Loading...
12-17-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 77-2019 Gary Higley 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.10-1-14 Site Plan No. 81-2019 Meghan & Daniel Frazier 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-11 Site Plan No. 78-2019 Tillman Infrastructure 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.8-1-21 Site Plan No. 80-2019 The Addiction Care Center of Albany 19. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-63 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JAMIE WHITE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Tuesday, December 17, 2019. This is our first meeting for the month of December and Meeting Number 25 for 2019. Those of you that have electronic devices, if you would either turn them off or turn the ringer off. Please observe the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency those are our exits in addition to the doors that you came in as well. There should be some agendas and instructions for public hearing on the table at the back of the room if you would like to get one. If during our meeting you want to have a conversation amongst yourselves or with your neighbor, if you wouldn’t mind taking it into the other room so it doesn’t distract from our business at hand, we’d appreciate that, and with that, we will begin. The first item we have this evening is approval of minutes for the dates of nd October 15 and October 22, 2019, and I believe we have a resolution for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th October 15, 2019 nd October 22, 2019 th MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15 AND ND OCTOBER 22, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE nd ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb from October 22 meeting MR. TRAVER-Next we move to our regular agenda. The first item on that agenda, the first section of the agenda is Planning Board Recommendations, and the first item is Gary Higley, application, Site Plan 77- 2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 77-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GARY HIGLEY. AGENT(S): CIFONE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. OWNER(S): HIGLEY LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 23 JAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 320 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE MAIN FLOOR AND 90 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A MECHANICAL STORAGE AREA. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,776 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 3,779 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA IS 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1422-2142, RC 147-2018 SINGLE FAMILY ALT., AV 57-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .23 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10- 1-14. SECTION: 179-3-040. GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 320 square foot addition to the main floor and a 90 square foot addition to a mechanical storage area. Relief is requested for setback and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. MR. HIGLEY-Good evening. Gary Higley, 23 Jay Road, Queensbury, NY. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Tell us about your project. MR. HIGLEY-So this is an existing shed roof that has been on the property for as long as the property has been there. It is a three room summer camp and we’re looking to put a t.v. room or another room on just to get away. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and so we’re looking at variances for setback and permeability. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-When you started off you said we were looking to do a room, but it has your name on the room. I’m only kidding, but it says Gary’s room. Gary’s t.v. room. MR. HIGLEY-It is Gary’s t.v. room. You are correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Good place to get away. MR. HIGLEY-It is a needed room, desperately. MR. TRAVER-So as far as context, this evening we’re really just considering the variances and if approved we’d be looking at Site Plan later, and I think later meaning Thursday. Try to get this all done this week. MR. VALENTINE-I have one other question. On your plan I didn’t see, I see the well on the property adjacent to you but I don’t see the location of a well on your side. MR. HIGLEY-The well is under the house, towards the, under the master bedroom towards the front of the house. MR. MAGOWAN-You don’t have to pull that too far. MR. HIGLEY-This was my parents’ home for 30 some odd years, and Susan and I purchased it from them and we re-constructed it last year. It was an old camp on Glen Lake and it needed some loving care. It was, the back half was falling down. So it was completely re-built. Cifone did it two years ago. So this is Phase II. We’d like to just put another room on the existing shed. The back wall of the basement of the shed that we’re doing, if you notice we’re just bumping it out two to four feet. That existing wall is weak and needs to be replaced anyway. So we just thought we’d add a little bit to that room. MR. TRAVER-For better access. Right? MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Can you tell me a little bit about the septic? I’m sorry it says septic manholes here. MR. HIGLEY-So when we did the original building permit we had to have all of the septic approved, and the septic has been virtually completely re-built. It was originally put in in the 90’s, but all the lines from the house to the 1,000 gallon tank have been replaced. It goes out of a 1,000 gallon tank to a round pump up station. There was a new pump put in in the spring of this year. The line going from the pump up station up to the very top of the driveway, there are two drywells up there that have been dug up and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) inspected by the Town. So all of this was done before we were allowed to get our first permit. So I feel very comfortable about it and I think the Town does, too. MR. VALENTINE-And what’s the dimensional requirement for separation between well and septic? MR. HIGLEY-The drywells at the top of the road and the well are 147 feet and it has to be 150 feet. We received a variance for that to put up our, to re-build the house, and so we were literally two or three feet short of that, but we did receive a variance for that. MR. VALENTINE-And this my ignorance on manholes. Is there that same separation requirement from those septic manholes to the wells? MR. HIGLEY-No. The separation has to be from the drywells to the well. It’s not from the holding tank. MR. VALENTINE-And so you’re saying at the top of the driveway up by Bay Road is where those are going to be? MR. HIGLEY-Is where those are located. Yes. MR. DIXON-Out of curiosity, the little peninsula that points out there, is that where the? MR. HIGLEY-That’s an osprey’s nest, yes. MR. DIXON-All right, because we had a lengthy conversation. MR. HIGLEY-That’s Osprey Point. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Mike, just so you understand those septic manholes, what they are, they’re actually three tanks and what you have is you have the main tank that you pump, and just in case goes into the second one and then the effluent goes into the third one where the pump is and basically pumps up. MR. VALENTINE-So the pump would be from there up to? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. So the pump is in the third one closest to the road, closest to the road from the house. MR. VALENTINE-Well I believe it’s 100 feet. MR. HIGLEY-It’s 150 feet for a drywell. It’s 100 feet for a leach field. MR. VALENTINE-Well then I was looking it’s only 65 feet from the first manhole to the well next door, and that’s why I was asking. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And I remember the project next door because I believe there were also some variances there and, you know, concerns of being so close, and wasn’t there a shed or something, if I remember correctly? MR. HIGLEY-Yes, there was. MR. MAGOWAN-It was kind of on your property. MR. HIGLEY-It was not on my property. MR. MAGOWAN-Right on the line or something. MR. HIGLEY-I think it was less than a foot. Yes, 18 inches in fact I think. MR. TRAVER-A lot of small lots over there. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do people feel about the setback? On the books it’s 20 feet is required and we’re looking at 7.7 feet, and the permeability, 75 is required and we’re looking at 66.2. MR. VALENTINE-But it’s at 66.7 right now. You’re losing a half of a percent. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-I’m fine with it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s minimal, but it does trigger the variance, and the setback, is that effected by the bump out? MR. HIGLEY-There’s no bump out. The back =of the property is just a straight line, and the whole house is seven and a half feet from the property line. It’s been that way for. MR. TRAVER-That’s not a change in the? MR. HIGLEY-No, we’re not changing that at all. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HIGLEY-In fact we’re, that’s all existing. The bump out is heading up the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. HIGLEY-I think the permeability changes .5 percent. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, that’s what Mike said. MR. MAGOWAN-And after looking at the prints and seeing the pictures there, it would be kind of nice, that retaining wall there and some soil, you would definitely, even though you’re losing that .5, I think that .5 would be made up with that retaining wall and your soil up behind you. MR. HIGLEY-And once this is all done it’s going to be all new landscape. It needs to be. There’s a lot of Glen Lake rock in there. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board before we consider a resolution? MR. VALENTINE-It says axel found. I usually see something that says iron pipe found or something like that? MR. TRAVER-That’s what they had at the time. MR. VALENTINE-Is that what it was? That’s their survey point? MR. HIGLEY-That’s on the survey map. MR. VALENTINE-If they use that and that’s what they use, it’s permanent, that’s there. I wonder what kind of axel? There’s not a car burial, is there? MR. HIGLEY-There might be. I don’t know. MR. MAGOWAN-It might have been a Model A or something. That’s when they used to make good metal. MR. TRAVER-And they sometimes try to find something that’s easily discernable and somewhat unique and not likely to be moved. You’re not going to move a 700 pound axel very easily. All right. Are there any concerns that we need to pass along to the ZBA? Minimal impact on the variances for what the applicant is trying to do. It sounds like it will be an improvement to the property. MR. DEEB-No concerns. MR. TRAVER-No concerns. I guess we’re ready for a motion, then. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 57-2019 GARY HIGLEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 320 sq. ft. addition to the main floor and 90 sq. ft. addition to a mechanical storage area. The existing home is 1,776 sq. ft. and a floor area of 3,779 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2019 GARY HIGLEY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. HIGLEY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next we have also under Planning Board Recommendations, Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Site Plan 81-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 81-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SHORE ACRES ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 4,915 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT OF A 14,240 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR A 500 SQ. FT. BUNKHOUSE, 315 SQ. FT. GAZEBO, AND A 360 SQ. FT. PORTE-COCHERE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND SHORELINE BUFFER PLANTINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SECOND GARAGE (PORTE-COCHERE), AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GAZEBO). PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AST-580-2019 DOCK, DEMO 532-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 2.84 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-11. SECTION: 179-3-040. MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes new 4,915 square foot footprint of a 14,240 square foot floor area single family home. The project includes site work for a 500 square foot bunkhouse, a 315 square foot gazebo, and a 360 square foot porte-cochere. Variance relief is sought for a second garage and my understanding is that they’re going to remove the gazebo variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Michael O’Connor from Little, O’Connor & Borie. I represent the Frazier’s, Daniel Frazier and Meghan Frazier. Basically we’re asking for your recommendation to the Planning Board for one variance. The application says we are looking for two variances, but we’ve come to a way of avoiding one of the variances. Basically the one that we’re looking for is for approval of what Craig Brown 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) has deemed to be a second garage. We differ with his opinion on that. We think it’s part of the front entrance to the house. It’s called a porte-cochere. MR. TRAVER-It’s like a carport basically. Right? MR. O’CONNOR-It’s a drive thru, yes. It’s a drive thru to let people out into the main entrance of the house. And I went through different definitions and didn’t convince Craig, but the definition of garage in the Ordinance says a structure that primarily is for the storage of a vehicle, and I don’t think that this falls any place close to that. I don’t think that it’s a big variance that we’re asking for anyway. It has no impact on anybody so we’re not going to argue that further than just mentioning that I think it’s a little bit of overkill. Also if you look up the definition of porte-cochere it’s a front entranceway to get into a house. It’s used a shelter to allow people to get out of the weather as they’re getting into the house. And this thing that we’re talking about is 360 feet and this is a 2.84 acre lot. So it has very little impact. I think you’ve got plans of it. MR. TRAVER-We do. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know what else you need of me to explain. If you have questions we’d be glad to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Well one of the things that struck me, and understanding you’re here this evening to discuss the variance to go into the ZBA. One of the things that struck me somewhat unusual, and it may be related to your waiting for the ZBA to look at your application, but there are very large number of engineering issues outstanding, some of which may change your site plan. So what I would suggest, and this is as an aside, for the variance discussion, is that should you process your variance through the ZBA, before you return to us, you should work with the engineer and try to clear up those engineering comments because there are a large number of them and many of them are such that it would be very difficult for us to process the Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re prepared to do that. We’ve already looked at, Tom Hutchins is the engineer. I think you have a response. I don’t know. It may not fall within the timelines of getting it to the Town so that the Town Engineer can look at it and sign off, but we’re prepared to address the engineering letter. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, and again, depending upon the nature of the issues, as you know from your experience in working with us on projects we can sometimes condition them, but generally when we see a large number and they’re outstanding that may or may not have an impact on the design, that’s a little bit uncomfortable for us to condition because we don’t know ultimately that there may be a change in the Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mr. Hutchins’ review says that it won’t change, that he’ll be able to answer the questions. A lot of it was some additional information as to what was there and he can provide that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m sure he can work it out. I just thought I’d bring that to your attention. MR. O'CONNOR-For the record the second variance that we were asking for was exceeding the 500 square feet limit on accessory structures as the gazebo by Craig was determined to be an accessory structure and not attached to the house, although the roof is continuous and what we’ve done or what we will do, and I’m officially withdrawing that application for that variance. Instead we’re going to close it. That was one of his issues was that it was not totally enclosed. So we will have a foundation under it that will be connected to the foundation of the house. We’ll enclose the gazebo, and I think that makes it not an accessory structure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And we can go forward and just talk about. MR. TRAVER-Have you discussed that with the Zoning Administrator yet? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You have? Okay. All right. Very good. MR. O'CONNOR-So what we’re looking for is your recommendation on the 360 square foot porte-cochere. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you for that clarification. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Mike, where does the bunkhouse fall into this issue of accessory structure or not? MR. O'CONNOR-The bunkhouse is 500 square feet. So we’ve used up the accessory structure square footage. MR. SHAFER-Well that is the accessory structure. MR. O'CONNOR-That is, yes. MR. TRAVER-And so when the gazebo was added, that’s what triggered, which they have since withdrawn. MR. SHAFER-I assume that when you come back Tom will be able to describe the wastewater system? You have done a lot of wastewater systems but I’m not familiar with that particular one. I’d like him to be able to explain, we’re talking 990 gallons a day here capacity, and that’s a huge system. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sure he can do that. We also have a landscape fellow that’s going to come in. We have an architect that’s going to come in. You’re going to get a lot of information from us if you have questions. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman I have a question maybe to Laura, and that Chazen’s stormwater letter characterizes this as a Major project. I know that was for stormwater purposes, but there are other aspects of this project that I would consider major. So I think to the question of what determines what the Town Engineer reviews or doesn’t review, my view in this case is he should review more than just the stormwater. He should review the wastewater system for example. MRS. MOORE-At this time the wastewater has been handled by the Building and Codes Department. It has not been forwarded to the engineer for review and it typically isn’t. MR. SHAFER-You mean Chazen or the Town Engineer? MRS. MOORE-Chazen is the Town designated engineer. MR. SHAFER-So will they get a chance to review the wastewater system? MRS. MOORE-They typically do not. MR. SHAFER-Can we, I guess that’s my question. Can we ask them to do other than just stormwater? MRS. MOORE-You can. MR. SHAFER-This is a 990 gallon per day wastewater demand. MRS. MOORE-What I would suggest is when they’re back in on Thursday that you want to at least listen to the presentation and at least hear what Mr. Hutchins has to say about that system, and if there’s further review needed then at that time you might want to, you possibly could refer it to the engineer. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and again we’re primarily here this evening for the variance and I may have started something by commenting on the number of engineering comments. MR. SHAFER-I just want them to know that’s an issue that we’ll raise. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and it is a system, and I’m sure Mike will be prepared. Other questions, comments regarding the variance for the porte-cochere? Okay. Does anyone have any concerns with that variance? Apparently it’s triggered by the determination by the Zoning Administrator that it closely constitutes a second garage according to our zoning. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand the concept of it, but for me that are quite a few of them all over Queensbury and I would never see that as a garage except for an area to be able to get out under cover and be able to go into the house. And I have to say some of the houses that I’ve been to that have it, it’s quite nice when the weather is not good. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. TRAVER-Yes, well sometimes it’s a matter of sort of defining or pigeon holing if you will the aspects of an application. If there isn’t a specific item in the zoning that covers porte-cochere, the Zoning Administrator has to make a determination where does this fit in, and the determination was that it’s a garage. MR. MAGOWAN-And I fully understand that and I can see why it was brought up, but, you know, like I said, even the Bible’s been re-written many times, you know, as times go on. MR. TRAVER-Thank goodness we’re not here for a variance on that. All right. Are there any, I may have answered my own question. Are there any specific comments we want to forward to the ZBA with regard to the remaining variance? MR. HUNSINGER-Mine are all Site Plan related. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’ll have an opportunity to look at that. No? Okay. Then we’re ready for a motion. MR. DEEB-All right. Motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 60-2019, Meghan & Daniel Frazier. The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second it. MR. TRAVER-We have a referral motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest that you include that the variance has been reduced to just the porte-cochere. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we can, well, we can actually include that as a referral, I suppose, to the ZBA. Right? MR. DEEB-Isn’t that in there? MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s revise the motion to include a note that the application has been revised to eliminate the request for variance for a gazebo, accessory structure. MR. O'CONNOR-I believe we will get a letter from Craig Brown when we show him the actual drawings of how we want to close it. We didn’t have those drawings when the decision was made this week. MR. DEEB-You might not be ready for Thursday. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to try very hard to get it ready. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m sure they’re going to want to present their project and interact with the Board. It won’t be likely complete by then because of the engineering, but they’ll certainly make some progress. MR. DEEB-All right. I’m going to amend the motion. I’m going to re-do it. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 60-2019 FRAZIER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a new 4,915 sq. ft. footprint of a 14,240 sq. ft. floor area single family home. Project includes site work for a 500 sq. ft. bunkhouse, 315 sq. ft. gazebo, and 360 sq. ft. porte-cochere. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and shoreline buffer plantings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for second garage (porte-cochere), and accessory structure (gazebo). Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2019 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. b) The only variance requested is the relief sought for the second garage porte-cochere. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next under Planning Board recommendations we have Tillman Infrastructure, Site Plan 78- 2019. SITE PLAN NO. 78-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE. AGENT(S): TONY PHILLIPS, FULLERTON ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): BURKE BROTHERS BUILDERS, INC. ZONING: RR- 3A. LOCATION: 55 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 260 FT. LATTICE TOWER FOR UP TO THREE TENANTS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR A 360 FT. ROAD WITH LEASE AREA OF 100 FT. X 100 FT. THE PLANS SHOW LOCATION OF PADS FOR TENANTS. SITE TO BE GRAVEL AND LEASE AREA TO HAVE FENCE ENCLOSURE. TOWER IS TO HAVE A LIGHT ON TOP TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FCC. Pursuant to chapter 179-5-130 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR NEW CELL TOWER. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 20.17 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-21. SECTION: 179-5-130. TONY PHILLIPS & DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to install a 260foot lattice tower for up to three tenants. The project includes site work for a 360 foot road with lease area of 100 feet by 100 feet. The fenced enclosure will be at 75 by 75 and the relief requested is in reference to a Use Variance where cell towers are not allowed in the RR-3A zone. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. Hi, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tony Phillips. I’m with Fullerton Engineering on behalf of AT&T and Tillman Infrastructure. I’m joined by Dave Brennan, attorney for Tillman, and you’ve seen the packet here. We’re proposing a 250 foot, 260 foot cell tower over on main street, right, 149, and our project is for AT&T to come off the existing cell tower which is on the neighboring property there. They’re at 149 feet I believe on that tower. They would move up to 250 feet on this tower. They would increase their coverage. It would also allow them to install the newer technology. There’s several different technologies that they can’t install right now being on that tower. Some of it’s financial. I don’t know if you’ve seen the packet or not, but they have a little financial hardship with the current tower on SBA. They’re trying to make a case against having competition we’ll say. The zoning ordinances as they’re written right now pretty much I don’t think the founder fathers realized when they wrote these ordinances that they were creating a monopoly. By saying you can only have one tower in the town you’re saying you can only have one gas station in town, guess what the price of gas is going to be, pretty high. So what happens here is they know that the ordinances are protecting them. Okay, well enforce your ordinance because we should be the only one in town. Well that’s not really fair. So what’s happening is every time AT&T and the other carriers around these towers, every time they want to do the tech change or change their technology from 4G to 5G and 5G to whatever, there’s a toll booth there. They have to pay 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) the freight. Every time you want to touch it they charge, and you have to get all the paperwork that’s involved and months of processing paperwork. Then there’s extra fees. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. You’re talking a payment to the owner of the tower they currently occupy? MR. PHILLIPS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, so this is they their incentive to come off a tower. MR. TRAVER-But don’t they have to pay, in this case, Tillman Infrastructure? MR. PHILLIPS-They will, but it’s a fixed rent. There won’t be any increases for 15 years and there won’t be any charge to come off and on. They can change their equipment as often as they want. MR. TRAVER-I see. So it’s just a better deal. MR. PHILLIPS-They can do it as maintenance basically. So over the course of the lease, a 30 year lease, they might save a million dollars in rent per site, which is a big chunk. MR. TRAVER-Sure. I’m sure they’re going to pass that on to their consumer. MR. PHILLIPS-So and if they could build a tower somewhere else within the ordinance and it says so many feet away from X amount of towers and this and that, that would be great. The problem is you have customers that are right there that need coverage, that are used to having coverage. They want to enhance that coverage. They want to increase their in building coverage. They also want to add the First Net program which is the federally funded, partially federally funded first responders network. So that would give them the opportunity to do that as well. They would outfit this whole tower with all the newest laser technology and that’s about it. MR. TRAVER-Well I do see that there are a number of other towers in the area. What’s going to be the impact on those? And I know that’s a bit outside of the purview of your application. MR. PHILLIPS-Right. Well they have to now, I mean in the old days the technology, when you were making a phone call, the tower could be four miles away because that’s all it was was just voice. MR. TRAVER-Analog. MR. PHILLIPS-Exactly. Now you need in building coverage. You need in car coverage. You need Wi-Fi, you need this. You want to be connected constantly. The last thing you want is to be at work on your phone and have things drop off on you or have to drive up to the top of the hill to get a signal, and so this would give them a better coverage area. Obviously they’d be higher up on the tower, like almost 100 feet in height which in this topography is huge. MR. TRAVER-It’s all line of sight. MR. PHILLIPS-Right. I don’t want to say line of sight, but you can get lost down in some of these hills and things. So it would help them. It would also help them with their, keeping their costs down, because if the costs keep going up, if the tower owners know that they can be the only one in town, they can charge whatever they want, they’re going to keep doing that. So who’s going to suffer? The customer is at the end of the day, AT&T’s going to have to raise their prices, Verizon, you know, whoever’s on the tower if going to have to raise their prices to the consumer or they’ll just say, you know what, we’re not going to pay that price, we’re going to leave you at 4G. So the rest will be at 8G while everybody else in Queensbury is going to be at 4G because they don’t want to pay that price. So there’s so many ramifications by leaving things as is. So this would benefit them and obviously, you know, everybody says AT&T has a ton of money and they don’t need, we shouldn’t feel sorry for AT&T, but at the end of the day the consumer winds up paying for everything. An athlete gets a raise, it pops up on a ticket, you know, and we don’t have much choice. This is where we have to go because we have to provide that same coverage. Now granted two miles down the road AT&T’s on another tower two miles down the road, but you have to be. The technology’s, if you want to have in building coverage, Wi-Fi, all those things that come along with that, all the things that now it’s critical infrastructure. It used to be a luxury. Now you need that. People are getting rid of their landlines and God forbid you have an emergency, you need to be connected. So this would help that. This would bring it up to date, State of the Art equipment, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) keep their prices down hopefully, and that’s about it. I don’t know what else I can say. It’s a cell tower obviously, but you’re also in an area that’s very wooded. We’ve provided some drawings. It’s very hard to see over there. You don’t see it very far. The existing tower it’s hard to find it unless you’re in the right spot. So there’s a lot of natural screening involved. So taking that into consideration also, and it also would provide more, because that’s your pretty much business district there, with all your outlet malls and the highway’s right there, that we’re bringing it a little bit closer to those people. So I think you’ll get a better in building coverage out of this as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and again you’re here this evening for the variance, but I would just mention as far as your Site Plan is concerned there’s some additional detail that Staff is wanting us to point out to you, that trench area details need to be shown. MR. PHILLIPS-Correct. We forwarded it to the engineers. They’re going to work on that. We’ll make sure that there’s a plan that everybody’s happy with. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, yes, and there’s a question about the power, if it’s underground or overhead, that type of detail. MR. PHILLIPS-Typically they find the nearest pole and then they’ll trench, they’ll put in inner ducts, you know, they’ll run fiber and power up to the site, they’ll keep everything underground. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that should be noted on the plans as well. MR. PHILLIPS-We’ll make sure of that. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-The existing tower had, there’s only one antenna? MR. PHILLIPS-The existing tower, there’s a few other tenants on there. Verizon’s on there as well. MR. BRENNAN-I know AT&T and Verizon are both on that existing tower to the east, and AT&T is the applicant here. Verizon has a letter that we’ll submit to Mrs. Moore later indicating that they’re similarly going to move over and join in the new site if it’s approved for the same financial reasons. MR. HUNSINGER-So would that old tower then be abandoned? MR. BRENNAN-I can’t speak for the tower owner. I can say that under your Code you do have a provision that says that if a tower becomes abandoned or disused there’s a requirement to remove it, but what I don’t know and I couldn’t see and of course this time of year by the time you get up, I got up here from Albany it was dark. I could not tell if there was anyone else up on that tower. It didn’t look to me, but there’s the possibility that, you know, the only other two options in this day and age are Sprint and T- Mobile and I don’t know if they’re on there or not, but certainly Tillman will offer them an incentive to relocate as well and so if the existing tower can’t stay competitive they may lose all their tenants, but that’s, this is a unique situation for me. I’ve been in front of this Board several times over the years on behalf of Verizon and it’s an interesting situation. We’re seeing it actually more and more across the board as the industry has matured, and we’re finding as leases expire landlords are digging in and we’re having to relocate towers after 20 years of being in existence. Although it’s not too dissimilar from the last time I was here on a new tower, which is the next one the Chair was talking about, will this impact other towers, and I suspect the answer is no. This is not going to drive antennas off of existing towers that are likely a mile and a half or more away. Those walls still need to function for the network, but we did, the last Verizon tower I did here was on the next set of towers due east on 149. It was an existing FM tower that was structurally insufficient so we came before this Board for the same exact process for another tower on that property. This is very similar in that regard other than what we’re saying in this case is we don’t have a structural problem we can’t overcome. We have a financial problem and these decisions are not taken lightly. It’s not as if they threw in the towel after a month of talking. It’s been multiple years-worth of trying to renegotiate a deal to the point that they’re paying less, and Tillman’s coming in from Chicago. I only drove up the Northway, but, you know, to go to this level of making a pitch and an application it’s really a financial burden that they haven’t come to terms and so that’s why we’re here. MR. DIXON-If it’s primarily financial, I know this tower you’re proposing is 100 feet taller than the existing tower. Is it truly necessary? I mean obviously the higher you go the better the transmission radius. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. PHILLIPS-In this case that’s what they need for their, their RF engineers did their studies and found that that’s the height they need to be at, and also you need to be, to have a multi carrier tower you have to be high enough so that the other carriers, you know, it would be worth them coming there. If we built a tower just high enough for AT&T to bounce off and come there at the same height, then the available rad center, that’s what they call it a rad center, would be lower than what they already have. So now it’s not attractive to anyone. So now you’re building a tower that nobody else wants to be on. Now it doesn’t make sense. So in order for it to be attractive for other tenants, you want to also have the additional height. MR. BRENNAN-And I would say there’s a second part to that question as well. The existing topography, the ground elevation changes between the two sites. Although they’re next to one another, there is some loss in elevation at the proposed new site. So at a minimum to keep the antennas at the same elevation above sea level it has to be a taller tower, and then because they’re re-doing it the R F engineers are basically tacking on, I’ll say for rough justice, 50 more feet, and that basically drives, and there’s coverage plus that we’re provided to improve the AT&T coverage to this area of the community. So as we’re starting anew they’re re-looking and saying we can get better coverage to the community. Obviously you know as well as I do traffic’s tough through there and the amount of people on their phones right there is off the charts and so they’re trying to improve the coverage while we’re here. So it’s two things. MR. SHAFER-Where is the existing tower? MR. PHILLIPS-It’s at the property immediately to the east, so directly due west of French Mountain Drive. So the tower kind of buts up, the existing one is behind those homes. MR. SHAFER-I didn’t see it on the drawing is why I was asking. MR. BRENNAN-It’s just off the drawings to the east, yes. MR. DEEB-Is there a chance of litigation? MR. BRENNAN-In this business, in doing towers, there’s always some chance. I don’t, you know, I don’t know. I don’t ever love litigation. So that’s not the right answer, but I’m not afraid of litigation in this case because what is someone going to come in and go to a judge and go, you know we’re one tower owner and we want to block another tower because we’re going to lose, we’re fighting about economics. We’re going to lose money. I have not seen traditional citizen opposition to this and I wouldn’t expect that based upon my knowledge of doing other projects in community I can never speak to that for sure until we have a public hearing, but as far as litigation from the other tower owner, I think that it’s always possible. If that’s what happens then we’ll deal with it and we’ll leave the majority of the heavy lifting for the town attorney or the counsel and defend it. MR. TRAVER-Financial impact would be a cause of action? MR. BRENNAN-I believe actually it’s pretty set in stone at the Court of Appeals that finances and economics don’t provide standing in land use disputes. It’s pretty solid on that. So I wasn’t trying to get into it too deep, but that’s where I’m going with it. MR. TRAVER-That’s my understanding. MR. BRENNAN-I think it’s a pretty solid position that for you to come in and say that you’re being harmed through solely economics. They can’t complain about the visibility of it because they’re a tower owner. So I mean in this day and age the only thing we’re left with really is visibility. MR. DEEB-Well I was just concerned about the Town’s participation. MR. BRENNAN-Sure. I appreciate that, and I’m a town attorney and Planning Board attorney in many communities and my position is, depending on the town, is we say hey, applicant, this is your fight and you do the bulk of the work and that’s the way we normally handle it. MR. HUNSINGER-So the questions that I have are related to the propagation maps that you provided, and quite frankly I don’t really see any difference. MR. PHILLIPS-There’s more brown, darker brown area which is in building, and that’s the big thing. The darker, the deeper brown would be. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So is that worth 55 feet? MR. PHILLIPS-It’s not just about the height. It’s about the financial. It’s the technology. MR. HUNSINGER-But the height is the visual impact. When you start to talk about the visual impact of towers, the impact on the community and the view shed, and I guess the height of the tower drives that discussion. So it’s always been a compromise between what the applicant comes in saying, we need 250 feet. Then we usually come back and say, well, why not two or 195. MR. PHILIPS-I think people are used to seeing a tower at this location already and it’s kind of in more of a commercial area. It’s not really residential. We’ve taken photo simulations from the residential view points and it’s very hard to see this tower. If you’re sitting in your house you won’t even see it, the homes that are in those areas. So it’s more of a commercial. You’ll see it from a commercial, you know, businesses will see it, but this is to help them as well. I mean this is to help their customers find them on Google maps and GPS and all those things that are related to your cell phone and all your coupons that you get when you’re standing in the store at the outlet mall and all those things that come to you through the airwaves. It will help with that, and it allows them to do the technology and keep the prices down, and it’s just competition in the marketplace is what it boils down to. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s also visible to tourists. MR. PHILLIPS-Correct, and that’s why this airwave. MR. HUNSINGER-Who come up here to get away from all of those things. MR. PHILLIPS-Right. We understand that, and that’s why, one of the hierarchies, I think in your jurisdiction and I think in many jurisdictions is to keep towers in the same parcel. We’re just almost on the same parcel. To keep the view shed, you know, in the same area, to keep the towers in the same area. This could be one parcel technically, you know, it’s that close. So, you know, in some jurisdictions that’s a hierarchy is to keep it on the same parcel if you’re going to do another tower. So because of the visual impact because you’re used to seeing that tower there, and like I said this is more of a commercial area. You have the highway. MR. DEEB-Is it necessary, I assume you’re going to try to get the 5G. You’re going to be using this tower. MR. BRENNAN-Five G is, you see it everywhere on t.v. You don’t see it everywhere in real life yet. MR. DEEB-In big cities. MR. BRENNAN-And you use the word plural, it’s more than one city, but it’s still in its infancy. MR. DEEB-I guess my question is do you need the height for that? MR. PHILLIPS-Not necessarily. MR. BRENNAN-Five G is more working at the lower, on the small cells. You recently updated your Code in I think April of this year to include a section on small cell antennas. So these sites will always have a role in the network because of the voice and the data that comes off of what we call a macro site and then the 5G is going to be more typically on rooftops or on telephone poles, but one is not going to eliminate the other. The whole systems will work to provide the experience. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, I’ve got a question. Within the regs is there a definition of the fall distances required, there’s no ratio of one to one or 100%? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. I think you’re way beyond that anyhow. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, the setbacks, we meet the setbacks. These towers are designed now to fall on themselves. They have a break point kind of just below where the antennas are. They’re designed to fall on themselves. So if they did fall, that’s where it would break. MR. DIXON-This is a traditional tower. I know some people out there are putting in the Franken trees. I don’t even know if that’s an option or if that would even look. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. PHILLIPS-I will tell you that this is, they do work, and there’s obviously the one that was the source of much to do more than 10 years ago up on the east side of Lake George. They have a role, but at this height I don’t think there’s any feasible way and I think you would be upset with the result if you were to talk about a stealth tree. They work very nicely if you need 80 feet of height and you’ve got trees all the way around it that are 60 feet tall and that’s peaking up above the existing trees. They work wonderfully if you have a backdrop against it, but at anything above 100 feet I’ve seen them, and you’ve probably seen them elsewhere but they just look out of place. MR. BRENNAN-Like a Sequoia. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There’s one that I notice when my wife and I go to Maine every year in the fall and it’s a Franken pine, but it’s not, it’s way out of proportion to, and it makes it much more visible than if it were just a plain antenna, but it’s really bad. MR. PHILLIPS-There’s a couple of examples. There’s one down on 88 if you get to Bambridge, one on the top of the hill, somebody put a 120 foot stealth mono pine or Franken pine. It sticks out by itself up on top of that hill. You’ve seen it. We’ve thought of keeping it galvanized, just a standard galvanized steel. It kind of just goes, I mean the sky is rarely blue, blue. So there’s always a little bit of gray. So it kind of just blends in. After a while you don’t even realize it’s there. MR. DIXON-And one other question. Mr. Chairman, you can help me with this one. So in our packet it was talking about drainage connecting up to the State stormwater runoff. Are the variances contingent on that? MR. TRAVER-That would be a Site Plan issue. The variance is just for the tower itself, but, yes, there’s some engineering clarification that needs to be made with regard to the runoff and the right of way and that kind of things. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, we’re working on that, and obviously any approval would be conditioned on that. MR. VALENTINE-And do you have to have a DOT permit then for that connection? MR. PHILLIPS-Correct. Yes, it’s a State road so we’ll have a DOT permit. So we’ll have every, we’ll be in compliance everywhere. MR. TRAVER-All right. On the variance itself, for the referral, are there any concerns, any additional concerns, aside from Site Plan issues which would be addressed later, are there concerns for the variance for the relief for the new cell tower? MR. HUNSINGER-I just go back to my initial comment. I just don’t see where the propagation maps that are provided show the need to go from 195 feet to 250 feet. I think you have more ground at the base of the tower, but that’s about it. MR. PHILLIPS-We’d be happy, at the Site Plan, if there’s a continuing, you know, you want more information, I’d be happy to, between now and Thursday, I can come back Thursday with an additional detail for the Board and if you’re still not satisfied then we can continue the discussion, but I will certainly go back to the RF engineer and ask for a more detailed discussion of the necessity of that height. At the one level we’re looking and asking for a Use Variance for the new tower. The second level inquiry is exactly what you’re saying, like any new tower, justify your height, and that’s no problem. We’ll be more than happy to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I also don’t buy the argument, no offense, that there’s already a tower nearby so now what’s the difference they have two. I mean if one’s marginally okay and then you add a second one that’s taller, that makes it twice as not okay now. MR. PHILLIPS-Correct. It’s another tower, but like I say some jurisdictions prefer towers in groups, you know, bunched in areas. MR. BRENNAN-It is in your Code, in the siting hierarchy in your Code it’s there. The first hierarchy is go on an existing tower, and so what happens is that’s where we started off the discussion. That directive creates the monopoly where you’ve got to show us you can go on this existing tower or making the case that we would need to come off of it and then you go down. Usually you can’t put two towers on the same parcel because typically the existing first lease will have an exclusivity provision and so a lot of codes 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) will say we want you to cluster, as an alternative, cluster two towers on the same host parcel. That becomes typically very difficult because the first person in typically has something in their lease that says you can’t do a second tower. MR. HUNSINGER-Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that our Code specifies that all towers shall have the means of co-location. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You have to agree to that MR. PHILLIPS-Right. You have to allow for co-location. A new tower has to allow for co-location and this one does. MR. TRAVER-That’s part of the business plan I assume. Right? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But the second test, though, is to show that you’ve looked at alternative sites and that those aren’t viable, and you’ve shown us the existing site and said that the new site’s better, but what other sites have you looked at? MR. PHILLIPS-They’re not close enough. They’re two miles away, a mile and a half away. They don’t cover the same area, the same coverage. If you look at the coverage maps, you’ve got X amount feet around it. AT&T gave us a 1,000 feet radius or 1500 foot radius. I think in this case it might have been a 1,000 foot radius to stay within that existing site up there so that they can provide same coverage or better to their clients. MR. DEEB-And if you want to have decent coverage you’ve got to stay in that area. It loops. MR. PHILLIPS-We can’t move the gas station. It has to stay there unfortunately. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, so we’ll have some clarification at Site Plan. Are we ready, then, to make a referral to the ZBA? Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: UV # 1-2019 TILLMAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install a 260 ft. lattice tower for up to three tenants. Project includes site work for a 360 ft. road with lease area of 100 ft. x 100 ft. The plans show location of pads for tenants. Site to be gravel and lease area to have fence enclosure. Tower is to have a light on top to be compliant with the FCC. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130 of the Zoning Ordinance, telecommunications towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for new cell tower. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2019 TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we have an item under New Business, and that is the Addiction Care Center of Albany, Site Plan 80-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 80-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THE ADDICTION CARE CENTER OF ALBANY. AGENT(S): BBL- JOHN KELLOGG. OWNER(S): PETROSKI & FISHER, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 68 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER THE INTERIOR OF THE EXISTING 6,870 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A 21 BED MEN’S RESIDENTIAL HEALTH RELATED FACILITY. THE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL ROOMS, OFFICE AREAS, KITCHEN AREA, DINING AND LOUNGE AREA, COUNSELOR ROOM AND LAUNDRY AREA. THE PLANS INDICATE NEW SIGNAGE, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW USE FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 41-2004, SP 3-1988. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.15 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1- 63. SECTION: 179-3-040. KEITH STACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to alter the interior of the existing 6,870 square foot building for a 21 bed men’s residential healthcare facility. The interior alterations are to include residential rooms, office areas, kitchen area, dining and lounge area, counselor room and laundry area. The plans indicate new signage, lighting and landscaping. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STACK-Hi. My name is Keith Stack. I’m the Executive Director of the Addictions Care Center of Albany. We have a contract to purchase 68 Quaker Road and we have a contract with the Warren County Community Services Board to provide residential services, treatment services, for 21 men. We have a capital contract with the New York State office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services to renovate the building, purchase and renovate the building. MR. TRAVER-So Oasis is funding the purchase and renovation and then Community Services is providing support for the services. MR. STACK-Operational, yes, it’s an operational budget with the Community Services Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STACK-That’s base funding to cover staffing and then we build manage companies for the actual services that we provide. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-You have the one on Glenwood Avenue. MR. STACK-Yes. It just opened actually. MR. DEEB-That one’s approved. MR. STACK-Yes, it was. MR. DEEB-I live in Queensbury across from that. I would like to say that it’s amazing how you transformed that building from what it was to what it is now, and how efficient and well done the building looks. I was pretty happy with the way that went, and I assume you’re going to do the same thing with this one. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. STACK-Yes, absolutely. MR. DEEB-And how many residents do you have in there now, on Glenwood? MR. STACK-On Glenwood, well we don’t have any residents yet. We just started accepting referrals. That’ll be an 18 bed, that’s an 18 bed facility. MR. DEEB-There’s a lot of cars in there. nd MR. STACK-Well, we have, we’ve had staff on site since December 2 for clinical training and just training on our electronic record keeping system. Really more just orientation with each other, skilled medical staff and other clinical staff. MR. DEEB-It looks really good. MR. STACK-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-I almost pulled in tonight. I thought it was an open house. There were so many lights on. Everyone was in there. MR. STACK-We had an open house last Wednesday. As you walk through all the lights turn on themselves. So walking around. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-So now you want to do one for the men. MR. STACK-Yes. This would be a facility for 21 men, and it will be the same clinical services as we’re providing for the women at 79 Glenwood Avenue, stabilization and rehabilitation services. All the services are provided within the facility. We transport the clients to, if they have to go to outside appointments, whether it’s a primary care, you know, a specialist, something like that. We do transportation so that all the services are contained within the facility. MR. DEEB-And it’s a commercial district around you. MR. STACK-Yes, absolutely. It clearly is. MR. VALENTINE-I have a question on your SEQR form on Page Two. Question Number 17 says will the proposed action create stormwater discharge and it says under A, will stormwater discharges flow through adjacent properties. MR. DEEB-I saw that. MR. VALENTINE-I’m wondering if you’re going to tie into a storm system or you’re going to tie into a sewer system. Underneath it says currently stormwater runs off the pavement to the surrounding green lawn areas for absorption. MRS. MOORE-So it’s a Type II because it’s a re-use of an existing building. So, yes, as part of our application packet they fill out the SEQR form, but it is a Type II. So that was an update to the SEQR forms back in January. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Now this Part II is already filled out. MRS. MOORE-I’ve seen a lot of applicants do that. MR. VALENTINE-Is that like anticipation? MR. STACK-We were trying to be thorough. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone in the audience. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments for this project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Exterior lighting. MR. STACK-Yes, I think we’d be looking to you for guidance on that. We may have some additional lighting, some poles. We haven’t made that decision yet, and I guess our suggestion would be we could come back and make a proposal on additional lighting if necessary. MRS. MOORE-It would be a Site Plan Modification, because currently there’s three poles identified. Now would be the time to add an additional pole and it’s location, or you end up coming back to this Board for a Site Plan Modification to add an additional pole. MR. DEEB-If he puts it in the Site Plan now and doesn’t use it. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So there’s two things. So in reference, if you’re making a Site Plan amendment and you’re removing the pole, that’s a discussion with the Zoning Administrator and the Code Compliance Officer, considering whether it’s a significant change, and in reality that may not be considered a significant change, but it is a discussion item. It’s completely up to the applicant if they want to come back for a Site Plan Modification to add additional lighting. MR. TRAVER-So I guess what it boils down to is you have some additional lighting out there now. How confident are you that you’re going to change that lighting? MR. STACK-Frankly not very in particular. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Just the three poles and the lights? MR. STACK-We think so. MR. DIXON-On the building itself you feel that you’re not going to add any additional lighting on the building itself as well? MR. STACK-No, I think, you know, we have building lighting currently. MRS. MOORE-So that information didn’t show up on the plot, on this plan. MR. STACK-There is no lighting on the building. Only at the exits, by Code, that’s it. There’s no other site lighting on the building. MRS. MOORE-But that’s Code compliant items for Building and Codes, versus decorative lighting or canopy lighting or things like that. So if you’re not going to add any additional lighting beyond that for the building itself. MR. STACK-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Then we’re okay. MR. VALENTINE-How are you going to do it for parking in the wintertime? I notice you’re using some of your spaces for snow storage? MR. STACK-There’s actually quite a lot of parking there. MR. VALENTINE-Extra parking. MR. STACK-Already. I mean, you know, our parking is for staff, and during the day we’ll have 15 full time staff from seven a.m. until midnight, and then we have overnight staff. There’ll be three overnight staff, but it’s really, on the weekend we have some family visits, but it’s not, we don’t have high parking needs. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Probably the same as the women’s. MR. STACK-Yes, it is. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean it’s not like they have cars. MR. STACK-Not at all, and the visits are scheduled and approved. It’s kind of controlled visits. So it’s not like if you have 21 residents 21 families are going to be showing up on that particular day. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. STACK-So we think that parking’s sufficient for our needs certainly. MR. MAGOWAN-And if push comes to shove, those three spaces that they’re using, you can always, you know, have it removed. MR. TRAVER-The snow you mean. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the snow. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? How are we feeling in terms of moving forward? Okay. All right. Well we have a draft motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 80-2019 ADDICTIONS CARE CENTER OF ALBANY 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 alter the interior of the existing 6,870 sq. ft. building for a 21 bed men’s residential health related facility. The interior alterations to include residential rooms, office areas, kitchen area, dining and lounge area, counselor room and laundry area. The plans indicate new signage, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new use for existing commercial building 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 12/17/2019 and continued the public hearing to 12/17/2019, 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 12/17/2019; 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 80-2019 THE ADDICTION CARE CENTER OF ALBANY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2019) d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. STACK-Great. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I just suggest to the Board if you’re going to adjourn the meeting, adjourn your meeting. Are you adjourning your meeting? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Just a quick reminder to folks we have our second meeting of the month on Thursday and that’s also going to be our annual meeting, and I guess that’s all. So if there’s no other business before us this evening I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 21