill up our lease area with that ground ring, and because we'll be in that gravel area, we're going to make sure that nothing sticks up that would be an obstruction to the trucks maneuvering. MR. RUEL-It's buried though? MR. STELLATO-It will be buried, yes. MR. RUEL-The fence is the same height? MR. STELLATO-Exactly the same, the same dimensions, the same height. MR. RUEL-The lease area was 100 by 100? MR. STELLATO-Originally 100 by 100. Now we've narrowed it 30 feet to make it 100 by 70. MR. PALING-That does change things a bit. George, do you have any comments on this, at this point, I think is appropriate. MR. HILTON-The fact that the applicant has submitted these plans, I think it still can be called a site plan modification. I don't know if you could necessarily call it a new site plan or a new application. I think it's on the same piece of property. If this were to be re-notified, the same number and the same people would be notified that were notified for this evening's meeting. Now, if the Board feels that it's a big enough modification to warrant further review or further notification, that's a decision you will have to make, but in my opinion, it's not a new site plan. MR. PALING-Well, the original modification was just to move the tower within the same 10,000 square foot, and this just moves the - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) tower more, and it has a lesser square footage area. I don't see where that has any, at this point in the conversation, I don't see where that has any major impact, and my suggestion is to go with this as a modification, rather than asking the applicant to start the whole process again. I'm not approving anything or suggesting approval. I'm only saying I think we can work on it as a modified site plan. MR. MACEWAN-I'm teetering right now. MR. PALING-Okay. George? Cathy? Dave? Tim, are you okay with that? MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know. I've got an awful lot of stuff. I'd just like to look through it. MR. PALING-Well, it may not be relevant if we take the new route, and I'm waiting to hear from other than the applicant before 1 make any decision. Why don't we just decide if we can proceed with what's submitted. Are you okay with this, Roger? MR. RUEL-Well, you're looking for an answer as to whether it's a new site application or whether it's a modification to an existing approval? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-To me, it's a modification to an existing approval. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we're in concurrence there, for the most part. Do you have further to add? I think we can go right to the public hearing. MR. KAHULIK-The only thing I would add, to bolster our position that it is a modification is that, you know, all the modification we're proposing is to accommodate a request of an adjoining land owner. These are not modifications that we are on our own, that we on our own concocted. This is something to accommodate other concerns with the use that is proposed, being a tower. MR. PALING-All right, then. We'll go ahead and- open the public hearing on this matter. Who cares to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I always speak, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here this evening to represent George Drellos who is an adjoining owner. I think at your last meeting, my partner David Little was here speaking on behalf of Mr. Drellos. The attorney for the applicant asked us before if they moved everything to the south by 150 feet, would that answer all of the concerns of Mr. Drellos, and Mr. Drellos' answer is yes, but I'm not sure if I understand that you're moving everything to the south, because, well, you're changing your landscaping plan and what not. So we ought to have a little bit of discussion about that. I would think that there still would be some concerns, and if you had what was last month's latest application, and you moved that simply 150 feet to the south, our answer is yes. I don't know whether or not we're willing to give up the landscaping. I think Mr. Drellos takes a unique position that sometimes you don't see of people who live next door to something that's being proposed. He recognizes that they have rights to go forward. He just wants to be sure that his property value is not effected to the extent that he thinks it might be effected. We have a letter in the file. I'm not sure we filed it with the Town. We had somebody here, a - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) realtor, that was prepared to testify that if it was in the prior position, that it would have a detrimental effect upon his property. So I don't know if the applicant understands that or understood that distinction. I know we would want to have the same landscaping. MR. PALING-So landscaping is your primary concern. MR. O'CONNOR-At this point, if they put the landscaping in that they had on the prior showing, Mr. Drellos is perfectly satisfied, or not perfectly satisfied. He'd rather have them go some place else in the Town. He is reluctantly satisfied and would indicate that on the record. MR. BREWER-Mike, being that the fenced in area is smaller, it would just seem reasonable to reduce some of the landscaping, rather than have everything that they had on the 100 by 100, versus the 70 by 100? MR. O'CONNOR-I've only looked at this quickly, as you have, okay. The fenced in area, I don't know if that is actually smaller. I think what they don't show is the drive area, and the turn around area that they had on the prior plan. MR. BREWER-Well, they're leasing 70 by 100 in the new plan. MR. O'CONNOR-But they still indicate that they have some type of easement and drive to it. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what I'm saying, on the new plan there's 70 by 100. On the old plan it's 100 by 100. So it's smaller. MR. O'CONNOR-The leased area is, but if I read the testimony of the minutes of the last meeting, outside the leased area, they have an indefinite easement for ingress and egress, for servicing and doing their readings, or doing their calibrations or adjustments, whatever they do, and they showed that on this prior plot plan, where they would drive, at least, and turn around to the tower. They don't show that in this area here. I'm presuming they're still going to have to clear the same area for that type. MR. BREWER-It appears that they're probably going right through Arrowhead's parking lot, aren't they, and that's all open. They won't have to clear anything, because it's clear. MR. PALING-All right. We're going to have to get that clarified, and you realize that there is an arborvitae hedge around, they're proposing an arborvitae hedge? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I just heard that. MR. PALING-Okay, but there is no turn around area on the new versus the, I see what you're saying, the old. Okay. We can get that commented on. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-And let me restrict my comments to the planting that was shown on the north side of the improvements. That's what we'd like to see preserved. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-What's on the east side of it is not our concern. MR. STARK-Could you get together with Mr. Drellos and indicate, on the new plan, draw a circle of what you want, you know, like a circle for a tree here and a tree here, and we'll even take, you know, take a few minutes to do that, and give it back to the applicant then maybe and us. - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. O'CONNOR-I'd be very happy to do that. MR. STARK-You know what I'm talking about? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who would just care to address this matter? DAVID KELLY MR. KELLY-My name's David Kelly. I live on Maine Ave., okay. I was here at the last meeting also and had a lot of questions. If they're going to move it now, where are we talking south? We're talking 150 feet south, is that where we're talking? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. KELLY-So you're moving it toward Arrowhead? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. KELLY-So now it's going to take care of this man's property here, and his value isn't going to go down, but everybody else on the other side, here we go again, now our value of the property is going to go down. This is going to take the value of the property down. Look at all the towers we have in the area already. It's getting kind of ridiculous. MR. PALING-Where is your property? MR. KELLY-Maine Ave. It's on the other side of Luzerne Road. MR. PALING-Okay, on the other side, and the distance left, now, from here to Luzerne Road is how much? That's a pretty deep lot, 608 feet deep I think I'm reading, and that's probably moved up there 200 feet. So there's still 400 feet from Luzerne Road, just roughly. MR. KELLY-You're appeasing one and not appeasing the other, with any move, because like I said, the original agreement was where it was, and even though I disagree with that, at the end of the meeting when I talked to the man, I didn't have any problem with it. Now you're going to move it closer. That's just not right. That isn't right. MR. PALING-All right. You have a tower that's, lets say, roughly 400 feet from the road, another 50 feet from the road, 450. That puts it 450 feet at least from your property. MR. ~ELLY-Look at it, though. It's like I said, look at the towers when you come off of Exit 18 as it is right now. You're putting one more in there to make the view even worse than it already it is. Because no matter what anybody says, when you look at that, those towers do not look good where they are, period, and it's going to affect everybody's value in that area. It always does. You've already lost one neighbor because of it. The last meeting somebody else was here with me. She's already planning on moving because of it. MRS. LABOMBARD-David, you say you live on the other side of Luzerne Road. MR. KELLY-Yes, on Maine Ave. MRS. LABOMBARD-The property is almost 550 feet deep, you're aware of that? Obviously, you live right across the road. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. KELLY-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, if you just take a look at this scaled drawing here, moving it 150 feet from where the proposed, the original proposed place was where they were going to have it, doesn't even bring it down to halfway to the middle of the property. MR. KELLY-What I'm saying is you're appeasing one person, okay, by moving it the amount you're going to move it now, because he's claiming that his value of his property is going to down, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-But what I'm saying is, if you have almost 400 feet. MR. KELLY-But you're still bringing it closer. This is what I'm saying. MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly, but the intensity of 400 feet, plus a road, isn't like what is was before, where it was almost on the other man's property line. It was right in the corner. So, I mean, it's not as if we've moved it from one corner all the way down to the opposite corner on the other end of the plot. MR. KELLY-I understand what you're saying. MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, what I'm saying is, it's not going from here down to here. It's just going from here down to here. MR. KELLY-It's still a lot. You're asking a lot. You're asking a lot for all thõse residents in the area. Like I say, you've already lost one. There's a couple of other people already talking about moving because the tower is going up, period, right where it was going up, and I even tried talking to some of those people and saying, hey, listen, I talked to the guy, here's the deal, and I tried to explain and everything. If that's what you want, fine. Go ahead and do it, but I'm just letting you know, you're going to lose people over this, the more towers that keep coming into this area. Because you come off Exit 18 right now, there's nobody that can tell me that Exit 18 looks nice right now, with all those towers that are already up there. You're going to add one more. It's just going to make it look worse. People come in, the first thing that you see when you come in to Exit 18 is all those towers. You come in to other towns and you see the same thing. It looks bad. It just doesn't look right. MR. RUEL-How many towers do you see off of Exit 18? MR. KELLY-All those ones off of, what's that road, Big Bay Road, or is it Big Boom? I get mixed up with those two roads. Big Bay Road. MR. RUEL-I thought it was only one there. Two? MR. BREWER-Two. MR. KELLY-I thought there was two there. MR. RUEL-Two, and this would be the third. MR. KELLY-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, another thing you have to realize is that this is zoned Light Industrial, and this whole tower issue is going to be addressed in the future. So what the applicant is proposing right now is not illegal. MR. KELLY-I'm not saying it's illegal. What I'm saying is I have a problem with the move, I guess is what I'm trying to tell you. If you left it where it was, basically, after the meeting when I - 16 - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) talked to these gentlemen, they were very nice about it, explained it to me. I didn't have a problem with it. I understood what they were saying and I agreed with it. Now that you're going to move it closer to the property. I mean, anybody, I don't care who it is, anybody that would, if they had come here, would have said the same thing, but you've already lost people. Like I said, my neighbor was here the last time. We were both here together, and she wouldn't even come this time because she said the bottom line is they're going to do what they want to do anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-But there's a lot of other things on that property that I wouldn't actually say are very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. MR. KELLY-Such as? MR. RUEL-Northway trucking companies. MRS. LABOMBARD-Old cars. MR. KELLY-I've been trying to address that problem, too, to no avail. MR. RUEL-It's an industrial area. MR. BREWER-So what you're saying is because it's not appealing to you now, go ahead and put something else in there instead? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I'm not saying that, but what I'm saying is, there's other things that are unfavorable on the property, too, that he hasn't addressed, and this one we're trying to. MR. KELLY-The trucking firm is actually, from what it was before with the sewer place, is actually cleaned up. It actually doesn't look as bad as it used to, because at least the building is painted up. It looks nice. I mean, granted there's a lot of vehicles there, but they're repairing the vehicles. They're not working past hours keeping people awake all times of the night and stuff. MR. RUEL-Sir, I have a question for you. understanding after that last meeting? What was your MR. KELLY-That basically, I was worried about how it's going to affect t.V.'s and stuff and the values of the property, and they said it's probably far enough away from your property. It's not going to affect the value. I had a little problem with that, but when I went and looked where the site was going to be, it probably was, okay. They said the radio waves and everything were not going to interfere, well, somewhere down the road it's going to interfere with something, I know this. It's like everything else. There's always something that's going to be put up there. Maybe now it doesn't, but somewhere along the line, we're going to have the technology where it's going to interfere with something, but for now I have to live with it, okay, because it's not going to interfere with anything, and basically what they did is they put my feelings at ease of where I was thinking and how I was going. MR. RUEL-This is where the tower was originally located? MR. KELLY-Exactly. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now they're moving it 150 feet. MR. KELLY-Closer. MR. RUEL-Yes, and that's your concern. MR. KELLY-Yes, because now, if something does happen somewhere down - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) the road, it's closer now. Now it's going to effect me more. You know how technology is. Sometimes, you might put something up today, and we're not going to know anything about it. Look at all the power lines that people are complaining about, okay. The same thing. We didn' t know about it then. Somewhere down the road, all of a sudden everybody finds this out. Who's to say that this isn' t going to be the same thing? MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would care to talk? MR. O'CONNOR-Just on that one comment. Maybe the last speaker doesn't understand. The main concern of Mr. Drellos, in getting the tower moved, was the feeling and the perception of somebody if they built on his lot, having a tower this tall immediately adjacent to the property line, that it might be actually something that might fall on them under some circumstance, and that was part of the letter that we had from the realtor. Moving it back 150 feet from our property line accommodates that concern. It really doesn't affect the visibility of it that much. It's still going to be almost as visible. Sometimes even when you get things back a little bit further away from you, as opposed to close to you, they become more visible, if you get into real perception, you get a better site view of everything, if you actually did some sight distances and what not. So the main concern wasn't to try to push it on somebody else for the aesthetics of it, but was simply to get it away from the property line so that you wouldn't have a fear that it might fall over on you. MR. MACEWAN-Where did I come up with the idea that it was actually on his property? MR. PALING-That was just a property line disagreement. MR. O'CONNOR-I think, at one time or another, all the plot plans, and I've only read a couple of the minutes or most of the minutes, the plot plans have always shown it to be on the Ehlert parcel. When they went out and staked it out, they actually staked it out on the Drellos property. The plot plans were probably correct, except for the 10 foot confusion on the common boundary line, but they staked it out on the Drellos property. They probably did their visuals. They did their sight distances, when they had their balloons up on the Drellos property, and actually were getting ready to dig foundation, as I understand it, on the Drellos property at one time or another, and then realized that they were off. MR. PALING-Okay. Now is there anyone else who would care to speak on this matter? MR. HILTON-I have some comment. First of all, I have a few letters here that were submitted for tonight's public hearing. The first one is from Mary Savage, address 139 Luzerne Road. The letter reads "Dear Mr. Martin: This letter is to strongly protest the application of Sprint Spectrum to construct a 150 foot high communications antenna and placement of up to five radio equipment cabinets on Luzerne Road at the northwest corner of intersection of Luzerne Road and Interstate 87. Thank you for your notification of this matter. Yours truly, Mary Savage" Secondly, we have a letter from a Mrs. Chris Drellos, from Port Orange, Florida. It says, Mr. James Martin "Dear Mr. Martin: In response to the letter from the Queensbury Planning Board regarding the hearing of William and Catherine Ehlert, I am property owner in vicinity and I have no objection of the proposal to construct said antenna tower. Sincerely, Mrs. Chris Drellos" Thirdly, we have a letter. It's a record of a telephone conversation, held today at 11: 30 a. m. between Pam Whiting and Cynthia Rider, I believe the name is. The subject is Sprint Spectrum. It says that "She is unable to attend tonight's meeting. She is vehemently opposed to the tower for - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) health reasons. Her mother-in-law lives in the house and has been treated for cancer. She has been receiving radiation treatments and has received the life time limit of radiation, and would be in danger is exposed to anymore." And that's the extent of the public comment that we have. MR. PALING-Now that's the record of a telephone conversation. There's no medical doctor verification of that? MR. HILTON-No, there's no medical. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Does the applicant want to say something before we take a break? MR. KAHULIK-Yes. raised. I would like to address a few of the points MR. PALING-All right. Fine. MR. KAHULIK-And again, this may be slightly redundant, but I think I need to submit and agree with Mr. O'Connor, that we have agreed to modify the position of the tower within the Ehlert property, as an accommodation to the safety type concerns raised by Mr. Drellos, in the event that he did develop his property, which is a residential use within an industrial area, light industrial area. MR. PALING-A residential use? You mean, that's light industrial. MR. KAHULIK-Light Industrial. I'm sorry. In the event that he were to develop that, our tower would, in the highly unlikelihood that our tower were to fall over in that direction, it would not fall over across the property line. That's where that accommodation came from, and it was not in regard to any devaluation of his property. In fact, we have reports to submit to the Board if the Board would like to look through it, which would indicate that there would be no effect on the property value, with the sighting of this antenna at this location. MR. PALING-All right. We have enough reading material. Just leave it here. MR. KAHULIK-Understood, but that is the message within those reports. In regard to the proposed landscaping, we are trying to accommodate Mr. Drellos' concerns in backing that site up. The present location was not available yesterday to us. We went back to our landlord, spoke to him about the possibility of re-locating the position of the tower to the site which is in front of you. Originally, again, this was not available to us. He utilizes a portion of this property currently. We have agreed to minimize our lease area in going there, and that's why the landscaping is somewhat smaller than what we had proposed at the last meeting. However, there is a hedge landscape proposed to shield the view of the equipment cabinets in the base of the tower and the fencing. Tony Stellato from Clough Harbour would like to address the issue of the turn around area that the Board had some questions about. I MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STELLATO-What I'd like to say is that, in moving this site, to accommodate Mr. Drellos' concerns, it raised some concerns from the landlord, namely the area that we're putting this facility in now is an area that he's currently using and he's concerned about the loss of maneuverability on his property. As you know, he's got a truck center and he works on trucks, and needs to be able to turn them around, and we're taking a prime piece of his property away. Now, we can do it, but we need the Board and we need Mr. Drellos to work with us on this. I mean, we've gone a long way in accommodating what he's asked us for, and we've done what we think - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) we can do in terms of landscaping, but we need to be able to work with Mr. Ehlert in letting him get his trucks through there, and I think we need to allow him some room around the outside of our fence so that he can turn around without too much of a problem there. Now, during the break we'll talk to Mr. Drellos and his attorney and see what they have in mind for additional landscaping. We'll see if we can accommodate it. I just want you to understand that we're not trying to be stingy. We're trying to make this work in a location that isn't the best, from the perspective of the landlord. I also just want to add, those reports that I brought up to the desk, those are property valuation reports. They're from American Property Counselors. Harvey Cohen is a member of the Appraisal Institute. He's highly regarded, and he's done a lot of work for Sprint Spectrum. He's done a lot of work in this field in determining what, if any, impact there would be on property values due to the construction of cellular type towers and monopoles. The report concludes that there is no impact on property values due to the construction of these types towers, that this is not an issue that affects the purchase price of a property. There are some case studies in the report. You can take a look at it. I apologize, we only have two copies, but the long and the short of it is that there is, based on a comparative value assessment, there is nothing to indicate that property is any less saleable or at any lower price because of the proximity of a tower or a monopole. MR. RUEL-I have some questions. MR. PALING-Yes. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-How do you propose to bring the power to the site? MR. STELLATO-The same way we did before. It'll come underground, basically follow the same route, and we'll just stop it short. MR. RUEL-It comes from Luzerne Road? MR. STELLATO-It will come from Luzerne Road, yes. MR. RUEL-It goes through the property of the trucking company? MR. STELLATO-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Will you have any emergency stand by power generation equipment? MR. STELLATO-There will be a plug that we could bring a generator in. MR. RUEL-Is the generator there? MR. STELLATO-No, not at this time. It's not planned with the facility. I don't know if later on that they would want to make a permanent generator part of the equipment within the fenced area. MR. RUEL-Because I'm concerned about the noise level on a generator. MR. STELLATO-Generators that these types of facilities use, I'm familiar with this, and I know that one of the other carriers added a generator to their facility in this Town about a year and a half ago, one of the ones at Exit 18, and we actually worked on that project. The generators that these types of projects use are very advanced. They're self contained. They're locate within cabinets. They have mufflers that essentially will keep the noise emissions below that of a diesel engine. It wouldn't be any noisier than any of the trucks that might be maneuvering around the property. MR. RUEL-Are you going to use solar cells? - 20 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. STELLATO-No. I'm sure it's possible, but no, I'm not aware of any wireless carriers wanting solar back up. MR. RUEL-Okay. One last question, hypothetical one. Would you or could you consider, in the future, leasing out part of your tower to other utilities or companies? MR. STELLATO-Yes, and Larry Callendar is here, if he'd like to add to this. MR. PALING-Well, lets be careful that we're sticking to the subject. I have that same question, out of curiosity, but I don't want it to muddy up the meeting. Maybe you can even comment after the meeting about that. MR. STELLATO-Yes. I can answer you very simply that it's Sprint's policy to allow that, to ellcoul'age it and to work with the Town if they have somebody that comes to the Town and that wants a site in that location, and they will work with you. MR. RUEL- I'm just thinking in terms of keeping the number of towers down to a minimum. MR. PALING-Yes, but that's not our concern, and I really don't think we should get into that area, Roger. MR. RUEL-Well, we've gotten into many other areas that have had nothing to do with the modification. MR. PALING-Let the Town Board handle that, I believe, is right. MR. STELLATO-Rest assured that Sprint is a proponent of co-location and we'll work with you on that. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. All right. Lets take a ten minute break. Okay. Site visits are this Saturday morning at nine o'clock. MR, BREWER-I thought they were last Saturday? MR. PALING-Well, we did both. MRS. LABOMBARD-You had them last Saturday? MR. PALING-Sure we did. We had one during the week, too. MRS. LABOMBARD-I got a thing that said site visits, wait a minute, I am so upset. First, I was all ready to go, and then something came on Friday, and it said Site Visits, and it was underlined next Saturday. MR. PALING-That was an error. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, site visits Saturday. Okay. We don't know about Indian Ridge. Now the regular meetings in December, now listen up, are the 17th; and if necessary, the 19th, all right. MR. RUEL-When will we know that, on the 16th? MR. PALING-The 17th, which is the regular day, and if a second meeting will be held, it'll be the following Thursday, the 19th. MR. RUEL-How about site in December? MR. PALING-Yes. Site Visits would then be the, in December the site visits would be the 14th, nine a.m. on the 14th of December. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. RUEL-Okay. So it's 14, 17 or 14, 19. MR. PALING-Well, 14 and 17 are firm. The 19 is if we need a second meeting. Otherwise, we'll only go with one for the month. MR. RUEL-When's the election of the officers? MR. PALING-The election of the officers is 11/26. MR. WEST-How is that done? MR. PALING-Nomination. MR. RUEL-Is that one of our dates? MR. PALING-Yes. That's the second meeting of November. MR. MACEWAN-We have one the 19th, too, right? MR. PALING-That's right, the 19th and 26th. The election of officers is the 26th. The other change that we made was the officers won't take over until the first of the year. MR. RUEL-Right, and when are you leaving? MR. STARK-January 5th. MR. RUEL-You'll be gone, what, a month? MR. STARK-I'll be back February 3rd. MR. PALING-Okay. May we re-open the meeting. The meeting is re- opened. Why don't you tell us what's going on. MR. STELLATO-We had a nice discussion with Mr. Drellos and his attorney. What we've agreed to is to re-plant a portion of the landscaping shown on the old site plan. There really is no way we can practically get it all in there. So we are going to plant an area on the north side of our proposed fence that would be between our project and Mr. Drellos' property. We're going to put a minimum of seventeen trees in. MR. PALING-Do you know what kind of trees they're going to be? MR. STELLATO-Yes, I do, they're going to be, and this will be in addition to the arborvitae. We're still going to provide the arborvitae hedge that we show on the plan, okay. In addition to that, we'll add a minimum of 17 coniferous trees. There'll be a mix of White Pines, Blue Spruce and Austrian Pine. Our thinking right now is that we'd like to put the White Pines closest to the fence. They'll grow quickly, tall. However, they'll lose fullness over time. So that then beyond that, between the fence and Mr. Drellos' property, we're going to mix in aömê Austrian PineB and a few of the Blue Spruces for diversity, and they will give us some fullness there. The area that we're going to plant will measure, and I'm going to give you approximate numbers, and what we would propose to do is that, if the Board would approve this tonight and make this a condition of the approval, we would like to actually, instead of trying to put it on a plan, stake the locations of the tree and the field, for the Board to review before they're planted. We can't do any planting this fall. It's too late in the year to do any planting. So we'll do the planting in the spring, and we would like to stake those locations. The area will be approximately 41 feet from east to west, 20 feet from north to south, and it will extend a minimum of 15 feet to the west of our fence line, and a minimum of five feet to the east of our fence line, and we can adjust the 17 trees in that location in the field. - 22 - ,~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) MR. PALING-A minimum of 15 feet east did you say? MR. STELLATO-Yes. Do you want me to do it allover again? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STELLATO-It's going to be a minimum of 17 trees in an area not less than 41 feet, east to west, and not less than 20 feet north to south. Okay. The east to west dimension, the long dimension will extend not less than 15 feet to the west of the westerly most fence, okay, and then the other, the easterly limits will extend not less than five feet to the east of the front of our fence, or the east side of our fence. MR. PALING-Not less than five feet to the east? MR. STELLATO-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STELLATO-So in other words, our fence is 21 feet wide. We're going to add to that 21 feet five feet on the east, 15 feet on the west, for a total east to west dimension of 41 feet. MR, MACEWAN-The only comment that I'd have to that is that instead of you staking out the site, that a landscaping plan be submitted to Staff, because it will be the Code Enforcement Officer who will ultimately check to see if the plantings are done. If your planting drawing doesn't show exactly where every tree is going to be placed, as long as they're going to be within that footprint, that should suffice for him. This Board won't go out and do the checking, because there's no guarantee that the members of this Board will be here to check it. MR. STELLATO-Okay. Could we do that as a condition of the plan? MR. MACEWAN-You're going to need to modify this site plan again before it's signed anyway. Right? A new plat's going to have to be done. MR. STELLATO-Okay. If you would act tonight, cou~d we do it as a condition of the approval. MR. PALING-I think so. MR. MACEWAN-I don't have any problem with that. MR. PALING-Okay. So we'll just leave it as a condition to be put, it'll be on the plan rather than try to follow the whole thing you did. Okay. Go ahead. MR. STELLATO-That was the extent of our discussion. I believe, and we'll let Mr. Drellos and his attorney speak for themselves, but I believe that will satisfy their concerns, and that's all we have at this time. MR. PALING-So, from your standpoint, you've resolved the planting, the turn around and egress and the general dimensions of this, and we'll ask them to comment specifically on that, to make sure there is agreement. MR. STELLATO-We believe we have. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-So, your landscaping plan, basically, has been revised to be a total of 44 plantings, the 17 you're adding in conjunction with the 23 of the arborvitaes that now show around the perimeter - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) of the fence? MR. STELLATO-That's correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's not 44, that's 40. MR. MACEWAN-So we (lost words) from the original plan? MR. STELLATO-If you want to look at it that way, yes. MR. PALING-All right. George, are you okay on this? MR. HILTON-Yes, actually, I am. MR. PALING-The plan will be submitted to you anyway. MR. HILTON-Sure, yes. We would want to see a revised plan submitted to Staff, with the plantings shown on it. MR. STELLATO-No problem. MR. HILTON-Okay. The only question I have at this point would be for Mr. O'Connor. MR. PALING-All right. Now would you care to come back. MR. HILTON-Okay. Today we had a letter submitted to our office from you, outlining some points of concern with this project, and we have a letter 'this evening that's full of determinations that has been submitted to the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Am I going to appeal the determination? MR. HILTON-I guess my first question to you, does that old letter stand? Do you want that read into the record? MR. O'CONNOR-First of all, I thought that letter came up here on Friday, and I had not seen the determinations that I asked for until this evening, but my answer is, per the instructions of my client, all those issues are moot. The applicant has correctly stated his understanding of our agreement to what he has proposed, and Mr. Drellos withdraws his objection that he has stated either in writing or orally, by himself or by representatives to the Board. MR. MACEWAN-Are you satisfied with the proposal? MR. O'CONNOR-The explanation of the planting is correct, yes, and I agree with you that it should be submitted on paper, particularly if it's not going to be done until next season. Maybe you'd want to set a date that it'll be done, so that the Staff has the ability to enforce it, and I'm not sure, I think even Staff requires a bond. MR. HILTON-I'll look into that. I'm not sure what we would. MR. PALING-All right. Let George look into that. Do we have any other questions or comments? All right. Does anyone else care to speak on this matter? All right. Then we will close off the public hearing and comment from other than the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we'll let George finish that one item. This is a modification. So a SEQRA is not required. We can go right to a motion on this. MR. STARK-When we make a motion, Mark always asks for that little - 24 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) disclaimer saying that it's not a material modification, for the SEQRA. MR. PALING-Yes, you're right. MR. HILTON-As far as the bond goes, the issue the applicant has just indicated to me that they're willing to accept that as a condition. So, if it's in the Ordinance, for the concern of time and having me search through the entire Ordinance, if you'd just like to put that as a condition of approval. MR. PALING-You're talking about a performance bond? MR. HILTON-Yes. So it'll be all set. MR. RUEL-You don't need it, right? MR. PALING-He said they'll do it, just to keep things I movlng. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to give bad information to the Board. My understanding is when you ask for a CO without plantings being completed, you have to post some type of security, whether it's a bond, a letter of credit, or whatever. I don't know what they do. MR. PALING-Well, they just said they would do it. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm saying, I'm not trying to ask you to make that a condition of your. MR. HILTON-Right, and I'm just saying, short of me investigating the entire Ordinance. MR. Q'CONNOR-! don't want to muddy the waters, and I think I've muddied the waters by bringing it up. I should have just let it go and let them find out on their own. MR. PALING-Well, it's going to be part of the site plan, that is the plantings and the egress, and the turn around, not the turn around, but that'll be all part of the site plan. Are we in agreement that's as far as we need to go, including the plantings? MR. MACEWAN-All we need to do is tie it into a date that they'll be in by. MR. PALING-All right. We'll give a date on the plantings. Okay. Then we'll waive the bond. We won't ask for the bond. MR. BREWER-Can we waive it if it's part of the Ordinance? MR. MACEWAN-That's not our place to ask, and we shouldn't even entertain it. MR. PALING-No, when I said that I meant, the Board says forget it. We're not going to make it part of the motion. June 30th an agreeable date to have the plantings completed? Okay. June 30th. Anything else? All right. Then lets go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-96 SPRINT SPECTRUM, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the following conditions: First, that a revised site plan, including details of plantings, be submitted to the Planning office by November 26, 1996, and that in addition to the arborvitae shown on the present plan, there will be an additional 17 trees located around the fenced in area, and further that the plantings will be completed as shown on the plan by June 30, 1997, and that we - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/12/96) recognize that this site, there is no major material modification in this plan. It's a matter of relocating the tower and modifying the planting plan. Duly adopted this 12th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. PALING-That a revised site plan, including details of plantings, be submitted to the Planning office by, what date? MR. MACEWAN-They have to have it prior to a building permit being issued. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-It's our understanding, just to clarify, that a building permit will not be necessa.ry for this project. 80, if you want to set a time frame of two weeks. MR. PALING-Okay. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Be sure you get that plan in with all the detail on it, and I think then everybody's ready to go. Okay. MR. BREWER-We're done, right? MR. PALING-Yes, we're done. We've got all the miscellaneous stuff done in between there. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Robert Paling, Chairman - 26 -