Loading...
01-26-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2016 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2015 Burnett Family Trust 1. PRELIM & FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 SP PZ-0040-2015 Robert& Trisha End 2. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-31, 227.17-1-30 SP PZ-0041-2015 John & Cathy Hodgkins 6. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-84 SP PZ-0038-2015 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 9. Tax Map No. 278.-1-20 (Cont'd Pg. 27) Site Plan No. 59-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 13. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 SP PZ-0039-2015 Chris Swinton 18. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-18 DISCUSSION ITEM Tambrie Alden Trustee 23. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-40 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) JANUARY 26, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to order on Tuesday, January 26, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. I would ask you to please silence your cellphones. There are copies of the agenda on the back table, and we will be following the agenda tonight. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. I think every one of the items has a public hearing scheduled. The first item of business is under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) STAFFORD CARR & MC NALLY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 28,639 SQ. FT. & 28,754 SQ. FT. SUBDIVISION WILL PLACE EXISTING HOUSES ON SEPARATE PARCELS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE LENGTH, PHYSICAL FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-15, BP 04-677 (2 DOCKS) WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER LGPC, CEA LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-This was tabled from our earlier meeting this month and the Zoning Board tabled it. So we'll be looking at a tabling resolution. MRS. MOORE-Correct. You're going to table it to the second Planning Board meeting as a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In February? MRS. MOORE-In March. MR. HUNSINGER-March 22 nd MR. MAGOWAN-Tabling to March? MR. HUNSINGER-March 22 nd MRS. MOORE-It's tabling to March 22 nd MR. HUNSINGER-If anyone would like to make a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB# 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to March 22nd, 2016 with information due to the Planning Department by February 16tH 2016. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And the public hearing will be held open for this. SITE PLAN PZ-0040-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II ROBERT & TRISHA END AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 8 & 10 WATERS EDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH FOOTPRINT OF 4633 SQ. FT., 7042 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA RATIO. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF 35,855 SQ. FT. MAJOR STORMWATER — SITE PLAN REVIEW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 147-11 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DISTURBANCE IN THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ-0047-2015; AV 4-2001 GARAGE & SEPTIC; SEVERAL GARAGE AV & SP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 APA CEA, OTHER APA, CEA LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES (COMBINED) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-31, 227.17-1-30 SECTION 147-11; 179-3-040; 179-4-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. Again, this applicant proposes demolition of multiple buildings on two parcels to construct a single family home with a footprint of 4,633, and a 7,042 square foot floor area ratio. The variance was granted. This was allowance for relief from height, frontage on a public road, and stormwater management within 100 feet of a water body. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the owners, Bob and Trisha End for this site plan review application. With me is Mike Tuck from the architectural firm of Balzar & Tuck, and Bill Dean, the general contractor for the project. We gave an explanation last week when we were here for the recommendation of the project, but for the benefit of the public and for, I guess Mr. Deeb wasn't here last week. So let me run through, basically, what the project involves The Ends own two parcels located on Waters Edge Drive, which is located off of Seelye Road in the Cleverdale/Rockhurst area, facing Warner Bay. They have lived in the first, or their residence is 8 Waters Edge for 22 years or so, and along the way they had acquired the second property at 10 Waters Edge, and now they propose to combine the two lots, merge the lots after approvals, and remove all the structures on the property, a guest cottage, a garage, a gazebo, and re-develop the site with a new single family residence. The result of that will be about a 3800 square feet less of impervious area, going from about 11,000 down to the 7200 square feet. There'll be stormwater management for all that impervious area. Currently there's no stormwater, any formal stormwater management for those properties. The driveway will be a permeable block paver situation. So that's good for stormwater management as well, and the wastewater system, we'll re-use the absorption field system for the existing End residence. It's a five bedroom system that was designed, approved by the Town in, I believe, 2004, and it's been in operation for 11 years now and operates properly and we want to re-use that, but along with that will be a new septic, a new duplex pump station with time dose delivery to the absorption fields. So those are two good improvements to that system. We are providing some supplemental planting for, in keeping with the shoreline buffer regulations, although there's pretty good existing vegetation along there. The Ends are quite particular about maintaining some of the, most of the trees, particularly the large maples that exist on the south side of the residence that provide some pretty good canopy in that area. There's some other trees along the shoreline, certainly retained as well. We're providing for some additional ground cover plantings and shrubs along that way to coincide with the spirit of the regulations. There will be, I know the docks aren't the Town's jurisdiction really, but there will be removal of, for the most part, the dock that serves 10 Waters Edge way, and there'll be one pier left from that, but this boathouse structure, the boat deck structure will be removed, and then on the existing dock for 8 Waters Edge, the existing End dock, there'll be another pier added to that. Seawall. Thank you, Bill. Another important improvement to the shoreline in that case there's currently a little over 300 linear feet of seawall along that area and the Ends would like to remove the seawall and replace it with a natural stone riprap shoreline which certainly is something that DEC is in favor of. The Town's regulations discourage the use of seawalls. So 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) here's an example of something that will be removed and returned to a more natural situation. So we've characterized it as a real plus/plus situation for the neighborhood. The house will meet setback standards. The two existing houses do not. So we're removing two nonconforming structures and re-building one that is conforming. We did, as Laura indicated, we did receive the variances. The Zoning Board was very favorable to the proposed plans. So I think that we feel very positive about the proposal that the owners are suggesting here, and I think it's a good improvement to the neighborhood and for the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-If you were to get approval this evening, what's your timeframe in terms of starting construction and eventually completion of the project? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, demolition comes first, and it would be done in phasing, where 10 Waters Edge would be removed and it may be as soon as we can coordinate with DEC on the seawall permitting, because that will kind of work together, because that house, as you know, is right on the water. So that the answer to your question is perhaps in late March we can get the process, we've been in communication with DEC. They certainly are favorable to that. It's just a matter of how quickly we can turn around the paperwork associated with it, and then getting a demo permit from the Town. So maybe starting in late March and the construction of the new structure, perhaps starting in May and may carry through to, the Ends would like to, they're going to miss one summer at this location. Hopefully by the next summer Bill will have things all in shape so they'll be back on that property. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board this evening on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-We do have written comments. This first one is dated January 14th, received in the Queensbury Planning Office. "Dear Queensbury Planning Board: We are neighbors to the south of Robert & Trisha End and are aware of their plans to demolish multiple buildings and construct a single family home at 8 & 10 Waters Edge Drive. We will not be available for the scheduled meeting and wish to address this proposal. We have reviewed the building plans and feel the changes will be positive for all neighbors, the Town and the lake. The removal of the two houses, guest house, unattached garage and gazebo with replacement of one home, although quite large, will improve surrounding neighbors' view of the lake. Besides uncluttering the property, conformance with the lake setback requirements should also be a healthful benefit to the lake compared to the current structures sitting on the edge of the lake. We also feel the requested two foot height variance will not be a detriment to our view or property and have no objection to the request and feel it is reasonable considering that the house at 10 Waters Edge is currently a non-conforming structure at the height variance being requested." The next one was received on January 26th addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board. "To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that we are the owners of 8 Seelye Road North, Queensbury, NY which is in close proximity to the above referenced premises. We have been notified of the above application and public hearings related to the subject property but we are unable to attend the hearings. In lieu of our attendance at the hearings, please accept this letter as our position regarding the applications. We have had multiple conversations with Robert & Trisha End regarding their proposed project which includes removal of two homes and other buildings on the lots and to construct a single family home. We have no objection to the applications of Robert & Trisha End regarding the proposed relief for a height variance and frontage for the new home that they are proposing to construct. We're confident that the home to be constructed will be done in a manner that protects and enhances the natural aesthetic beauty of the lake and surrounding areas. If any other information or questions are required of us, please let us know. Thank you for taking the time to consider our position." This is David & Theresa Ries. And did I give you the last one was written by the DeLappa's, Darwin and Cynthia? Okay, and this one was received on January 25th. This is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board public hearing. "I offer this letter of information in relation to the submitted application for land and building construction (Type SPPZ-0040-2015 ordinance 147-11; 179-3- 040; 179-4-050) in the area east of Waters Edge Road extending to Lake George, Warner Bay, Rockhurst and Queensbury. As a resident of 16 Waters Edge Road for over 55 years, I have observed many changes. Most seriously related to this application is the insidious rise in ground water levels involving not only the above application, but the multiple acres surrounding 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) it. Also of concern has been the death of some dozen huge maple and willow trees and the clear subsidence of land (into the lake) over much of this acreage. These changes have been dramatically seen in the last 15-20 years. I submit this condition is due primarily to the rising ground water levels. Important history of this area as told to me some 50 years ago by Vernon West (Seelye-West) and the Hon. G. Thomas Moynihan was that now, some 100 years ago, the entire area (some '/4 mile of lake frontage) was "filled in" with impervious yellow clay and huge rocks to give foundation to all the homes of Waters Edge Road and Seelye Road North. For some 50 years the homes and septic systems functioned well. Those folks who then did the construction realized that the natural stream flowing east from Sandy Bay swamp and surface waters from Rockhurst Hill had to reach the lake. They effectively managed this problem by providing a 6 foot deep conduit of stone and gravel. This conduit passed under Seelye Road North across the 75 yard field and then under Waters Edge Road eastward toward the lake. For some 50 years this conduit nicely managed the natural flow of water to the lake. For the last 50 years however, there has been increasing evidence that this conduit has "filled in" and no longer drains the many acres east of Sandy Bay swamp and Seelye Road North. Most unfortunately, the "dam" is no longer simply the original fill supporting the homes, but now is the very access road to these homes-Waters Edge Road. Over the last 30 years this access road has been raised by well-meaning folks some 15-20 inches to "fill in" the potholes. This of course dams up the water in the field which naturally still runs over the road east to the lake. All of these areas see a rise in ground water including lands east of Waters Edge Road. Clearly the 6 foot deep conduit from Seelye Road North east under Waters Edge Road to the lake must be re-established. These acres will never be well habitable without it. Once this conduit is established and the ground water level significantly lowered, one can expect septic functions to improve, trees to live, earth to slow it's subsidence into the lake, access roads and property to become dry and importantly to see existing septic mounds come closer to compliance. Sincerely, J. George Russo, M.D." MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-That's the first, certainly, that I've heard of groundwater issues from that neighborhood, not that it is your issue, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you heard of anything like that, that culvert, six foot? MR. MAC ELROY-Only from that letter that was part of the ZBA's file as well. The same letter, I think he probably re-dated it to say January 25th. It's the same letter that we heard last week. That's anecdotal. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, 50 years ago a lot of them were just camps, you know, and you didn't use as much water as you use now, but, that's interesting, though. I'd like to know here that culvert pipe. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I don't know if it's an actual culvert or whether it's a stone, but the way he described it was just a stone conduit to help filter water that way. I'm not sure that we're going to be able to effectively raise or lower the groundwater as it really is tied to the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-There's only like a foot difference probably from that, you know, from the grassland there to the lake itself. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, what we have done with this re-development design is raise the house location slightly so that they're able to have a proper crawl space with that, and really a minimal or marginal pipe. I think we're at 40 inches of headroom between the crawl space slab and the carrier beam. So It's really the most that Mike could squeeze out of that based on the fact that we've got to stay up to be out of the groundwater, but we've got to stay down to comply as best we could with the height restriction, height standard, and we did achieve a variance of a little less than two feet for that. It was a design challenge for the house design to be able to serve both masters in that case. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I have is on the January 12th letter from Chazen with some of their concerns, and we haven't gone through this in any detail. A lot of them were sort of technical, you know, just coding things properly. I don't know if you had any specific comments or concerns about any of that. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. MAC ELROY-Right. We've received that and I've responded back to Chazen on it. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. We talked about this last week. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I'd be glad to discuss any one of those, but I think that they're fairly minor comments and some of them were just simply comments. They weren't necessarily questions, but, you know, it is a major stormwater project. We've done test pits and we've included that data on the plan for Sean's review. We know that the seawall work will require, or involve DEC and Army Corps permitting. We're in the process of handling that. The question about the driveway being an infiltration. I've had many discussions with Craig Brown about this in the past that that water that falls on the driveway, and remember we're using permeable block pavers. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-And in that design, below those pavers is a stone reservoir. So what happens is water falls on the driveway, effectively impervious, except that now we've got a permeable block paver. It doesn't receive runoff from any other location, so it's the same water that would fall there anyway, whether it was grass there or driveway, asphalt driveway. In our case we've got permeable block paver. We've got a storage reservoir below that. So it has been the Town's policy that that's not really considered an infiltration device in the truer sense. Those are my words, but I think it's safe to say that that's what Craig has advised me about. So we're not concerned that that runoff from the driveway is within 100 feet of the lake. That's the basic answer to that. Rain gardens are within 100 feet but we've received the variance associated with that. There's no private well, no drilled well within the restrictive horizontal setbacks to our devices. So we're okay there, and construction entrance. He's concerned that permeable pavers, or the areas of permeable pavers would be used as a construction entrance, which would then help compact the soil before you use it, and we will either have a construction entrance at another location, based on Bill's suggestions, or that will be properly scarified so that it's not a compacted surface, and then the last one had to do with a note, an erosion note, which we've added to the plan. So I'm confident you'll find that Chazen will come back with a positive response to that, but I think in the past you've granted approvals conditioned on satisfying the engineer's comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No, overall I think it's a really wonderful plan. I was actually, was over there, I stopped in again to take a closer look, just to have one last look and say my goodbyes. MR. MAC ELROY-Steve Jackoski had similar sentiments as you from the white house. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that white house is just, you know, I just remember being there and, you know, it's not too often you can just be right on top of the water, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-When I was there last week, if you were on that porch you would have gotten wet. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it wasn't as windy when I was there. MR. MAC ELROY-I was there today, and there's quite a crust of ice on there. The winds were piling the ice up on top of each other going into Warner Bay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other concerns from Staff? MRS. MOORE-I don't have anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Type II SEQR so no further SEQR review is required. Unless there's anything else, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ-0040-2015 ROBERT & TRISHA END The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes demolition of multiple buildings on two parcels to construct a single family home with footprint of 4633 sq. ft., 7042 sq. ft. floor area ratio. Project includes disturbance of 35,855 sq. ft., major storm water— site plan review. Pursuant to Chapter 147-11 of the Zoning Ordinance disturbance in the Lake George Basin shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 1/26/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/26/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ-0040-2016 ROBERT & TRISHA END, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. SP PZ-0041-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 218 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 2,927 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF 1,081 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT; PROJECT WILL INCLUDE NEW STORMWATER, NEW SEPTIC, NEW PLANTINGS AND GRADING ON SITE. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORE. PROJECT INCLUDES RETAINING AN EXISTING GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED AND TWO ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 AND 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ-0049-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE .61 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-84 SECTION 179-060; 179-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a single family home of 2,927 square feet. The project includes demolition of an existing 1,081 square foot footprint. The project will include new stormwater, new septic, new plantings and grading on site. The project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes, hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shore, and the Zoning Board granted the relief for a second garage with the condition that no shed or other garage be placed on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Good evening. Thank you. For the record, Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing John & Cathy Hodgkins for this Site Plan Review application. Again, we were here last week for the recommendation because this project did involve a variance which was granted by the ZBA. The variance was for a second garage. Regarding site plan issues, just to recap, the property is located at 218 Lake Parkway which is on the westerly shore of Assembly Point. It's a property that now is one parcel but at one time was two parcels, one of which on the easterly side of Lake Parkway. John and Cathy had merged those parcels not too long ago, thinking ahead for this ultimate development of a home that they plan to use as a retirement home. It had been used in their ownership as a, or as a seasonal or intermittent use property. So now they hope to remove the existing residence and re-build a new residence. That existing residence is, again, a pre-existing nonconforming, in regards to the setback, the shoreline setback. The new design will be totally in compliance to all setbacks, building height, floor area ratio, permeability, all the standards that the Town requires. We're here at Site Plan Review because the lot has slopes of 15% or greater. So that's what triggers are requirement for Site Plan Review in this case. The project will involve, again, the re-building of a new residence and along with it a new wastewater system. There'll be a new septic tank and pump tank that will pump to the easterly parcel as I refer to as the one on the other side of Lake Parkway. So that wastewater system dispersal field will be that much further from the lake than what currently exists. So that's certainly a positive thing. There'll be stormwater management devices as part of the project. Again, no formal stormwater management occurs currently so that's another plus for the re-development of the site. There's no new hard scape planned within 50 foot setback. So really that area for the most part is untouched other than the stormwater management, the rain garden that's in the southwesterly corner of the property. Therefore all that, the shoreline buffer that currently exists will remain and we think we're in good standing in terms of the requirements for shoreline buffering in that case. There's a pretty good combination of tall trees and shrubs and groundcover in that area. I think that probably about covers the primary issues related to Site Plan Review. Again, the second garage will remain. The garage that exists will remain as the second garage, and we were granted that variance last week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-No, I think, as with the other one, we reviewed it pretty thoroughly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments? MRS. MOORE-1 do have written comment. This is addressed in an e-mail to Craig Brown. "This letter of support is to be read into the record during the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 7 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center: I am writing this letter of support on behalf of Beverly Sebold, my aunt, who owns and is in the process of gifting to me her property at 222 Lake Parkway. This property lies adjacent southerly to the Hodgkins' property. John and Cathy Hodgkins have been wonderful neighbors for a number of years. The variances which they are requesting from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals I believe are reasonable and would not affect the Sebold property. John and Cathy care deeply for Lake George and its health. They are thorough researches in this regard and are concerned about how people's activities interface with and affect the lake. They are responsible land owners and managers. The proposed second garage and the retention of the existing garage which lies adjacent to the north boundary of the Sebold property is of no consequence to us. The Hodgkins have put careful consideration into all aspects of their plan to create a suitable year-round place to live into their retirement years. As neighbors are in favor of their rebuild which will result in their year-round presence next door. They have always watched out for the Sebolds. Having the benefit of their watchful all year will be extremely reassuring for us as neighbors. Please grant the variances and give positive review of the matters which are under consideration. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Sebold Greenwood 487 West Morris Rd. Morris, CT 06763" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is also a Type 11 SEQR. There are a couple of engineering comments, pretty minor. Even more minor than the last ones. Have you already addressed them? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. We've responded back to Craig who will pass it on to Chazen. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments or concerns from anyone on the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No, another beautiful job. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ-0041-2015 JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home of 2,927 sq. ft. Project includes demolition of 1,081 sq. ft. footprint; project will include new storm water, new septic, new plantings and grading on site. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore. Project includes retaining an existing garage where only one is allowed and two are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-060 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance work within 50 ft. of 15% slope and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 1/26/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/26/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ-0041-2015 JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1. Waivers request rg anted: 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. SP PZ-0038-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) YOUNG/SOMMER, LLC OWNER(S) RYAN SESSELMAN ZONING 11.81 LOCATION 373 RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES 199' LATTICE TOWER FOR CELL TOWER. THE PROJECT WILL OCCUR ON 100' X 100' AREA OF AN 11.81 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES UTILIZING AN EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO ACCESS THE PROJECT AREA. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS RESIDENTIAL USE AND AN EXISTING 297 FT. TALL RADIO TOWER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130(c) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE UV PZ-0045-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 11.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-1-20 SECTION 179-5-130(c) DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a 199 foot lattice tower for a cell tower. The project will occur on a 100 foot by 100 foot area of an 11.81 acre parcel. The project includes using an existing gravel drive to access the project. The site currently has a residential use and an existing 297 foot tall radio tower. Within the 100 by 100 is a 75 by 75 fenced in area, and their proposed equipment structure is not an enclosed equipment structure. It's more of an open shed area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BRENNAN-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Again from last week my name is Dave Brennan with the law firm of Young/Sommer out of Albany and to my left is Steve Matthews who's an engineer with Techtonic Engineering, and over my shoulder is Bob Watson who's also with Techtonic and does site acquisition work. We were here last Tuesday evening before this Board requesting a recommendation to the Zoning Board. We did receive a positive recommendation and then came back on Wednesday. We were before the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board, after asking us some questions, granted a Use Variance for the proposed Telecommunications tower. I am happy, I know you've heard my rendition before, but I can go over it briefly in case there's somebody in the audience that wants to here, but we are proposing, on a piece of property owned by Ryan Sesselman at 373 Route 149, a 195 foot self support lattice telecommunications tower. At the top elevation we're proposing to put 12 panel antennas for Verizon Wireless 4G LTE service. At the base of it, as Laura pointed out, there is an equipment platform. We have transitioned, in 2016, away from using enclosed equipment shelters. So this would be a platform with a roof on it with exterior radio cabinets in the generator. It is located fairly well removed off of 149 and from any neighbors such that the base of the tower would not be visible from any location. The tower itself is enclosed within a chain link fence enclosure for safety in a 75 by 75 foot chain link enclosure. When I was at the Board last week I was asked a couple of questions. We did supply, I think, all those materials to Laura last week. I will go over them quickly. One is I recall the Board asked for a letter talking about a potential interference. There is an existing 297 foot FM transition light duty tower on this same parcel, and we can review the Code if you would like, but your telecommunications section of the zoning law has a hierarchy of siting requirements, the first being colocation on existing tower, the second being colocation on an existing tall structure, the third being, I'll call it colocation, I'll use the word clustering, of a new tower on a property with an existing tower, and as I reviewed with the Board last week, the existing light duty tower, 297 feet, is significantly overstressed and to the extent Verizon Wireless could even improve it to hold our antennas, it wouldn't hold anyone else, and in the process we were contacted first by the Town and then second by the County Sheriff's Department and they requested to put two 22 foot whip antennas on this facility, which is something we're certainly agreeable to. It'll also provide a platform for other emergency services or telecommunications services, but one of the things the Board did ask me about last week was interference with an existing FM tower. We did submit, on Wednesday evening for the record, a letter from our RF engineer certifying that there are no concerns with interference issues between the different types of carriers, whether it's your in-home Wi-Fi, your in-home wireless landline phone, TV, any of those things, we're on licensed frequencies. We stay within those frequencies, and so there's no interference issues. The Board also asked, and I did supply RF plots. There is the existing, down the street a couple, three miles roughly to the east, a new AT&T tower. We did run RF plots, and if you don't have them I have another set, AT&T is clearly at the top of that tower in the vicinity of 125. So you have that plot. Indicate that we did run a plot to demonstrate that, while that site is a good extension of our footprint, in some sense it's not a replacement for this site, and then lastly last week we did supply a revised set of plans with an additional sheet. The Town's review engineer had flagged a couple of questions on stormwater, some erosion control and how to manage that. So there's a new sheet in the plan set explaining how we're going to handle what little bit of stormwater that would be there. This is an existing road and an existing opening, so we'll just be doing some simple grading to handle on site the stormwater, and that is the quick overview. I'd be happy to answer any questions or turn it back to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Those whip antennas are for low band? MR. BRENNAN-I apologize I don't have that right off the top of my head. It's whatever the new, I'll call it the new Countywide interoperable system. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's just that you don't see too much low band going up, except up here. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. BRENNAN-From what I understood from my conversations with the radio person and with the undersheriff is that the County is in a, probably a multi-year process of upgrading its radio service, and so I took it to be interoperable system, which I think is high band but I've gotten a little bit away from my volunteer fire department days where I used to know where that was going. I do know there's a lot of grants out there, and a number of the counties, including one that I represent, are doing these big projects where they're either collocating or they're building their own towers to get a countywide system in place. This is a segment of that system that the County was very interested in. I also understand the local, this area where it's served by the local volunteer fire department has issues with radio coverage for them as well. So whether that's covered by the Sheriff's Department or is supplemental to it is something that we're certainly able to handle. MS. WHITE-1 hear you say that you're agreeable, but there's no written agreement at this point in time? MR. BRENNAN-There isn't, and the way, and we handle that a couple of different ways. Verizon Wireless does have, as do all the carriers and the towers, what we call an in-bound or kind of a colocation request process, because as these towers are built we need to inventory who's on them, who owns what, when it was installed and that it's installed correctly, interference issues and the like. So there is an application process. I did vet this with the Verizon Wireless manager. There will be nominal rent, $500 a year, which I spoke to the Sheriff's Department and the undersheriff was thrilled with that, but what I am certainly willing to do tonight is, as a condition of approval that we reserve space for their two 22 foot whip antennas, I've got no problem, and so I don't normally have a written agreement this early on, but I spoke to the undersheriff, and understandably, it could be soon, it could be a matter of, you know, squeezing dollars out in the budget and grant money and things like this, and needs and priorities. So what we've normally done is take it as a condition of approval, put it within the records and then I submit in my closeout package to Verizon. So they know it's there. The one thing I would like to talk to the Board about is, you know, I guess we'll work through when it comes to the Sheriff's, whether they want to put their whip at the top of the 199 foot or within the 199 foot height of the structure. What we would propose tonight is to approve the project as is with a condition that we reserve two spots for their 22 foot whips, ones that transmit and ones that receive, and then we'll work through them with the technical issues, and if it needs to go at the top of the tower, then we will work through the permitting regulatory issues. I do think because that existing tower is about 275 feet away is lit, is painted orange and white, that I don't see that we'd have a requirement to light this tower because the proximity it would be a little bit of a duplicative effort. So I've looked at the FAA regulations quick, but that's like trying to look through mud in what they want. I do think, from my experience, we could put the whip on the top of the thing. Those whips are, I don't know, maybe two inches in diameter, from any distance other than right underneath it you'd never perceive that there's another antenna on top of it, or we could put it within the structure itself, kind of whatever the County wants when they get there. MS. WHITE-It just made a big difference in my decision making. So I would like to have that be a requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-The one question I had asked you last week is on the height, and you did give us one propagation map under tab eight that shows the proposed, but typically we get a number of propagation maps with your antenna at various heights, and I've been on this Board a long time. I'm not positive, but I do believe this is the tallest antenna that we've considered. Most of them are in the 125, 150 foot range. You may know better than I what some of your other antennas in Town are, but it's kind of hard to know if this is, because the Town Code does say that it should be at the lowest required height. I mean, we can't really make that determination without the data, and it kind of goes to your last comment, you know, about the County's whip antenna, you know, whether they would be on top of the 199 foot. I would assume that they would be within the 199 foot if that's what we approve. MR. BRENNAN-I would think so. Those are two different questions. So as far as the County goes, you know, I would suggest and we're proposing to have the tower approved at the height, and 1, let me look through my folder. I either have a plot or I have, but I did have Rick Andrus who was here with us, he was in front of the ZBA, who did do the analysis. I could certainly submit that for the record, but he did run it. You know, when you start running it at 10 or 20 foot increments, it's very hard to visualize the difference, but at the 150 foot height is where we start having things open up. I certainly can submit that to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, there's a huge difference between 150 and 199. So there's a lot of leeway in there. So, again, you know, it's hard for us to make that determination without that information. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. BRENNAN-I will get that for the Board, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have, I meant to ask you about the previous towers approved, how tall they were. MRS. MOORE-1 would have to go through the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I thought, and I didn't have time to do that, either. MRS. MOORE-1 can do a quick search, I mean, but. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's generally approved at the lowest that they can get the best performance. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. BRENNAN-Well, if you give me a minute, I will, Rick Andrus, our engineer, had to go to another meeting tonight, and I did discuss this with him. So I'll talk about your second question but then I'll go out and I'll chat with him and I can come back and address that a little bit more if you want to suspend this for a little bit and clear out other business and see if I can answer that to your satisfaction. As far as the County goes what I was suggesting is that we'll go within the approved height, and if the County wanted to go above the approved height, based in my experience, that would trigger another trip to this Board to document that. There is, you know, this newer Federal law that talks about extensions, but my view is if we're at 195 or 199 and they're at 22, they're above the 10% height trigger that would trigger a review by the community. So I would say if they were to put their whip above the 199, then it would trigger an additional trip in to this Board for consideration, and then it certainly does trigger another layer of review because our due diligence at the Federal level is done at the 199 height, and so if they want to go even a foot above that we need to go essentially file a number of things, including the FAA. So that's a function of working through the technical details. I would rather see them work within the 199 feet, but if they say they can't transmit unless they are above the steel, we would have to adjust that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So are you confident, typically, again, when we ask the question, we get a definitive answer. MR. BRENNAN-I am confident. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, I didn't ask the question yet. Are you pretty confident about the need for the light? Because that's, if it's within the 199 it would require a light? MR. BRENNAN-Yes, I'm very confident about that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the FAA has to sign off on it, don't they? They must have. MR. BRENNAN-In this case we don't have a letter from the FAA at this point. The standard is if you're below 200 feet, you don't have to put lighting on it, and if you're within certain distances from an airport landing strip or takeoff there are these blind path type cones that they look at, but we do, do, there's a map where you look at the FAA so we're in the clear zone so we don't need a light. The reason why the one that's existing there needs the light is because anything above 200 feet automatically gets at least a light if not construction marking which is the paint. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Do you have any questions, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 don't. I can take a quick look through the information we have about cell tower height. That's it. So do you want to move on to other business, table this? MR. BRENNAN-I guess what I was asking was if there were any public comment, we could deal with that and then I would, I'll go out and get our RF engineer on the phone and answer that question and come back after you handle something else, if that's agreeable to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be acceptable tome. Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's fine. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Were there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I guess we'll suspend discussion until you can get the RF engineer on the phone. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, let me just give him a call and see if I can elaborate a little on that. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two, actually three other items, but. MR. BRENNAN-That's okay. I'm here, and I'll wait my turn. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate that. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) CHUCK MARSHALL OWNER(S) SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION 1433 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GAS SERVICE STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 3,897 SQ. FT. STEWART'S SHOP WITH THREE SELF-SERVE MULTI-PRODUCT DISPENSERS UNDER A 1,500 SQ. FT. CANOPY (6 PUMPS). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-2015, SV 61-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 OTHER REFERRAL NYSDOT LOT SIZE 0.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040 CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes demolition of the existing gas station/convenience store and replace it with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's Shop. Stewart's will have three self-serve multi- product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy. The Zoning Board did grant the variances for the setback relief and for the Sign Variance and the one thing that came up during the discussion was considering a bicycle rack, which you've seen before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MARSHALL-Good evening. My name's Chuck Marshall from Stewart's. I was here last week for a positive recommendation. I went to the Zoning Board for some variances pertaining to site constraints and sign variances. All were approved. We did provide the bike rack in here as requested by the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, could you point out where it is? MR. MARSHALL-In the area where we eliminated the previous parking space. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MARSHALL-I personally thought that this was a better location, but the insertion of a manhole over here, our site design guys disagreed with me. So I lost, and then the only other thing, not Chazen, the Town sewer department comments was essentially a backflow preventer because we're upstream of the pump station. That's also included in the plans. We have not done the deep hole test because of the contamination remediation that's ongoing. MR. HUNSINGER-It's got to be 20 feet deep. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. It's pretty large. So we called the contractor and he said we're not asking you to do anything else on the site this week, but we expect that's wrapped up Monday, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) Tuesday. So we'll answer Chazen's comments early next week and re-submit it with the other minor changes that they had. MR. FERONE-1 had a question. I thought at one point there was a mention of this, and I didn't see it on the drawing, stairs or an ability for people to walk into the property. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, we, it has not materialized. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. MARSHALL-So I've spoken with the owner of the French Mountain Commons but have not entered into an agreement. So if it's something that we do work out, I'll come back for an amendment. MR. FERONE-I'm just thinking somebody's in the parking lot, they want to get down to you, you know, I don't want them jumping down or something like that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We asked last time and they turned us down. Not you. MR. MARSHALL-We do provide the ramp and connect to the sidewalk. So theoretically, let's face it, you guys do this as much or more than I do. Once the public gets out there, you can't control them. How many times have you seen the pork chops put up and people still make illegal lefts. I mean, I'm not advocating for it by any means, but. MR. HUNSINGER-That's how, a lot of times, they design sidewalks now is they wait to see what, no, I'm serious, they wait to see the path that the pedestrians take, and where the grass is worn, that's where they put the sidewalk. MR. MARSHALL-Well, I had a meeting with the school, at another project, meeting with the school district and the superintendent said, well, put sidewalks wherever the kids are going to go wherever they want anyway. I'm like, no, no, no, the safest thing is to walk to the street and then cross, and I walk out the school, walk right across the driveway and pretty much proved their point. So the only other thing that did come up, and I'll kind of address it. There were two things, one, the traffic, and then the other is kind of RV circulation. So in your packet you have a large truck driving through the site, which would be the same way an RV would essentially have to circulate. If a person in an RV did want to park and enter the store, the parallel parking through here is where they would have to do it. The second thing is, is someone on the Zoning Board raised the issue, you know, obviously this time of year, this time of night you can go through there, from 149 to the site, in two minutes, whatever it is. There's going to be other times of the year where it's not going to be as easily, you know, you're not going to get through there as quickly. So the two things that we have done, one is we've offset the curb cut with the outlet mall that's on the east side of the road, and the second thing that we've done is we've decreased the number of pumps. So if you use the ITE Trip Manual, the number of pumps is really what drives how much traffic you're going to do. It's contingent upon the size of the store. I just wanted to point those two things out for you. MR. HUNSINGER-It's certainly an interesting corridor because when traffic's bad it's really bad, but most of the time it's just not an issue. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I made the comment that the reality is, is, you know, we're going to live on the southbound traffic and Jolley's going to live on the north. You're not making a left into or out of either location. It's the same reason why, if you ever go to an intersection and you see convenience stores on diagonal corners, it's because the right in and right out movement's preferred. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-So fewer pumps generates less traffic? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. DEEB-Because if it gets filled up they're not going to go in? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. I mean, there's no room. MR. DEEB-If there's no room they're not going to go in. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that we haven't really spent much time on is the building design, you know, the facade. We talked about it briefly last week. Staff has in their Staff Notes about the, you know, the preference for an Adirondack style. I think, I was assuming until we were here the other evening that it was going to be your gray and brown building. It would be more consistent with the Adirondack style than the newer white signing, but I just wanted to bring it up for discussion and make sure the Board was comfortable with what's been proposed, to make sure that we feel it's consistent with the design standards as well as the rest of it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that gray? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's off white. MR. MARSHALL-And that's actually my fault because I should have, we were in last November and we didn't discuss it. I was going to bring a sample board, but it's almost identical to Lake George West, or whatever the plaza is immediately south of us. So the stone and siding for that plaza are very close. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-You're talking about the one next to the Cumberland Farms? That's your shop. MR. MARSHALL-No, no, no. I'm talking about immediately south of this location. MR. HUNSINGER-The outlets. MS. WHITE-It'll be in keeping, the same colors. MR. DEEB-I see. Okay. MS. WHITE-The same stone as that new. MR. HUNSINGER-They got their inspiration for that design from the Sagamore Hotel. MR. MARSHALL-I mean, this is the standard color scheme now for Stewart's. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, personally I think the use of the stone because the Code talks about native materials. So the use of the stone at the bottom and the use of the hardy board, I mean, even though it's not wood siding, it looks like wood siding. So, I mean, personally I think that even though it isn't dark green or brown, personally I think, you know, it's okay, especially given, as you point out, and, you know, you do have the vertical columns and sidings to offset the horizontal, but we should have the discussion. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, there's kind of a mismatch of everything going on there, you know, you have some wood and you have some lighter colors, you know, it all depends on what year they were built, and I think it would blend in and give it a nice clean look. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone, any comments, concerns about the landscaping? MR. MARSHALL-As you mentioned with the sign, there's very limited area for landscaping because the property line does that turn. It's not a complete rectangle. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions, comments or concerns from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments. MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-With that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is actually an Unlisted SEQR. There is a SEQR resolution in your package that Staff had provided a draft of. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) Are there any environmental concerns that any Board members have identified? And if you would like to make a motion to make the declaration. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP# 59-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS The applicant proposes demolition of existing gas service station/convenience store and replace with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's Shop with three self-serve multi-product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy (6 pumps). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance. New convenience store with fuel shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. . The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 59-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-1 was just clarifying it was a Negative Declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-But I'm assuming it was. I just missed it. Prior to you moving forward with the Stewart's Shop resolution. The question you raised that you were going to put the bike rack towards the back of the property. My assumption is that you'll hear other comments from others, from bike pad people that would prefer it to be somewhere in the front. Is there any opportunity to re-locate that to the front somewhere? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I think it's particularly relevant because they're so close to the bike path. MRS. MOORE-Right, and so something. MR. HUNSINGER-It is visible from the road, where you've pointed out. MR. TRAVER-It's not hidden somewhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some people think it's a hazard. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, we can discuss it. I know putting a bike rack in is definitely preferable. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MRS. MOORE-Maybe at some point when the final plans are submitted we can discuss its location. Right now if the Board is comfortable where its location is, that's fine. I would just like to have another opportunity to make sure and see if there is something that Stewart's can work out where we can put that towards the front somewhere. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I would like it. MRS. MOORE-1 heard you. MR. MARSHALL-I would like it replaced, not replaced, but I wanted it near the picnic tables because. MRS. MOORE-That would make sense. MR. MARSHALL-I think that that's the best location. MR. MAGOWAN-Well then you haven't lost yet. MR. MARSHALL-I haven't. So now I have Laura on my side. MR. HUNSINGER-1 can tell you that the shop that I drive past the most is the one here on Bay Road, and there's bikes in the bike rack almost all the time. I mean, not this time of year, but in the summertime. MR. MARSHALL-I mean, the subject came up last week. We included it. I mean, we know that it's part of our business, I mean, truthfully. So we're definitely willing to include it and then locating it, we'll leave it on the plan for now, and if we agree on a location with Laura, that's fine on my end. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other issues that anyone has that we haven't discussed? MR. TRAVER-1 don't think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other questions, comments or concerns, a motion to approve is in order. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 59-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for demolition of existing gas service station/convenience store and replace with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's Shop with three self- serve multi-product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy (6 pumps). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance. New convenience store with fuel shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. . Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/19/2015 and continued the public hearing to 1/26/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/26/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 59-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MARSHALL-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. PZ-0039-2015 SEAR UNLISTED CHRIS SWINTON OWNER(S) GAIL INGLESTON ZONING CI LOCATION 308 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A 30 X 30 GARAGE TO A COMMERCIAL USE — AUTO SERVICE AND PART SALES. EXISTING SITE CONTAINS 728 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME TO REMAIN. APPLICANT PROPOSES INTERIOR CHANGES TO THE BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT PARKING IF NECESSARY. APPLICANT CHANGE OF USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL FOR GARAGE ONLY. BUILDING WILL NEED A BATHROOM. APPLICANT PROPOSES A WALL SIGN TO BE PLACED ON BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN THE CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 45-2003 DEMO/REBUILD GARAGE WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 94' X 138' TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-18 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS SWINTON, PRESENT 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to utilize a 30 by 30 square foot garage for commercial use, auto service and parts and sales. Existing site contains an existing 728 square foot home to remain, and the applicant proposes some interior changes to the garage and to include a garage bay and a storage area for sales of parts. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SWINTON-Good evening. My name is Chris Swinton. I'm here to gain approval to change the use of a garage space from a residential zone to a commercial zone. Talking to the Town of Queensbury folks it's been requested that I just add a wheelchair accessible bathroom, which I have no problem doing, if I do gain ownership of this property. I've currently been doing business on the north end of Bay Road since the 70's, not personally myself but our family. I'm looking to move that away from that area down into a more business oriented area. I'm just seeking your approval to change that garage space to a commercial use so I can sell parts and do light duty repair, work on automobiles. Customer, you know, brought in parts and pieces, transmissions, small pieces. So really the structure that's there now is going to be just fine. There's not going to be any exterior changes. As far as the traffic, I don't foresee any real impact on the traffic. Currently, you know, it's some days maybe three or four cars per day. Some days maybe none at all. A lot of our business is connected to the Internet and having the knowledge of the certain parts and pieces and being able to get those shipped to the customer in a timely fashion is more where I'm going for, away from the service part of things. Most of the customers like to do their own work, that we've dealt with over the years, and having those parts in a timely fashion has become the biggest thing. So I'd like to have kind of a miniature warehouse there on site, block out the windows of the garage. I don't really think it's necessary to have glass windows, but that's pretty much it in a nutshell, and I'm agreeable, like I said, with the bathroom. I don't really feel it's necessary, but I certainly will do that. Do you folks have any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Have you seen the comments from the Fire Marshal? MR. SWINTON-1 have not. MR. TRAVER-Well, he reports no issues at this time, but he does note, the "To the best of my knowledge the location at 1681 Bay Road is used for repair of large vehicles and parts, log trucks and such. My office has no knowledge of small vehicle repairs at this location. The location at 302 Bay Road would not be able to handle vehicles of this size." MR. SWINTON-Yes. That's what I'm getting away from. I'm not going to be doing large equipment at all. It's going to be more automobile type. MR. DEEB-Can you tell me what kind of repairs you're going to do? Are you talking about? MR. SWINTON-Just mechanical repairs, something that I could take your bench, that table that's sitting in front of you, take a piece of equipment apart and put it back together. MR. DEEB-Are you going to have a lift? MR. SWINTON-Maybe a small lift, but these items that I intend on working on would be something that you or I could pick out of the back of our vehicle and put it on a table to work on, not anything much larger than that. MR. DEEB-Somebody brings you a transmission, you're going to put it on the bench and repair it. MR. SWINTON-Correct. MR. DEEB-You're not going to take it out of the car and do it. MR. SWINTON-No, no, no. I'm going to have the material, or the part brought to me. I'm not going to be the one that, I don't have a lift or anything like that, anything of that nature. I'm really trying to steer more towards the side of the parts industry. MR. FERONE-So you're not going to have vehicles coming there? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. SWINTON-No, no, no, just to pick up parts and bring back to their own locations. MR. FERONE-So when you say two or three cars a day, that would be one at a time, not. MR. SWINTON-Yes, yes, not all at the same time. I mean, then I also included some area, I know it was requested to have extra garage, or extra parking out behind, but I really don't foresee that as ever being necessary, but I did include it so that we have that option in the future, and the property, actually the driveway is actually extended. If you see on the prints, it goes out onto the Town's road more than that. So there's actually more parking there than is on the survey, so to speak. I don't know if I'm explaining it properly, but if you looked at it, the roadway, the driveway currently comes out to Homer Avenue, but it's not owned by the homeowner. It's Town property. MR. DEEB-All right. Well, I guess I'd have to play devil's advocate here. So somebody brings you a transmission, it's going to have fluid in it that you're going to have to take out. MR. SWINTON-1 have containers for that. MR. DEEB-I was going to say, it might trigger an environmental concern, if you're not properly set up. MR. SWINTON-Certainly. MR. DEEB-And it's a little bit of a red flag for me. MR. SWINTON-Okay. That's understandable. As a small business person, I need to have Game Plan A and B, and that's B of my game plan. A is to sell the parts. That's my biggest thing is to get the parts, put them on my shelf and I have them available as needed. B is if the parts sales aren't doing very well, so to speak, or moving fast enough I need to still provide food for my family. So I'd like to be able to repair some things, and that's why I'd rather get the approval right now to be able to do that and go from there. Do you follow me? MR. DEEB-I understand, I mean, we could give approval for the sales, but I'm just a little nervous about the repairs when you're not properly set up because you have so many regulations that have to be followed in the automotive repair industry. MR. SWINTON-Everything would be self-contained, though. It's not like I'm going to be taking it apart out on the street, you know, the rainwater, runoff or anything like that is not. MR. DEEB-Is there a drain in that garage? MR. SWINTON-1 don't own the property yet. So I don't know. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, there's no drain in the garage. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe I can help out David and you and try and explain. Because I've been there. I had a '77 P-30 bread truck I worked out of, and it was a driving Iowe's, and I kept going through my transmission, and I actually could have that transmission out and down to the transmission shop to drop it off and they'd take it apart, and the first thing I would do before I pulled it, you know, you've got to take your coolant lines off, and I always drained it off, because, you know, you've got to, so, you know, I understand what you're saying is you want to have the option to put it on the bench and take it apart. MR. SWINTON-Certainly, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, what little transmission oil that would be in there, it would definitely, I'm sure you'd have a contain bench to work on. Because all the ones that I've seen them on, it goes right down into a five gallon bucket. Dave, you know, you're used to turning cars over with a lot more fluids and a full-fledged garage. I think what he's looking to do, because I like to get my own parts and do as much as I can myself, and I can understand where you're coming from. So to kind of put an ease of what, you know, I like to do, which I think is what you're trying to get at. MR. SWINTON-Certainly, and it's not like I would be taking, you know, something that would have 55 gallons of oil in it, you know, at the time of use, and then dismantling it at that point, either. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-Most of your stuff that's going to come in is going to be able to be carried out of a pickup truck. MR. TRAVER-It's going to be drained, for the most part. So you're not going to have transmissions or engines or whatever that are going to have operating fluid in them. That would have been done before it came to you. MR. SWINTON-Certainly, and I can make that the stipulation before anything comes to me is that it needs to be drained. MR. DEEB-Well, that precludes you doing any oil changes then. Correct? MR. SWINTON-Oil changes? No, I'm not looking to have a car repair shop. I'm just looking to be able to repair parts and pieces off of the cars. MR. MAGOWAN-You're a parts repair shop not an automobile repair shop. MR. SWINTON-Correct, but the way the wording is for the paperwork, I tried to keep it right in with the realm of the zoning as well. So that's understandable. MR. TRAVER-So, and that's why you point out the need for extensive parking is there because you're not going to have people coming and have cars worked on there. They're going to drop off a part, go away, and then you're going to call them and say, okay it's done come get it. MR. SWINTON-Certainly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SWINTON-That's my intention, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments? So it's really, almost more like warehouse distribution. MR. SWINTON-Pretty much, yes, that's more the side I want to be on. It's a little bit cleaner, less, you know, bumps and bruises and scrapes. MR. DEEB-That's for sure. MR. SWINTON-But there's an opportunity, two of our competitors have gone out and I think now's my time to step up and give back to the community that way. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and right across the street there, isn't that the tinting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Mac the Knife, isn't that Mac the Knife? MR. SWINTON-Yes, he's moved. He's on the Quaker Road now. MR. DEEB-Who's there now? MR. SWINTON-Carl's. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-With this opportunity hopeful coming up for you, you know. MR. SWINTON-1 think it'll be good. MR. MAGOWAN-Good for you. MR. SWINTON-1 appreciate it, thanks. MR. DEEB-And the garage is big enough for you to do all this? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. SWINTON-Yes, 30 by 30 1 think is going to be a fair size, and there is some room, and there is some room, we've discussed in the planning stages of this, that I could expand very minimal, but I don't think at this time it's going to be necessary. MR. DEEB-Just you doing work. You're not going to have any employees, right? MR. SWINTON-No employees. Possibly my wife, but I don't think that's going to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess there's no concerns from the neighbors, then. MR. DEEB-The letters went out, correct? MRS. MOORE-The letters went out, correct. MR. DEEB-So there's none here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted SEQR action. There is a draft resolution. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. Are there any, I mean, we talked about solvents and stuff, but I think that question's been resolved. MR. DEEB-I hope so. There's going to be a lot of trust put in Chris. As long as he's responsible. MR. SWINTON-If we do seal the deal on purchasing the house, you're more than willing to stop by, and I'd like to have a coffee pot set up so come over and have coffee. MR. DEEB-You don't want to see us any more than you have to. Believe me. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any environmental issues that have been identified by any Board members? We do have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP PZ-0039-2015 SWINTON The applicant proposes to utilize a 30 x 30 garage for a commercial use — auto service and part sales. Existing site contains 728 sq. ft. footprint home to remain. Applicant proposes interior changes to the building and to construct parking if necessary. Applicant change of use from residential to commercial for garage only. Building will need a bathroom. Applicant proposes a wall sign to be placed on building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use in the Cl Zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PZ-0039-2015 CHRIS SWINTON; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now you can do your approval resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ-0039-2015 CHRIS SWINTON The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to utilize a 30 x 30 garage for a commercial use — auto service and part sales. Existing site contains 728 sq. ft. footprint home to remain. Applicant proposes interior changes to the building and to construct parking if necessary. Applicant change of use from residential to commercial for garage only. Building will need a bathroom. Applicant proposes a wall sign to be placed on building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use in the Cl Zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 1/26/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/26/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ-0039-2016 CHRIS SWINTON; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1. Waivers request rg anted: 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SWINTON-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-I'm pulling information up via e-mail and when I pull it up, but I think you still may have enough time to discuss this. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM SEAR TYPE N/A TAMBRIE ALDEN TRUSTEE AGENT(S) ROBERT A. REGAN OWNER(S) RALPH FAMILY SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS TRUST ZONING MDR LOCATION 366 LUZERNE ROAD DISCUSSION ITEM — APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR (4) LOT SUBDIVISION RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.0 ACRES TO 2.65 ACRES. ONE LOT AT 2 ACRES WILL MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SEPTEMBER 15, 2015. ROBERT REGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TAMBRIE ALDEN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Just by way of introduction, we talked about this project back in September, September 22, 2015, and we kind of sent you off with a couple of different thoughts and ideas, and so now you're back again before you submit your actual application. MR. REGAN-Yes, leading off from that, I did submit a second proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. REGAN-I'm sorry. Robert Regan, representing Tambrie Alden who's with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. REGAN-And if I could, I'd like to just briefly re-visit proposal number one just to clarify the whole issue of flag lots, just so I understand the Board's position. We'd sort of concluded fairly early on in the last discussion that it was a flag lot. Going back over the definition of, this is a lot that does not meet minimum frontage requirements and where access to the public road is by private driveway or a narrow strip of land. In proposal number one each lot is two acres, does have 100 foot average width, does have 100 foot road frontage. When I was talking to Craig Brown, and going back over in my memory the discussions we had, he had said that if there were shared entrances to the lots, that that would mitigate, it's my understanding that Luzerne Road was in some sort of special classification or something, but I didn't find that, so I just wanted to come back and just clarify that they really are or are lot flag lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they don't have a shared driveway. So I guess by that meaning then they would be considered flag lots. MR. REGAN- Okay, because when I put in my second letter dated December 14th, I put the first proposal, minimum 100 foot road frontage, is two acres or more in size and will average at least 100 feet in width, utilizing one shared entrance for each two lots. So I did draw those in specifically. I think I had in my head that they were assumed. That was my clerical error, I guess. So what I would propose is, in looking at proposal number one, is the two lots on the right would share a common entrance and the two lots on the left would share a common entrance as well, and we would move the existing driveway for the existing house over to your left and have it meet the road there. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Let's go back. What about the flag lots? MR. TRAVER-Are we saying that proposal one consists of flag lots and proposal two does not? MRS. MOORE-Right. Proposal Number One has sort of like a flag lot appearance, whereas proposal two does not. Proposal has a private drive. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But is it a flag lot or isn't it? It looks like one, but is it? MR. MAGOWAN-One would be considered a flag lot, right? MRS. MOORE-This is his discussion. This is what he's explaining to you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, two doesn't look like a flag lot because you've got the pole here and a bunch of flags. So I personally like proposal two. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And I really think you'd be able to get more money for your lots that way. I mean, I'm just talking off the cuff here. MR. REGAN-Sure, right. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean, to me, you have, you know, instead of a skinny, long lot, you know. You actually could do something. You could actually, you know, does something with this. I mean, you can't put a house on that. You can't do much to the sides. MR. REGAN-Well, each of the, leaving the lot, or not doing any building on the lot where the current house is, looking at the other three, you can see that they each have 110 feet width. My thinking was if you had a 40 foot wide house with a 20 foot wide garage, you could still comply with the setbacks on each side. That's what I thought made those buildable, if you will. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So that's great for this person here. So this person buys the lot. So he's either got to come forward more, or he's got to go deeper, you know, so they don't have to pass the sugar through the kitchen window. You know what I mean? MR. REGAN-They are deep, and I would think that if people wanted the sort of woodsy settings, you know, when you go back in there and put your house that way, given the two acres that they've got to work with, they really could, you know, come up with a couple of different configurations. My biggest concern about number two was how popular the private road would be in the marketplace. My thinking was, well, if each one of these already has its own frontage, we don't have to get into the issue of private roads. That's what was going through my head. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, well, I see what you're saying there. MR. TRAVER-1 agree with Mr. Magowan, though. I think that the ability for the individual potential owner, I think that the more conventional shape of the lot in plan two would be far more attractive than plan one. We're not into marketing. So that's not really in our purview. I can't speak to the private road issue. Being it is wooded, I would think that that would be preferable. Certainly if I were a potential home owner and I were looking at proposal one or proposal two, I would much prefer number two. MR. REGAN-Okay. MR. DEEB-It's more attractive. Those other lots, that second lot from the left, you always have to build deep into that lot, which means a long driveway. MR. REGAN-True. MR. DEEB-At their expense. I think that might be a detriment for somebody to come in here and say. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you'd have four private roads. MR. REGAN-Well, you know, it is a, like I said before, sort of a woodsy setting. They are buying a lot of land. MR. DEEB-But not useful land. MR. TRAVER-Everything that you say is also true of number two, only more so. MR. REGAN-Yes. My only concern about number two, which I totally agree is cleaner and has a more conventional shape, is the private road issue. I think we can get through all of the 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) hoops that the Town, with proposals and all that kind of stuff, that hopefully in terms of getting approval for that. I just have concern, you know, when you talk about expenses, you know, the private roads are, you know, mutually paid for. They can be sources of conflict among neighbors and that kind of thing, and so it's kind of like, yes, it is clean and easy, but, geez, a private road, that's the part that I'm afraid will scare people away, in my opinion. MR. FERONE-Well, what about the other consideration you talked about, that somebody might develop further deeper into in number one, but the farther you go into that property, you've got to run your water, you've got to run your electric, you have to run your gas. It's going to cost a heck of a lot more to run it way in the back end of that property than if, this way, if this is developed properly, if the first lot closest to the road is developed, and they bring those utilities in, the next person, it's not going to cost them as much to run it into the next property or to the next property. It should be a little cheaper. MR. REGAN-That's true. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the first property. MR. REGAN-Already has a house. MR. MAGOWAN-So you just have to start the roadway to that point. So, I mean, you're basically just talking, I'd put the access road right back in there, and really all you're talking is just a dirt gravel based, you don't even have to pave it. MR. REGAN-That was my understanding from the last time that it's really sort of a gravel, as long as it's wide enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it doesn't have to be built to Town standards. MR. REGAN-Right, and it can, I guess, for all practical purposes, be an easement. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. REGAN-I mean, we're okay with proposal number two, and again, I'm not the marketing person. This is what a broker does. I'm just going through my head. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd look into that, because I actually think you'd get more money out of your lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So do I. MR. DEEB-I think they'd be easier to sell. MR. MAGOWAN-And it would help offset the cost of the road, too. You could put it right in the deeds that everybody's responsible for their. MR. REGAN-Hopefully they won't think about that part. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, they're responsible for their own part of their house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the theory that the State uses when you have to put cable back in an area where you're not required to put cable, but the neighbors agree they want to go back step, by step, by step, and that's how you do it, and believe me, you make more money that way. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there is a recent subdivision that was developed similar to this that I'm aware of. I mean, it's not the only one that's been done recently, but the one that I'm most aware of that's near my house is on, just off Tee Hill Road, Mark Drive. It's a five unit subdivision, and there's two houses way in the back. They did pave the private drive, the private road, but there's no requirement to. MR. REGAN-Were they new construction as a result of that subdivision? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, both houses were put in after, it was an old gravel pit that they reclaimed and subdivided and two houses went in like right away. There were still three lots for sale. MR. REGAN-Okay. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-Lori Britton. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-She's the one you want to talk to Lori Britton, Britton Explosives, or Britton. MR. REGAN-Excavating, whatever it is. MR. MAGOWAN-Dynamiting. MR. REGAN-Well, obviously you guys like Plan B better and you liked it better last time. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, being around the building trade my whole life, you know, and my mother being in real estate, she'd say, if I proposed this to her she'd say Brad, I don't get a good feeling from this. She'd say, but I like this idea, and I'd say I do, too. So when it came in I'm like, that's what I was talking about. MR. REGAN-Well, at least I interpreted what you guys were talking about. Well, okay. Then. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't have to bringing the utilities. You just bring in the access road, like I said, but if you're able to market it for more money with the utilities on it, you know then you can put them on it, you know, like I said, this gives you the option to, hey, look, all they have to do is build the house because the road and utilities are right there. So your lots just went from say $100,000 to $150,000. MR. REGAN-That would be good. MS. ALDEN-From your mouth to God's ears. MR. REGAN-Okay. Then if we decide we want to do that, we would, I guess, do the surveying and have them start the process and see you guys again. Basically what we would have to do is if we wanted to sell, do the, no, I'm sorry, and so we would be putting. MS. ALDEN-I understand. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have a, I'm sure you have a few realtors that you could work with and get more of a feel for what the lots would go for in Queensbury with private driveways. MR. REGAN-Yes. Our goal at this point was to see what, if anything, was doable with the Town. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. REGAN-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Either one, but this is more preferable. MR. REGAN-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll come back to the Cellco Partnership discussion. So look at that, new technology. I hope you didn't have to pay your engineer overtime. MR. BRENNAN-He was at another meeting and he was just pulling back into his house. So let me start off by thanking you for indulgence on this and also apologizing. You did say this last week. I did write it down and did send it to him and something got lost. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just identify yourself again. MR. BRENNAN-Sure. I apologize. Dave Brennan with the law firm of Young/Sommer, and with me still is Steve Matthews from Techtonic Engineering. So as I was saying, I apologize. This was on me. I did take down your comment and did ask the engineer to take a look at it, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) and in his e-mail that was copied to Laura, he indicated, what I was saying previously, when you run these plots, if you start dropping 10 or 20 feet it's really not discernible. So he normally, I know he's seen this for years, drops them 50 feet to show that something opens up, and what he is showing is that if we drop it to 150 feet some areas open up, and if you flip back quickly to the other plot you'll see that one of the areas opens up, you'll quickly see is then actually covered if we go on the AT&T tower to the east. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that map is better than what we usually get because it clearly shows the difference, the red being the 150, and the green being the 195. MR. BRENNAN-Orange is at 150, green is at 195, and so the areas where it really opens up are circled, but then again we did run the plot for the new AT&T tower to the east, and the one area on the top would be picked up by that. What he did say is that, and we did have a discussion about this, was that a centerline height of 175 he would be comfortable that he could lower it a bit and maintain the overall coverage footprint to not only the main roads but those surrounding. What I would suggest then is what that does is if the County wants to come in with a whip, we could do it and jog it down. If the top of the structure was 177, the County could put a 22 foot whip on the top of it and keep it at 199 if they wanted to. I looked back through my letter from the undersheriff and I was surprised to see, he says he wants the receive antenna at the top. I thought it was the transmit but I was mistaken. So they're apparently looking for the receive antenna at the top and the transmit down below, 30 feet below that. So what we can do is accommodate the County and still put them at the top height, which I'm sure they're interested in having as much height as possible, keep at 199, but the top 22 feet would be two inch width. So it would lower the visibility of it incrementally. I think, in large part, if you were to look back and look at the photo sims, it was a pretty good set of photo sims in the sense that it wasn't very visible from a lot of areas, but there were a couple of areas along 149 where you had a pretty good direct look at it, but from the surrounding community as well as from the lake itself it was either at a distance that there wasn't that much visibility. So my life is a little bit easier than normal in this situation where I don't have, you know, a pancake area where you can see the thing through three miles in every direction, and so, and again, I apologize that I did not come more prepared on that. You did ask that question and he did look at it, and so we are able, you know, the towers, you were right to ask Laura to take a look. They are, you know, we're getting where they used to be 300 foot range, 10 years I've been doing it it's been at 199, and they're going a little bit lower, but I think this is, we're comfortable with it. If I've got to come back in front of this Board at other times in the future I want to maintain credibility and so I want to make sure that we're working with you the best we can. When I say come back I meant another tower. MR. MAGOWAN-1 have a question. I mean, we're talking about a two inch whip. Right? MR. BRENNAN-Right, the base. MR. MAGOWAN-The base is two inches. It feathers right down to probably nothing. MR. BRENNAN-Well, probably to maybe an inch or so. MR. MAGOWAN-On top of a 200 foot tower which is next to a 300 foot tower. MR. BRENNAN-And I would say the reason why we came in at 199, 1 think in all honesty, is I thought about it and spoke to Rick briefly is because we were next to the 297 foot tower, the idea that the height mattered quite a bit where something was already visible was not the same driving concern. So we did put it at the top elevation before a light was triggered, and that would be the honest answer. The honest answer is do we need all of that height and we look at it and, no, we don't need all of it, but the reason is, if we were, this is one of the few cases we didn't have this plot in our package and it was driven by the fact that we were next to an existing tower that was already lit, so that the visibility was there. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess what I'm actually concerned with, if the whip was up higher you'd get a broader signal for emergency services. It's not a commercial line where, you know, we have to have our phone. This is for, you know, for emergency services. For me, you know, I remember when that tower went up there, and I look out my parents' kitchen window and, you know, we moved here and cut down all these trees and had a beautiful view, and, you know, four years later we look at a blinking light, and that was, you know, 30 something years ago, maybe it was 10 years later, I can't remember, but that blinking red light's been there a long time. You get used to it, but I'm just saying a whip on top of the tower, I don't, you know, for broadcasting emergency services for our County, I don't even know why they'd have to come and get approval for it, you know, for you, I think you would want to have your signals up as high as you can to get the broadest area. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. BRENNAN-Absolutely, yes, higher is better, to a point. We don't want to go 500 feet in the air because then it gets interference. MR. MAGOWAN-No, and I understand that, but I mean, for the whip, I mean, you're never going to see that thing on top of that tower. MR. BRENNAN-I would say the other consideration, and I'm okay with either one. This is a bit of a policy discussion rather than a Verizon one, is, and Rick would say the additional height was providing for the platform for colocation that we don't currently have in that area. One thing that, in fairness, undermines my argument is when we were doing this AT&T wasn't in the picture. So I'm not sure whether AT&T would need this or not, but part of the driving idea was that that existing tower was never going to put somebody else on it, so if we built something there, we'd be there for other carriers in the community as a place for things to go, but at the same point, you know, I think the Chairman's right. We normally will come in here, particularly obviously if there was no tower there, we're looking at, we want a demonstration of what Verizon needs, and your Code certainly contemplates it, as do most communities, say we want you to build a tower just to what you need. We don't want to overbuild it, and we don't come in overbuilding them, but in most cases we can find, you know, 20 or 25 feet to come down if that's a concern. If it's a concern about having structural capacity to go back up, we can build the thing extendable to the 199 with the rest of the lattice and leave a cut off for what we need and have the County width. I just don't know, sir, enough about the County's system, whether they're going to say the 22 feet additional is going to make a difference to them or not. MR. HUNSINGER-But you had also already said that if you get above 200 feet that you probably would have to put a light on it. MR. BRENNAN-No, I don't think that we would have to put a light on. We do have to go through regulatory process. Everything that we've run is at 199. We can modify that by changing those plans a little bit, but if we go above 199 it essentially puts us back, and it is a potential to put a light on. I doubt that that would be, but I think the conservative answer is, I can tell you at 199 we won't have a light on it, above that, that's a possibility. MR. TRAVER-So are you now saying that you're asking for 175, or are you still looking for the 199? MR. BRENNAN-I would suggest answer the question, have the plot in front of you, and keeping with your policy or your prior handling of these, of wanting to know what the carrier needs. What we would suggest is a 177 foot tower. Our antenna centerline is four feet below that, 173, and then at 177, at the top of our steel, then the County could put a 22 foot whip and be at the 199, and that gives them the 12 inch plus or minus to keep them out of the FAA air space. I think that's, in my mind, a win/win across the board. We've got the accommodation and still have the County at the top, at a good height, and then they could have their additional whip and leave our space below for the other 22 foot. My RF engineer is satisfied that he's not opening up a problem where he could get another site and then we've looked at it consistent with your past practices. MR. TRAVER-And the plot we're looking at, that you just e-mailed, is 195 and 150. So I'm assuming that 177 would be something roughly in the middle. MR. BRENNAN-A little bit. If you were to run at 177 1 don't know that you'd pick up a couple of more pixels. The program's not dialed in yet. So you wouldn't notice a difference, but I do think that the Board is then, you could say to the next person, we put everybody through, you know, presenting their proof on need. This is what our need is. When I talked to him at 199, he knew we could do a little better than that. I mean, it's just we're up on a nice elevation. We're not having another topographical feature causing a blockage so I think we're, all the way around, comfortable, and we can take a condition that the County gets the top slot in another spot. MS. WHITE-And the base would stay the same as it is existing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Probably in five years we'll change something. MR. BRENNAN-Verizon is changing antennas. It's a regular routine thing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's a competitive game up here. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MS. WHITE-1 was just asking the base would stay the same, the five foot square would stay the same? MR. BRENNAN-Yes. At this, we're not changing the dimensions so drastically that the base dimensions would be essentially the same tower. It would just, the steel wouldn't be ordered for what would essentially be the last section. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. BRENNAN-So everything else would stay the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think it's a real good compromise. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, absolutely, and again, I'm embarrassed like I haven't been embarrassed in a while that I didn't have that. MR. HUNSINGER-See, you have to have the longevity like I do to remember the battles that we went through. I mean, the room would be packed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's right. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don't know if you're familiar with the tower, I think it's an AT&T tower, that's at the Ramada hotel at Exit 19. It's a flagpole. MR. BRENNAN-It was Sprint. MR. HUNSINGER-A flagpole tower, and that was the compromise. They said, well, we can make it look like a flagpole and put a flag on it, and that was to accommodate the neighbors. MR. BRENNAN-I remember that, I think the American Legion came out or something like that, because at some point there was a discussion about not allowing a flag on it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BRENNAN-Mike Cusack from my office, he used to be in my office, did that one for Sprint, and then he did the one that, there was another good one up by your water tank by West Mountain. MR. DEEB-Yes, we remember that one. MR. BRENNAN-I will be back at some point with other projects. We have been doing work with Laura on those small cells, the small antenna here and there, and then we do have a project on the two, well, one of the two tanks behind Aviation Mall. MR. HUNSINGER-So did you do Everts Avenue? Did you get the tower put there? At the radio station? MR. BRENNAN-The replacement one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BRENNAN-I worked, Mike Cusack who used to be with me I think did that. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that project done? MR. BRENNAN-There were some wetland issues there. MR. HUNSINGER-There was an FM radio tower that was replaced so they could put a cell on it. MR. BRENNAN-I'm familiar with parts of that but I didn't do the design for that. MR. HUNSINGER-So I work in Northway Plaza which is on Route 9. When we saw the propagation maps, it was shown that that was one of the areas that that antenna would help, and it hasn't, which is why I asked the question. MR. BRENNAN-Interestingly enough, we had a discussion last week, not to get too far into it. When these go online, right now we're deploying 4G LTE, and do part of that really runs, right now, Rick, who's the RF engineer, just reacquainted me with this. Right now most are your 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) phones are probably coming on what we call the Legacy 3G which is a different system. We're deploying 4G, and at some point the phones catch up. You may even have, and I think the Chairman at the Zoning Board had a new I-phone, but it was not working better because it was still set up to run on the 3G, although the data comes through on 4G, the voice is 3G. So he'd say you turn these things on and my voice isn't any better, and so it is a thing where that particular phone can be activated with a 4G voice, but you need to request it. So there is a little bit of a lag and we're building these things out. My mom was watching my little one today and she still has a flip phone somehow, you know, that's running on 3G. So a site like this would never help her because her voice runs on the old system, everything catches up over time. When your phone dies and you go to the store, the phone you get will only work on the new system. So sometimes it is a little bit of an incremental change. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're saying that ball commercial I've been watching for the last couple of weeks really isn't true? MR. DEEB-If your phone says 4G LTE, it is that or it isn't? MR. BRENNAN-It is connected to the 4G LTE network, but it is likely connected for data. You'd have to look closely whether you're actually turned on to get voice. Voice, in large part, is still running on the Legacy 3G until it all converts over. So, you know, when you go on and it says 4G and you're surfing the web and everything comes quickly and the videos turn on in three seconds, that's the data part of it, but if you pick up the phone and go to voice, it may well be still on the 3G network until everything transitions over. It's a little bit of an inexact discussion of it, but there is a bit of a difference that sometimes isn't necessarily apparent as the network evolves, and in three or four more years we'll be back in changing antennas for 5G. It's just never-ending. I do appreciate your patience in working through this tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-So we opened the public hearing before we suspended discussion. There were no written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-And there were no comments from the public either. We'll close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR. The applicant submitted a Short Form. MRS. MOORE-The applicant actually submitted a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-A Long Form. I'm sorry. Were there any environmental concerns that have been identified by the Board? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-It's really, the most significant impact with any of these is the visual impacts. MR. TRAVER-Right, and we've listened to that tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-And we've discussed that pretty extensively. So if there are no environmental concerns identified, we can consider a Negative Declaration. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It says already that one's been issued. This is SEQR, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, you're doing it now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We used to read these. MRS. MOORE-They used to give you the option of either or. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MRS. MOORE-If you'd like to go back to that, you can. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, just the last couple of weeks. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MRS. MOORE-That's all right. That's fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't matter to me. I don't care. MRS. MOORE-But you still have to go through the SEQR resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you want to make the motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm going to start here. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP PZ-0038-2015 CELLCO The applicant proposes 199' lattice tower for cell tower. The project will occur on 100' x 100' area of an 11.81 acre parcel. Project includes utilizing an existing gravel drive to access the project area. The site currently has residential use and an existing 297 ft. tall radio tower. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Telecommunications Towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ-0038-2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So the only change to the, well, the height of the tower is 177 feet. So you would need to reference. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The applicant proposes a 199 foot lattice tower. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but now it's going to be 177. So you can just change the wording. MR. MAGOWAN-Wait a second. I'm confused. They need 175, but if the County goes on wants another 22, do they have to come back to put the whip on? MS. WHITE-No, because that's not the tower height. MR. HUNSINGER-The lattice tower is 177. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) MR. TRAVER-That's what we're approving. We're not approving the County. MR. HUNSINGER-The County can put their whip on the top if they want. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's when they get to the 199. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ-0038-2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes 199' lattice tower for cell tower. The project will occur on 100' x 100' area of an 11.81 acre parcel. Project includes utilizing an existing gravel drive to access the project area. The site currently has residential use and an existing 297 ft. tall radio tower. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Telecommunications Towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 1/26/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 1/26/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ-0038-2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers r i lost grant /denied:i T�V""PRIYGTTregFG�T�TLTfTC TT 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; C) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; C. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2016) ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. k) The tower will be a 177 foot tall lattice tower and that they will reserve space for (2) 22 foot County whip antennas (for emergency services). Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-The waivers were granted? MRS. MOORE-There were no waivers requested on this application. MS. WHITE-And we were also going to include something about the agreement. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think just for clarification we should say that in addition the, I'm looking for the language here, the lattice tower will be 177 foot tall and that they will reserve space for two 22 foot County whip antennas. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Yes, that works. MR. HUNSINGER-So everything in the draft is okay. We just need to clarify those heights. Just for clarifications sake. It's in accordance with the draft with the condition that the tower be 177 foot lattice tower and they reserve space for two 22 foot County whip antennas. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you for your help. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. So is there anything else to come before the Board this evening? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 26th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 35