Loading...
2001-04-24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda is a lead agency request. MRS. MOORE-This is a consent form for Lead Agency Status. The project name is Fitzgerald Pit Sand and Gravel Mine, by AP Reale and Sons, Inc., and the resolution reads, “The Town of Queensbury Planning Board consents to the designation of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as Lead Agent for the above project”. If you’ll recall, maybe a month ago, you had a different applicant, same project. That previous applicant wasn’t the bidder for the project. They have now picked AP Reale and Sons. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR FITZGERALD PIT SAND AND GRAVEL, BY AP REALE AND SONS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Mr. Strough, just as a comment. You did review this about a month ago, and it was for a different client. MR. MAC EWAN-They weren’t the low bidder. MR. STROUGH-They weren’t? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I thought it was familiar. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next item. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-2001 TYPE II DAVID GORDON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, LAKE GEORGE PARK CEA LOCATION: 36 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 840 SQ. FT. SUNDECK OVER AN EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK AND PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AROUND THE EXISTING PORCH WITH A STONE WALL AND 20 YARDS OF FILL. COVERED DOCKS, ADDITION OF RETAINING WALLS AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE ALL REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 847 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-31.2 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) DAVID GORDON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-2001, David Gordon, Meeting Date: April 24, 2001 “Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a sundeck over a dock and fill within fifty feet of the lake. The dock has not been constructed yet, but the building permit has been filed. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) Site Overview: The application indicates the sundeck is 840 square feet and approximately 13.6 feet in height from the mean high-water mark. The properties to the north and south contain docks with sundecks and covered boathouses. The applicant also proposes to fill within fifty feet of the lake as a site enhancement. The application indicates that 20 yards of fill will be used to complete the project. The fill will be contained between the porch and stonewall for reinforcement. The erosion control methods indicate a fabric fence will be used. The site contains stormwater measures at either side of the dwelling unit as shown on the plan. Areas of Concern or Importance Staff would encourage additional erosion control measures be installed during the construction of the fill project. The additional measures would assist in stormwater control and minimize siltation into the lake.” MRS. MOORE-Under Warren County Planning Board, this was a No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just kind of curious, as a procedural thing, when we did site visits, there is no dock there. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So how could we, conceptually, consider a sundeck to something that’s not there? MRS. MOORE-Other than the applicant does have an active building permit on site to do a U- Shaped dock. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but wouldn’t it be more appropriate from kind of a review procedure by this Board to look at something physically there and then consider what we might want to put on top of it? MRS. MOORE-You can, but I’ve seen. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, we’re not exactly sure where this dock is actually going to sit in the water, because there’s nothing there. There’s no cribs there. There’s no rock foundation there. So we can’t get an idea where this dock, I mean, I’m speaking for myself now. We can’t get an idea where this dock is going to sit. Therefore, you can’t get an idea how high the sundeck is going to be on it and what potential view obstructions it may have for neighboring properties. MRS. MOORE-I understand. I’m just trying to think back to previous projects, and I’m coming to a blank at the moment. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t ever recall doing one before. So that’s why I’m asking the question. MRS. MOORE-You could ask the applicant to provide information about going to the site and staking out the location of that. I don’t know how you would do the height in the water location. That would be, I would think, a little difficult. I’m not certain how to handle that. Maybe you can go through the rest of the Board. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. GORDON-Hi. David Gordon. MR. MAC EWAN-David Gordon. Could you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Gordon? MR. GORDON-The project is a dock, U-Shaped dock, that I believe in the plans that have been submitted, the location of that dock should be indicated on the plans. The sundeck height limitations I think are also noted on the plan. The property is on 110 foot of waterfront. There are existing docks with sundecks on either side of the property, and the views from either of the side properties, and from our property, will not be restricted, based on the height that’s proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, the dock/sun deck that is to the, it would be the south of your property, the neighboring property, was built without, to my understanding, it was built without site plan approval, review or building permit. So that’s under a Stop Work Order right now. MR. GORDON-That dock did have a roof on it. What happened between last fall and now I’m not aware of. I haven’t been here, but there was a roof on that dock last year, and, as far as we’re concerned, we don’t see any problem with, you know, height problem with it, and to the north of us is also a dock with a sundeck on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. GORDON-The stone wall that we’re talking about is going to be 12 to 16 inches high. What it really is is it designates a shrub area around the front of the porch that we had wished to put in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We did see that area when we did our site visits. Is that it? MR. GORDON-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Mr. Gordon. I didn’t have any problem with your retaining wall around the existing porch and the stone wall or 20 yards of fill, but I had some problems with your sundeck. For one thing, trying to determine its height. I see that you’re using figures of a mean high of 14.9? We usually use the figures of 317.74 as the mean low water level, and the 320.2 as the mean high water level. So I don’t know, you know, how to establish the height of this deck using the figures that you gave me. I also figured the square footage of the dock as 704, and if we do use a water level, the mean low water level, I got 16.06 feet above the mean low water mark. Which puts you above the 14 feet, but those aren’t the ones that are the Achilles Heel. I think for this project the Achilles Heel is where it’s located. It’s located on a peninsula, where it can have a visual impact on at least six camps that I see, that are south of here, and so, for that reason, I would be in favor of the retaining wall and the stone wall, and I’m inclined to not be in favor of the sundeck, because of its potential negative visual impact it may have on the other camps south of here. MR. GORDON-Well, you say it sits on a peninsula, but on either side of it, there are existing sundecks and/or what was in the past a roof. MR. STROUGH-Yes. The one around to your left, or to the north, as we look at your property, is a little bit around the peninsula and is existing and the one to the south, yes, I have a problem with that one. MR. GORDON-Well, I’m saying, forget the sundeck on top. It did have a roof on it in the past. MR. STROUGH-But it was a lot lower than what is currently there, and what’s currently there is blocking the view of many of those camps south of there, and I just don’t feel that that’s fair to them, but let’s see how the rest of the Planning Board feels about that. That’s my comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had similar comments on the high water mark levels. We’ve had a lot of discussions about that from other applicants. We just need to make sure that we’re consistent in how we apply that, and then the other thing was the land bridge, the steps going from your property up to the, down to the dock and also up to the sundeck. It’s something, similar kind of situation we’ve talked about on a number of occasions. I, personally, didn’t have a problem with it in this application, although I really question if steps are needed down to the dock, and it’s something that usually the County Planning Board will comment on, and I did see that they said they did not believe it would constitute a land bridge, but I just wonder if maybe there was another way to design those. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. GORDON-I think that the steps going down will basically go right out onto the dock. I don’t think it will be a land bridge. The dock will be built close to the shoreline. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was all I had, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing right now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to take off on where Mr. Strough left off. The portion of our Code that regulates this is 179-60, and it’s under Supplementary Regulations. If you take a look at your drawing, what you’re showing is that the dock’s distance from the mean high water mark is 38.0. If you get to taking a look at our Code, it talks about that no dock shall extend more than 40 foot off shore from the mean low water mark, not the mean high. This drawing describes the 38 feet from the mean high water mark, and it goes on to talk about “except that in streams or brooks, no dock shall extend offshore more than twenty percent (20%) of the width of the stream or brook at the point of construction.” This drawing shows that this dock is 38.0 from the high water mark, as opposed to the low, and I think that has to be changed. The other thing I noticed is that you just exactly meet the minimum distance between the property line and the corner of your dock at 20 feet. It’s almost, and the other side is 22. I would like to see that, because I know that when you install that dock, you can’t be 20.0 right on the nose, impossible to do. You’ve really got to set that dock a little bit toward the other property line. That’s my opinion, from just this. MR. GORDON-Yes. The builder has been advised to be on the safe side on that. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s not what the drawing shows. The drawing exactly 20 feet, and it’s not plus or minus, but it’s 20, and 20 is, in the building business, is almost impossible to nail it right down. So that dock has got to be shown on the drawing to have some tolerance on the 20 foot connection. MR. GORDON-I believe the dock itself has already been approved. The dock itself has been approved. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going by what’s on this drawing. All I can do is look at the drawing that’s been put in front of me. If this dock has an approval, it has a building permit approval? Is that what you’re saying? MR. GORDON-That’s my understanding, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it either does or it doesn’t. I’m not sure what the case is, although it hasn’t been built yet. MR. MAC EWAN-It does. MR. VOLLARO-It has a building permit? MR. MAC EWAN-I have been told a building permit has been issued for this dock. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If a building permit has been issued, that’s another issue. I’m reviewing this drawing in front of me, and trying to show what it depicts, to me, as the dock’s position, and being 20.0 is, I mean, I don’t know whether you could put it in that tight. You could survey that mark and try to hold it, but I don’t know. MR. GORDON-It’ll probably be at 22 feet, because I won’t let them build it close to the line. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one side is, you’ve got 22 foot clearance on one side right now. MR. STROUGH-One hundred and ten. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the 110. MR. STROUGH-Is the whole thing? MR. VOLLARO-That’s the shoreline distance, that 110. One inch is equal to twenty. There’s about 55 feet to the other side, as opposed to my 22. So you’ve got 55 feet to go, on the other side of the line, the property line, and you’ve got it exactly 20.0 to the other. So you’ve got a lot of latitude to move that dock over. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. GORDON-I have no problem with that. I wouldn’t want it right on the line. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It just seems to me that that should be changed. So that the drawing depicts the fact that the line, it’s not going to be 20.0. Now the other thing is that, in this section I just read that says no dock shall extend more than 40 foot off shore from the mean low water mark, then it goes on to talk about the height of the dock, in another section of the code, and it says boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed 18 feet in height, measured from the water level. They do not say mean high or mean low here. They just say the water level, to the highest point of the structure for peaked roof, that’s the 18 feet, and 14 feet for flat roofs. Now, I’m making an assumption that because, in the same paragraph, they talk about mean low water, just before this, that when they talk about water level for determining the height, they’re also talking about mean low, and mean low, in this particular case, is 317.74, and that’s got to be a surveyed mark on the beach, so that you know, when the water comes to that level it’s actually at its mean low, and then the height of the dock has got to be determined from that. You’d probably have to put a staff out there and shoot that 317.4, so you know what that water level is out in the water, and then the dock has to be built, and I’d say 14 feet to the flat portion, and you’ve got a two and a half foot extension on the top, which is your railing. So that really should be to mean low water, and that way you’re coming up with the maximum distance, and as the water rises it just gets shorter, but the maximum distance has got to be either 14 or that 18, and what I’ve done is computed 14 feet to the, should be 14 feet to your flat deck. MR. STROUGH-No, 14 feet to the highest point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s not, John, if you read that very carefully, it’s really, it’s kind of ambiguous. It says boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed 18 feet in height measured from water level to the highest point of the structure for peaked roofs, and 14 feet for flat roofs. It’s a little bit ambiguous, actually. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I just read that as the highest point, carry it on to both situations. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt you for a second? I’m sorry. In the consistency, in regards to sundecks, in the past we’ve measured that distance from the top of the rail to the mean high water mark. So, that’s just a comment for the Board to think about. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what figure did we use? MRS. MOORE-The mean high water mark. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Whatever it was. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we do that, it’s not correct, I can tell you that. It’s correct at mean low water. That’s where it should be, and if we want to vary from the science, that’s fine, but mean low water would determine the height of that dock, and I think what lends credence to that is in the same paragraph, the first part, where it refers to measurement on water, it talks about mean low, and I’m assuming that they also mean the same thing in Paragraph Ten, even though it’s not written there. I’m assuming that water level is interpreted or translated into mean low water mark. That’s my determination on that portion, but I think John has uncovered the right basis, is from what this drawing says, you cannot determine what the height of that dock is. I mean, I played with it several ways, and there’s no way of making that determination, from what’s on this drawing, and that, Mr. Chairman, is all I have for now. MRS. MOORE-Can I just point out, noted on Sheet Number Two, he’s measured from the top of the rail to the mean high water mark, a measurement of 13’6”. I don’t know if that appears on everybody’s drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Where are you? MRS. MOORE-Sheet Two, under Professional Building Systems. It’s the third sheet. MR. VOLLARO-The top of the rail to the sundeck? MRS. MOORE-Correct. I didn’t know if that was the measurement you were looking for. MR. STROUGH-No. He uses a 14.9. I don’t know where he gets it. I’ve never seen it. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-He’s got a measurement there, but it’s not, I don’t see it noted on Sheet Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we move on to the next member’s turn, just a quick question, procedurally. How was a permit issued for this dock, without site plan review? MRS. MOORE-Docks don’t require a building permit, or site plan review. Covered docks require site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-But this isn’t going to be covered. MRS. MOORE-It’s going to be a covered dock now. MR. MAC EWAN-There isn’t a dock there, so we’re building something all new, right? I mean, you know, we’re kind of like in a gray area here. I just want to be sure we’re not going into a dark area, and I want to be sure that whatever action this Board takes, that we’re doing it consistent with all other applications we’ve done, and when I’ve seen applications like this come in here, it’s building a U-Shaped dock or an F-Shaped dock, or a C-Shaped dock, with a sundeck on top of it. That’s exactly what we have here. I mean, the catch here is that what we’re being asked to do is take consideration of approving a sundeck on an existing dock. There is no dock. There’s nothing existing. There’s not even any cribs in the water. There’s nothing built, and I have concerns about procedurally going forward with this thing when we’re reviewing this as an existing structure, and there’s nothing there. MRS. MOORE-You’re not reviewing, there was a mistake in the agenda, a typo. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But what I would ask is if you request the applicant to make any revisions, that you advise the applicant that revisions should be applied to the Park Commission is one, as well as the Building Department, is the other. So just keep that in mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything further to add, no I don’t have anything to add right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if I should recuse myself from this application, but I don’t think I’m going to. I’m your neighbor, first of all. Welcome to the neighborhood, and the history of this area here, everybody along here in the last five or so years has put up sundecks, and all have gone through the proper channels, with the exception of your neighbor. I honestly have no problems with it. I am concerned about the railing, and I hope that you would be sensitive with keeping the railing, you know, as open as possible within the requirement, so, you know, you don’t block views of people, and also keep in mind umbrellas and stuff that go on top, if this is approved. You just have to be sensitive to the people around you, more than anything else. Now, you are, you go in a little bit, so the dock facing the lake to your right really is going to stick out a lot farther, and the dock to your left facing the lake, it goes in even farther than yours does, but you’re not, obviously, obstructing the view up the lake, just in the bay. My main concern is the gentleman who lives two houses south of you, who has a different angled dock, and right now, with the construction of the dock next to his, his view is really diminished at this point, but that’s obviously not your problem, but just be sensitive to the fact that, you know, you do have people trying to look up the lake, and the railing is my main concern, just to make sure you don’t close anything in, give them the opportunity to enjoy the views that they’ve had, but besides that, you know, it’s a typical dock on the lake now, and everybody has them, and like I said, in just the past five years, I probably have seen at least seven or eight go up, just on that side of the lake alone, from Bellwood Cottages up, so, obviously, if you’re following the proper channels, then I have no objections to it whatsoever. MR. GORDON-If I can answer that. Our main objective in this was to build a covered boathouse, a covered dock. We thought that it would be more advantageous to put the sundeck on then to have a peaked roof because we thought that the peaked roof would have more of a tendency to block views and be unsightly than the flat sundeck with a nice rail around it. That was the main objective that we had, and we thought that we, by taking this approach, we would end up with a covered dock that was less obnoxious than if we had put a peaked roof on it. MR. RINGER-When you first applied for your dock, though, it wasn’t a covered dock. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. GORDON-No, and as I understand it, it will be built in two stages. There’s a concern that, the timing of the whole thing, there’s a concern, now, that the cribs may settle, so the plan is to put the dock in and then either in the fall or in the winter, to build the rest of it, but with the application processes and so on, we felt that it would be better to get the show on the road, so to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything else from Board members? Staff? I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute and we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I’m a little confused about a couple of issues, and I would just like to clarify that. Is this not a segmented project? If the building permit obtained for the dock, even though it wasn’t built, and now we’re coming along and we’re putting a sundeck on it, is that not two projects? MR. MAC EWAN-I guess on one hand you could say, yes, it is two projects, but one of those projects does not require Planning Board review. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. That answers my question. Okay. Then, I have another question, since, in my way of thinking, it is a segmented project, and the boat dock was designed prior to the thought of putting a sundeck on it, does the design of the boat dock, would that handle the sundeck? Because you would design a dock different from a dock with a sundeck. Your foundation would be different. Your structure would be different. So, I’m just wondering if that is, in fact, adequate to take the sundeck, and I did not hear clearly, you measure the top of the sundeck by the railing, or how do you measure this whole project? Is it from the mean low water, 18 feet up, is it mean high water 18 feet up? Where is that measured from? That was a question. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct me if I’m wrong, Staff. Staff indicated from the mean high water mark up to a height no higher than 14 feet 3 inches, is that, it? MRS. MOORE-Fourteen feet. MRS. SALVADOR-From the mean high, even though your Code says mean low? MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s what we need to clarify. MS. RADNER-The Code doesn’t say in that Section, so it’s within the discretion of this Board to make a reasonable interpretation, consistent with its past interpretations. It can’t make an ad hoc decision on each case. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. Even though all the other decisions may have been inappropriate? MS. RADNER-You can’t say that it’s appropriate or inappropriate. It’s not clearly specified. MRS. SALVADOR-I think then it should be clearly specified, and it says here surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline will require Planning Board review. Is the surfacing that he’s doing within, it is within 50 feet of the shoreline, then? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-And does he require a Lake George Park Commission permit to do that, also? MRS. MOORE-Yes, he does. MRS. SALVADOR-He does. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. Firstly, I’d like to apologize to the applicant, because it seems like he’s the last one through the gate and he’s getting picked on, but what I’m hearing here tonight about what’s been going on the last five years is bizarre. Anyone who knows anything about the construction of docks, crib filled docks that are going to ultimately support a sundeck or a boathouse, knows that they are structurally intertwined. One is dependent upon another. You could not approve a site plan for a deck or a covered boathouse or whatever without it having a 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) foundation. The dock is simply the foundation for the structure above it. What do you think you do, toenail these columns to the deck surface? That isn’t the way they’re built. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anybody implied that. MR. SALVADOR-My point is that before you can start the crib dock, if your intent is to ultimately build above it a structure, you’ve got to know that when you start that crib dock, because you’ve got to provide for it. Now, frequently, these boathouses are used to store boats. There’s a lifting mechanism put inside of them and they store the boats there through the winter. We’re talking about structures here. We’re talking about columns. We’re talking about beams that have to carry loads. If this isn’t done right, somebody could get hurt. The Code specifically addresses the fact that these structures have to be designed to withstand the forces, the forces. I don’t see any calculations in any of these, excuse me, I haven’t seen this application, but I doubt that there are any calculations that deal with horizontal forces on a structure like this. Another point I’d like to make it that all of this is being done in a critical environmental area. I don’t see how you can neg dec an environmental review in a critical environmental area, let alone segment the structure from the foundation. All the boat dock is is a foundation for what you’re reviewing. Our Codes speak to setbacks, lot line setbacks, and how you measure the setback to the dock, and does it deal with the projection of either the lot line or a perpendicular to the mean low? MR. VOLLARO-It does. It says that no dock shall extend for more than 40 foot offshore from the mean low water mark. MR. SALVADOR-No, I’m speaking of the side line setbacks of the dock. MR. VOLLARO-It talks about 20 feet. MR. SALVADOR-From? MR. VOLLARO-From lot line. MR. SALVADOR-Only lot line? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Regardless of how it’s projected into the lake? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t see any information in the Code that talks about the method of projection. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, as you do your environmental review, bear in mind that, as my wife mentioned, there’s probably a segmentation going on here. You cannot segment this structure from it’s foundation, and that’s what I think is going on here. It’s unfortunate this has been going on. I just can’t imagine this. I just cannot imagine how this is going on, getting a permit that doesn’t need site plan review, and then getting one that does, and they are totally integrated, the two parts. It’s just like a house and it’s foundation. You wouldn’t do this, permit the foundation without knowing what’s going to go on top of it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just one comment. I see this is packaged together. I’ve stated my position. I’m opposed to the sundeck, but I am not opposed to the retaining wall and the stone wall and the yards of fill. Does this have to be packaged together? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s one application. MR. STROUGH-Okay, be that as it may. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, my big concerns are the measurement from the length of the dock from the low water mark, which isn’t shown on the plan. It’s shown to the high water mark of 38 feet, but not to the low water mark. So we’re not sure if the project, as it’s designed, meets the Code, and also the measurement, I think I’m pretty confident that in the past we did measure the height to 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) the top of the rail, and I think that’s an easy adjustment that could be made, even if it’s not specifically shown on the drawing, but those would be the two issues that I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m just assimilating all of this right now, and I agree with a lot of the things that have been said up here. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I stated my case. I think the way the distance of height is described on this drawing, you can’t get from here to there. There isn’t any, you’ve got to establish a datum. Some place there’s got to be a datum or a mark that says we’re going to go from that point to the height, and that, in my mind, has got to be the mean low water mark of 317.74. Because if you do it from the high water mark, then when the lake falls, the dimension to the top of that could be anywhere. I think the total difference is about 2.7 or 2.9 feet that the lake moves up and down, from 320.2 to 317.4. So that dimension could change and become not 18 but something over 20. That’s my problem. I’ve got to see how that height of that dock is determined and, really, my concern falls, in great measure, with Tony’s comment, that the height of these docks should be controlled so as not to block views, and if I don’t have a real solid determination as to how I get to the height, the dock could be any number, which is not discernable from this drawing. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-Are you suggesting that we table this and he come back with another drawing showing what you’re looking for? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s a good idea. I won’t say yes to this with the way this drawing shows it now, but what you say, Larry, may be a reasonable approach. Come back with a drawing that shows me how you get there. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-One of the questions that came up from Mrs. Salvador was the, when the dock was approved, was the design of the dock in the approval sufficient to withstand the weight of the sundeck on it, and I don’t know how they go about that process of getting a permit for a dock, and then how they determine if that dock is sufficient to hold a sundeck weight. I thought it was a pretty good question. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, procedurally, the building codes that the Code Enforcement Officers use when they do their inspections, just like the building of a house, there are certain codes I think that anyone would have to use. I mean, what the purpose of this eventual boathouse/sundeck is going to be. MR. RINGER-It would be different if you were building a dock, or if you were going to build something to put on top of it, I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to the question, but it was brought up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I say something to that? I don’t know why that’s an issue, because what I see in front of me right here are three prints, done by a reputable building group in this area, and they all have the dock and the deck on top of it, and it shows all the measurements, types of lumber that’s being used, all the cuts, and I’m thinking, well, you know, PBS ought to know what they’re doing. I don’t know why that’s up to me to, I’m a schoolteacher, why I have to come here and say, wait a minute, they don’t know how to do their job? MR. RINGER-I don’t either, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s why I don’t understand why that was even brought up. Here we have three professionally done blueprints that show a deck on top of a dock. Why, as a matter of fact, some of the stuff that’s come in front of us in six years doesn’t even hold a candle to how nice these drawings are. So, I’m thinking, why are we even questioning the fact that this isn’t done correctly? If it were two different plans, here’s my deck plans and here’s my dock plan, then I could see it, but they’re all together. It’s all contiguous. MR. STROUGH-I think the point they’re trying to make is the whole project should have come, the deck and the dock should have come before us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But isn’t this the deck and the dock? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. STROUGH-But we’re not allowed to say anything about the deck. The deck’s done, got the building permit and then what they’re suggesting is it should have come before us to begin with, the whole process. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with you 100% on that, but I’m looking here at a deck and a dock. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the drawing, Cathy, doesn’t necessarily tell you that the dock structure is sufficient to support the deck. It’s a pretty drawing. I make pretty drawings. I could make pretty drawings, but pretty drawings have to be documented correctly. They can’t just be pretty drawings. That’s a problem. At least from my point of view it’s a problem. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s telling you the size of the joists. MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not this dock is able to support that. Really, you have nothing in there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. GORDON-To respond to the question, the dock was designed by PBS and Peter Carr, who is a reputable local dock builder and will be building the dock. The dock plan that was submitted was submitted intentionally to be done in two phases, as I mentioned before. To put the dock in now, with the deck on top, if there’s any settling of the cribs, would create a real problem to put that adjustment in there to the entire dock with the superstructure. So the plan is to put the dock in first, bearing in mind that it will have a superstructure on it, which I’ve said before and the reason that we wanted the superstructure. So the entire dock cribbing mechanism is designed to support the deck, and it was broken into two phases, with the specific intention of not creating an engineering problem down the road, that if there was some settling of the cribs after they were constructed and the dock was constructed, that then the entire dock and decking would have to be adjusted. So that was the purpose of submitting the entire plan and asking for basically two permits, one to put the dock itself in, and the one that’s been presented to you because you have the responsibility to review sundecks, the second one basically covering the sundeck. So, yes, the dock structure itself was designed to support the sundeck, but it was broken into two permits, basically, to make it easier and smarter and any settling of the cribbing and docking before the superstructure went on. MR. MAC EWAN-When you submitted your application for a building permit for the dock, did you submit these drawings for your application? MR. GORDON-I couldn’t tell you that PBS handled it. I was not involved in that. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you have a question? MR. VOLLARO-The same question as you just asked. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I was going to ask whether the building permit talked to these drawings in any way or addressed them in any way. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have the building permit with me at this time, so I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. METIVIER-I am kind of surprised this is coming up as an issue now. I mean, and let me clarify something, in the past, anybody that has built any of these docks has done it through professionals. People just don’t come along and put up sundecks. It surprises me that all of a sudden we’re questioning the integrity of professional builders in the area. I’ve never heard of this before. We have, in the past, we do a site plan review, and it’s never come up whether or not this dock can support this structure, and I sure hope that if PBS or Sunsoval or whoever does this, builds this, I sure hope it’s going to support it, and I don’t know why we would even question their integrity of the ability to build it. MR. STROUGH-I think what they’re saying is, if you knew ahead of time that you were going to build a dock with a deck, then you should get site plan approval. That’s their point. It’s not, I don’t think the main thrust here is whether this dock is going to be structurally sound or not. MR. METIVIER-Yes, but that keeps coming up through everybody that I hear from. Is this crib going to support the dock. Of course it is, or else they wouldn’t build it. I mean, it just, I have never heard anything like that before. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. RINGER-Tony, when we’ve had situations come in where they have built decks over existing docks. That always comes up as a question, and it’s always shown on the print. MR. METIVIER-Right, and have we ever questioned that? I mean, have we ever said, well, we don’t think, by looking at it, this can support? I sure hope that they wouldn’t put it up. In any other case, they’ll tear the dock down, re-crib it, and put the sundeck on it. I mean, I have never, in the last two years. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the issue, here, Tony, I think the overwhelming issue here is not so much whether this project can structurally support this sundeck. I think what most people are concerned with is making sure that whatever the final height is on this thing, that it meets the criteria and what everyone up here thinks it should meet. MR. METIVIER-Which I agree with totally, but, again, I’ve heard more than one person comment on whether or not this crib can support it, and I don’t think we should even go there. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I don’t have an issue of whether the crib could support this thing. The issue I have is two fold, are the calculations right for where we are and how high this thing should be at the railing, and how we get there, and I want to be sure that we’re consistent in doing that, and that other concern I have is that, the fact that we’re reviewing something that’s not there. Just from a procedurally standpoint, I’m just having a struggle with that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the other thing, Tony, is what Craig just said, and then if you take a look at the lower right hand portion of your drawing, the drawing says that this dock is 38 feet out from the mean high water mark, where the spec says no dock shall extend more than 40 from the mean low. That’s got to be corrected because when we hit the mean low, that dock could be more than 40 feet out. We’re only talking two more feet. MR. METIVIER-Right. So there’s no problem with the dock at this point. So why don’t we offer to table this, if Mr. Gordon suggested that. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that we need to even go that route. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m just saying that, you know, if he’s not going to put the sundeck up right away. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, on Sheet Two of the drawings, the last page, it’s drawn in pen. It’s not part of the original blueprint, but it does show the height of the railing, it being 13 foot 6 inches from the mean high. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I noticed that. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t catch that when I made my comments. MR. STROUGH-Well, what are they using to establish mean high? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they didn’t write the calculations in. MR. VOLLARO-You know how that’s done, Chris. You stick a transit on the beach, you know how to hit mean high, and that’s the way that should be done. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you that, I remember from past history, Bob Paling, a previous Planning Board member, did some great research into this and the mean high water mark is determined by, I’m not sure if they were daily readings or weekly readings, by the Army Corps of Engineers, at the outlet dam up in Ticonderoga. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s printed in the newspaper every day. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know, Craig, I don’t think they go by the mean high. I think the State, I know the State does, and I think the Lake George Park Commission all use the standard the mean low, okay. I don’t, as a matter of fact, they use 317.74 in all their figures. I don’t recall them ever using the mean high water level, and I don’t think the State accepts that either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. All right. If you look on drawing one, sheet one, and this dock is 40 feet out from, 38 feet exactly out from the mean high water mark, right? Okay. Now, I you find the mean low water mark, which is shown right here on the top diagram. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-Where? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s 14 feet 6 inches, right here. See where it says mean high, 14.9? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but how was that established, Cathy? How do you establish that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Probably the way that you it was established, the way they do it. So it’s got today’s water level. See where it says, that little lappy thing that’s the little wave thingy, and then there’s the two points that are, and right above the “N” in mean low, if you bring that over, all the way to the shoreline, it comes in almost four feet from the high water mark. MR. VOLLARO-Below the high water mark? The high water mark’s established there, okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. The high water mark’s established there, and if you bring that point in, it comes in about four feet, all right, that’s where the shoreline, where it starts to drop off. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If that’s true, the dock projects 42 feet out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If that’s true, exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Not 40. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s exactly what I’m saying. So, how else would you measure it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the spec is 40, not 42, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-So if you use the mean low. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the dock is two feet too long. MR. VOLLARO-Too long, correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two feet or four feet? MR. GORDON-Mr. Chairman, can I respond to this? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. GORDON-As I understand it. I think when this was submitted Pete Carr was asked by the Building Department or whoever he would have submitted this to, when he submitted the dock plan, for verification of the water levels in relationship to this issue, because I know he was out there drilling holes in the ice and doing calculations on that, which was submitted with the original dock application, as I understand it, to the Park Commission. So, somewhere along the line here, I think that has certainly been taken in to consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you received Park Commission approval? MR. GORDON-Yes. In addition to that, if you reviewed the site, there is no beach, technically sloping beach area there. The dock, basically, is going to be built right up against the shore line or right near the shoreline. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. If it’s supposed to be how many feet from the mean low water mark? MR. HUNSINGER-Forty. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Forty. Well, then it is, it works. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t work, because if what you just said is correct, and I don’t know how you got there, but you gave me a differential of four feet, and if the water comes forward four feet, the dock is going to move four feet out, which puts it two foot above. MRS. MOORE-She’s saying that the mean low water mark begins at a point that, after the dock, the start of the dock is at the immediate shoreline, which is not the mean low water mark. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The start of the dock is at the immediate shoreline, which is not the mean low water mark. The mean low water mark is four feet out from the immediate shoreline, so, therefore. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, you don’t know that until you put a transit on it. You don’t know where that is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wait a second, here we go again. PBS, don’t you think they did put a transit on it to get, to put this on their diagram? MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, it says here, from the mean low water. I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel. I’m trying to stay with the spec. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let me ask one question here, from a Town standpoint, when they go out to do their inspections during the course of the building of these things, does the Town have a system that they use, the building inspectors, to verify where it’s supposed to be, or do they take it on good faith that they did it accurately with the drawings? MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that they do verify it in the field. MR. MAC EWAN-How? MRS. MOORE-That I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-They verify what in the field, that it does meet the requirements of the mean low water mark? MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding is they verify it in some way. Do I know how? I do not know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I’m specifically asking, in conjunction with the mean low water mark, as to where the dock is set? Is that correct, is that what you’re saying they verify? MRS. MOORE-They verify a distance. Do I know what distance? It’s my understanding they verify what’s in the Code. I don’t know what their method is to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, that’s what I’m asking. I’m not trying to badger you here, but I want to make sure they verify it’s 25 feet off the property line? Do they verify that the dock is 38 feet long? Do they verify that it’s within the confines of the mean low water mark measurements? Or all of the above. MRS. MOORE-It’s my understanding that they verify it according to what the Code requires. Just as a comment, the applicant did receive a Park Commission permit that’s in the file. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, I think we’ve got enough answered here. So I think we need to know what we want to do. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to discuss what you want in your motion, prior to making it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that’s a good idea, Laura. I think we better take five minutes or ten to prepare a motion. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to make a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s discuss it first. MR. VOLLARO-You want to discuss it. Fine. I don’t know if I can participate in this discussion, but I’ll certainly entertain whatever you folks want to say. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we can move on approving this, but I think we need to have the drawing reflect what we’re looking for, and it seems like the concerns that we have are making sure of two things. That that dock is set further northward than the minimum 20 feet off the property line to ensure that it is going to be off the neighboring property line, by more than the minimum, which he’s got room to do that, and, secondly, that whatever the end measurement is for the height of this thing at the railing is going to be in conjunction with both the codes and what the true definition of the mean low water mark is. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MRS. MOORE-You mean mean low or mean high? MR. MAC EWAN-Mean low. That’s what I just read from the Lake George, was that the Lake George Park Commission? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I just was looking at the document. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then the height of the railing is 14 feet from the mean low water mark? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, according to the document I just looked at. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’ve never done it that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t the applicant already state that he had permission, approval from the Lake George Park Commission? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but the Lake George Park Commission is not going to go out and verify that whatever’s being built is going to conform to the Town of Queensbury Code, our Building Code. MR. VOLLARO-I understood that what he had from the Lake George Park Commission was for the dock. Do I misunderstand that? It’s for the dock. The Lake George Park Commission didn’t approve the upper deck, did they? Not yet. They’ve given you approval on the dock installation. MR. GORDON-In all honesty, I’m not positive that the entire plan was not submitted to the Lake George Park Commission. I know that we do have the permit, and whether it included the sundeck or not, I honestly don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t know. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move this thing along a little bit, please. I just want to know, are we all together on the same page here? MR. VOLLARO-What page are we on? MR. MAC EWAN-What I just suggested. I didn’t know, that seems to be the two issues that I’ve heard here that seem to be the overbearing issues of concern here tonight. MRS. MOORE-Can I just add? In reviewing the information that you showed me in regards to the Lake George Park Commission, there is specific information about what they give out to applicants on the mean high water mark and the height of docks, and the height of sundecks. I’d rather refer to that information than the picture that was just provided, because it’s from their office, and it’s from. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we in agreement, though, that they’re distinguishing that point from the mean low water mark? MRS. MOORE-I’m not going to agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I agree with Staff. I seem to recall that, in the past, on these sundecks, we have used the mean high. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Me, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember one of the last one’s that we approved, they came back. There was a condition to bring it back to have it changed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the problems you have, Chris, is if we’ve made a mistake in the past, it doesn’t mean we should continue to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that, and I don’t want to get into a whole discussion on variances, on different measurements here, because this is not the forum to hold that, but I know what I know, and I know what I don’t know, but I certainly know what I know, and I want the drawing to reflect what’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Believe me, I could go either way, whether it’s the mean high or the mean low, as long as we’re consistent in how we apply it. That’s my primary concern. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we’re ready to put up a motion, if someone wants to introduce one. So move it, please. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to make the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we’re all comfortable with it, why aren’t we moving it, then? MRS. MOORE-Can you identify, if you’re going to put conditions, can you identify those prior to making your motion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the problem is that there’s no dock there. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask the applicant a question for just a second. Would it be a real imposition on you if we tabled this and you got this drawing clarified? It doesn’t mean you’ve got to go back to the maker of this drawing, have him do it all over again, but can he clarify some of the things on here, so that, and you know what some of our concerns are, because you’ve heard them. MR. GORDON-Two issues here. Number One, we, obviously, would like to have approval, because I guess they did package this thing together, and the stone retaining wall is an important item that we’d like to get done. If you could approve the motion with the conditions that you’re raising, we’d be more than happy to address the conditions and conform to whatever it is that you’d like us to conform to. MR. VOLLARO-We could certainly do that. MR. MAC EWAN-No, don’t say that. We can’t do that. MR. GORDON-Well, could you split it then? MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t do that either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a suggestion, why don’t you just build the dock like you wanted to, in the first place, and everything else, and then come back with the top? MR. HUNSINGER-They need approval for the retaining wall. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, can’t we do that? We have to do the whole application? We can’t take some? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, the option that we have here, and I probably spoke too quickly on it, was that we could make an approval for the building of the retaining wall, and a denial of the sundeck, until the dock is completed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I would like to do. MR. VOLLARO-To me, that makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we then raise the issue of the location of the dock, relative to the property line? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a sticky situation. The question being asked is the relative location of the dock, “existing”/proposed dock, the concerns we have with it being right at 20 feet. If we were to entertain a motion to approve the retaining wall portion of this, and also request that this proposed existing dock be relocated, say a minimum of 25 feet from the southern property line, and deny the sundeck. Can we do that? Because really the dock is not part and parcel to this application tonight, which goes back to my concerns about a real gray area we’re in. MR. RINGER-Why can’t the applicant remove the deck from the application and have us just act on the balance of the application, so that we don’t have to reject the thing. Wouldn’t that be the easier way to do that? MRS. MOORE-That is an option. MR. RINGER-If the applicant is willing to remove the sundeck from his application, and have us act only on the stone wall and the addition, then we can approve that, and then when he wants to put the deck, he can come back with an application for the deck, and then he can get started and do what he wants to do, and if you wanted to wait a year for that to settle anyway, for the dock to settle, if he was willing. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. GORDON-I don’t mind doing that. The only concern I have is that if I came back a year from now, we would still have the same issues relative to the height and the length and so on. MR. MAC EWAN-But the difference is we’d have a dock built. That’s the difference. MR. HUNSINGER-The length issue will become a moot issue. MR. GORDON-Well, the length issue, as far as I’m concerned, is not an issue. This has already been approved by the Lake George Park Commission, which has a real tight restriction on that 40 foot limit. So there must be something that’s correct in this, if they’ve already approved it. So, I’m not concerned about the length, and when you mentioned before that the mean low water line was four foot off the shoreline, or whatever it is, the dock is going to be against the shoreline. So it’s actually four feet back. So the 38 feet really is certainly on the safe side. So that’s not problem. The height issue, I’d be more than happy to, you know, you tell us what you would like us to change the drawings to or reflect in the drawings, we’d be more than happy to do that. It’s just that my fear is that we’ll come back a year later, we’ll go around this same thing all over. So why don’t we try and resolve it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. A year from now we would have a dock in the water. It would have settled, we’d know a little bit more about exactly how it’s located, because then you can survey the corner and you can tell us exactly how far that dock is from the property line. MR. GORDON-I can tell you the dock will not be at 20 feet from the property line. It’ll be the minimum of 22, and if you want it at 25, we’ll put it at 25. In all honesty, when we did them, I asked him to make it on the safe side away from the line, and they must have just put it on the line. MR. MAC EWAN-But the catch to this whole thing, your dock is not here for review tonight. That’s the catch. MR. GORDON-Well, the dock has already been approved, by the Building Department and by the Park Commission. So I’d have to assume that the dock is, in fact, in conformance. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let me entertain a motion. Does someone want to put one up? MRS. MOORE-If you’re going to have the applicant remove that, then the applicant has to say that he’s going to remove it. MR. RINGER-Yes. He didn’t say he was going to remove it. MRS. MOORE-Right. I don’t think he understands that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, he did. MR. GORDON-No, what I basically said was I would be more than happy to remove the deck issue, but in all honesty, we’d be more than happy to address the deck issue and any concerns you have about it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, MRS. MOORE-Right. I don’t think he understands that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, he did. MR. GORDON-No, what I basically said was I would be more than happy to remove the deck issue, but in all honesty, we’d be more than happy to address the deck issue and any concerns you have about it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re concerned when you come back we’re going to go through this all over again. MR. GORDON-So if you say these are the concerns we have, we can resubmit it to you. MR. VOLLARO-At the time you come back, for the upper deck, you will have a drawing to support that, based on where your dock is placed at the then time. You’ll have a drawing. Your drawing will now depict exactly how that’s going to be built on the existing dock. MR. GORDON-I think that’s included in the drawings that you have. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-Except that you want me to, or you want the Board to talk about the fact that, well, we’ll make it conditional that we’ll move that dock to the north. MR. GORDON-Which is one of your concerns, and whatever the second concern is, relative to the height, you know, when you finally determine what that should be, we would conform to it. We certainly don’t want to build something that’s not in conformance with any codes. Believe me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sitting up here, the only thing I have to go by, after all this talk is all done and settled, is that no dock shall extend more than 40 foot offshore from the mean low water mark, number two of 179-60. I can’t get out from underneath that boulder. I can’t get out from underneath that rock. I just can’t bring myself out. That’s what that says, and we can fool with this until it freezes over, but I don’t know how we get to there. I can’t change the words. MR. GORDON-Would you agree that the Lake George Park Commission has that same restriction? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that to be a fact. Our Staff is saying they don’t have the details from that, and so the answer is I don’t know. I know what I know, and I know what I don’t know. MR. GORDON-I know that they have the 40 foot restriction and we’re in conformance with it, and they’ve approved it. MR. VOLLARO-If they’re 40 foot restriction is to the mean low water mark, see, your drawing says mean high, not mean low. That’s one of my big problems. The drawing says where the measurement is from, mean high. My document that I go by says mean low. There’s a definitely dichotomy there. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Gordon, would you entertain us tabling this site plan tonight, for this dock, for you to go back to PBS, ask them to correct their language here, where the determine the height of the dock, to accurately depict where it is, as to Town Code? And also to show that you’re going to relocate your dock a minimum of 25 feet off the south shoreline? Is everyone happy with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with 22. I don’t think we need to go as far as 25. MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-two. MR. GORDON-I would prefer the 22, because I’m not sure what ground conditions there are at 25. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Twenty-two is fine. MR. VOLLARO-And also to change on the drawing, so that you know the words, that talk about the mean high water mark as where the dock is positioned from out. It’s right on there. MR. MAC EWAN-And his drawing’s going to reflect it. That’s in 179-60. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what about the distance to the top of the railing? Where’s that going to be from? MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to have to define that. MR. GORDON-Wherever you tell us it’s supposed to be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good question. Where’s that going to be from, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the way I see it, and of course anybody can contest this because the way the words are in here, whoever wrote this spec must have been half asleep when he wrote the thing, but it says boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed 18 feet in height measured from the water level, whatever that means, high or low I’m not sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’ve always done high, and when you think about it, do you know why that makes more sense? Because the lake can only get so high. If it gets any higher it’s going to overflow. The low water mark, you could have two seasons of unbelievable drought where, if you built it from the low, if you extended it from the low water mark, you might have, in essence, a roof that’s five feet lower. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, I’ll talk to you about this later. You’re not seeing the picture, I can tell you that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think I am seeing the picture. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move it along. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2001 DAVID GORDON, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: For the following reasons: 1. For the applicant to revise his drawings which are labeled PBS Site Plan, Sheets One, Two and Detail Site Plan One, to indicate that the proposed/existing dock be located a minimum of 22 feet from the southern property line, and 2. That the calculations to determine the height to the railing of the top of the sundeck be reflected on the drawing as per Section 179-60(5)(b))2) of the Town Code. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get there. Quickly we’ll get there. MRS. MOORE-Two questions. Tomorrow is the deadline date. Do you want to extend this for a revision date? MR. MAC EWAN-What he actually has to do, what you have to do is minimal, really. MR. GORDON-We don’t have a problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s a week from Friday? That’s May 4? th MRS. MOORE-May 4. th MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll extend you until the end of business May 4 to resubmit your revised th information, and if we receive it by close of business on May 4, we’ll put you on for our second th meeting next month. MR. GORDON-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION WILLIAM THREW PROPERTY OWNER: AGENT: JAMES E. MILLER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION REQUEST IS FOR REDUCTION OF THE PROPOSED THIRD WAREHOUSE BUILDING FROM 37,906 SQ. FT. TO 25,000 SQ. FT. A COVERED CONCRETE ACCESS PAD TO ALLOW TRAFFIC BETWEEN BUILDINGS WILL CONNECT PHASE II AND PHASE III BUILDINGS. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 7.77 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WILLIAM THREW, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-95 Modification, William Threw, Meeting Date: April 24, 2001 “Project Description Applicant proposes to modify an existing site plan to reduce a proposed third phase building from 37,906 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Encore Paper Company utilizes the existing buildings for storage. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) Site Overview: The location of the Phase III building has not changed. The building will be similar to the existing buildings. The Phase III building will be connected to a nearby building with a covered walkway. The building will contain doorway lighting at the rear and front entrances. Traffic, Circulation, Parking: The site has adequate parking for the existing and proposed use. The plan site development information indicates there are about 109 parking spaces on site. The traffic circulation for the site does not change from the original design. There are tractor-trailers and other miscellaneous vehicles on the property that may not be associated with the site plan review use. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services: The plans indicate the stormwater pattern for each of the buildings on the site. The stormwater design has not been altered from the original design. The plans do identify landscaping at the front of the building. The plans also show the existing vegetation and the plantings for the other buildings will remain. However, the landscaping does not appear to be consistent with the approved site plan, due to site conditions. The site contains materials (debris, etc.) that do not appear to be associated with the approved use of the site. The proposal has been referred to the Fire Marshal for review (see attached comments dated 4/5/01). Areas of Concern or Importance The Code Enforcement Officer has identified that the applicant has not yet fulfilled the conditions of the previous approval. Specifically, the site was to be cleaned up and debris removed: see letter dated 9/11/00 from C. Brown and Planning Board resolutions dated 6/20/95 and 5/30/96. Suggestions Staff would encourage the Planning Board to request a timeframe for compliance of the site plan resolution prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase III.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to read the Fire Marshal’s comments? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Yes. MRS. MOORE-All right. Dated April 5, this is from Chris Jones, the Fire Marshal, the following th information was provided. 1. Only 3 sides of phase 3 will receive accessibility credit, due to the close proximity of the property line on the north side. Please note that the gravel roadway (fire lane) is still required on the north side. 2. Please ensure that the overhead clearance of the covered access is maintained at no less than 13 feet, 6 inches, support to support, where it crosses the driveway. 3. The support posts for the covered access, where it crosses the driveway, can be no closer than 12 feet apart, inside edge to inside edge. 4. The re-located fire hydrant must be re-installed per NFPA and Queensbury Water Department requirements. 5. All fire lanes must remain accessible 12 months a year. 6. All private fire hydrants will require regular maintenance and testing by a qualified individual, per State and National guidelines.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record? MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and I’m here with Bill Threw, the owner. Back in ‘95/’96, actually Cathy and Craig are the only two that probably remember this application. We came in with a site plan proposal for two additional phases. Mr. Threw operates a site construction and demolition contracting business which originally occupied this seven and a half acre site, and his business is still situated on this property. As part of that business, he has used the site to store salvage material. He has a topsoil screening plant and things in the back portion of the site. When we came for the site plan approval, he had built the first warehouse building in the front of approximately 25,000 square feet, and the plan that was approved is this plan we see here, was for a second phase of an additional 25,000 square feet, and then a third phase of almost 38,000 square feet. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) These buildings, as you know, are leased to Encore Paper, and they use them for warehousing their paper products and shipping out of these warehouses. The site plan modification that’s before you tonight, these two buildings have been constructed, and site plan modification is to reduce the phase three building, it’s set to stay essentially in the same location as previously approved, but reduce that building down to a 25,000 square foot building, similar to what the Phase Two building was. The proposed covered access, what they do is they, you know, these two buildings now are connected by a covered access point, and they circulate forklifts from building to building. So that covered access, that’s what that’s for, in the event that the fork truck has to go from warehouse two to warehouse three, and that’s basically the modification. I think the comments that were read by the Fire Marshal, we have, you know, we agree with those. We have no problem with meeting those concerns. One other thing is I had talked to, one of the comments that Staff had made was to complete some of the items in phase two that they felt weren’t completed, and I spoke to Craig yesterday. I didn’t get the comments until Friday afternoon. I spoke to Craig yesterday and asked him if we could. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, that’s Craig Brown. MR. MILLER-I’m sorry, Craig Brown. I spoke to Craig Brown and asked him if we could define what those concerns were, and when I last talked to him this afternoon, I hadn’t gotten anything, and I don’t know if he had prepared that, but I guess our position is that there’s some things that Craig Brown has reviewed on the site that need to be addressed. We’d be agreeable to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-To do what, specifically? MR. MILLER-Well, whatever it was. I think, you know, there was some landscaping and some issues like that, but I don’t know if he has defined what some of those concerns were that he felt were not completed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess I just had some questions, more specifically what some of the issues were that weren’t completed from the prior site plan. Because it really wasn’t clear to me what some of those were. I guess it’s really more of a question for Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. She’s looking that up. Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-No. That was really my biggest issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that one of the conditions that I see is the removal of debris. Now I don’t know how to describe debris. Some people think the debris is something they can use, and other people look at it as junk. I don’t know how to really look at that, but going back to the May 30, 1996, on the Planning Board, which was a motion to approve modification to the site plan 24-95 for William Threw, one was that the gravel fire lane as installed will be shown on the plan. It is. Am I correct? MR. MILLER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s on there. Two, the water line and hydrant to be located at the northwest corner of phase two warehouse and to be indicated on the plan. It is. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Three, indicate on the plan to the Planning Staff satisfaction where phase two ends and phase three starts. I think the plan clearly depicts that. Does Staff agree? MRS. MOORE-You’re reading item number three? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Staff agrees. Okay. Fourth, the applicant will have to submit stormwater discharge permit application. Was that application applied for? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MILLER-Yes. We submitted a stormwater management report, back when we got the approvals. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it talks about a discharge permit application. That’s what the resolution called for, a permit application. Obviously, the Planning Board, at that time, wanted you to apply for a permit to discharge stormwater. MR. THREW-We’re not discharging. MR. MILLER-We don’t discharge. Everything goes into, is collected on site into dry wells, as a stormwater management plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just let me read what the resolution says. MR. MILLER-I don’t understand what they were looking for in that one. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t understand what they’re looking for on that one. So that has not been complied with. Whether it’s right or wrong, I don’t know, but you’re telling me you haven’t done that yet. MR. MILLER-We submitted a stormwater management report that shows the design of the storm drainage system that’s on the site, and was constructed in accordance with their drawing. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the thing that’s bothering me is the word “permit”. I don’t know what they had in mind, and, five, that the temporary CO may be issued to June 30 to complete the site work in phase two. So, with the exception of this permit application, the only thing that I see here really is essentially what I’ll call clean up the site from debris, and I’m not sure what that means. Are some of the old tractor trailers considered debris, and maybe not. MR. RINGER-Bob, in the motion that was approved in ’95, the 24-95, it defines debris, the removal of debris is considered to be anything that doesn’t grow, and that these conditions be contingent upon the CO. So they define debris as the removal of anything that doesn’t grow. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s interesting. I’ll give you the benefit of a note of mine that’s on here that says, define what business Mr. Threw is really in. You said the business he’s really in is demolition. Is that correct? MR. THREW-I’m in building, I do road building. I do all kinds of construction sites. This is a recycling point. I can bring stuff in and recycle it. I bring in palettes, crush them up, grind them up with that big grinder, and I put them in the chip pile and we sell the chips. We mulch it down into topsoil. This is what I’m doing, and everything in my business does not grow. I have back hoes, loaders, I have graders. I’ve got $30,000 worth of equipment to satisfy the Town, and now, since that happened until now, I’ve accumulated some more, and that’s what happens to my business. MR. VOLLARO-In that kind of business that you’re in, I can certainly understand where you’d be accumulating what other people may call debris, and I don’t know how to get around that one, but it seems to me that the drawing that they’ve supplied pretty much satisfies the requirement of a prior resolution by this Board, by a prior Board. MR. THREW-If you allow me to do this, that cleans up that area. There’s no question. There’s nothing to it. It has to be, because I have to pave it. I have to clean it up and build the building, if you allow me to do that, and in another sense, if I get the building, I won’t need all the space I need out in the two buildings I’ve got for the tractor trailers. This is the amount they need to carry on their business, and if I can bring it in to the new warehouse, in the parking area out there, I won’t have a problem with parking area. I need that extra space to keep all the extra trucks that they need to keep on the site. MR. VOLLARO-So Encore will be a tenant on this property? MR. THREW-Yes, they are a tenant. MR. VOLLARO-And their business is obviously not your business. MR. THREW-It is growing. MR. VOLLARO-Your business and their business are totally different. MR. THREW-Right. When they originally started, they were just going to have warehousing there. Now it’s their shipping terminal. From three people they’ve gone to ten people. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-And they find that compatible with your business, obviously, or they wouldn’t be a prospective tenant. MR. THREW-I am the location, location, location. They come in with the truck drivers from Canada and they go out onto I-87 and they go where they’ve got to go. It’s the location that’s selling this point. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman, on this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. All those tractor trailers, they belong to Encore? MR. THREW-Yes, they do. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing additional. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? Staff? Does someone want to introduce a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I still had that outstanding question. MRS. MOORE-Yes. There’s a question about what’s in compliance and what’s not. At this moment, it’s a given. The landscaping plan is not in compliance, as proposed for phase two. If you look at, on the southwesterly property line, that area is not in compliance at the moment. That’s a given. That’s a known one. Other things Craig mentioned to me when we spoke this afternoon, no, he’s not come up with a list yet, but things that I understand Mr. Threw is in the business of demolition and recycling and that sort of item, but in other projects, I’ve seen us, the Planning Board, identify areas on the site plan to identify places for scrap metal, for truck parking, and other items, so that they’re laid out on the property in a fashion where they’re in orderly fashion. Craig’s concern is that this site, the materials are located on the property in a scattered fashion. I’m trying to think of another, I think that was the gist of it. MR. MILLER-As Bill was saying, with the construction of this new building, the chip pile and the things that are there will all be removed. He also owns an additional three acres in the back. As a matter of fact the topsoil screening operation is pretty much located in the back. So anything that he has, as far as the chip recycling or the topsoil or any of that will all go to the back of the site, in this three or four acres, and all of the rest of that will be Encore. One of the concerns that Craig had when I talked to him was the parking of the trailers and things that are on the site. Part of that is the result of, they were plowing and pushing the snow here and there, and the trailers were sort of parked where they plowed, and once they expand to the back, some of those trailers will go to the back, and some of the concerns that Craig had about organizing the trailers on the site, you know, we’ll be able to do that. One of the things that when we first came in with this site plan approval, the parking requirement, one car per thousand square feet, is really high for the number of employees. Bill said when we started, this project was three employees, and now they’re up to ten, but for the 75,000 square foot, we need 75 cars. So what they’ve done is they’ve put the pavement in, in accordance with the site plan, and rather than use that space for parking the cars, which they don’t have that many employees, they’ve been using it to park the trailers on that site. MR. THREW-To answer your question about everything being cluttered up there, originally I filed for a site plan review, or building permit for a 10,000 square foot building. I had the foundation all dug. I got the approval, well, I didn’t get the approval from the Town. They said I could do it. I paid my money to get that done, and then Encore said they wanted a bigger building, 25,000 square foot, so I abandon that. This material, I’ve taken down another building to put that building up, and that’s what’s sitting there now, so now I’m going to put that building on another site on that building. That’s why it’s cluttered. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. THREW-Because I was going to plan on putting it up. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-Did Staff indicate that there was a problem with landscaping? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Looking at the drawing, existing trees to remain, this drawing shows a considerable amount of trees in front of existing warehouse building of 24,750 feet. Are those trees actually there? MR. MILLER-Which ones are you looking at, out by the road, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, out by the road, you’ve got a whole bunch of characteristics that depict, no, up higher. MR. MILLER-Up in here? MR. VOLLARO-Right there. MR. MILLER-Some of those were existing, and then a lot of the ones that are indicated here are smaller. I think some of the ones that are not installed may be in this area in here. I know Bill has been doing some work on the drywells. MR. VOLLARO-This is all part of Phase I, Phase II planting. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-This is not planting that goes with anything to do with Phase III? MR. MILLER-That’s correct, and I think some of the planting, what Laura was saying, in this area I think some of this planting and some right here I don’t believe has been installed. What’s shown on the plan, it’s shown there because it was shown on the earlier plan, but I don’t know that all that’s in there right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Staff has suggested that we, they’ve encouraged the Planning Board to request a timeframe for compliance of the site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase III, and that’s partly why I asked the earlier question about some specific issues that are in compliance. What would you consider to be a reasonable timeframe? MR. MILLER-I’m like you. I’m not sure exactly what they had in mind. If it’s completing some of the landscaping work and things in Phase II, that can be completed fairly quickly. I think the one concern, Bill is anxious to get the building permit and break ground. So I guess we’d prefer not to delay issuance of the building permit, but still have a timeframe when the improvements have to be done. Whatever Craig has, Craig Brown is concerned with, that wasn’t completed, if we could work that out with them and say, by the end of May, but I would rather we don’t hold up the building permit to, you know, just to complete some of the smaller things that may not have been completed with Phase II, if that’s possible. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? I’m just curious, Mr. Threw, the two old, delivery beer trucks out there, what do they have to do with the business? MR. THREW-That isn’t mine. That’s Freddie Smith. Bobby Clark’s supposed to be taking that away for junk. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I have just one more item, in regards to the events that occur on the site. Because I don’t know, Craig has been dealing with it mostly. I’m just concerned that the applicant has applied and received site plan approval for a warehouse facility on the site, and it appears at the same time that this site plan was approved, that there was not only this warehouse in use, but there was a secondary business on the site, and that I think the Board should be concerned, you know, aware of both type of businesses on the site, and it appears that they work interchangeable, but just be conscious there’s two businesses on the site, not just one. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I asked the question before, to make sure that I understood that. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking about Threw’s business and Encore being on there. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-And Encore’s business. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That was never something that was overlooked in previous approvals. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, trucks go in and out of there at all hours of the day. MR. THREW-Twenty-four hours a day. MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-four, seven. MRS. MOORE-I was just addressing that point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification request to Site Plan No. 24-95, William Threw proposing a modification to approved site plan. Modification request is for reduction of the proposed third warehouse building from 37,996 sq. ft. to 25,000 sq. ft. A covered concrete access pad to allow traffic between buildings will connect Phase II and Phase III buildings. Any modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 137-2-7.1, and WHEREAS, the application was received 3/28/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/20/01; 4/24/01 Staff Notes 4/5/01 C. Jones, Fire Marshal comments 4/4/01 Meeting Notice 9/11/00 W. Threw from Craig Brown 6/20/95 Planning Board Resolution – original 5/20/96 Planning Board Resolution - modification WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaping will be brought into compliance with the previously approved Site Plan No. 24-95 by the Planning Board on June 20, 1995, and 2. The applicant will bring the site into compliance with the concerns as noted in a letter addressing this site, dated April 5, 2001 by Fire Marshal Chris Jones, and 3. These conditions must be met before a Certificate of Occupancy will be released. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) Duly adopted this 24th day of April 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. THREW-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP. – NETWORK MANAGER FOR SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. PROPERTY OWNER: RAMADA INN/GF ASSOCIATES AGENT: MARGARET SMITH/PYRAMID SITE ACQUISITION SERVICES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1 ABBEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 120’ STEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 12-2001 (2/28/01) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 97-2-6 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-73.1 MARGARET SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-2001, Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corp. – Network Manager for Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Meeting Date: April 24, 2001 “Project Description Applicant proposes to construct a 120’ stealth flagpole at the Ramada Inn to utilize for telecommunications equipment. The applicant has received Use Variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the location of the facility (resolution attached). Project Analysis (Section 179-38, 179-73.1) Site Overview: The applicant’s letter of March 8, 2001 indicates the information provided for the construction of a 120 foot flagpole. The pole will be utilized for three interior panel antennas. The pole will be located on the west side of the building and will be enclosed by a wooden stockade fence. The project site will be accessed through the existing parking area of the Ramada Inn. The project will also involve traffic for maintenance of the equipment building. The flagpole will be lit with ground lights to illuminate the flag. The lighting will be four 400 watt metal halide spotlights. The lights will be angled to minimize off site light projections. The applicant does not propose any alterations to the drainage pattern on the site. The plans include landscaping at the perimeter of the fence. Areas of Concern or Importance The propagation maps show areas of existing coverage and gap areas. The maps indicate the tower would pick up gaps near the Great Escape Area. The application has been referred to CT Male for review and comment (comments dated 4/19/01 attached).” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MS. SMITH-Hi. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MS. SMITH-I’m Margaret Smith. I’m a representative of Independent Wireless One, and this is Ben Campbell. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MS. SMITH-Okay. I don’t know where to start. We’re proposing to construct a 120 foot flagpole at the Ramada Inn. We have a lease agreement with them. The flagpole is able to sustain three carriers. It’ll be surrounded by a 20 by 20 leased fenced in area that’ll consist of a stockade fence to enclose the equipment, the base station equipment, and it’ll have a landscaping plan around it. The access road will just come off the base of the parking lot. We have gone before the Warren County Planning Board for approval on and received approval for the Use Variance. We went to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and received approval for the Use Variance. We went back to the Warren County Planning Board for approval on the site plan, and now we’re before you for approval for a site plan. Any questions you may have? MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, is this exactly what it says it’s going to be, it’s going to be a flagpole with a flag on top, a great big American flag? MS. SMITH-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And where will the antennas be? MS. SMITH-Inside, you won’t see them. There’s a photo simulation that we had submitted that depicts what it will look like, and it’s going to look just like a flagpole. Basically it’s a monopole, okay. So it’s a hollow steel shaft that the antennas are housed inside, and we’ll go at 120 feet, and then another carrier can go at 110 and another one can go at 100 feet, and so you won’t see anything but the white pole and then the equipment will be inside the fenced area at the base of the pole, behind a stockade fence. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who’s idea was that? MS. SMITH-That is stealth technology these days. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I have a couple of questions. C.T. Male asked a question in there. Why have the two Town owned water tanks, just for my own understanding, why have they been abandoned? MS. SMITH-The first water tank was the West Mountain water tank. I came before you folks in, probably about July or August and received approval for that site. That is not on air yet, and it’s in the APA. So we have submitted, are still working on our APA application. Part of that application includes our entire build out for the entire Adirondack Park. So it takes quite a while to put the information together, and then we have to seek approval on it. That is still in the works, and still something we want to use to cover the western part of Queensbury. It’s separate from the coverage objective of this site. The other water tank is the Gurney Lane water tank, and that is something we also have secured a lease agreement with the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and will be coming before you then next month for approval on that site, and that will cover the hole that you’ll see in the maps that they talk about 379 and they have a circle. That’ll cover that coverage hole. MR. VOLLARO-That circle that’s up on, I’ve got these charts. I’m going to ask you a couple of questions. Let me go through the questions I have and then I’ll get to. Now, the flagpole is designed for the co-location of two other carriers. Is that correct? MS. SMITH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re operating at, you’re transmitting on 950 to 965 megahertz, and you’re receiving on 1870 to 1885 megahertz. Now, what other frequencies and effective radiated power would be installed on the antenna? In other words, we’ve had other towers here before us who say, there’s plenty of room on this tower for the next application. The next application never comes. What really comes is another tower. MS. SMITH-It’s not the frequency. It’s the location. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s your effective radiated power as well. I understand isotropic transmissions. So I know a little bit about it. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MS. SMITH-It is also the location for your network design, and if we can look at the tower by French Mountain that SBA came in and got approval for you. We are also on that tower, and we wanted to, we tried to get a lease agreement at the Warren County Municipal Center to get on that tower there, and if we had been able to secure an agreement there, that would have negated the need for the additional facility, the water tank at Gurney Lane. Okay, but because of that placement, because we had to go there, a hole was created on 87, which then does not provide significant coverage. So it’s more of the location of where your fill in places than the frequencies. We all have our frequency license from the Federal government to run at the frequencies and. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You certainly can’t interfere with one another. So there’s frequency separation to make sure that you don’t, and I understand that. MS. SMITH-And then, you know, some of the lower frequencies can go out and travel farther and have less sites than a PCS carrier like Sprint. MR. VOLLARO-In taking a look at these charts, and I stared at them for a fair amount of time, and I cannot see any discernible change in coverage between the 120 and the 100 foot. I’ve looked. I see that in each case the Northway has a blank spot, and you’re going to try to solve that with another antenna, with another location. MS. SMITH-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-To try to solve that blank spot, but that’s not really before us now. What’s before us right now is the coverage of the requested antenna. MS. SMITH-Right. If you look at the propagation submitted for 110 feet and 100 feet, you’ll see a small, above the “G” in Glens Falls, a small red circle with, I’d say almost a pin point, pin hole, you know, a small white spot. That’s a coverage gap. What’s going to happen is that when someone’s driving on 87, they’re going to lose their phone call. So if we can raise the height 10 feet, we will have the continuous coverage, and that won’t happen. MR. VOLLARO-Even on the 120, right now, with this antenna, on the 120, the highest elevation, you still get a hole on the Northway without going to that circle. That circle’s going to try to prevent that. MR. MAC EWAN-Go back one page. She’s referring to that circle. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a very, very small. MS. SMITH-And that will create the call to drop, which is what we’re trying to avoid. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask you a question. Is this data that I’m looking at empirical data? And what I mean by that is this, so you understand what I’m driving at. You have a receiver. A receiver has a certain sensitivity. Are you electronics, by any chance? No. All right. The receiver has a certain sensitivity. You can locate these receivers at different places and collect empirical data, so that you know exactly what the coverage is, or, B, what you can do is go on propagation analysis. Now, I don’t know how you do this, but I’m familiar with propagation analysis and how they’re painted, and how the coverage is obtained, and I can squish them around a little bit, just by changing a few numbers. So, you know, that’s why when I see two dots like that, I say to myself, I don’t know. There’s a coverage hole there, but how did they determine that? Did they sit a receiver at that GPS location? MS. SMITH-No, they did not, and this computer is a simulation, and that is what’s anticipated. It’s not empirical. It’s not exact data, but it’s anticipated that we’ll have a drop there. So by raising it 10 feet, we’re confident we won’t have the drop, and we get the additional coverage into the City of Glens Falls, which is what we’re also seeking. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask a question. If you go to the, right now you’ve got a visual impact chart here in your simulation report, and it shows how far away this, it shows, at the 120 level, where I can see the tip of the antenna. If I get down to the 100 foot level, how does this circuit compress? MS. SMITH-We didn’t run a report off that. We didn’t have them. When they do the view shed map, they float a balloon at 120 feet, and then they go out and drive all the streets in a five mile radius. So we would have had to float two balloons. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I realize that, and, see, the problem that I see is I can’t see the trade off of 100 feet to 120, and I’m getting that much more coverage. Not being in your business, I’m more 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) concerned about what the view shed looks like in Queensbury with all of these coming up. I commend you for the antenna design. It’s a very unique way of placing the dipoles inside. MS. SMITH-The view really, I mean, it’s a flagpole. It’s not something that, I mean, it’s aesthetically pleasing. So for the 20 feet. MR. VOLLARO-In and of itself, it’s fairly unobtrusive, but when you start to take a look at how these things are popping up in the area, that’s what I’m concerned about, is the multiplicity of these things. MS. SMITH-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a concern in my mind. MS. SMITH-Sure, and also in reducing the height to 100 feet you would reduce, the co-locations would then be at 100 feet, 90 feet and 80 feet, which is less appealing than for a carrier to come in and try and make something work off of 80 feet, as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s exactly the line they took when we approved, I believe, the 149 antenna on Route 149. That it had to be that height because the next people who came on had to go to a lower level. MS. SMITH-Right. MR. RINGER-She said they’re on that. MS. SMITH-We’re on that tower, and someone could make 80 feet work. I’m just saying that. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the height on that tower that you’re at now, on 149? MS. SMITH-I think we got 160 feet on that. I don’t know off the top of my head. MR. VOLLARO-One hundred and sixty foot on that tower? MS. SMITH-Yes. I believe it’s 195 foot tower, and I think we got 160 feet. MR. VOLLARO-You got the 160. Okay. MS. SMITH-And it could work for somebody at 80 feet, but it reduces the likelihood. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it would work depending on how they set their effective radiated power. I mean, there’s a tradeoff between ERP and range, always has been. I just have a question I want to ask. I don’t understand why Warren County talked about this interface problem. With the rejection techniques we have today, why did they not want you to go on to that antenna that was over near the municipal building? MS. SMITH-They basically had told us that they wanted to conserve their space for future things they were looking at doing. MR. VOLLARO-It had nothing to do with rejection or interference? MS. SMITH-No. MR. VOLLARO-Because I read a note in here that that was one of the prime reasons why they didn’t let you on that tower. MS. SMITH-No. We had actually given them a study that showed that interference would not be a problem, and they indicated to us that it was for future space reasons. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MS. SMITH-We also sought, across the street from the proposed location right now, the water tanks, the very large water tanks, and were denied by the City of Glens Falls who actually owns those tanks, a lease agreement there for a water filtration system plant that they intend on proposing in the near future. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I read that. I read all of that stuff in there. That’s about all I have right now, Mr. Chairman. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything, other than what Bob’s covered. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Who maintains the flag? MS. SMITH-We have, every month the cell tech goes out to the site and maintains the equipment and flag, and as part of our Use Variance approval, there was a contingency on that that we maintain the flag. I believe there was a maintenance schedule put in there that we have to follow. In addition, with the Ramada Inn we have to keep an attractive flag. MR. METIVIER-And as far as the lighting is concerned, you don’t foresee any problems on the Northway with reflection or anything of the lights? MS. SMITH-No. Why we light the flag, we had originally submitted a proposal without it being lit, and the Veterans of America, you have to illuminate a flag after sundown. So it’s just the flag that we’re looking at illuminating. So, we submitted an extra specifications of the lighting plan. C.T. Male had questioned by four lights and not two. Our engineer is a veteran and may be eager or zealous in his lighting plan, but he said that this was according to the Code specification that he had researched, and that’s why he put that in there. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Thank you. Hi. Well, let’s continue with this lighting, because I’m not convinced that we have an empirical situation where we’ve got the absolute minimum amount of lighting that we need to address this flag. MS. SMITH-That’s fine. If C.T. Male says that two lights are fine, that’s fine for us to reduce down to two lights. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I mean, I’m trying to reduce the impact, the visual impact that it would have on people driving by and the neighborhood, and I went on the terra server, and I just see that there are neighborhoods significantly close to this flag, and within view of it, although that wasn’t brought out in your analysis, but let’s move on. What will be the hours of operation of this lighting? I assume only at nighttime? MS. SMITH-Exactly, and we are strictly interested in illuminating the flag as a spotlight scenario to the flag. It would not be pointing in any other direction but right at the flag. MR. STROUGH-Okay, now, and you would like to be able to have a pole that you could rent out space for? MS. SMITH-Well, we are open to co-location, and if anyone wanted to come. MR. STROUGH-But it’s not mandatory. MS. SMITH-It’s not mandatory. We did submit to the Town that we would be agreeable on the market value to rent out space. Yes. MR. STROUGH-And when you do rent out space, is it going to be TDMA format? MS. SMITH-We are actually CDMA format. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So they have to be of the same format. MS. SMITH-No, not necessarily, because they’ll put their own equipment in. We don’t use the same base station equipment. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That won’t bring any noise in on the low end or anything? MS. SMITH-They would have to come to you for approval, before any of that would happen. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, you did go to Glens Falls, and I know all that, it’s been said, and they said that you can’t use the water tank because they’re going to build a filtration plant. So that means that some day, in the near future, those water tanks will be available for co-locators. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MS. SMITH-We went before them, before their Board, and they took a vote and they denied us on a lease agreement. MR. STROUGH-And the reason in the newspaper was because they’re going to do construction, which seems reasonable. MS. SMITH-Right. MR. STROUGH-It also seems reasonable that maybe they want the $18,000 a year for renting that space, or whatever it may be. MS. SMITH-Then they multiply it by five carriers that they could have. MR. STROUGH-Yes. They could make out pretty good once they get the water filtration plant in. Now, would the current 20 by 20 pad size accommodate your co-locators? MS. SMITH-We pour a nine by twelve pad, and that’s what we need for our space would be the nine by twelve. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MS. SMITH-So there is additional space in there. I don’t know, for whoever comes in, how big their equipment’s going to be, and what they’re going to put up. MR. STROUGH-So they may have to add on to the 20 by 20? MS. SMITH-They may come in and propose to do that. I wouldn’t say they wouldn’t. I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and in looking at your power density study and exposure study, I didn’t, I couldn’t get out of that if that was a cumulative effect, three providers? MS. SMITH-No, that was just us, because I don’t know who the providers are. I don’t know what they’re going to propose, to give you a cumulative effect. MR. STROUGH-So that effect was just one provider? MS. SMITH-Just one provider, but if you drive along any main highway, you’ll see a pole with five or six carriers on it. So usually a cumulative effect, you’re still, with even six carriers, below the minimum standards by the FCC guidelines. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but I just wanted to make clear that what you gave us was just for one carrier? MS. SMITH-It was just, yes. MR. STROUGH-What’s the bottom diameter of the pole? I looked and I didn’t see it. MS. SMITH-I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-I’ve seen the pictures, but I’m looking now, how big is this? MS. SMITH-Anywhere between three and five feet I’m going to say, off the top of my head. There should be a one page color picture of the flag, the lazy susan, I think they call it. The specs could be on that. That’s from the Stealth, the manufacturer of it, and I think that the specs of the size of the pole are on that. MR. STROUGH-All right. So we don’t know. We may find out in a minute. I see some of them working. So, my next question was, what’s the top diameter of the pole? What’s the size of the flag? MS. SMITH-That is something that we have to order. We haven’t determined the size right now. MR. STROUGH-It’s not three by five. MS. SMITH-No. MR. STROUGH-It’s going to be huge. MS. SMITH-It’s proportionate, yes. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. STROUGH-It’s huge. Now, another thing I couldn’t get is a comparison, what’s the average tree height in that general area? Now, my determination was about 50 feet. MS. SMITH-That could be in the narrative of the view shed. MR. STROUGH-Well, we can come back to this. MS. SMITH-Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right. The view shed, the size of the trees, I’m going some place. All right. MS. SMITH-Sixty to eighty feet in height is the vegetation in that area. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Now in your simulation report, you put the project site as in the Town of Glens Falls. Okay. There is no Town of Glens Falls. MS. SMITH-Where was that? MR. STROUGH-Well, it says project site is located in the Town of Glens Falls. MS. SMITH-Do you know where you saw that? MR. STROUGH-Yes. It’s in the simulation report. MS. SMITH-Okay. Clough Harbor made an error in the, it’s the Town of Queensbury, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let’s stay right with this Clough Harbor simulation report. They put the Hudson River at 900 feet above sea level. Okay. My house is at 650 feet above sea level, and I look down into the valley. Now, the airport that I’ve flown out of, if you set your altimeter at 318 feet. The school that I teach out of is 470 feet. So there’s just no way that the Hudson River could be at 900 feet, and they put the site at 1,467 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you’re suggesting you swim to work every day? MR. STROUGH-So, you know, and then it goes to say that the view shed map was prepared using the ground elevation of 1,467 feet. So the whole view shed must be in error. All right, well, let’s move on, and you can go back and check. MS. SMITH-I see exactly where you’re reading it from and that’s what it says. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the balloon test, how long was the tether? MS. SMITH-That would be in here as well. MR. STROUGH-I looked for it but I couldn’t find it. MS. SMITH-Okay. Then they didn’t tell us. MR. STROUGH-So I’m going to assume maybe they just put the tether at the height of, 120 feet, okay, and that’s, my next question you won’t know because did they account for the 10 mile an hour winds that day? MS. SMITH-Did they tell you there was 10 mile an hour winds in the report? MR. VOLLARO-Five to ten. MS. SMITH-They did? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. So we don’t know that. All right. So I did establish, let’s take a look at alternate sites. Now you did say that you looked at the West Mountain water tower? MS. SMITH-We have approval there. MR. STROUGH-Because I didn’t see it anywhere in here that you did consider that as an alternative site. MS. SMITH-We have a lease agreement and approval. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. STROUGH-No, no. That’s the Luzerne Road. The West Mountain water tanks. MS. SMITH-Okay. That’s the name we call it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, there’s nothing on them. There’s just water tanks now. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking about the tanks up toward? MR. STROUGH-In back of my house. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, okay. MR. RINGER-That’s the Gurney Lane one, wouldn’t it be? MR. STROUGH-No, Gurney Lane’s another one. MS. SMITH-And the Luzerne Road one’s we got approval on are? MR. STROUGH-That’s another one. There’s water tanks in back of my house. MR. MAC EWAN-My gosh, we’ve got water tanks everywhere around here. MS. SMITH-Not the Glens Falls? Where are the West Mountain ones? MR. STROUGH-Right where the Old West Mountain Road comes out, and then you head south about another quarter mile, and then they’re up on the hill about 200 feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MS. SMITH-We gave an extensive search in the area. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you didn’t check that out. Now, did you check out with the School? MS. SMITH-For a lease agreement at the School? MR. STROUGH-Because they’ve got a bus garage way in back by the woods. I was just wondering, you know, kind of out of sight of everything. MS. SMITH-No, we didn’t go to the School. MR. STROUGH-You didn’t do that. Did you check with any of the churches to see if you could use the steeples, because there’s, what, two churches right in that general area? MS. SMITH-We looked in the specified search area, in our search ring. MR. STROUGH-They’re right there. MR. RINGER-John, do you feel any of them are better locations than the Ramada? MR. STROUGH-No, I’m just saying, did they do a thorough search, I’m going somewhere. First of all, I’ve got to establish my base. All right. Okay. Now in your visual addendum, the adjacent area, or the impact on the School wasn’t addressed. The impact on the Dixon Heights neighborhood wasn’t addressed. Night lighting, visual impact wasn’t addressed. Okay. Now your tower height, you’re requesting 120 feet. The visual impact of that, without lighting, is pretty significant, even though it’s a flagpole, and they call it stealth. It’s still pretty prominent, that 120 feet, and night lit, as it’s got to be because it’s got the flag on it, is going to make it an impact all night long, to everybody around it, and you can mitigate those by reducing the height, by reducing the light as I suggested to begin with. All right. Now, I also looked at the propagation maps, and I agree with Bob. There’s little significant difference between 120 feet and 100 feet. You’re still going to get fairly good coverage. Now the reason why I say this is because at one time, let’s go back to Glens Falls water towers. You were interested in locating an antenna on those water towers, right? And that would have been good for you because here’s your propagation report from that. All right. Now that water tower’s at 400 feet above mean sea level. The water tower itself, with the antennas, the full height, would have been an additional 111 feet, making for a total height of those antennas would be 560 feet above mean sea level. Okay. That’s on the water tower, and that was satisfactory. Here’s the propagation report. Now let’s go back over on this side of the road. MS. SMITH-That was on the Glens Falls? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. STROUGH-That was on the Glens Falls water towers. Now go on the other side of the road, the Ramada proposal. Okay. The surface height is 445 feet. So to have the same height as you would have had your antennas on the other side of the Northway, you only need a pole of 71 feet high. MS. SMITH-The propagation that we gave you for those water tanks was the hand off site on at the Warren County Municipal Center, at the time, and not the French Mountain SBA tower that’s there. because our heights would have been different, and so we’ll get different gaps in connectors, connections. MR. STROUGH-Well, it didn’t say that in the report that I read. I didn’t say any connection about that. It said here’s the propagation report based on the dipolar antennas located on top of the water tanks. So you only need a 71 foot tower, to have the equivalent propagation’s that you would have gotten on the other side. MS. SMITH-That report was if we were connecting to what was proposed at the Municipal Center, which we don’t have anymore. MR. STROUGH-All right. Your job, my job is to make sure that you mitigate the cumulative environmental impacts. One hundred and twenty-feet, in my mind, is too high. The flag pole’s nice. It’s kind of unique. I’m willing to go along with it. The height, you compare it, and in the visual report compare it to the tree levels, compare it to where you can see it around the Town, as erroneous as it was, it’s still going to be a major impact. I’d be willing to go with 80 feet, if you would. MS. SMITH-I don’t believe 80 feet works for us at all. We’ll have a significant gap, and I would have to come back before the Town with another proposal to fill in the gap. MR. STROUGH-One hundred feet’s my last offer. MS. SMITH-One hundred feet doesn’t work for us. MR. STROUGH-Well, 120 doesn’t work for me. It’s too much. You don’t need it. I’ve showed you, you don’t need it because we don’t need co-locators. They can locate on other alternate sites all around Town. I mentioned a few, and you said that 100 foot would be generally fairly good for most people that wanted to put an antenna site there, and you said that might be the bare minimum. That would be pretty good. You’d be able to attract people there. So that means it must be pretty good for you, 100 foot is all you need. MS. SMITH-One hundred feet, we have a gap. I mean, we have, we’re showing, through our simulation. MR. STROUGH-It’s minor. It’s really minor. MS. SMITH-But it’s also, our coverage objective is also the City of Glens Falls. MR. STROUGH-Well, you were going to be happy with the water tank, which is even 30 feet less in height. MS. SMITH-In connection with the Municipal Center. MR. STROUGH-And that wasn’t in the report. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-End of story. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-How could I possibly add anything? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. Nothing? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m confused. The report that Mr. Strough just referred to was a report that you gave to us to review, based on an application you didn’t have pending, regarding the Warren County Municipal Center’s tower? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MS. SMITH-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would that have been included for us to review, on a potential coverage for this new tower, if it’s something that shouldn’t even have been considered? MS. SMITH-Are we talking about the property next to? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going by the answer you gave Mr. Strough. When he was referring to the water towers, the City water towers, you said that coverage, propagation coverage report, was not accurate because it included the Warren County Municipal Center’s towers, which you don’t have a contract with. That was to connect one to the other. MS. SMITH-I don’t know where Mr. Strough is getting the propagation’s from, the City. So that’s from a previous application. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a previous application that you prepared for us. MS. SMITH-Right, so, but not part of this one. So it was with previous material. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. MS. SMITH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The next question I have for you, is this a PCS system, is that what you’re doing? MS. SMITH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why can’t you put it on the tower you have at Exit 18? MS. SMITH-We’re on that tower already? MR. MAC EWAN-Why do you need another tower a mile up the road? MS. SMITH-It doesn’t reach. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t reach. Could I read you the minutes of the last approved one we had, and a comment that was made by a Mr. Calendar who represented your company, and he says, as one of the primary objectives with PCS is for people to be able to take a one, one phone number and be able to contact them anywhere they go. So that’s why we’re trying to get good inside coverage in more densely populated urban and suburban areas. This particular site would not only allow us to cover most of southern and central parts of Queensbury, but will also give us good coverage in the City of Glens Falls, as far north as The Great Escape, Aviation Mall and other commercial corridors. So this is why we wanted this particular site. And now we’re asking for another site a mile up the road, and that was one of the concerns I had, for me, when this site plan was in front of us back in ’96, was that this was going to start a precedent of seeing these things start popping up like mushrooms in the night, and that’s what we’re starting to see, and if you have a tower down there, and the tower, according to the last time you guys were in here with an application for approval, said that it was going to do the job. MS. SMITH-I didn’t put the application in for approval. MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s still Sprint. It’s still the same. MS. SMITH-I know, Mr. Chairman, if you drive on 87 right now with a Sprint phone you’ll drop your call. You will not have coverage. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me play the Devil’s advocate. We believed in what was presented to us four years ago. We’re going to believe what’s presented here tonight, what makes you think, four years from now, you’re not going to need one another two miles up the road, or another half mile up the road, or another mile up the road? That’s the problem I’m having here. MS. SMITH-As I understand it, the more people who use phones, the more you need capacity sites to fill in because you’ll get gaps. You’ll shrink in your coverage area. MR. MAC EWAN-As I understand it, as this was presented to us four years ago, this was going to be enough to do your coverage. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MS. SMITH-I can’t even guarantee that what I’m proposing now is going to be all that I’m going to come in with in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. SMITH-Even as technology advances, I will say that there will be more when we get into the third generation, and the more data over the frequencies, the more things you can do, the wireless web and that type of thing. There’s going to be a need for more sites, to make the technology work. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the technology needs to start advancing into a direction that’s not going to say we need to have these things popping up everywhere, but the technology’s going to be able to work off one centralized tower to service a much larger area. That’s what the technology needs to go. MS. SMITH-I can’t disagree, but we are offering a flagpole, you know, something that is least obtrusive to the community that we can possibly come up with. We’re looking to co-locate wherever we possibly can. We have two lease agreements with Town. MR. MAC EWAN-The tower that you have at the Arrowhead truck site, at Exit 18, that’s a PCS service, the same service that you’re going to provide with this flagpole style tower. MS. SMITH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be willing to take down that tower at Exit 18 and put up a flagpole in its place? MS. SMITH-I can’t say that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Any other questions from Board members? Staff? I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute and we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come on up and address your concerns to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. Surely the idea of a flagpole is a noble gesture, but I think it’s causing a lot of problems. The diameter of this flagpole, at the base, does the application show the diameter of the flagpole at the base? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t recall if it does. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen it. MR. STROUGH-And then what would it be at the top where you have all this equipment? MR. VOLLARO-You could scale it from a drawing that they’ve provided. It would give you an approximation on height. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and what will the material of the flagpole be? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get those questions answered for you. MR. SALVADOR-And Mr. Strough has a good point. By utilizing the flag, and the necessity of having it lit at night, that really makes it, I think, a problem, and it’s going to add to the cost. You put that flag up there, in proportion to a 120 feet height, you’ve got yourself one hell of a sail effect, and the design of that flagpole is going to have to be quite substantial. I’m sure they’d probably want to make it out of some form of non-corrosive steel, maybe stainless. That costs money, and at those thicknesses you’d need, I really think the idea of a flagpole might best be abandoned. That may help them all the way around, at least for this visual. MR. VOLLARO-I think they’re going to have to go to some form of fiberglass for that. Steel won’t hack it, because of the rejection factors in that steel. They’ve got to have what’s called a ray dome type application. MR. SALVADOR-The whole length? MR. VOLLARO-No, just where the antennas are located. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. SALVADOR-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DEBORAH DIER MRS. DIER-Hi. My name’s Deborah Dier. I live in Dixon Heights, and this is the first notice that we got about this whole application, and from the sounds of it, it seems like this is kind of the last leg of their whole process. I have a lot of concern. I think, I mean, I don’t know a lot about all the technology, but I do know that, speaking for my family and I would assume all the residents of my neighborhood, we don’t want a huge lit flag in our back yards. From my back deck, I can see the Ramada Inn sign, at night, and that’s about, I don’t know, 40 feet high maybe. I’m not sure, but it certainly shines through. There is a grove of evergreens there, as you know, and they indicated they were between 60 and 80 feet tall. So the flag would be twice the height of those trees, and there are gaps in those trees. It’s not a real thick grove. It’s a line, a thin line of trees. So, we’re all going to see that flag all day and all night, and it seems to me that they have not exhausted all the options that are available to them, and, at the very least, the tower should not be next door to a residential neighborhood. I mean, if it can be helped at all, if there’s any other possibility, I would ask the Board to protect us, and force them to seek another option. It sounds like the City of Glens Falls, maybe in a little while from now, is going to be open to renting out those towers, for sure, and I think Ms. Smith indicated that they have something pending with the APA for the West Mountain tower, but then she, in answering Mr. Strough, wasn’t sure about that, and if that would cover the same area, why not wait, see what comes of it, of these larger, better sites for them, that are less obtrusive, and do not encroach on our residential community. I was thinking, even the Mall across the way, I don’t know if they pursued that. The Mall or any of those abandoned buildings as I’m sure everyone knows. That’s space just sitting there. They could put their flag over there. I mean, I would probably still be able to see that flag, but, at least it’s not right on my back yard. My other concern is a health concern. I know a little bit. I’ve talked to some people and I’ve been advised that, under Federal reg’s, the towns aren’t supposed to consider the health risk when they’re considering these applications for cell towers, but there is a lot of information out there, a lot of studies have been done that do show a correlation between types of cancers for people living next door to cell towers, and I know I’m just saying that, and I think, you’ve been through this before, and you must have heard it before that there is that concern, and even if it’s, you know, I have to raise that issue, just to, I don’t want it in my back yard. It just sounds to me like they’re rushing to get in. Wanting to put up like this smaller, I mean, it’s large enough, but smaller than what it would be on a regular water tower. They’re just rushing in to fill in this moment, so their customers are happy, and instead of waiting for the bigger, better antenna on a water tower. I might be totally off base, but that seems to be my perception of what’s going on, and also, Mr. Strough mentioned that there was no study made, and no impact statement made, on how it’s going to affect the residential community of Dixon Heights and the School, and then there’s John Burke Apartments as well, over there. I’m surprised more of my neighbors aren’t here tonight. I think this is a big deal, and I think they’re just trying to sneak in, and I think the flagpole idea stinks. I think it’s going to be a huge flag like the one at Hanneford, over on Quaker, maybe even bigger than that. I’ve heard of towns requiring the towers to be in the form of an evergreen tree. I mean, I don’t know if that’s something they have access to, but this is just a really bad thing. That’s all I really have to say. I don’t have a big technical argument to make. I just am a resident of our Town, and I do not want this in my back yard. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador again. This idea of putting the tower on top of a water tank, is that what’s envisioned, to put? MR. STROUGH-No, just the antenna. MR. SALVADOR-On top of the water tank? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-And how high would this be on top of the tank? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know, John. That’s not in front of us for review, and it’s entirely a different municipality’s jurisdiction. Isn’t it? Wouldn’t that fall, because it’s the City of Glens Falls? MR. STROUGH-That was for us to review. MR. SALVADOR-They’re in the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. SALVADOR-Well, just bear in mind that, when you do this, it’s not like just setting it on top of the tank. These tanks would need one hell of a structural change to support that. How high, is my question. MR. VOLLARO-The antenna itself, based on the frequency that they’re talking about, to me, is just quarter wavelength is probably about 14 inches. It’s a small antenna. MR. SALVADOR-On top of those 40 foot high tanks? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you wouldn’t even see them. They’d get lost in the tank. MR. SALVADOR-Fine. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I think, for the time being, I’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you folks want to come back up? Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? MR. STROUGH-Have you considered a tree style? MS. SMITH-The tree sites, what happens is if you’ve got a 60 to 80 foot tree, and then you put a 120 foot stealth tree above it. MR. STROUGH-Who’s talking 120? MS. SMITH-If you put a larger, something sticking out over the tree line like that, sometimes we’ve found it to be less, kind of funny looking, actually, and what also happens is that the shrubbery that they put on the tower to make it look like a tree, they can sometimes block your antenna, which doesn’t, it creates disturbance to your signal. MR. STROUGH-Well, the Adirondack Park’s considering forcing you to do that and all cell towers up in the Adirondack Park. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m concerned, too, from my standpoint, you’re probably the second or third tower representatives that have been in front of this Board who’ve balked at that suggestion, when these things are so popular everywhere else, including the State of New Jersey which makes it mandatory. MS. SMITH-We just felt the flagpole was a more attractive application, and we did submit a report to you that we looked anywhere in the Mall area, at a couple of locations there, and were denied a lease agreement as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, anything else you wanted to add? MS. SMITH-That we’ve been, for months, trying to come up with something that’s pleasing. We’ve been working with the Planning Department. We’ve been, we’ve submitted several applications. An application that never got here was a site adjacent to the Warren County Municipal Center, where the Warren County Planning Board told us that that was not going to be acceptable, and to come up with something that was more acceptable and attractive, and basically more sites, but co-locate, don’t build a new tower, and this is what we did, to mitigate and meet their request, and that we’ve tried, greatly, to work with the County, and the Town and the residents to submit something that’s pleasing to the community. MR. MAC EWAN-In the past four years, have you been getting numerous complaints from your customers regarding the cell service that they’ve received from Sprint? MS. SMITH-We don’t have very many customers up here because we don’t have much service here. We’ve opened a store in the Aviation Mall and would like to sell phones up here. We’re trying to build out this area. As part of our license we have with the FCC, we are required to build out, in rural and urban areas, and this is part of the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-So, four years ago when we approved the tower that’s at Exit 18 at Arrowhead truck, your business hasn’t increased that significantly, since you built that tower? MS. SMITH-It has, but we don’t have coverage up here, to service people. So when we go to sell phones, we’ll show them a coverage map of their community and what we cover. We can’t show that we cover anything up here, and so it’s hard to sell a phone when you can’t sell coverage in a community. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m confused. If you have a tower up here that’s already serving your needs, how is that not coverage? MS. SMITH-It doesn’t serve all of our needs. It’s only serving, if you look on that one map, the green area, you know, it’s not serving anything north, and if you look at the next map, the green and purple. MR. MAC EWAN-Please don’t get frustrated with me. The maps that you’re showing me, particularly from my point of view, I’m not putting a whole lot of stock in them because these are the same maps I looked at four years ago, they were going to show me they were going to get the coverage. Now I’m looking at maps, four years later, that show me we aren’t going to get coverage, unless we have another tower, put it a mile up the road from where a tower sits that was going to provide all the coverage that they would need. MS. SMITH-Mr. Chairman, this was the coverage of what we had before we came to this Town, in the recent months. We had nothing north of the early part of Glens Falls, the City of Glens Falls. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not true, because a representative of your company, Mr. Calendar, assured this Board that that tower placed at Exit 18 would give the coverage that they were seeking, including, I’ll read it again, the southern central parts of Queensbury, but also give us good coverage in the City of Glens Falls, as far north as The Great Escape, Aviation Mall, and other commercial corridors. That’s why they wanted to locate at Exit 18. MS. SMITH-We don’t have that coverage. We don’t have it right now. MR. MAC EWAN-So was his engineering off? Was his presentation off? What was off? MS. SMITH-Both. MR. MAC EWAN-How do we know yours are dead on, then? And how do I know, as a Planning Board member, you won’t be back here, in two years, saying we need another tower, two miles further up the road? MS. SMITH-I can bring in radio frequency experts to testify to you. I can bring in engineers to testify on the structural ability of it, though I think it’s just the radio frequency that you’re having concerns with. I can bring in the leasing people. MR. MAC EWAN-I have concerns, from my point of view, not with the frequencies or the lack of them or how much coverage you get. I have a problem with cell towers starting to pop up all over this Town, and becoming a real aesthetic issue. That’s what I have a problem with. I have a problem with an applicant asking for an approval of a site plan, four years ago, under the guise that this cell tower was going to service all their needs they were going to have up here. That’s why they strategically wanted to locate there. I have a problem, when we come back, four years later, for another application for a site a mile down the road, because they’re not getting the coverage out of the Tower they assured us four years earlier would cover. That’s what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the fact that I think we’ll see this again. Another two years we’ll see a request asking for more site plans further up the road, and that, to me, just doesn’t make sense, and while you’re getting your service out of it and supplying the needs of your customers, it’s the township that’s suffering with an aesthetic problem with all these cell towers starting to pop up, and how do we address those? Well, one way we can address those is to enclose them in something, whether they be put on the side of a building, blend it in as best we can. I don’t know that a 120 foot tall flagpole is going to do that. MS. SMITH-I believe we have tried to meet, by the co-locations that we’ve submitted, and are working on, we’re not building towers, and we’re trying to keep the community as aesthetically pleasing to build out our service, to build out what we need. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have just a question. At these frequencies, you’re highly directional. You’re not only directional, but you are highly directional, and that’s the reason you place your antennas in sectors. Now, the Chairman talked about the Exit 18 transmitter and receive capability. Do you know how those antennas are oriented there, in terms of their directional radiation? MS. SMITH-No, I don’t know what it is. MR. VOLLARO-Because it could very well be that another couple of antennas on that tower would start to provide the coverage you need down in the local area. I don’t know if there’s a frequency 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) difference between the two, but there’s frequency isolation capability. It can be engineered to do it, and I know, I happen to know that. We can do this. MS. SMITH-If we could do that, that would be what we would do. We would save hundreds of thousands of dollars as a company to be able to do that. We’ve examined it, and it can’t be done. I mean, we would save the construction cost, the rent fees to the Ramada Inn, the building and leasing fees here to get it permitted. We exhaust every possibility before we go to build, because it’s a most expensive thing to do. As a carrier, we don’t even want to keep the flagpole when it’s done. We don’t want to deal with leasing it and finding carriers and getting space with it. We sell them. The carriers sell them to the Crown Atlantics, the American Towers who manage the towers, because we don’t make money off of leasing them. That’s not what we’re in the business to do. We’re in the business to sell phones and sell long distance. So that’s what we look to do. MR. VOLLARO-Could I make a suggestion or a recommendation? Suppose we came to an agreement that we’d use 100 foot tower, no flag and no lights? You wouldn’t need a light without a flag. You’d just use the tower as it is now, at it’s 100 foot level, because these propagation analysis here with that little tiny hold, I’ve seen hundreds of these, and these are just propagation analysis based on effective radiated power, and the frequency, because the frequency is important because it’s got directivity. The higher frequency you go, the more direct your signal is. So, you know, an alternative here may be a 100 foot tower, no flag, no light. MS. SMITH-I would have to, I’d have two concerns, right off the bat, off the top of my head. The first would be with the Ramada Inn, with our lease agreement. It is for a flag there, and I don’t know if we can switch it out to a monopole or something of those lines, and the second would be with the Warren County Planning Board, and the ZBA, the Queensbury ZBA. The approvals we got were for a flagpole, and they all liked and commended the flagpole application, and I don’t know that we could do those two things. I don’t know that we could. MR. VOLLARO-That was a Use Variance from the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-As an aside, I’m looking at the four questions that the ZBA has to ask, and I’m just wondering how we got through those. That’s pretty interesting to me. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s neither here nor there. MR. VOLLARO-Neither here nor there, Mr. Chairman. You’re absolutely right. MS. SMITH-I don’t know if we could we do that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s an avenue. MS. SMITH-But legally. MR. MAC EWAN-The Warren County aspect is not as great an issue as the ZBA aspect is. A super majority of this Board can override the Warren County Planning Board. However, whatever variances that you sought from the ZBA, that’s a horse of a different color. MR. VOLLARO-They could certainly change their design approach. MR. MAC EWAN-Getting late in the hour here, let me just kind of informally poll the Board and see where we seem to be heading with this. Starting with you, Mr. Metivier. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t understand why it has to be so close to the other one. I would think that you would want to make it as far away as possible and fill in more area. I don’t know that much about frequency, but it just makes less sense that they have to be so close. MR. VOLLARO-To the Exit 18 tower? MR. METIVIER-Yes, to the Exit 18 tower. It makes no sense to me, but, again, I’m not an expert in it, but I don’t have a problem with the flagpole. I think it’s a pretty neat idea. I do have a problem with it being 120 feet high, but I just, you know, I just don’t understand why they have to be a mile away from each other to make it work, but that’s just me. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have any problems with it there, if they feel they need it. I’m not an engineer. I can’t determine, if they say that they’re going to be out, then I have to agree that they’re going to be 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) out, and if they want to increase their business, then they need to put it up. I wish it wasn’t lit. I’d like to take the lights off of there, but if there’s a flag on there, then it has to be lit. The height, you know, I’m not an engineer. If they say they’re going to have a gap, then I don’t think I’d want to be riding up the Northway on a call and be cut off. So, I have to rely on what their engineers say, unless our engineers can say what they say isn’t right. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask Staff a question, if I may. We, as a Planning Board, we have a comment back from C.T. Male on some of this, but we haven’t asked an RF engineer to come in here and talk to this subject, and apparently, according to 271 portion of the Town Code, we could be able to do that, if we wanted to, if it was funded. I don’t know whether we have any funding in our line or not, but I think, when we get into questions like this, I would certainly like to see an RF engineer come in and sit down and answer some of at least my questions, and some of the other questions on this Board, about propagation analysis and a few things like that. Is that a possibility? MRS. MOORE-I would just refer to C.T. Male. I’m not sure if Edwin Vopelak is an RF Engineer, but I know that he is the one that the cell applications are referred to at C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-In his comments, he didn’t mention anything about propagation. He didn’t mention an awful lot. What he did say was that the difference was very small. MR. RINGER-Minimal. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So all I’m doing is providing you the information that I know that they do have the specific person at C.T. Male that does review the cell tower applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The train got off the track here a little bit. I’m polling the Board. Where do you stand on this thing? MR. VOLLARO-I want to see the tower lower. I think, I can’t see it being 120 feet, because, if I look at the propagation, I see a very slight, and I’ll have to agree with the engineer’s word, very slight coverage gap along the Northway, and it’s really, in terms of scale, you’ll be through that before you know it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, this might sound corny, but necessity is the mother of invention. If a lot of communities started denying some of these tower applications because it definitely is an aesthetic issue, then the technology would grow so that you could get more service off of one tower, and it just seems to me like you could, your technology guys and your engineers ought to be able to get more out of that Exit 18 tower, instead of putting this one so close, and I think John did a lot of research, as to looking at all the other options and places that maybe you didn’t look into, other places where something of this magnitude could go. Right now, I have a real tough problem, because even though you say it’s a lot, you’re going to go through a lot of expense to put this tower up at the Ramada on Exit 19, I wonder if you could basically get the same by upgrading your facility down at Exit 18. As to a 120 foot flagpole, my God, I think that’s ridiculous. Hopefully you could bring it down 20 or so feet, if you don’t put a flag on it, but I think you guys could do better. You’ve got good minds in your company, and I’m not talking about you. I think the master minds behind this can do a better job. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I remember when we reviewed the tower at Route 149, we had a lot of discussion about the need for existing towers. I’m really pleased to hear that you’re on that tower as well, but anyway, after that discussion, when we got the application to put the towers on top of the water tanks, to me, that was the perfect solution, and, you know, the comment that I wrote down on this project is, what is the urgency, because it seems to me as though there is still an opportunity to go back to the water towers that are owned by Glens Falls, you know, after their infiltration plant is built. I understand where they were coming from. That’s their priority. They can’t do anything to jeopardize that. I guess, short of that, I would tend to agree with Bob. I would prefer to see no flag, and therefore no lights, on the tower. I think the look of the flagpole tower, versus, you know, the other towers that you see driving down the Northway, is aesthetically better, but I still think it leaves a lot to be desired. I think the idea of the flag is a great, novel idea, but I still think the visual impacts are too large, given that particular neighborhood and given the visual impacts from the residential neighborhoods around it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, there’s not an absolute need to co-locate here. There’s not a great difference, significant difference between your propagation reports of 120 versus 100 feet. I couldn’t 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) get much information from you about the tower characteristics. I would have liked to have seen the cumulative effect of three providers, even if it was only proposed or a possible, but I didn’t see that, and I see horrendous, almost embarrassing, errors in your simulation report, and I think you’d have to agree with that. I don’t think that you’ve looked at all the alternatives. I mentioned some. The visual addendum didn’t address the impacts on Dixon Heights. It didn’t address the impacts on the School. It didn’t address the impacts on, the visual impacts of night lighting. I don’t think you need this tower height. You don’t seem to be willing to budge on this tower height. I tried to get something from you. basically, the bottom line is, I don’t think that you’ve made an attempt to mitigate the cumulative effects that we’ve addressed to the largest extent practicable. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? I guess I concur with most of my fellow Board members. I don’t think the location of this tower is the best choice. I don’t think you’ve exhausted all possibilities to locate it. I mean, John, I think, came up with a couple of good ideas of a couple of the churches that have rather tall steeples in the area. That may be a potential. The School property may be a potential. I, however, like the idea of the water towers as being your optimum choice and the optimum direction that you may want to pursue. At this point, what I’m kind of feeling here on the Board is that we’ve got three choices in front of us here tonight. We can either ask you, A, we’ll table this thing and you really do some homework and come up with some alternative choices, alternative locations, redesign, to support where you’re going with this, because you can certainly get the sense we’re not feeling very comfortable with it. The second choice we’ve got is that we could either probably do a motion to deny this application tonight, which I don’t think I really would like to see. My choice is I’d like to see you withdraw the application while you research other sites, I think that’s more where the Board would like to see you locate a tower. MS. SMITH-If I withdrew the application, would I have to go back through the Use Variance and the two County Board processes? Because I think I can go back, make the corrections to the sim’s, and the visual addendum, and show propagation’s from the Church steeples in the search areas. I can address your concerns, basically. I can look at the Exit 18 tower, see if we could possibly add additional equipment to there, to that. I can address and look at all of your concerns, and if one of them works, then that’s what I’ll do. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m hearing from my fellow Board members, regarding the Ramada site, is two overwhelming comments. One, A, it’s a bad site, they don’t want to see it there, but if it has to go there, they want it 100 feet, maximum, with no flag, no lights. I can’t support that, personally. There’s probably a couple of other ones that don’t seem to like that idea, but that’s one option you have. I think the Board is kind of sending the message that we’d like to see you explore alternative sites, other than that one site. Something that’s going to be less obtrusive, that’s going to blend in more, whether it be trying to work out something with the City of Glens Falls and waiting a few months while they build their filtration plant, or trying to locate on one of the church steeples, or the School property, or some place else where the tower will blend better. Now, as far as your ZBA variance, Marilyn, that ZBA variance is not contingent upon a site plan approval for this particular site, if we should not take any action on that? However, if they should choose to come back to this site, would that variance still be in effect? MRS. RYBA-I think that’s more a question for Cathi. MS. RADNER-Yes. We were just debating that very issue. I’m not sure what the nature of the presentation made to the ZBA was or the extent of their Use Variance. If the Use Variance is for a flagpole antenna and they end up not having a flagpole, is that inconsistent with the Use Variance. I think if they need to, they could probably go back and modify the variance, but you’re better option might be your first, which is to table it, leave it open, so that at least those things can be addressed, before it’s withdrawn and they have to start from scratch. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that would probably be the best route to go, is we’ll table it. It seems like there’s a long list of things we would require, and would it be inappropriate for us to just say, let’s table this thing and I will delegate one or two Planning Board members to sit down with Staff and come up with a list of items, on behalf of the Board, that we are going to be seeking for this, to respond to. It’s unusual, but considering the amount of things that we’ve been talking about here. MS. RADNER-Laura’s concerned that there may be a difference between tabling the application and tabling the resolution. MRS. MOORE-I guess what I’d like to know is if the Board would like to have Staff prepare the tabling resolution so it includes a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s exactly what I’m talking about. MRS. MOORE-So what my question is, at this moment in time, you don’t have to take action on the application at all. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I realize that. MRS. MOORE-So, we could come up with a tabling application for. MR. MAC EWAN-My thought was to designate one or two members to sit down with Staff to come up with the items that we’re looking to have, based on all our conversations here tonight. I think I know where we’re all going, but I just want to be sure we get everything put down. MS. RADNER-If you table this this evening then when the minutes are prepared, go through the minutes and prepare a list of the items raised in the minutes and present that to the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that fair? MS. SMITH-That’s fair. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do that, then. We’ll table this application, pending preparations. MS. SMITH-Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. MRS. DIER-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, is the public? MR. MAC EWAN-I left it open. MRS. DIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I had a sense about that. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT IS REQUESTING WAIVERS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN CODE, CHAPTER A183, SECTION A183-22, DENSITY. CROSS REFERENCE: NOTICE OF APPEAL TAX MAP NO. 10-1-17.3 JOHN & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is no public hearing scheduled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No.7-2000, John, Jr. & Kathleen A. Salvador, Meeting Date: April 24, 2001 “Project Analysis The applicant is requesting waivers from certain requirements of the Subdivision Regulations prior to the review of a two-lot subdivision of a 7.14-acre parcel. The parcel is split into two zones: Waterfront Residential and Rural Residential. The subdivision line occurs in the Waterfront One-Acre zone, splitting the property directly adjacent to Lake George. The applicant is seeking a waiver from the density requirement identified in the Subdivision Regulations, A183-22 Density. Waivers have also been requested from the submission of: (see applicant’s letter September 11, 2000) ?? Sketch Plan ?? The requirement to map 2 foot contour interval ?? The mapping of individual freestanding trees 6” in diameter at breast height ?? Mapping of the 100 year flood plan ?? Grading and Drainage plan ?? Landscape plan (Section 183 indicates a landscape plan shall be prepared for subdivisions greater than (20) lots; this subdivision is for two lots.) The Planning Board is requested to act only on the waiver requests at this time. The Zoning Administrator has deemed the application incomplete. This determination was issued in correspondence to the applicant dated September 20, 2000, October 6, 2000 and November 27, 2000 (copies attached). 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) Waivers are generally requested/issued for minor variations from the plat submission requirements such as 2-foot topographic contours in lieu of 1-foot topographic contours etc. The applicant has requested numerous waivers and the requests are in contravention of the requirements of the subdivision regulations. We are recommending the Planning Board not grant the waiver requests and also formally find the application incomplete. The public hearing initiated September 28, 2000 was premature in that the application was still under review by staff. We will require that a new public hearing be noticed in the event the application is found complete. The application was referred to CT Male for comment and review (comments dated 2/21/01 attached).” MR. MAC EWAN-That was Chris’? Okay. That’s Staff notes, and we also have Chris’ thing in here, too, right? The September 20, 2000, and November 27. For the record, you are? th MR. SALVADOR-I’m John Salvador, and I’m here tonight with my wife, Kathleen. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re asking for a waiver to the request for density requirements, which we typically don’t do. MR. SALVADOR-Well, as I read the Ordinance, you have the power to do that. You can deny it. That’s your privilege, but I think I have a basis to, I can establish a basis for you to consider this as a special subdivision which would allow you to grant such a waiver. An unusual subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-My position is I’m going to defer to what Staff’s recommendations are, that this is unusual that you’re asking for a waiver from the density requirements for this subdivision. It’s not something that the Town historically grants waivers to, and my position is I wouldn’t vote to support it, and we’ll start with Mr. Ringer. Thoughts, comments? MR. RINGER-I guess I’d have, we don’t even have an application, and I don’t know how we can grant anything without an application. As to whether I would agree with waiving them or not, I think I would rely on Staff’s comments also, but I just don’t understand how we could do it without an application. MR. SALVADOR-Before we, our position is, before we can complete the application to Staff’s requirements, we would like to request this particular waiver. It will facilitate us completing the application. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just don’t even know what’s going on with this one. I apologize. I’m just not clear on what’s going on. I’m as confused as can be. MR. SALVADOR-That’s why I’m here tonight, sir. MR. METIVIER-I mean, what are you planning to do with this? What is the purpose for this? MR. SALVADOR-I’m ready to outline that. MR. METIVIER-Go ahead. MR. MAC EWAN-I do not want to get into a long presentation tonight regarding the validity of your subdivision and your proposed application. I want to stick to the game plan of his request for a waiver for the density requirements from the Zoning Ordinance. MR. METIVIER-Then I’ll agree with Larry. I just don’t understand how we could do it without knowing what’s going on. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I have to, John, I have to agree with Tony. I’m confused. I mean, you’re just going to have to, at some point in time, I don’t know if it’s tonight or some night, I mean, go from Point A to Point B, to explain what’s going on and why. Because I, myself, have had trouble investigating it. Now it’s not for the lack of effort, John, because I’ve got my share of questions. I mean, I’ve gone through this backwards and forwards. MR. SALVADOR-I’m prepared to answer them. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, I need as much information as I can get, and the particular waiver that you’re asking me for kind of runs in face of what I’ve got to do as a Planning Board member. You take a look at the Town Code, the Subdivision Code, this is my job, and I highlighted these, plan for an orderly, efficient, economic development, use safely for building purposes without danger to health, peril or flood or menace. It’s got to be accessible from emergency vehicles and there’s setback agreements, and I just simply could go on and on and on and on, but there is a basis for wanting and desiring some kind of a density analysis here. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d have to agree with my fellow members. I want to phrase that by just saying, you know, I never want to get to the position where we require full flown engineered drawings for every project that we look at, and I’ve mentioned that on a number of occasions when I could, but I also agree with what’s been said before. It’s real unclear to me what we’re looking at. There really has been no new information offered since we tabled the application back in September. So, I’m as confused as everybody else is, and I would go along with the recommendations from Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m clueless, but I also would like to go along with what Staff’s recommendations are, but when I look at Section A183-22 on the density, in the book here, I don’t understand what kind of waivers, or what you mean, and you’re right. You probably should talk to us and tell us what you want to do, and we could hear it from your end of the deal, but again, I don’t understand what’s going on, and we’ve been recommended not to grant the waiver request. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything Staff wanted to add? MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t talked yet. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry. I passed on you. I apologize. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay, Mr. Chairman. It’s late, and I’m tired myself. Mr. Salvador, I have taken the time to read from your August 10 letter 2000 which started this thing off, September 11, th 2000, September 12, 2000, your September 14, 2000, Chris Round’s answer on September 20, 2000. Your response to that, September 25, the tabling on September 28, which Chris just mentioned a thth minute ago, an October 6 letter from Chris Round, October 11 from yourself, November 27 ththth from Chris Round, and February 21 from C.T. Male. What did I draw from reading all of those 11 st pieces of correspondence? I drew from that that this is a unique piece of property. It is under water, and that, basically, and it is defined as your piece. You pay taxes on this piece of property and it’s uniqueness, I guess, in your mind, eliminates the need for these waivers, because of the uniqueness of the piece, and that’s what I got out of reading all of those 11 pieces of correspondence, and in fact, that line of reasoning probably makes, for you, some sense. Our problem here is that giving a waiver on a piece of property is not something that we normally do that way. Even though, in my mind, I can see the uniqueness of it, I don’t know as we can just jump off and say, well, this has never come up before. The piece is under water, and therefore, we can grant these waivers in good conscience. I don’t think I can do that. That’s all I have, and that’s what I got out of reading all that correspondence. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, one way or the other, please. MR. SALVADOR-May I, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Three minutes. MRS. SALVADOR-We were invited here this evening. This was tabled. We were invited here, and you’re ignoring us? MR. SALVADOR-It’s my understanding the public hearing has been left open on this project. MR. MAC EWAN-There is no public hearing scheduled tonight. MR. SALVADOR-It was left open. I came to every meeting, subsequent to September 28, to th ensure that the public hearing was left open, and it’s my understanding the record shows the public hearing was is still open. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Is that agreed? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s agreed. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Now I’m here tonight because, if you’ll read in Section 183-47. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Salvador, with all due respect, you have seven Planning Board members up here who are not inclined to grant the waiver. I don’t think you’re going to sway each and every one of us to change our minds. MR. SALVADOR-You won’t give us an opportunity to present why we think maybe you should consider this? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m inclined not to. Only because what you’re asking for is something that this Board does not grant waivers to. We, historically, have not granted waivers to density requests. There are other waivers that the Board has routinely given waivers to, such as contour requirements or stormwater management plans or what have you, but density requirements is not one of them. We’ve been advised, not only by our legal staff, but by our planning staff, and we have seven Planning Board members up here who are not inclined to want to grant that waiver. Why beat a dead horse? MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think, because, as Mr. Vollaro mentioned, there are extenuating circumstances in this, and you should consider it. MR. MAC EWAN-We have. MR. SALVADOR-In the absence of ex parte, have you considered this? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we considered it tonight, based on the information that was supplied to us. MR. SALVADOR-To this point, it’s ex parte. Now, really, I am extremely uncomfortable here, after having been handled this way. MR. MAC EWAN-In what way have you been handled? MR. SALVADOR-Normally, an applicant comes and presents his side of the story. You can do anything you want with it from there. It’s your privilege, but give us our day in court. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll give you five minutes. The clock starts now. MR. SALVADOR-I’m sorry. It may take more than five minutes. There’s no sense even beginning. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion, please. Anyone, someone? I’ll introduce a motion to deny waivers for subdivision 7-2000 from the requirements of the Town Code Chapter 183-22 for density. Do I have a second? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second. MR. RINGER-Before we vote, I want some discussion on it. I really think we should have given John an opportunity to talk. MR. MAC EWAN-I gave him an opportunity. MR. RINGER-Well, I think we limited it too much. I just want, you know, before we vote on it, I just wanted to make that comment. MR. STROUGH-I concur with Larry. I wouldn’t mind hearing. I mean, I’m still confused. He’s going to be back, and there’s got to be some kind of a starting point where he’s going to start trying to make sense of this in my mind. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll poll the Board. Does everyone want to hear this? I’m asking. MR. VOLLARO-I would like to hear what John’s got to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Salvador, the Board is now saying that they wouldn’t mind hearing you. So if you want to come up and tell us your reasonings that you want to have this waiver request, please do so. MR. SALVADOR-I’d prefer that it be scheduled for another day. The public hearing be kept open. There’s, the atmosphere here tonight, the way it is, it’s not right for us to continue. Keep the public hearing open. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Then I’ll tell you we’ll reschedule you right now for our second meeting next month, which would be the 24, is it? th MRS. RYBA-The 29. th MR. VOLLARO-It was changed, right. MR. RINGER-The 29. th MR. MAC EWAN-The second meeting next month, the 29. th MRS. SALVADOR-We’ll be back. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’d like to have Mr. Salvador on first, would that be possible? MR. SALVADOR-No, I, don’t, that’s not necessary. That’s not necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’d like to hear it fresh, while we’re fresh. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll retract my motion, then. MRS. MOORE-Does the Board request any additional information from Mr. Salvador? MR. VOLLARO-Any additional information? I think all the information that’s been presented in the 11 pieces of correspondence are probably sufficient. MR. STROUGH-Well, this is just for the variance. MRS. MOORE-Waivers. MR. STROUGH-The waivers, yes, because I will have some questions, but at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re on for the 29. th MRS. MOORE-May 29. th MR. MAC EWAN-May 29, John. Okay. th MR. SALVADOR-Fair enough. MR. MAC EWAN-Make him first item on the agenda, please. OTHER: PLANNING BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MR. MAC EWAN- Okay. Now we have the policy and procedures. MRS. RYBA-Correct. Last, actually, on April 17, I had mailed out a memo with a sample th resolution, and after speaking with legal counsel, have revised that resolution a little bit, and you have the copy. First off, I didn’t hear any questions from anyone. No one left me any messages. So I hope that everything is satisfactory with the actual document. To let you know the changes in the resolution, it is not subject to approval of the Town Board, and so language has revised under a couple of paragraphs, eliminating reference to Town Board approval, and so that’s really the only change. MR. VOLLARO-I am very sorry, and I apologize. I misunderstood your closing sentence, where you said, please prepare questions you may have for the 24. I have some. None of them are th critical, but I do have some questions on the document. They’re not critical questions, but I think they’re more in the line of clarification than they are anything else. MRS. RYBA-Well, it’s up to the Chairman to decide how he’d like to proceed. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the issues, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll get to the ones that are real simple first. Go to Page 17, and I think that’s just a clarification that would probably help. Under Pre-application. On all of 17, in the Pre-application 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) Conference, and a Pre-Application Conference conducted by the Planning staff. This would lead one to believe that the Planning Board is conducting the pre-application conference. MRS. RYBA-That’s a good point. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, you lost me. MR. HUNSINGER-It would just be a pre-application conference with the Community Development Department Planning staff. MR. VOLLARO-See, where it says, pre-application planning conference, inject in that, conducted by the Planning Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes, just insert “Staff” there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so that they don’t think it’s us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What else. I’m just trying to move things along here. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go as fast as I can for you, okay? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Complete application. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you still on 17? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What is the need for the word “preliminary” in there? Applications must be considered “preliminarily” complete? If it’s complete, it’s complete. It’s not “preliminarily” complete, but it’s complete. MRS. RYBA-Well, if you wanted an application that was 100% complete to the point where every “T” was crossed and every “I” was dotted, we’ve never gotten one of those, I mean, to the point where it’s perfect, and that was something that legal counsel had put in there, that you have to give a little bit of flexibility in this. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. The problem I’m trying to eliminate here, and granted, it hasn’t been that way in the past. We haven’t gotten an awful lot of last minute papers that we’ve got to try to decipher before the meeting, but a complete application is what this Board, I think, is hopeful of receiving on the Planning Board night. MRS. RYBA-I think, though, there’s some room, though, for some information that clarifies that on Page 18, for example, at the top of the page, it’s actually second paragraph, just one line, “Applicants will be informed in writing of incomplete submissions”. So that if an application is incomplete, the applicant would be notified. MR. VOLLARO-Of incomplete submissions, okay. That would help. I wasn’t striving for really a change there, but I wanted to get some clarification. MRS. RYBA-That’s a good point, and I hope everyone understands that, and it’s on the record that that’s the intent, so that if anyone ever came back, it’s on the record that the intent is to offer a little bit of flexibility. I mean, there are situations where, I’m trying to think of a good example, but the application’s complete, and then we find, well, we want a little bit of additional information. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m not looking for the last, this is not esoteric. Page 5, real quick, and this is a clarification for me. Funds must be approved, this is under “Planning Board Committees”, 2-D, second paragraph. Where funds must be approved by the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s true. I’m just wondering how do we get to appropriate expenses? If you read Town Law 271.2, it talks about the fact, I was mentioning tonight about getting an RF Engineer in here. If we were to get, for example, C.T. Male says, look, I don’t have anybody qualified to do that. You’ll have to go outside C.T. Male to do that. How do we fund that? How does this Board do that? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MRS. RYBA-Well, right now, the applicant pays, they’re noticed that they may, that the Staff may be requiring up to $1,000 for extra review, or for engineering review, etc., and I don’t have the language right in front of me, but I believe, and Laura or Cathi can jump in. MR. MAC EWAN-It has to be with the applicant’s approval. MRS. RYBA-Right. That they could go beyond with the applicant’s approval. MR. VOLLARO-And tonight, if she said, yes, I would accept that, she would have had to pay for that RF Engineer, essentially. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. MRS. RYBA-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And if she said she wouldn’t accept that, then we would have to go to Staff and ask them to approach the Town Board to allocate the funds that we would seek for this professional. MRS. RYBA-Right, and we usually, in the budget, try to put something in there for consultant fees for those type of situations. So that there’s something in the budget for things that come up like that, but if it were zeroed out, then, certainly Staff would have to go in front of the Town Board and request additional funds. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m getting there real quick. Page 9 under “Disqualification”. The term “relationship”, is that like, for example, I just put my own words in, is this a cousin or a nephew, a relationship that’s, or is this a personal relationship I have with an applicant? Is that more what this means? MRS. RYBA-I believe that’s the case. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, a relationship, whether it be business or otherwise. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. RYBA-I don’t know if Cathi has any, and I don’t have my previous drafts with me. MS. RADNER-I think it would be both, if you had a relationship, like this was your husband or wife’s application, or your child’s application or if it was your business partner’s application, you’d have an obligation to step back. MR. VOLLARO-To step back, okay, I just wanted to clear that up. I’m trying to go real quick here. On Site Visits, Page 13, I guess this is a particular thing with me. I know if I ever miss a site visit, I would not feel qualified to review the application. That’s my personal opinion. I don’t know how the other Board member feel about that. It says “Site visits by all Planning Board members should be”, and I have put in, or must be, “conducted prior to the meeting”, and if it stays like this, and I don’t get to a site visit, I would not participate. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a personal decision that you have to make as an individual member. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Leave it “should be”. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a cast in concrete requirement that you make site visits, but it certainly helps you be a little bit more intelligent about what’s going on when you’re familiar with what you’re talking about. MS. RADNER-The one here today was a perfect example. It’s under water. There’s nothing for you to see there. You’re all familiar with the site. If somebody didn’t have a chance to go and view that site before this application, but was still familiar enough with it, they might not feel that visit was necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, last but not least is zone changes, Page 19, “Zone Changes – Planning Board Jurisdiction” I just added on to that, in cases where a site plan review follows a zone recommendation, the Planning Board shall be lead agency for purposes of SEQRA determination. I don’t know whether that should be in there or not. MRS. RYBA-Well, I think that you need to leave enough room. There are changes in Board memberships, and who knows what’s going to happen in the future, if that would go back. I know we’ve had some, a number of people contact us, or contact me, I should say, about that situation, 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) because it isn’t done other places. There are situations where, and I think there’s one that went before, or is going to go before the Town Board where a site plan is anticipated, but the applicant has put together a number of reasons why it just requires the Town Board to look at it, and I’m trying to think which one that is. MRS. MOORE-The J & J Management. MRS. RYBA-J & J Management, and I think one of the reasons is that the site plan isn’t anticipated for some time yet, and there’s been some discussion going back and forth on that. So, once again, it’s nice to have something concrete to follow, but sometimes you have to leave some room for flexibility, and I think that’s the case here. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we have to determine that is a letter from Mark. That letter then says we can do this, but in the By-laws, Policies, and Procedures, that’ll be absent, but I think that’s probably okay. I don’t have a problem with that. Last, under “Types of Applications, Administrative”, top of the page of 19. Can I get to look at 178-6, which is Administrative determines compliance with Section 178-6 of the Town of Queensbury Code? I don’t even know what that says. I’m not even sure what 178-6 is about. Before I approve this, I’d certainly like to know what that is. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I can read it. It’s in reference to two lot residential subdivision review. “Subdivision of Parcels into two lots for single family dwelling unit, residential purposes, shall be permitted in the Town of Queensbury without Planning Board approval, and shall not be considered a subdivision under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, provided that the procedures in 178-7 and 178-8 hereof and the following terms and conditions are complied with”. So that it goes on to look at a number of, for example, mapping, required filing, etc., etc. This is, it’s an administrative review, and it’s a way, when there’s a subdivision that’s so simple, that it would really be burdensome upon the applicant to go in front of the Planning Board, as well as burdensome on the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Why aren’t you guys doing Subdivision No. 7-2000, then? MRS. MOORE-There’s criteria that it has to meet. It can’t be in the APA, it can’t create, there’s a list of criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-I tried. MRS. RYBA-I can go through the criteria, if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-I tried. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, and thank you very much. MRS. RYBA-Well, do you want to pass a resolution? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We want to move on this thing. Yes, sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make a motion. I think Marilyn did a great job. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD BYLAWS AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INTRODUCED BY: Chris Hunsinger WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Robert Vollaro WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury desires to adopt Bylaws and Policies and Procedures in respect to procedure before it and with respect to certain subject matters over which is has jurisdiction pursuant to Ss 271 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, the copy of the proposed Bylaws and Policies and Procedures Manual has been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has actively participated in the creation of this document, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the Bylaws and Policies and Procedures Manual presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that upon such approval, any previous Planning Bylaws and Policies and Procedures shall be superceded upon adoption of these Bylaws and Policies and Procedures by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2001 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good job. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I thank you very much. I’ll put in the revised dates. You’ll get a copy with the change, and hopefully you’ll bring it to meetings. I know other Boards I’ve worked with, they’ve referred to it more often than you think. So I hope it’ll be helpful. MR. MAC EWAN-Set a standard. Three things for us. Next month, site visits are the 12. th Meetings are the 15, the 29, and the 31. ththst MR. STROUGH-Why the 31? st MR. MAC EWAN-Because that’s when we can get everybody there. Everybody meaning, legal, Chazen, Staff. MR. STROUGH-That’s The Great Escape one. MR. MAC EWAN-I talked with Chris this morning, and then he called me back this afternoon to confirm that he had talked with legal. MS. RADNER-Well done. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I may not be here on the 29 of May. th MR. MAC EWAN-Along the lines of the 31, this is one of those FYI things for you. This st afternoon I became aware that The Great Escape made application for another ride up to the amusement park. MRS. RYBA-They haven’t submitted it, but they plan on submitting it. MR. MAC EWAN-They are seeking to get an approval of this thing to coincide with their Environmental Impact Statement. Both Chris and I strongly urged them not to pursue an application at this time because of the Board’s adamant position about not wanting to approve another attraction until this EIS was done. I also relayed some of the comments that I heard last week here, that there wasn’t a lot of, from what people have read so far, there were some concerns as to how adequately things were being addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement at this point. So as to where it’s going from here, I don’t know, but I just want to make you aware that they are going to, they were, as of two o’clock this afternoon, going to have a pre-application meeting this afternoon to submit an application for a 160 foot roller coaster ride. MR. STROUGH-I have some serious issues with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Secondly, just keep that in mind. Okay, secondly, the Aviation Mall will be coming in on the 7 of next month, in front of the Town Board with a proposal for an expansion of th a freestanding store up there at the Mall, and what is it, like 175,000 square foot store or something like that? MRS. RYBA-No. Seventy thousand square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Seventy thousand. Well, there’s two buildings that totaled quite a bit of square footage, wasn’t there? MRS. RYBA-Well, they’ve revised their plans. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve revised them since I talked to him this morning, then? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) MR. VOLLARO-What time did you talk to them this morning? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and what we were asked was would we entertain the idea of having a joint meeting with the Town Board on the 7, and I kind of gave the impression, it looked like we were th going to be pretty well stacked up. I didn’t know if I could get everybody to go on the 7. So we’re th thinking more that we’ll have the Mall come in here, and set up a different date for them. MR. METIVIER-That’s a Monday? MR. VOLLARO-That’s a Monday. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just let me know when. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have a problem with the 7. th MR. METIVIER-I don’t have a problem with the 7. th MR. VOLLARO-There’s three of us here that do not have a problem with the 7. th MR. MAC EWAN-Convey that we’ll be there the 7. th MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-And, let’s see, there was one other issue. What was the other issue. MR. STROUGH-Karner Blue Butterfly meeting here? MR. MAC EWAN-No. That wasn’t it. MR. STROUGH-Marilyn, is it May 2 that Kathy is going to? nd MRS. RYBA-Yes. I plan on getting all the advertising information out tomorrow, but thank you for bringing that up. I think you might have all read in the paper today that the Karner blue butterfly was made the Town butterfly mascot, and Kathy O’Brien from the Endangered Species Unit is going to be doing a presentation here, at the Town Center, May 2 at seven o’clock. I plan on getting nd flyers out. I know there’s a Citizens for Queensbury meeting Thursday, getting that and getting it in the Chronicle, as well as the Post Star, but she’s going to have slides. It should be really interesting. She’s done an incredible amount of work over the past 10 years. She’s going to discuss the recovery plan for Queensbury, where you can get plants, how to plant them. She’s open to anything, and she’s certainly expert enough where she will be able to answer any question you have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I had. MR. STROUGH-The Citizens for Queensbury meeting is going to be about community planning. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m going to be there. MR. STROUGH-Thursday night is the night. MR. RINGER-Are we going to get notice on this May 7 meeting? th MR. MAC EWAN-I will ask Staff to call everyone and just confirm that we’re on for the 7. th MR. METIVIER-Have Laura Moore just send us an e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, put an e-mail up. MR. MAC EWAN-Except Larry, send it by snail mail. Okay. Thanks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/24/01) 52