Loading...
2008.11.25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETIING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2008 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands 9-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC /Michael Chrys 1. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-30 Freshwater Wetlands 11-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC/Michael Chrys 1. Tax Map No. 226-19-1-30 Subdivision No. 8-2008 Christine Mozal 3. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27 Site Plan No. 44-2008 Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. 14. Tax Map No. 314.-1-3 Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 27. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN THOMAS SEGULJIC, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the second meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for Tuesday, November 25, 2008. I’d like to welcome all members of the public. If you didn’t pick up an agenda, there’s agendas on the back table. On the back side of the agenda is information on the public hearing portion of each item that we will discuss this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FW 9-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION FW 11-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda under Administrative Items is tabling consideration for Garner Holdings, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 9-2008 and Freshwater Wetlands No. 11-2008. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for? MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. I assume they didn’t submit their information? MR. OBORNE-Well, they did not submit their information. In fact, they have written an e- mail to myself, stating that they are indefinitely withdrawing those submittals. So at this point, they didn’t ask for any specific date. They basically let me know that the Garner Holdings two properties, the two Freshwater Wetlands, 9 and 11, have been withdrawn indefinitely. MR. SEGULJIC-So, instead of tabling, should we? MR. HUNSINGER-Deny without prejudice? MR. SEGULJIC-There you go. MR. OBORNE-Deny without prejudice. You can acknowledge their letter, and, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-That would clean up the back log. MR. OBORNE-If you want to deny without prejudice, I think that would be fine, if you want to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don’t have a tabling date. They’ll have to re-publish anyway. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 11-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 4290 sq. ft. single family dwelling including well, wastewater disposal and stormwater mitigation. Freshwater Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/28/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; OR if the 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 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC [226.19-1-30], Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a similar motion for Number Nine? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 9-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 4290 sq. ft. single family dwelling including well, wastewater disposal and stormwater mitigation. Freshwater Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/28/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; OR if the 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 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 9-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC [226.19-1-30], Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CHRISTINE MOZAL AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; M. O’CONNOR ZONING WR-1A, WR-3A LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 2.42 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO OFFER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PER SECTION 277 OF TOWN LAW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 34-91, AV 70-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA/NWI GLEN LK CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 3.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 8-2008. This is a Sketch Plan, applicant Christine Mozal. Requested action, Sketch Plan Review for a two lot subdivision. Location is 99 Fitzgerald Road. The existing zoning is, to an extent, bifurcated. It’s Waterfront Residential One Acre and Waterfront Residential Three Acre. SEQRA Status is an Unlisted. A SEQRA determination will be required eventually, not at this point, though. This is Sketch Plan. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of one acre and 2.42 acres. The lot is located adjacent to Glen Lake. I do want to tell the Planning Board that the Zoning Board is seeking a recommendation, with relation to this application. Specifically, the Zoning Board is looking for the proposed construction of an existing three car garage that is proposed. They are proposing on taking this three car garage, possibly in the future, possibly now, 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) and expanding that to a single family dwelling. We’re looking for a recommendation, the Zoning Board of Appeals is. After that there are some basic notes on this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant. With me is Christine Mozal who is the applicant and the owner of the property at this time, and Matt Steves, from Van Dusen an Steves, who are the surveyors for the project, who are working with Tom Hutchins as we go through this project. We’ve got a little bit of the egg and the chicken, and I’m not exactly sure what we’re addressing tonight, because I understand that you’ve been asked to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board on the request for variance, and you have also taken on the position of SEQRA Lead Agent for, or they’ve asked you to take on Lead Agency status for the project. We were coming to you for Sketch Plan approval with the idea that we wanted to get your input before we spent five, ten thousand dollars on engineering, and try to proceed in an orderly type manner. So that’s where we’re at. I’ll try and keep it simple. I did a cover letter, when we submitted the application, and I don’t know if that was included in your packet or not. It was included in the packet that went to the ZBA. Basically, the Mozals purchased the lake lots in 1985. They then, sometime, and I’m not exactly sure, and we didn’t have the minutes the other day, but a three acre lot was created by the Nolan family sometime prior to 1987, that adjoined part of the Mozal property, and that was done, I presume, by Planning Board approval in 1980 or 1996 or 1997. They were two freestanding, separate parcels at that point. The Mozals chose to buy that three acre parcel that adjoins their parcel, and at that time construct a garage, if you will, on there. They built the garage in a manner that it could be converted to a residence without any real expansion of it. The footprint of the garage is 1,050 feet. It has enough height so that it has two floors within it. It would be two 2100 square feet, which is probably larger than most of the homes that are on Glen Lake, but it was built with that idea. It had windows on the second floor area, that would be sufficient for a residence, but they used it solely as a garage. They didn’t choose, at that time, to put in a kitchen. They didn’t choose to divide parts of the interior, which they could have, or put in a septic system with the property. There’s now come a time in their life where they would like to down size, and one of the most significant things that they have to try and down size is this particular property. They would like to go back to the 1997 status of the property where they had two freestanding lots. Now this is a difficult piece of property. We understand it’s a difficult piece of property, and we understand that it is going to be subject to close scrutiny by this Board and by the Zoning Board. In order to go back to the 1997 status, like most of the properties on Glen Lake, we have to get an Area Variance because it doesn’t front on a Town road. If you’ve gone out and done your site visit, as you came down the hill on Fitzgerald Road, the end of Fitzgerald Road, where the pavement ends, or not where the pavement ends, where the pavement turns, is the end of the actual Town road. Everything beyond that, there are probably about seven or eight houses on this particular spur we used to call Rose Lane. I’m not sure what we call it now. Zack is the first one. A person from New Jersey’s the next one. Gore, which is now Pat and Jennifer Rowley are there, and there’s Van Schoick and a couple of other pieces that are there. They’re all on basically private right of ways. They have deeded right of ways. The same thing if you actually turn to the left, and you heard me talk about my place on Glen Lake many times when I’m here. I’m right here on that little Pioneer Point. There are, in fact, four homes on Pioneer Point, or five if you count Floyd Rourke’s property, all which are, again, on private right of ways. That’s the way Glen Lake was developed. So, I don’t think getting the variance for not having frontage on a Town road is a big lift in this particular instance, and in many instances we’ve done it before. So you’re being asked to give your recommendation on that. The other area that we’re looking for a variance is lot size, and part of this property is in a three acre zone. Part of this property is in a one acre zone. In order to create these two parcels, we would have to have four acres. We have 3.42 acres. So what we did is we actually expanded the lake lots so that they would be conforming, and they would be one acre, and we put all of the shortage on what we call the garage lot, and that’ll be 2.42, as opposed to three. Now we could juggle that if somebody said, you know, they’d rather have it closer on each one. Where we draw those lines is very arbitrary, and it doesn’t really make a difference to us. The third area that we’re looking for a variance, which is probably the most significant Area Variance, is density. If you’ve been to the site, there’s no doubt that this is a very steep slope site, and if you were looking at this for a subdivision, for a general subdivision, you’d discount from the density the sloping over 25%. Now, that came up in probably some discussion last week when we were before the Zoning Board. They wanted to know exactly how much of a density variance we were requesting. They didn’t necessarily say that they weren’t going to grant that, unless somebody stuck a big red foot out or something, but they wanted to know exactly what the percentage is so that they only give us what we need, they give us the minimum 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) variance that we need. I said that I didn’t, we have put in a request for you to allow us a waiver for topographical mapping. We have also put in a request for waiver from you for stormwater planning, because we aren’t, in all this exercise, proposing any new construction. So we didn’t necessarily know what the benefit of those two exercises would be, except that we would spend a lot of money. We’d make Mr. Steves happy. We’d make Mr. Hutchins happy, and make Mrs. Mozal not too happy, I guess, and I don’t mean to make light of it, but that’s, so we didn’t do a sloping analysis. Now, I’ve done sloping analysis before, and I’d show you, we did a subdivision. If you’ll recall a subdivision we did out on West Mountain Road. We did sloping analysis and it was fairly simple and easy to see, when it was a large, 290 acre tract. I tried to do the same thing on this lot. It’s not very easy to do on this lot. I had said that I would try and get it to Keith by Friday. I received it today, having ordered it the day after the meeting, whatever the day after the meeting was, and I don’t agree with it. If I understand the shading, and I do understand the shading, they’re still mailing me the original. So I don’t have a colored one, but the shading on it that shows the areas that are in excess of 25% slope include the flat area. MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying that came from the Town? MR. O'CONNOR-No. This came from Chazen Companies. MRS. BRUNO-Chazen did do it. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Chazen did it. They can do it off of their GIS mapping or whatever. I have copies for you. That shows that, of the two parcels that we’re talking about, of the 3.42 acres, 2.5 acres are sloped in excess of 25%. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I think for belt and suspenders purposes, we will use that figure and say that we are looking for a variance based upon that figure. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. What did you say the area of slope was? MR. O'CONNOR-The area of slope that’s in excess of 25% is 2.5 acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. O'CONNOR-Out of the 3.42. MR. STEVES-It plateaus in the top, behind the Surrey Fields Homeowners, but from the back of the road up to the top, it’s 30 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look through the shadows, you can see the garage that’s there now, and you can see the area in front of the garage. That’s all flat, but that’s still included in this, and I think it has to do with the fact that, when they do it using a USGS, which is what the Zoning Board said that they thought they would be satisfied with, the scale isn’t close enough that it gives you real detail on a small lot. MR. STEVES-Your contours are only 10 and 20 foot. So we’re kind of, when you tin it, what is called mathematically you take an average between the two contours, it doesn’t give you the flat areas at all. MR. TRAVER-What would your estimate be? MR. STEVES-My estimate is probably about a half acre more of usable space. I just walked the entire property, just before dark tonight. I would say probably you’re probably, you know, three tenths to half an acre more than what the USGS analysis comes up with, because it’s too much of a broad brush approach, but using it, as Mr. O’Connor has stated, as the variance, go ahead and go with the conservative approach in that manner. That way we avoid having to do actual topography on the entire site. So if you drive up there, like he was saying, in the front of the garage is completely flat. You can turn your car around, but yet the slope analysis doesn’t show that. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are the variances that we’re asking for, that you’re being asked to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board on. I would want you to make your recommendation in this light. This building is a pre-existing, nonconforming building. The building itself, or the footprint of the building itself, cannot be expanded, except by Site Plan Review. So if anyone comes in here, or anybody wants to put a deck on it, wants to put a patio on it, wants to put another room on it or something of that nature, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) even if it’s away from the lake and not within the setbacks, they have to come to you down the road for Site Plan Review. So you’re not giving a blank check. You’re giving approval to use the building that’s there, and as I said, the building, I think, is very easily converted into a single family home, as it sits. MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t currently have a septic? Is that correct? MR. O’CONNOR-It does not, no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why we’ve retained Matt and Tom Hutchins to do that exam, and that’ll also come back to you, too, for that approval. That’s not necessarily a part of the variance. Again, and I don’t mean to make light of it. I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg. MRS. BRUNO-Well, we do need to make sure that the lot is buildable, as with any subdivision. MR. SIPP-Is there water there now, from the lake or from a well? MR. O'CONNOR-No. The intention is to draw water from the lake. I had a conversation this afternoon. Keith brought up a comment that Dave Hatin made that, for vacant property, the Board of Health would not allow drawing water from the lake and will require a well. Matt has walked the property and thinks that he can place the septic at the top of the ridge without doing a lot of fancy work or whatever. That might even allow us to do a well on it. Typically on these lots, I’m thinking of the separation between well and septic. Typically on these lake lots you try to do the well down by the lake. Mr. Marshall, who owns this little piece that’s in between us, came in the other day, or was at the Planning Board. His septic system, although I think it’s not a septic system. It’s a seepage pit, is located on the lake side of the road. His house is actually right on, it crosses the line. He encroaches upon the Mozal property on his west line, his house, and from what he said the other night at the meeting, his septic system is probably 25 or 30 feet off the lake, and it’s a seepage pit. So, even if we could get a well truck down there, I don’t think we, we wouldn’t be able to make the separations. So, if Matt puts the septic on the top of the ridge, we can put the well back by the house itself, we hope. We’ve got to work on that. We don’t know that, and I talked to Dave Hatin, and Dave was going to call, is it Mike Shaw from the Health Department. Because the rules and regulations that he’s reading from says that they can be waived by the local Health Department, and I also, and I’m not sure, and I haven’t gone all the way through it, I know the Health Department’s definition of a vacant parcel of land is different than what we’re talking about, because they haven’t, we’ve gotten involved in this before for reconstruction of septic systems, and where you have a tear down and a total rebuild, the Town looks upon it as being new, the Health Department says, no, it is replacement of an existing septic system, even though it’s a new structure. So that’s something we’ve got to explore. I can’t sit here and tell you, but we understand we need to do water. We need to do septic. We think we can do them. MR. OBORNE-If I may add, if a septic is up slope, you need 200 feet of distance. I just want to make sure that’s clear, if you’re going to go that route. MR. SIPP-What about a holding tank? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a possibility. That’s a possibility. MR. SIPP-I mean, the local Board of Health, that seems to be their solution, in areas where you don’t have the space. MR. O'CONNOR-I look upon that as being the solution of last resort. I’d rather have the engineers tell me that you can’t do all this other stuff that we’ve been trying to do. We don’t want to put so many bells. The whole idea here is that Christine would like to stay on the lake. She’d like to be able to sell off this parcel and cut down the operation, but we don’t want to put so many bells and whistles on that you can’t sell it. It doesn’t do, we’ve got to have a buildable lot that somebody comes in and says that they understand it and they can use it. MRS. BRUNO-So, my understanding, when you were first giving your presentation, was that you were going to keep the garage and change it into a house. It’s the other way around. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s the other way around. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I have two questions for you. Your line for the one acre and three acre ends at your property line, and I was wondering, does it extend out pretty much as you would think? Right by the approximate septic system. MR. STEVES-I think it only, it goes to the Marshall property, and that line goes along the, that 60 foot line on Marshall then back down to the lake. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So there’s no deduction out of? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. STEVES-That three acre zone does not extend through the Mozal property to the east. It only includes the Marshall property. What the zone line did there, and I think Keith can back me up on that, I believe, is they went to the lots on the lake that had residences on them at that point, because they were existing, and if you look at the zoning map, it includes only the Marshall piece and then comes back to the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-Actually I think they went to the end of the Nolan property. Nolan Road comes in from Hall Road, I think, and it comes around the bay, and it’s probably the biggest most vacant parcel, and when they made that change, that was all one tract. That was before they subdivided off this three acres that ended up going to Mozals. MR. STEVES-In other words, Lot Two is completely within that three acre zone. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. The other question is, I know you mentioned that the second floor has windows. I’m assuming since you, the way that you had described it, you meant that they were egress. What is the construction of the garage right now? Typically when people build their garages, they’re two by four. Are they built with two by sixes? MR. O'CONNOR-Those were built by Dan Barber. MRS. BRUNO-I haven’t worked with him. I don’t know how he builds. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s probably about 150 ton of concrete retaining walls. I think the retaining wall goes, steel beams and two by tens or two by, this is full construction. MR. STEVES-This is a fortress. MR. O'CONNOR-Full house construction. MR. STEVES-Two of the walls, being the southerly wall and the easterly wall, are poured reinforced concrete right into the floor, and then they are eight inches thick, and then with a steel beam carrying across to the concrete, and then it’s all two by six and two by eight construction. MRS. BRUNO-I’m primarily thinking about in terms of. MR. STEVES-Insulation values? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. STEVES-Absolutely, and, no, it would meet today’s Energy Code if you insulated the walls that were currently there. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, as far as what we’re looking at here, we’re just looking at the Area Variance, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and then we come back to you for the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Just the area. Well, density relief I guess. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. O'CONNOR-I think also you were asked to do the SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-You’re looking at it for Sketch Plan right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It’s a subdivision before you for Sketch Plan. Obviously then you have to go to Preliminary and Final. Right now what we’re looking for is a recommendation back to the Zoning Board. If you feel you have enough information to do SEQRA, that’s fine. Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but the Zoning Board, in particular, is just looking for the density relief. MR. OBORNE-They’re looking for density relief. They’re looking for a recommendation for that, yes, specifically. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, that’s all we’re technically doing tonight. Correct? MR. OBORNE-You can do Sketch Plan. You can give your blessing or you can table it. There is no tabling or approving a Sketch Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, because we’re doing Sketch Plan as we talk, but ultimately we want to give them back a recommendation. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Just on density, and then you’ve got to get that. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t come back to you unless we have a variance. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Now I understand what we’re trying to do. MR. O'CONNOR-But I thought they threw in SEQRA? MR. OBORNE-You need to do SEQRA before a variance can be heard. So, right now is the make or break point, because you need to do SEQRA tonight or table this application and ask for additional information in order for you to make a proper SEQRA declaration, that being negative or positive. The applicant wants a negative one obviously. MR. KREBS-I’ve got a question. In looking at this and having driven out and looked at the property, Christine’s house is to the lake side of the private road or the extension of Fitzgerald Road. MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. KREBS-Why not, is there any reason to make that a one acre lot? MR. O'CONNOR-The only reason we made it was to cut down on the number of variances being requested. We could leave it, I think it was .82, no, it was .42 tenths of an acre combined. There were two different lots that the Mozals bought there when they built their house. We could leave that at .42 and leave the other at three acre. If that was your recommendation. MR. KREBS-Well, I was saying, then you wouldn’t need, on the second lot, it’s in the three acre zone, then it would be three acres. The other lot is basically a pre-existing lot anyway. CHRISTINE MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-I thought of that, and I think I asked that, and he said we’re flexible on that. MRS. BRUNO-It’s not really a pre-existing. It may have been years ago, but it’s no longer. Right? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. STEVES-Yes, it was in ’97, I believe it was. MR. O'CONNOR-’97. MR. OBORNE-The applicants have to prove to you that, upon the subdivision of this lot, that this is a buildable lot. MR. TRAVER-And that’s the issue with regards to the well and septic system. MR. OBORNE-I think so. MR. KREBS-Well, if you go look at the site, continue down this ridge, there are two houses that have been built, very nice homes that have been built, and have long sloping driveways up to them. So I don’t see that this piece of property is significantly different than where those other two people have already built. MR. OBORNE-That is what you’re going to decide. MRS. BRUNO-But they might be drawing their water from the lake, which as I’m understanding might no longer be applicable. In that case, we need the proper separation. MR. OBORNE-Which during Preliminary subdivision, as we go through this, those type of issues will be addressed. MR. STEVES-There is, and I’m not saying it’s not easy and a nice flat site, but there is separation room. If you’ve been up there to the garage, you go around to the left hand side of the garage, there’s a little gravel area in the back there where they had excavated to put the garage. You can easily go to the left of that garage and put in a well right next to the garage, lake side of the garage, and then the septic would have to have a pump system obviously to get up to the top, but the top is, there is plenty of level area up top. It’s just getting up to the top there. It’s very steep. In meeting with the engineer on site, it’s not an issue putting in a force main up that steep of a slope because it only has to be two feet deep. There’s not going to be any effluent left in there, you know, on a continuous basis. It gets pumped out, flushed back out. So it only needs to be two feet deep. So, going up the slope, you could almost hand dig it there. So there is plenty of room to put it up top. It’s not the most ideal situation, but the soils up there are more than suitable, your typical older (lost word) on Glen Lake. MRS. BRUNO-I guess I feel like we’re weaving a tangled web. We’ve got all these things that have to come first. We’re thinking SEQRA but yet we don’t see enough to do SEQRA, but we need to send something back and the ZBA can’t do anything. MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. MR. O'CONNOR-You now understand the chicken and the egg, but let me just say this. Hopefully the scenario here is that we go back and we get the variances. We then proceed, but we then are still proceeding under your Subdivision Regulation, and you can then either decide or not decide either yes or no at that point, but we can’t get to that point until we get the Area Variances. MRS. BRUNO-And you can’t get the Area Variances until you get our SEQRA passed, the neg dec. MR. STEVES-Because they referred it to you. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-But we have to do SEQRA before we can do a recommendation? MR. OBORNE-You could do it at the same time. I mean, you certainly could do a recommendation before or after SEQRA. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think that you need SEQRA for a recommendation. MRS. BRUNO-No, but if they were to act on it, we would need to have decided. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but the Zoning Board can’t act on it without SEQRA. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. O'CONNOR-They can do Short Form SEQRA on an Area Variance. They don’t need to do a Long Form. MR. OBORNE-Well, the variances are a Type II at this point. So where the Chairman was going during the ZBA meeting last week with their coordinated review, as stated during that meeting, it’s not a coordinated review because it’s a Type II SEQRA for the variances. It’s an Unlisted because this is a subdivision, in a CEA, and that’s the difference. You are required to do a SEQRA review tonight, or when you have, or you feel you have enough information to make a cognizant decision. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you go back to what Tom says. Basically what you’re doing is making a recommendation on the Area Variances. That’s the simplest thing to look at. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and then it goes, and we don’t have to do SEQRA for that. It goes back to them, and then what happens, and then they grant the variance? MR. O'CONNOR-And then we come back to you. MR. HUNSINGER-If it’s Type II for Area Variance. MR. STEVES-You have a Short Form for Sketch Plan, irregardless. Then you go to the Long Form when you come in for Preliminary on SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-What a tangled web we weave. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting. Short Form for Sketch Plan and a Long Form for Preliminary? MR. STEVES-That’s what they have done, and I’m not saying that’s always the correct way to take care of this, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you think it through, it kind of makes sense, because the only action being taken is the Area Variance. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Whereas when you’re doing the full subdivision, that’s a different action. MR. STEVES-Right. Then if we cannot prove that we can accommodate your conditions or your standards for subdivision, then at that time, it doesn’t move forward, but in the Sketch Plan with the Short Form, you can pass that with your recommendation back to the Zoning Board for us to get the variance to allow us to come back for the subdivision. Then at least we know and the client knows that it’s worthwhile to move forward to prove the septic and the water system up. MR. O'CONNOR-The lots that we propose are in keeping with that neighborhood. If you take a look at the location map that’s up in the corner of the big maps, the maps that we’ve given, most of those lots are 50, 60 foot lots. I think the only, the Barton lot that remain, what they kept out of everything was like five acres, and they built a building, a garage building, storage building almost near our property line in the back. They’re aware of this application and they basically said apply to the Boards and if they approve it that’s fine. Mr. Marshall, and Keith was here the other night, had some questions that had more to do with whether we were going to have some impact on his septic, his septic, not our septic. He said basically he had no objection to what we were trying to do. MRS. BRUNO-Where is his septic? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s in front of his place towards the lake. MRS. BRUNO-You said Marshall. I’m sorry. I’m thinking Nolan that was there. MR. STEVES-If you look where it says Lands Now or Formally of Marshall, it’s lake front of that. MRS. BRUNO-Right. I just heard it wrong. I thought you were talking about the larger piece of property. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. O'CONNOR-Barton, that house is quite a ways from the line. MR. TRAVER-So, Mr. Chairman, if I could just make sure I understand. It sounds like we’re looking at essentially a two phase SEQRA process where we would do Short Form only on the subdivision, without regard to the well septic issues. Then we would do another SEQRA on the Site Plan, which would address the specifics of the placement of well and septic. Is that correct? No. MR. O'CONNOR-No. You could ask us to do a Long Form on your subdivision when we get back to you for the subdivision. That’s required. We would anticipate that. MR. OBORNE-I think the easiest thing to do tonight, Chairman, and members of the Board, is to make the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and leave it at that. That would be my, pardon the expression, my counsel for you to do that, for it to be clean, that is all that the Zoning Board is recommending right now. Do you approve this Sketch Plan? Do you want to give them your blessing for the Sketch Plan? Well, that’s up to you. Do you have enough information? Do you feel that it doesn’t matter at this point you’d like to have that information at Preliminary? That’s up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think there’ve been enough comments made. There are concerns from the Board about well and septic for sure, whether or not you can accommodate the required distances and, you know, where those facilities would be. We haven’t really talked much about stormwater issues. You said you asked for a waiver, but we haven’t really explored, you know, what that would mean. MR. O'CONNOR-The waiver request was for the subdivision application. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. STEVES-I mean, as far as, like Mr. O’Connor said, beginning with no physical changes are happening to the property with this application at that this time. So that’s why the stormwater. Obviously, you know, we’re only saying leave the existing building where it is, utilize making a residence above where it is. If somebody was to come in here and say we want to tear that building down and move it or add another building behind it or whatever they wanted to do, obviously this Board has to look at that again, and then obviously stormwater measures should be imposed or in place at that time. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I just have to say that you’re in a CEA. So I’d be uncomfortable with that. MRS. BRUNO-And even if we can’t touch the footprint of the building, you’re still going to change the area around it and the use, the area around it in that, you know, there could be some landscaping done and I thought of that, too, the use, you’re going to have people moving around there more. So I’m uncomfortable with waiving stormwater down the road. MR. SEGULJIC-Like you say, it would probably be pretty minimal at this point, but I think I’d want to see something. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, this is what Sketch Plan’s about. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-Tell us what you want. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as survey goes, I mean, I think we need to see something, maybe five foot contours or something. MR. STEVES-That’s why we’re here. Sketch Plan is to see what your concerns are and we can address them. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, once again, it’s because we’re in a CEA. We’re on a lake. We want to protect our lakes. That’s what holds economic values. That’s why people want to visit us, and our lakes are not doing very good anymore. MR. STEVES-So, predominantly like from the garage toward the lake, in that area, and then like detailed topography of that area? Where any use and maybe any type of usage 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) would be around that and then the USGS the remainder of the property something along those lines? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That would work, give us an idea. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. No, I understand. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you’re going to need that anyway for your septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to suggest if there’s any way to take the USGS map that you had and just kind of. MR. SIPP-Because we’ve got to have some test pits. MR. STEVES-Like I just did? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and put some real life. MR. SIPP-We have to have some test pits done, too. The soil is decent soil, but, still and all, we want to know what depth to water might be in the. MR. STEVES-I can’t dig that deep. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess where I’m coming from, I’m okay with the Area Variance. It’s just I need a lot more details. MR. STEVES-For the subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with the recommendation for the Area Variance, but to get past that, I need more information. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that, but until we get the variances, it’s kind of tough to say do the engineering that’s necessary to prove that we can do this. Because as I said, this is a difficult piece of property, and we probably are going to have to do some extensive engineering to make it work to satisfy the concerns that legitimately are going to be raised, but you don’t do that and just hope that you’re going to get there. MR. STEVES-And we have looked at it and we are prepared to move forward. We will show you a septic system location with the test pit data and topography, topography around the existing garage, with some stormwater controls, because now you are saying that you have concerns with. Not a problem. We can move forward with that at Preliminary, but we can’t even get there, like I say, without the variance. MR. SEGULJIC-So just so I understand this. So Lot One’s going to end up being one acre, under the proposed scenario, and Lot Two’s going to end up being 2.42 acres? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now and then Lot Two is going to be in the three acre zone. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. STEVES-What the Zoning Board typically asks is the minimum amount of relief necessary, and we know that sometimes that’s a double-edged sword. Why not we leave it the way it was, but then we’re asking for two variances, both lots substandard in size. We’re trying to make one standard in size. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The one acre lot is not considered substandard at this point. This is considered a conforming lot that way it is drawn. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to remind the Board of a recent application that, where many of us on the Board felt very strongly about what is zoned should stay that way. I just want, I wasn’t here last week. I don’t know how it ended up. So I don’t want to mention names, but just in terms of what we’ve done in the past, and what we’re requiring. MR. O'CONNOR-But this is what we basically have done. I’m sorry. We’ve stolen 5.8 out of the three acre zone, and stuck it on to the 4.2 lot. MRS. BRUNO-Currently you have a conforming lot because you have 3.42 acres. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And you’re making one conforming and one nonconforming. My point was just that we have a recent application which they split lots up between similar zones, and there were a number of us that just felt very strongly, in terms of remembering why the zoning was put there and in this case, you know, we are, like Tom said, in a CEA. I’m not saying I’m going in one way or the other. I just wanted to bring that up. MR. O'CONNOR-If the Board feels strongly about picking up what Don said, that we go back to the, leave the lake lots as they were, and leave the three acre lot as it was created in 1997, it doesn’t make, it really doesn’t affect us, and I don’t know. MRS. BRUNO-And I’m not saying that’s the answer, either. MR. O'CONNOR-I think if you went up and you looked at behind Christine’s house, all that little cleared area is within the old line. It is within that old line. So, again, I say, it doesn’t make a difference to us, but the only difference was some people, when they sit and look at variances, count the number of variances you’re looking for, and say, you’ve got too many that you’re looking for so it’s automatically a substantial application, as opposed to looking at the impact of each of the ones that you’re looking at. I’ve always avoided trying to get numbers. MR. STEVES-Plus the reality, and I understand what you’re saying, but the reality of it also is that no matter where that line ends up being on that lot, does it affect the 2.2 acre being 2.42 or being three? Does it affect the usage of that property and what whether they’re going to be able to build? Not at all. MR. O'CONNOR-Not unless you can climb like a Billy goat. MR. STEVES-In other words, if you’re reducing the lot to the point where you’re forcing them to build in some place where they shouldn’t be, because of the fact that you’re making it substandard here, it really doesn’t make any difference at all. What is there is the only place you’re going to build anyway, and it’s already existing. MRS. BRUNO-I guess what I’m getting at more than shifting property lines or anything, is, and I know this isn’t what the applicant wants to hear, but you created a conforming lot, and now you’re asking us to, or asking the ZBA to grant you a variance to then undo what you’ve already done, and to create a nonconforming lot. MR. O'CONNOR-But not in a substantial manner. It was a three acre lot, and it’s now 2.42. You make it back to three, you don’t have anymore building area because what the area that we’re not taking is the sloped area. So I think the purpose or the intent of when they said, all right, from this line over it’ll be three acre, we’ve kept within that intention. We’re not creating three building lots here. It was two building lots. We’ve got two building lots now. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I didn’t bring it up as a real cause for concern or alarm MR. O'CONNOR-This is a good time for discussion. MRS. BRUNO-It was more just to put it on the books that. MR. OBORNE-Can I clarify one more thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-I do want to clarify my words from before. As far as SEQRA goes, you’re not required to do SEQRA at this point. The Zoning Board of Appeals, this is not a 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) coordinated SEQRA, and as such, the variances can be approved prior to SEQRA being accomplished. I misspoke earlier, and I do apologize for doing that. MRS. BRUNO-I would just like to say, because I was just interrupted. I don’t know what just happened down there, but I wanted to just get it on the books that that has been something that we have been doing historically, and I just think that it’s necessary that we have it on record file or in the minutes that it’s been taken into consideration. That’s all I, that’s where I was headed with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So noted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THEY APPROVE THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE THAT WILL ESTABLISH LOT ONE AT ONE ACRE AND LOT TWO AT 2.42 ACRES, AS REQUESTED BY CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board to offer a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals per Section 277 of Town Law. 2)MOTION TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR SUBDIVISION 8-2008 AND AREA VARIANCE 70-2008 FOR CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: That the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approves the requested Area Variance that will establish Lot One at One acre and Lot Two at 2.42 acres, as requested by Christine Mozal. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC. AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) R.D.2 TRAILS, LTD. ZONING RC-3A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT AND OPERATION OF A 195 FOOT TALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER/BROADCAST TOWER. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND BEGIN SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE USE VAR. 79-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 247.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 314.-1-3 SECTION 179-5-130; 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 44-2008, Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. Site Plan Review for a 195 foot tall telecommunications tower. The location is on the top of West Mountain. Recreation Three Acres is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status and commence SEQRA review tonight. The project description. The applicant proposes to erect a 195 foot tall telecommunications tower, and a 336 square foot support structure. The tower is stabilized by three guy wires set 120 degrees apart. The existing support structure would be eliminated and both the tower’s machinery and power will be located under one proposed support building. The size of the parcel is 247.33 acres with limited access and no residential areas in the immediate vicinity. The tower is accessed by vehicular using a dirt road off of Cormus Road. The approximate distance to the site is one mile by road. This should be verified by the applicant. The site was chosen due to the existence of a 140 foot tower on the site. The third in the protocol of placement, as well 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) as clear sight line availability with the broadcast center. I’m just going to complete this here. During construction, the applicants have stated that trees will be removed in order to fasten the guy wires to their bases. The applicant may be required to inventory the size and amount of trees to be removed. The applicant has stated that upon discontinuance of use, the Zoning Administrator will be notified and actions will be taken to remove the proposed tower within four months. Intermunicipal notification has been accomplished. See supporting documents. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’ll, again, state that I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Jesse Jackson who is a principal of the applicant. Basically, I think they’ve put together a rather detailed booklet, which I hope that you all got a copy of, which says that they wish to construct a 195 foot tower on a parcel of land that presently has a 140 foot tower on it. It’ll be within a couple of hundred feet of that tower. That tower was looked at to see whether or not it could be expanded, and it could not structurally be expanded to be usable for our particular project. I think probably the most two telling things that we have is the video or the pictures that were shown. You can ride around West Mountain and look for the existing tower that we’re going to locate next to, and there are probably two sites that it’s visible from, and it’s visible like a pencil, if you will. These are towers that are built in a triangular, lattice type work, and there’s a diagram of it there. They don’t have a large presence where you see them. The first set of photos they brought to me, they had heavy lined where the tower was going to be, and say from a half mile or a mile, and I looked at them and I think Keith, we were with Keith at that time, I said, wait a minute, guys, you can’t see the first one, why can you see the second one? And he said, well, we wanted to be sure you knew where it was going to be, and I said, well, that’s not the idea of the photos. So I think the photos are very representative of what you will see and what you won’t see. Probably the thing that I thought most interesting was the two area maps, if you will, that show where they broadcast. Right now they are a low power TV broadcast operation, with a must carry designation by the FCC, which means that cable companies within their territory, if they can beam a signal to that cable company, must carry them. If you looked at what they are reachable by air, on the first map, and it’s Page Two of Three, and I’ve highlighted mine probably in the middle. We probably should have put tags on them or tabs on them. They don’t reach all of Queensbury, right now by air, and then if you go back a few pages, you will see what they will be able to do with their proposed range with the new tower. They will reach all of Queensbury, which I think gets them within that case that everybody looks at when you talk about telecommunication towers. They’re constructing this with the basis that it can be used for collocation purposes. The tower is 195 feet tall. The top five feet of the mass will not be used. It comes that way because that’s the segments that they sell the towers in. So you end up with 195 or you end up with 115 or something else like that. To hit their signal, they need to hit at the center of their antenna, which is at 180 feet. So their antenna is going to be 20 feet. So they will use the five feet for mass, 20 feet for their antenna, and then they need 10 feet separation so that they don’t have interference with somebody else. So the first 35 feet of the tower is going to be utilized for their operation. Below that, that tower is available for others for collocation. We think that it’s someplace in the area of probably 150 to between 60 feet and 150 feet, others will be able to go on there. Now I know Verizon was looking to go up on Aviation Road. We sent them, they asked for us, and we sent them our coordinates. Their first look at it said that they didn’t think that they could locate there. It would not be useful for their system that they were trying to put together, but then they came back to us and asked again for the coordinates, and I’m not sure where they are. They haven’t given us a definite yes or no at this point, but we’ve also talked to Brian LaFlure, who is the head of the Warren County Emergency Services, as to whether or not we would be of benefit to them, and whether or not they would have an interest in locating on the tower. As part of this system, and I think we tried to dot the “I’s” and cross the “T’s” of the telecommunications provisions, we sent letters to the Village of South Glens Falls, the Town of Moreau, the Town of Lake Luzerne, the Town of Lake George, and the Town of Fort Ann, Kingsbury, and I think we had a conversation specifically, I had a conversation with Brian LaFlure. He said he had no objection to it, and that he would look to see whether or not it would be of use to him, or the County, not him, and I know Jesse had conversations with Jean Merlino from Lake Luzerne, who is the closest township, which is the one I thought would be most impacted, and we don’t know, you know, he had no problems with it. It’s not visible from Lake Luzerne either, because of the topographical features that there’s a lot of woodland between this site and any road. I think Staff made a comment, or somebody made a comment, that you travel about a mile off a Town road to get to this site, through the lands to get there. So the County Planning Board actually made a positive recommendation, as opposed to their typical recommendation of No County Impact. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) They thought because of the increased coverage that would be allowed to Queensbury and to other parts of the Town, now parts of the Bolton, parts of Hague, they aren’t necessarily things that you consider under your Telecommunications regulations, but those people don’t have cable, and most of them get their TV by air, air transmission. We will now be able to get to them with our local transmissions. So it’s quite an impact, a positive impact. It’s not something that you’re setting a precedent with, either. The FCC franchises, if you will, territories, and they have franchised this territory by frequency to Channel 8, or TV 8. So you aren’t going to have six other channels, or six other TV stations come in looking for towers for this purpose. A good par t of this is all here because of, and I’m over my head, folks, and I admit that I’m over my head because we’re getting into the technical parts of some of the engineering of this. Jesse can maybe answer your questions better than I can, or Jim Bergeron, who’s the engineer for the station can answer them, and Jim had some other thing tonight so he couldn’t be here. A good part of this is because of the February requirement that everybody go to high density or digital transmissions, and in order to go to digital transmissions, that’s a very expensive investment, and also it’s a requirement. It’s not necessarily an investment of choice, because if they don’t go to that, they aren’t going to have an advertising base. If you’re not broadcasting with the digital, your sponsors aren’t going to stay with you. In order to afford or make economic sense of going for that equipment, you need to broaden your area. That’s part of the reason, I think, that the FCC has allocated to these lower power TV stations basically a franchise or a territory. So we have no problem with Staff comments or engineering comments. The limits of clearing should be shown on the Site Plan for installation of the guy wires. Let’s see. We’re here tonight, I guess, for SEQRA, and this is kind of interesting. This will be the third, no, this is the fourth meeting we’ve been to. We have two others scheduled after this, as part of this process, to get the chicken and the egg lined up. It’s a great relief act for lawyers. Lawyers and engineers can stay out every night of the week if they want, but I’m looking at the schedule I made up, and I think we’re here for SEQRA tonight. As I understand it, there’s very little clearing. There’s probably a couple of trees or something like that that will be taken down so the guy wires can be put up. We can show them. We’re going to th be back to you, we hope, on December 16, for Site Plan, and if you want to condition anything on that, we don’t have a problem with it. An area should be reserved or shown for equipment needs of other telecommunications providers anticipated for collocation on the proposed tower. I thought one of the more interesting things was the shanty. Have you seen the picture? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, you really didn’t think that that was part of some big communications system. That’s coming down. MR. HUNSINGER-I can’t understand why. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I thought they could get a couple of more years out of it, but that’s coming down, and this small building is going to be constructed in its place. The building that’s going to be constructed in its place has enough room for the existing users of the existing tower, ourselves and our equipment, and future people to come on our tower. We don’t think we’ll need anything additionally than that, and it says it’s not clear if an easement exists or if any easements are needed for this site. We have a lease with the owner of the site that allows us access through this property, and we believe that that access, he actually owns the whole site. So I don’t think there are any necessary easements, and we did file, as Keith indicated, the letter that says that if we discontinue, we will take down the tower within a certain period of time. From a SEQRA point of view, if you’re under 200 feet, you don’t need to light the tower. So you won’t have blinking lights there. You don’t need to have special painting. It doesn’t have to be a red and white tower. Again, it can be a tower that will blend in with the skyline, whether it be gray or blue or something of that nature, but there are no FAA requirements. We did submit, I think to Keith, after we submitted the entire application, a screening that said that no FAA permit was required. So I don’t know if you have specific questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-I was going to say, from a visual standpoint, when we went out to do the site reviews, I couldn’t find the tower. I mean, looking at the tree line, I couldn’t find it. So I can’t imagine that adding a few feet is going to make a significant difference. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t think so. I mean, we tried to get representative pictures of what’s there. There is one place, I think from a subdivision that’s part of Old West Mountain, that you have some visibility, and I think from the ski lift area itself, the top of 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) the mountain on the ski lift, you have some visibility, but other than that, there’s very little. JESSE JACKSON MR. JACKSON-We had to go up to the top of the mountain, the top of the ski lift, to actually get a shot where you could see the tower so we could put an enhancement next to it about what this tower would look like, and the footprint of the tower, by the way, is two feet. It’s literally not even called a tower. It’s literally called an antenna. MR. OBORNE-If I may. Was there an issue as to how this is attached? I know that Mr. Bergeron was having some difficulty. Can you elaborate on that? Were you able to figure out what the ramifications, if there are any, on the base? Do you recall that at all, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Someone, I don’t know if it was you or somebody else suggested that we come in with an engineered stamped set of plans for construction, and we got into some discussions about that with the tower manufacturer and with some other people, and found that it’s not something that these people do ahead of time. They have the engineering that’s set forth as to the make up of the towers, but they don’t design the actual anchor system until you get your approvals. We’ve had somebody there twice already from the company. They’ve looked at our tower site, which is within 50 feet or I think it’s 90 feet is it? How far is it? MR. JACKSON-Sixty feet from the existing tower. MR. O'CONNOR-Sixty feet from the existing, and looked at the system that the existing tower has and says that soil is okay. We’ll do the same thing for you when we get there. We have a letter from them to that effect. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes. I was just wondering if you could speak to that. I know it’s a pretty unique situation. I don’t know if the Board is aware that it’s almost a floating system I believe. MR. JACKSON-Right. When we had the conversation it was about really, what does it look like, and the structure itself, and it’s outlined in the packet, the antenna meets, where it comes close to meeting the ground, it actually falls into a ball joint, so that it does have the flexibility, under different kinds of weather conditions, to be able to adjust to that, and it’s a pretty trick system, it’s very simple, but it really is like it lands into a ball joint at the bottom, and then that footing has to be there, and then they put the guy wires down, and the guy wires can actually go in any rotation, and we’ve been analyzing what would be the least impact on the area, in terms of putting the guy wires down, and there’s only three of them, and they are wires. MRS. BRUNO-Did I read somewhere that they were 20 degrees off of the top of the antenna? MR. JACKSON-Yes, coming down, yes, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of, while we’re on the guy wires, in terms of removal of trees, what’s the expectation of how many trees may need to be removed? Do you have to like cut a swath, or is it the wire’s coming down where a tree is so we might have to take one or two trees out? MR. JACKSON-You know, the best way to answer it honestly is if any of you are campers, and you pitch a tent, you know, you run it down and you stake it, you know, and that’s really what it is. The wire comes off the antenna, travels down, and we have flexibility of putting those guy wires, like I said, we’ve been up there many times, looking around to see how, what the distance is from the base and what, the least amount of impact, I keep saying that, so that we don’t have to do, no, not like when you see power companies come through and they clear a path to run. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s more like you might have to trim some trees, rather than? MR. JACKSON-Sure. As a matter of fact, the trees up there are not very tall. We looked at where the guy wires were for the existing tower, and we looked at the footings. We saw how they were put in, and it’s the same geography, you know, it’s 50 feet away from it, and it is a very minimal impact. I can’t say to you we can’t take any trees down, but it’s not like we’re in Crandall Park and we would have to take down some of those big pines. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JACKSON-Absolutely nothing like that, saplings or something. MR. SIPP-This wire has to be hooked to some kind of dead man, in other words. It has to go into a concrete pillar or concrete block, that’s buried. MR. JACKSON-Well, we’re fortunate up there in that it’s rock up there, and that it does have to, they do have to put it down in, and I’m not enough of a technician. I’m a creative guy. I’m not enough of a technician to really describe the kind of footing, but it is really a, the way it was described to me, it’s a pinning, you know, and my best way of describing that to you is if you’re pitching a tent and you drop a pin, you know. MR. SIPP-Somewhere I read in here about the collection of ice which has brought down some towers in the past. I assume they’ve learned their lesson. MR. O'CONNOR-I read some place in here that this is designed for, I think, a 70 mile wind with a half inch of ice on the facility. MR. SIPP-It’s surprising how much extra weight you get with a half inch of ice on the height of this tower. MR. JACKSON-The company, and we have a letter from them also. We picked, not the least expensive company to do the antenna, but we did pick the number one company, and it’s evident in the letter that they really know what they’re doing. They’ve put hundreds of installations up, all around the country, and up in Canada. So they understand the wind issues. They understand the load issues, and the construction issues. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I had questions about the height. What would happen if it were a little lower? Like what’s the tradeoff? MR. JACKSON-The tradeoff is quite substantial. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it? MR. JACKSON-Yes, and the reason is that, as a broadcaster, we’re a line of sight, and anything that gets in the way of that line of sight really just kills the signal. I could tell you so much about this we’d all be asleep in a half hour. MR. TRAVER-Well, especially if you’re going to the digital format. MR. JACKSON-That’s exactly the point. It’s called a cliff effect, and literally an analog signal, and you might even remember this from your radio days, you’re going and the further away you get from the signal, you start to lose the signal. A digital signal is 100% until it’s zero percent, and if it hits anything, it’s over. It can’t get over it, it can’t get around it. It’s done, and we calculated that. One of my objectives in this was that, you know, I’m sort of a tree hugger myself. I did not want this tower to go over 200 feet and I didn’t want to light it and I didn’t want to paint it red. I didn’t want anything like that at all, and we calculated it really down to the foot, that if we could get to 195 feet, we’d drop down 20 feet, and we can just clear the mountains to be able to hit people that don’t have any cable service, and would absolutely benefit from the news and the weather and the kind of programming that we do, and that’s the reason we exist. We’re a low power television station which is community based. MRS. BRUNO-We get two stations at our house, no cable, and yours isn’t one of them because it doesn’t reach. MR. JACKSON-Where do you live? MRS. BRUNO-On Gurney Lane. MR. JACKSON-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-So that’s not even that far, really, the way the crow. MR. JACKSON-You would get us now. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. O'CONNOR-You would get it now, after this tower is up. That’s surprised me, that they don’t get outside the city by air transmission, and they looked at a number of different other, trying to find other alternatives. MR. JACKSON-We tried existing towers. We tried other locations. We really looked around, and the issue is because of where our building is. You know our building is down on Glen, across from Burger King. That’s our shot. That’s a clear shot to West Mountain from there, from the top of our building, and it’s the most efficient on both ends, on our end and on the receiving end. MR. KREBS-But to understand that, it’s just like using your cell phone. If you’re driving down the road and you go into a dead area, you lose your signal. That’s because you don’t have line of sight between your cell phone and the tower, and that’s exactly what he’s facing. MR. O'CONNOR-I never figured out how that works, though, when you go in a building and your cell phone still works. I know that. MR. KREBS-Well, if you go in the right building, you wouldn’t get a signal because you’d have too much shielding. MR. SIPP-What is, you know, I’m thinking back to, I used to carry a company radio in the Army, and you had the same problem with the radio systems in the hilly areas, once you got over the crest of a hill, anybody in back of you couldn’t hear a thing, or you couldn’t transmit to them. It seems like we’re, 40 years, we should have improved our way of broadcasting here somehow. MR. JACKSON-You know, the joke is, about that, is that you just can’t bend the signal. Meaning that if I was trying to get you line of sight here and the microphone is in the way, it would be really wonderful if that signal would just, you know, curve over the top of the microphone. MR. SIPP-Well, those were all FM signals. MR. JACKSON-It’s still the same. MR. SIPP-Still the same. MR. JACKSON-Yes. Still the same. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to go from Downtown Glens Falls and beam up to this tower then? MR. JACKSON-Yes, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then broadcast from there? MR. JACKSON-And then broadcast from there. MR. SEGULJIC-And then how does it get into the cable system? MR. JACKSON-We shoot them a signal to their head end. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So if someone were to build a tall building between you and the tower. MR. JACKSON-That could be a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-How do you control that? MR. JACKSON-Well, unless somebody in Glens Falls is going to put up a 30 foot, 30 story building. No, we’ve got good clearance. Our building is on the corner of Glen and Park, and we’re a three story building. We’re right up there, and as a matter of fact The Mill, even with the penthouses on it, we clear that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-They watched very carefully when The Mill went up. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. JACKSON-I looked every day just to see what they were doing. MRS. BRUNO-They’re advertising a lot of rental space. You may have had to have moved. MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned you spoke to Verizon. Have you talked to anyone else, in terms of collocating? MR. JACKSON-We’ve had inquiries. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’ve, as long as I’ve been on the Board, which is eight years, I think we’ve only sited one other similar type antenna, and it was for the local AM radio station, and they ended up putting a tower, and I think we only approved it temporarily. Keith, you weren’t here. So you wouldn’t remember. Anyone else remember that? MR. SIPP-On French Mountain? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’m sorry, South Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-Was it Dix Avenue? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s a whip antenna. MR. JACKSON-Yes. That’s a totally different animal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JACKSON-Yes, really a much different animal. No, this is a tower that others could collocate on. I reviewed the history of towers in the area. All the towers are at capacity, and they’re at capacity because they’re carrying everything from National security to ambulance cars to EMT’s, and I think that once the people know that the tower is available, nobody really knows about it, that I’m positive we’ll get calls. We already got a call from Verizon, and, you know, Verizon’s intentions are very clear. They’re trying to build a network that’s a solid shot up the Northway, and that’s a different beast. Those towers are the size of this room at the base. These are big towers. This is a much smaller unit, but it could satisfy the needs for us and others, and we would have the ability to put eight, maybe, another eight on our tower. It depends on what their needs are, and there’s interference studies. You have to be careful there. You just can’t jam everybody on there. You have to be certain distances, and it’s a whole bunch of engineering stuff. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Chairman, so, I guess the first thing we need to do is acknowledge Lead Agency status. MR. HUNSINGER-Acknowledge Lead Agency status. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Then if we’re ready we do SEQRA, and then we do Site Plan Review, or no? MR. O'CONNOR-Not tonight. We have to get a variance. MR. SEGULJIC-You have to get the variance, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And the reason we have to get the variance is there’s a mistake, I think there’s a mistake that was made in the definitions, but some powers to be didn’t agree with me. MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Administrator I take it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if you look at collocation, in one place you talk about collocation being on the same property as another tower, and then if you look some place else it says being on the same tower, not the same property with the tower. MR. OBORNE-Well, with all due respect, sir, it’s not in an industrial area. It is in an LC- 10. So that’s the reason. MR. O'CONNOR-Except there’s an exception to the siting that says towers will be in an industrial area, or on a property where there is an existing tower. That’s, so, again, the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) simple thing is we’re applying for the variance. Then nobody will come out of the woodwork and say you should have done this or you should have done that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We try to comply. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and seeing no takers, if it’s coming back, this is where I would keep it open. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we accept Lead Agency, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a resolution to accept Lead Agency status. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 FOR NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, in connection with the Northern Broadcasting project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the resolution prepared by Staff. MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 FOR NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d ask you to do SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, are we ready to do SEQRA, then? Is everyone ready? MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. Long Form. MR. O'CONNOR-We filed a Long Form with a Visual Addendum. I have an extra copy if you don’t have one. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to go through the Visual Addendum? MR. OBORNE-You should have the Long Form on your application. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. SEGULJIC-But do we have to do the Visual Addendum, also? That’s only if you do a Positive Declaration on Visual we do the addendum, correct? MR. OBORNE-I’m not quite sure on that. MR. O'CONNOR-The Telecommunication Regulations said file the Visual with the Long Form. It didn’t say whether you were going to review it. MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m saying I don’t think we have to. Are you saying we should? I’m confused. I don’t think we have to. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-I would just as soon have you. It’s only about three or four pages. MR. SEGULJIC-The Visual Addendum you’re referring to? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The Visual’s at the back of the. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-Putting a tower up? MRS. BRUNO-I believe that should be a yes always. I had mentioned that one other time when I came back from a workshop. Because no matter what you do, you’re changing the site. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, small to moderate? MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate, addressed during Site Plan. Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MRS. BRUNO-Mitigated by Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that what I’m hearing from everybody? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they provided some information on the Visual EAF Addendum, but the rest is to be completed by the Lead Agency, and the only other time that we’ve completed a Visual EAF Addendum is when we checked yes here and said that there may be significant impact. So I think that we need to say that there’s impact, but that the impact is small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to say, small to moderate, can be mitigated during Site Plan Review. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-Can we hold for a second? As far as Number Eleven, what was the answer on that, yes or no? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, small to moderate. MR. KREBS-Small to moderate. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR.SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-So, once again. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to go through the Visual, or can you just go to a resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want me to make a motion to have a Negative Declaration? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why you can’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 44-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 25 day of, November, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess you’ve gone as far as you can with us tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-Unless you can figure out some way how to do Site Plan approval, yes, and I don’t think you can. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, before you leave, I would just ask the Board, for your benefit, if there were any issues that are outstanding that we didn’t discuss, either during this discussion or Staff comments or the engineering comments? MR. SEGULJIC-I think the only thing was, being, as you pointed out, I mean, the color is going to be important. Just have it blend in as much as you can. Don’t make a silver thing that shines or a white thing. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. TRAVER-And address the engineering comments, which you’ve already indicated. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay. Maybe by that time we’ll, I don’t know if we’ll be back up there or not, figure out what trees, if anything, more than what we’ve been there, but I know Jim has been there a couple of times with the other engineering people. They don’t think there’s much clearing. Can we simply, the one question I guess I’d have it says limits of clearing should be shown on the Site Plan for installation of the guy wires. Erosion and sediment control measures should encompass all areas to be disturbed. Can we simply say yes to that? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, is this area flat? I mean, we have no contours, but I assume it’s fairly flat from what I can read off the topographic map. So you’re not going to get any big erosion. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no heavy duty excavation. MR. SIPP-And you’ve got a silt fence already on the site. MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t want to get, they apparently screw something into the rock. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. JACKSON-Their comments, we’ve been up on site many times, and outside of wondering whether the shack had historic significance, which I don’t think it does, we, no. MR. SIPP-Is it sandstone basically? It’s not layered rock like shale? MR. OBORNE-It’s I’m sure it’s igneous. MR. SIPP-Cheap granite. MR. OBORNE-Cheap granite, exactly. MR. JACKSON-Yes, but when we did bring the engineer up from Jam Pro, which is the antenna company, his comment, when we were on top, he said, boy, I wish they were all like this. I mean, he was looking at this, it’s on a flat surface. If anything is disturbed, it’s not like you’ve got to bring timber people up there and start whacking trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe by just clarifying what exactly is going to get done there, because I get excited if you’re going to do any digging and things like that, but it sounds like it’s going to be very minimal, if you’d clarify that. With regards to clearing, the ideal thing for me is if you could zero in on an aerial photograph and just say this tree is going to get taken out, this tree, this tree is going to get trimmed, and that’s it. MRS. BRUNO-That was almost exactly what I was going to say. I calculated, it’s about 70 feet to the base, well, it would be 140 feet. MR. JACKSON-Yes, right. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but they don’t plan on clearing that. MRS. BRUNO-I know, but I was, exactly what, I’m agreeing with Tom, and then putting it over the aerial or whatever and just saying, gee, there are only three trees that we have to take down and they’re of caliper. MR. O'CONNOR-You must have better aerials than I do. MRS. BRUNO-Well, you could use the different data. You could use the aerials, the drawing, you know, the site drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Check Google, that might get you in close. MR. SIPP-Yes, Google would give you a good map there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I know Google does your house. MR. TRAVER-If there’s high res coverage of that particular area, you’ll find that it’s in patches, and even up around Lake George there’s large areas where there’s no high res, which is what you need to see your houses. So it may not. MR. JACKSON-We did that. That’s right, it wasn’t high res. I just remembered when we kept blowing it up and kept blowing it up, and we were actually trying to find the actual location. There may be a photo in here, or a photocopy of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Mike Barbone has some information that we’ve been trying to get from him as to when they built the other tower, too, and we haven’t been successful in getting that. If we can get that from him, it might help us. MR. SIPP-A couple of questions. What does that other tower do? What is the other tower for? MR. JACKSON-The same thing. He has clients on there. I think he might have Cellular One on there and some other radio stations. MR. SIPP-Now, is there a need for electricity within your? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. JACKSON-Yes, for sure. MR. SIPP-How is that going to be? MR. JACKSON-And there is plenty of power on top. Remember, it’s a ski resort also. MR. SIPP-You’re coming off of a chairlift. MR. JACKSON-They have enough power at the top of that chairlift to light up the city. There’s a lot of power up there. You just reminded me of one other comment that the engineer made. He said, look, he said, they put a ski lift up here. I’m very aware of the issue of the trees, and I would not sit here. I’m glad you asked me the question about, are they going to cut a path and do anything like that. This is really running a wire down and finding a space to be able to screw that thing down into the ground, and like I said, we can shift that thing around so that, if there was a beautiful tree in the way or something like that, we can shift it a little bit and run the wire down that way. MR. SEGULJIC-So maybe you’ll come back and say there’ll be no impact, then. MR. JACKSON-I didn’t think there was any impact, and I’ve been up there plenty of times, but I just want to make sure that we answer your questions fully. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. We thank you very much for your patience. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. JACKSON-Thanks for your consideration. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT CHILI’S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-4- 020 st MR. HUNSINGER-And we did receive a fax letter, I guess it came in on the 21, requesting that we table it, and they requested that we table it until our second meeting in December. Have they submitted new information, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, they have not. They have submitted the Chili’s, and they’re rotating that 90 degrees counterclockwise from where it exists on the plan today, and we have not received anything about the Walgreens rotation. I feel that they need to be rotated also, they feel they need to be rotated also, and they need to have their due process. That’s my understanding. So the short answer is, no, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I had asked Keith earlier today was to, I hadn’t seen any information yet on what the pipeline was, and there’s already eight projects that are going to be bumped to January because the December meeting, the two December meetings will be full. MRS. BRUNO-Let’s not fill December up anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-No, especially if they haven’t submitted information. So, my inclination would be to say, you know, you’re back in the hopper. If you can get the th materials in by December 15, we’ll hear you in January. Unless someone has an objection, put them on the second meeting in January, so they can go to the Zoning Board ahead of time. MR. SEGULJIC-So table them until January, what’s the date, then? th MR. OBORNE-I’ll pull up a calendar. The 27? MR. SIPP-Chris, would it be to our advantage to know what happened with Home Depot and the agreements that were made on the cemetery side of this piece of property? I 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) know there was quite a bit of talk there about the drainage and the, because they’re all wetlands back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-And I don’t remember it all, but I know there were conditions laid down about the east side of this piece of property, which is on the cemetery. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t recall, but that’s going to be important, especially when Site Plan comes in. Do you want me to bring that up? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we might want to include it as part of the tabling resolution, that part of the requested materials will be information on. MR. SIPP-I mean, there was certainly talk about a buffer zone being laid between the two, and I don’t know as that’s ever been done or. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t recall the details on that. I remember vaguely, being in the audience. th MR. HUNSINGER-The second meeting in January is January 27. th MR. SEGULJIC-With submission by January 15? th MR. HUNSINGER-December 15. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do you recall anything else about that? MR. SIPP-I don’t know who’s responsibility it is, Staff or them. MR. OBORNE-What’s the question? MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Sipp was bringing up that he believes there were some conditions about buffering along the cemetery, and he doesn’t know if they’ve been addressed. MR. OBORNE-I’ll do some research on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So I won’t include that in the motion. MR. SIPP-Home Depot Site Plan, I think that was all part of that, and there are some wetlands. MR. OBORNE-Now Home Depot is it’s own separate property now. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. OBORNE-The parking lot is not, but as far as the Home Depot and their stormwater management, that’s separate from this issue here. Now as far as the cemetery buffering it, it is a Type C buffer, that’s listed in my Site Plan, but I’ll look into that. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: To the Planning Board’s January 27, 2009 meeting, with a submission of information by December 15, 2008. Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Just a couple of sort of housekeeping items. We did have, tentatively nd scheduled a meeting on December 2 with the Mall. I understand that that, now, has been postponed. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. OBORNE-Correct. That has been postponed or has been asked to be postponed by the applicant, and we have not received anything to date as far as any new materials. It is specifically speaking to Pyramid Mall’s, and again, we have not received anything. MR. HUNSINGER-So since we had tabled the project to that date, you’ll have to re- publish and post the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding, unless you left that open. I don’t think we ever even. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we left the public hearing open, but we tabled it to nd December 2. MR. OBORNE-Correct. nd MR. HUNSINGER-So if it’s not heard on December 2, they’ll have to re-publish it and post the public hearing. The only other item I had is, Mr. Krebs brought up, and that is on the agenda review that we had started, I think in January of this year. I know it was before your time. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes, I’ve seen a couple come through. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I don’t know if we’ve done it the last two or three months. MR. OBORNE-No, sir, we haven’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone know who’s turn it was, who did it last? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, why don’t we start with the bigger picture. Is it valuable? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I know I met with Keith over the summer. I think I marked that appointment down. I could probably tell you when that was, and I might even tell you st who was, I think Tom was scheduled after me. Yes. I’m sorry, I had August. July 31. MR. HUNSINGER-You might have been the last one. st MR. TRAVER-Perhaps. I can only speak to, I know Keith and I met on July 31, and, you know, I’ve got all kinds of reminders to go to that meeting, what happened after that, I don’t know. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have any idea, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, I do not have that list, and I’m not quite sure what the purpose of it is, since I wasn’t here earlier. Was it to set the agenda? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was to make sure that the projects that came before the Board were ready, more than anything. MR. SEGULJIC-Because there’s a lot of gray area as to whether a project is considered ready or not. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s gotten much better, though. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Right, and when Tanya did hers, I was relatively new, and I’m still relatively new, but when I did it with Mr. Traver, we did a very thorough review. MRS. BRUNO-It was either ready, yes. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MR. TRAVER-It was very helpful. I found it helpful, both for me, personally, it was almost like a workshop, in the sense that I got to see more workings of the plans in general, and as I recall the agenda had already been set. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So we didn’t really review, in terms of the time management aspect of it, and there were many issues with regards to completeness, but I thought it was very much worthwhile, myself. MRS. BRUNO-I think mine was right before Steve’s, and then I think Tom, Tom and I ended up switching and I can’t recall what the order was. MR. OBORNE-Who would have that order? I mean, would that be Pam? MR. SEGULJIC-It was based on seniority. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was seniority. MR. TRAVER-I think we did it by seniority. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did it by seniority. We did do a couple of trades. MR. TRAVER-I think I was the junior man on the team at that point. MRS. BRUNO-You were up, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so it sounds like it’s my turn. Has it been done, have you done reviews yet for December? MR. OBORNE-Well, we have done our completeness review, which we do every month, for the Zoning Board and Planning Board, to make sure that the applications have everything that they need to be heard by the Board, and basically if you want to come on in and be informed of every applicant, that’s fine. That’s the question I had, what is the purpose of it. MRS. BRUNO-I think it was getting messy before you started. Not messy, I don’t want to say it that way, but we were getting some things that didn’t have all of the information, and then there were things that were gray areas. People would turn in certain plans that, yes, technically that answers it, but it really doesn’t answer the questions that we need. MR. TRAVER-Yes, as I recall there were two things that we had discussed. One was looking at the agenda just from a time management standpoint, in terms of how to load up the different meetings. The other was that there was the feeling, and it may have just been a period of time where we had some applicants come before us where we had discussed the checklist for deciding that they were complete and therefore could go on the agenda, and there was some concern that Staff were perhaps being put in a position of having to make, in effect, this gray area that’s been talked about, what might be considered a Planning Board decision. So the feeling was that perhaps if someone from the Planning Board participated in that process that, you know, there could be some discussion with Staff, and should there be such an issue arise, it did not when I met with you, and of course since we did that, we haven’t really had that issue come up, but there was a period of time when we had a number of applications where really, as soon as we reviewed it, and even based on some of the Staff comments it was clear that this application wasn’t really ready to be heard, and all that ended up doing was we were tabling them, and it added to our agenda and so on and so on. The thought was well maybe this will possibly, in some circumstances, contribute to reduce that. MR. KREBS-And my feeling, Steve, was I’d like to see us even go beyond that, and I don’t know if this is something we can do legally, but like NPA tonight, there’s like 29 engineering things that have to be answered, okay. There were a whole slew of Staff comments that had to be answered. MR. TRAVER-That’s a good example. MR. KREBS-I would like to say we would not want to see that applicant until the majority of those are answered. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MRS. BRUNO-But the engineer doesn’t really review it until it’s set on the agenda. Right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, the applicant would have to be heard, because a date has been set for them. If you chose to make conditional approvals based on what I say or what Dan Ryan says, you know, that’s been pretty much the status quo. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. OBORNE-I do understand where you’re coming from. In a perfect world, that would be great if they came up to you and everything was taken care of. MR. KREBS-Well, I’m not saying that all issues would be resolved, okay. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. KREBS-But there are a list of things that they just need to do on the drawings, etc., that the engineer wants on the drawing and we come here and we spend the time to bring this client, I mean, bring the applicant here, and then I know before we start the meeting that we’re going to table this and we’re going to send him back to answer those questions. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And in this case they realized that themselves. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-But perhaps in review, that if that had happened as you point out, if that had happened in review, we might have been able to hear another applicant tonight. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-And that could reduce our workload. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Although we didn’t have any others to hear. So would it be worthwhile to come in on Friday or to wait until next month? It sounds like December. MR. OBORNE-Friday is going to be an extremely slow day. That would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I plan on being there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll come in Friday and we’ll go through the December agenda. MR. OBORNE-Now, I may be using some flextime on that day. If you can give me a time that would work? MR. HUNSINGER-You tell me. MR. OBORNE-Ten o’clock? Ten a.m.? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Now, Mr. Chairman, we are not with the benefit of administrative personnel at this point. So basically what we have are raw files for you to look at. We can just look at the applications and go through them. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. That’s fine. Any other business this evening? Hearing none, anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/25/08) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 32