Loading...
2009.12.17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 47-2009 Marvin Stan Dobert 1. Tax Map No. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28 Site Plan No. 54-2009 Mike Arnold 7. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Site Plan No. 36-2009 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 18. Tax Map No. 307.-1-31 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 12/17/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD KREBS DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning th Board for Thursday, December 17. I apologize to the members of the audience for being a few minutes late. SITE PLAN 47-2009 SEQR TYPE II MARVIN STAN DOBERT OWNER(S) 52 MAIN STREET, LLC ZONING MAIN STREET MS LOCATION 50-52 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. NEW BUILDING ATTACHED TO 50 AND 52 MAIN STREET AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE MS ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 42-09, SP 11-05,SP 67-04, NOA 3-04, UV 44-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/9/09 LOT SIZE 0.08, 0.16, 0.19 TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28 SECTION 179-7-010, 179-9-010 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, SR., PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Dobert, if you want to come up to the table. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 47-2009, Marvin Stan Dobert is the applicant. It’s a commercial expansion in the Main Street zone. The location is 50-52 Main Street. SEQRA is a Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovation and expansion of existing buildings, construction of a 900 square foot new building attached to 50 & 52 Main Street and associated site work. The project proposes a mix of residential, office, and retail space. I do want to say we’ve tabled this applicant last month. He’s been extremely responsive in what and why they were tabled. Specifically it was for stormwater issues, which have been given the sign off by the Town Engineer, and what we also wanted to see as a Board, or you had discussed, was a little more to the landscaping plan, colors and materials to be used for the facades, and one other issue which was the fencing . You wanted to see what that was going to be about, and that has since been submitted to the Planning Department and the applicant is now here before you to present you with the colors and etc. With that, I’d turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. DOBERT-Okay. I’m Stan’s father, Marvin Dobert, Sr. Stan’s in Los Angeles. Just came back from China. He’s in the process of moving his operation from Denver to Queensbury, New York. MR. HUNSINGER-So the floor is yours if you want to review. I think Keith summarized the remaining issues. MR. DOBERT-Well, the review that I received in the mail from the Staff is fairly complete. There’s only a couple of items that I checked off that I think need to be discussed, and the first one I have is the building colors. I brought some samples. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MR. FORD-Good. MR. DOBERT-I’ll just briefly talk about the few items that I think are left dangling, the colors and you asked for examples of the siding, which I have, and fencing. I think that’s it. The product that Stan has chosen, I’ll pass this sample around, it’s a composite material, and the color is the off white color, and I’ve noted that number in the record. I’ll pass that down. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s for the façade? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. DOBERT-Stan’s desire was to keep in conformity to the Town and County look, according to the guidelines. So he plans on putting one of the small building addition in between the two large buildings with the brick façade. MR. KREBS-That’ll look very nice. MR. HUNSINGER-So what is this made of, do you know, the siding? MR. KREBS-It’s a cement and fiber. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. Cement fiber composite, I believe. MR. KREBS-Yes. I know, because that’s what I did my house in. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you? Yes. MR. KREBS-The nice thing about it is it only has to be painted about once every twelve years. Doesn’t absorb any moisture. MR. HUNSINGER-It does have to be painted? MR. KREBS-Yes, it does have to be painted. It comes pre-coated, but eventually you have to paint it. MR. DOBERT-Then I guess there’s some fencing that’s been designed, at the build to line, I understand. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Right. MR. DOBERT-This was pulled off the Internet for illustration purposes. We decided to put a wrought iron. MR. HUNSINGER-Does it show how tall it will be? MR. TRAVER-I think that was in the original drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-Was it? MR. TRAVER-I believe so. MRS. STEFFAN-It says four foot high. MR. HUNSINGER-Four foot high, okay. MR. DOBERT-Here’s an illustration of the height. It doesn’t give any dimensions, but it might help you out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It actually says right on here four foot. Yes. Anything else? MR. DOBERT-I think I’ll turn it over to questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It all looks very good. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. TRAVER-The only thing I noted that’s on the VISION comments about the access to the drywell for maintenance purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But on the other hand, that was discussed, the engineering apparently has all been, at least it appears that the stormwater issues have been resolved. MR. KREBS-Yes, because certainly his last sentence it says the applicant will satisfy, address all of our technical reviews relative to stormwater. So that to me said whatever they did, they agreed. MR. TRAVER-So that’s a little bit confusing, but it appears that it’s been resolved. MR. DOBERT-You’re referring to the cover? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DOBERT-That’s Number 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Item 12, yes. Well, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to make that a condition, that the applicant will provide a regular inspection and maintenance to the proposed drywells. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’ll do it. MR. DOBERT-It’s already in there, Number 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DOBERT-It’s already stated. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, our engineer is saying that that’s what you should do. So, I mean, we could handle it either that or say final signoff, but it really is a final signoff. MR. TRAVER-That’s why it’s confusing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So how do you want it worded? Applicant will provide? MR. HUNSINGER-Regular inspection and maintenance of the two proposed drywells, by way of a solid frame access cover. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-On this landscaping, have you got an idea of what you’re going to be doing with the landscaping of the fence area? MR. DOBERT-Did Stan discuss that with you, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. In lieu of landscaping, I think, to the build to line, the Code reads that you can put a hedge or a fence, and the applicant has decided to put a wrought iron fence. Now, the species that were chosen inside the fence are not particularly salt tolerant, but I don’t think they’re going to be impacted by the road either. MR. SIPP-We’ll find out. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I know that they have a steel grate around the, what are they, red maples? MR. SIPP-Red maples. MR. OBORNE-Yes. So, as far as that landscaping goes. MR. SIPP-Well, then that’s far enough from the road to not get all of it. MR. OBORNE-Right. I agree. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Now is the landscaping of the area, that’s going to be impacted by the construction, right? MR. OBORNE-They’re not going to install their landscaping until after the road is done. There’s no way we would have them do this MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we just have to word that like within a six month. MR. OBORNE-Yes. They’ll get the rear done, and the building done, and then after that’s done, I mean, they want to get into the building, too. So, after the road’s been turned over, then they’ll be required to do that, as far as the front goes. MR. SEGULJIC-You say when the road is turned over, dedicated? MR. OBORNE-No. It’s not necessarily a dedicated. It’s turned over. The road is not going to be a road that’s going to be ideally accessible for the next year and a half, two years, starting in February and March. So the road will not be turned over until it’s got its final top coat on. Turned over which means basically to, it’s a County road. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess what I’m getting at, what can we use as a timing mechanism? Say within six months of? MR. OBORNE-I would say within a year of the completion of the Main Street project. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I think that would be the way to go, and they’ll be required to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, I was working on another part of the motion. MR. OBORNE-What we were discussing was to not put in the permeable pavers or do any of the front work until the road, the Main Street project is complete. Because of all the maintenance issues that’ll be involved with that, the degradation of that site also during the construction process. It would seem to me to be unfair to force them to do that now while construction of the road is going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, isn’t there still some, they’re not really sure where the right of way’s going to end, so they don’t really know where the fence should be even placed. Right? MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. So the build to line will be determined at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DOBERT-In addition to that, all the utilities have to be run in. There’s no utilities except the water and gas now, and that will have to be all new. So there would be at least four utility lines that will have to be struck. MR. OBORNE-And they’ll be placed underneath where the permeable pavers are going. MR. DOBERT-Right. He’d like some flexibility on that space, not knowing at this point how the tenant situation will evolve. There’s many scenarios that could evolve with the usage of that, you know, it might be a patio, who knows. Okay. Colors. MR. KREBS-I think we got it all. MR. TRAVER-I think so. MR. DOBERT-That’s the only item that I have left that I had checked that needs to be discussed, unless there are anymore questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. FORD-I do have a comment. I want to compliment the applicant. I think this has been frustrating at times, but also a good example of cooperation and effort, and I think the results will be an excellent example for others to follow as we develop the Main Street corridor. Thank you. MR. DOBERT-Thank you. The first application made to the Town of Queensbury on that property, the building inspector said go ahead, get going, I’ll catch up with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Time change. MR. HUNSINGER-Times have changed. You can tell us if they’re for the better or the worse. MR. KREBS-Marvin, I remember when I was on the Planning Board 25 years ago, and I came to the meeting with my pen. We didn’t have all this documentation. We just made the decision based on what the applicant told us. So things have changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Things have changed. MR. DOBERT-Well, we hope, you know I was born three blocks from this building, and I consider that my turf up there, and I’d like to see West Glens Falls perk up. It’s been dangling too long. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the reconstruction of Main Street is going to be the. MR. DOBERT-Make a big difference. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’ll be the impetus for private development. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Keith, is there any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments. I will then close the public hearing, since there are no commenters. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable moving forward? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Type II action so no SEQRA is required. I will entertain a motion for resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes renovation and a 2,180 sq. ft. expansion of existing buildings and associated sitework. Further, the applicant proposes 900 sq. ft. construction of a new building in order to connect 50 and 52 Main Street. Commercial Expansion in the MS zone requires Site Plan review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/22/09 & 11/17/09; and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.Type II action, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c.Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and d.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e.The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff g.All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation h.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. i.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff j.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] k.If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. l.This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the fencing will be four feet high, wrought iron, commercial and decorative. 2.That the facades will be James Hardy siding products, JH10-20, cement fiber composite in Arctic White, and also Macavoy Brick façade. 3.That the applicant will perform regular inspections and maintenance of the two proposed drywells by way of a solid frame access cover at grade in the top. Include on the plan and obtain Vision Engineering signoff. 4.That the applicant may delay front work and permeable paver installation until the Main Street project is underway and underground utilities are complete. 5.That the landscaping will be complete one year after the Main Street project is complete. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2009, by the following vote: MR. KREBS-Do we want to say underway, or do we just want to say complete? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-They have a time period from the completion of the Main Street project to install the, you said they won’t start it until it’s done, but we should probably give them a deadline to complete it. MRS. STEFFAN-I put the applicant may delay front work and permeable paver installation until Main Street project is underway and underground utilities are complete. Because before they can do any work on top of the ground, the underground utilities will have to be laid. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I think they’re just suggesting that you say something like landscaping in front of the building will be completed within one year of completion of the Main Street project. MR. KREBS-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So add the landscaping piece. Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. You have a nice looking project. I’m anxious to see it completed. MR. DOBERT-Yes. It’ll work out. SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 SEQR TYPE II MIKE ARNOLD OWNER(S) ANITA ROSS ZONING WR LOCATION 108 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 625 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-09; BP 09-323, BP 85-574 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/14/09 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-9 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 54-2009, Mike Arnold. This is Site Plan Review for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Location: 108 Lake Parkway, Cleverdale. The existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA, no further review necessary. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 625 sq. ft. second story bedroom addition above existing attached garage. Staff Comments: The Planning Board has provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this site plan application per §179-9 of the town code. The applicant proposes an additional bedroom above the existing garage. The garage is currently encroaching on the northeast side property line by approximately 5 feet; thus making the structure non-conforming. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted relief on November 18, 2009 for side setbacks relief, Floor Area Ratio relief and for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Plan Review, the only outstanding issue that I have as Staff is that I recommend that the installation of gutters and downspouts be accomplished in order to direct water away from the lake and/or the installation of gravel infiltration trenches to capture roof water during rain events. Obviously you cannot pond water near a leach field, and knowing the applicant’s engineer, that will not happen, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the applicant Mike Arnold who is with me tonight. The property is owned by Anita Ross. Mike is Anita’s son-in-law and would be also the contractor on any expansion that was approved. I came into the process part way through here when Mike, at a prior meeting, perhaps the recommendation meeting that was before this Board or even the first zoning, there was an issue about wastewater capabilities. So I had written, did a review, wrote a letter report which probably is in your file. I know, th Chris, you received a copy at least. I think it was dated November 4, but it just 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) discussed the capability, capacity of the wastewater system, and also went on to get into the Floor Area Ratio issue, which Keith had made me aware of and needed confirmation. So that addressed those two issues, which were obviously of particular concern, and under the ZBA’s review. As Keith indicated, the Zoning Board issued the required variances. So we’ve moved on here for Site Plan Review. The wastewater issue I think at least as far as the Town Staff is concerned has I think been resolved, and Floor Area Ratio, which was a very minor 21 square feet over the 22%, was issued, granted a variance for that small addition, and that really related to the stricter definition of Floor Area Ratio, qualifying areas. There’s an area in an attic that has 36 square feet of area that’s more than five feet high, but not more than six feet high in this particular case. So it just, it qualified under the definition. It put it over the 22%, ever so slightly, but the Board, the ZBA, felt it appropriate to grant that variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Did anyone receive the septic system review? th MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have it, Keith? The November 4 letter that he referenced. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because we never received that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t see that. MR. OBORNE-You didn’t receive it? MR. SIPP-No. MR. OBORNE-It was sent to you. It was a letter that also broke out what the Floor Area Ratio relief issue was. MR. SEGULJIC-Sent to everybody? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Individually, I mean, as a separate letter? I don’t recall getting that. MR. OBORNE-This is the issue with the wastewater? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You certainly should have gotten that in your packet, and you didn’t? MR. SIPP-No. MR. OBORNE-Well, I can assure you, if you would let me, to assure you that Dave Hatin has vetted this and has agreed with the applicant’s engineer that this is a process that would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if, Dennis, you want to explain a little more on what that process is, because I was under the impression you all got that. MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the letter? It looks like it’s several pages. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s a four page letter, five, no, four, that’s an attachment, and half of it has to do with the wastewater and half of it had to do with Floor Area Ratio. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. MAC ELROY-So in summary, the wastewater issue was the system design in 1985 adequate in its capacity to support what would be a fourth bedroom to this three bedroom house. From information available in the files, the design of the system in 1985 was based on three bedrooms, at 150 gallons per bedroom. That was the design standard at that point in time, 450 gallon a day system is the capacity. Septic tank was 1,000 gallons. There was a pump tank, and the dispersal area, which is a mound system in this case, designed for 450 gallons. Now, since that period of time, Health Department regulations have recognized low flow water saving devices which now set the standard, on a per bedroom basis, of 110 gallons per bedroom. Now, four bedrooms, at 110 gallons per bedroom, is 440 gallons, which is less than the 450 that was designed. Now, I indicated as a condition of my certification, that, I’ll just read to you. All water fixtures, all water using fixtures within the residence shall be changed over to water saving fixtures, which includes all toilets, kitchen, lavatory faucets bathroom faucets and shower heads. Confirmation of this changeover shall be made by the Town Building and Codes inspector prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being used. I wasn’t certain that any of those fixtures that may have been in place when the house was built in 1985 hadn’t been changed over. It wouldn’t be unusual that somebody had changed a toilet or a sink or a fixture, but as a condition of the permit or a condition of the design and the permit, that would be part of the process, so that those water saving devices would be in place. So now that handles the field. The septic tank was 1,000 gallons. A four bedroom system requires a septic tank of 1250 gallons. So what I’ve proposed is that, using the pump tank, which is also a 1,000 gallon tank, right now it’s flow into the septic tank, effluent out into the pump tank, pump tank pumps to the field. We would use that pump tank, remove the pump, use it as a second septic tank, because in fact that’s what it is, a septic tank anyway, it’s a 1,000 gallon septic tank. So now we have 2,000 gallons of septic tank capacity. The requirement is 1250. There would be a new pump tank proposed to be installed, and with, you know, new pump, new controls. So I think it benefits the system now, 24 years later, that there’d be a new pump system installed with a new pump tank. So that’s what my letter, in summary, states. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Under those conditions, I certainly would certify that the system would be adequate for the house with the expansion to a fourth bedroom. MR. OBORNE-If I can add to that also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Building and Codes is required to inspect the house for those low flow fixtures. That is a requirement before Dave will sign off on that. MR. FORD-For the CO. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what is defined as a low flow fixture? MR. OBORNE-Well, it has to do with the toilets. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, what’s the flow rate? MR. MAC ELROY-1.6 for toilet, and you can’t buy a toilet. Anything manufactured after 1991, I think, is automatically low flow, and then shower heads are three gallons a minute. Other fixtures are 2.75 or something to that effect, but, again, what you buy today is, qualifies as a water saving device. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Did you look at the functionality of the system? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. We had the tanks pumped and I’ve made the comment about the, as far as the field is concerned, that we would do some investigation at the time that the other work related to the dispersal field. MR. SEGULJIC-What work would that be? MR. MAC ELROY-I’ll just, again, read to you from the letter. It’s advised to conduct some type of maintenance effort on this 24 year old system, i.e. access the terminal end 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) of each small diameter distribution lateral for a flushing of the piping to check the residual pressure at the end of the laterals. MR. SEGULJIC-To make sure of the proper function. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It would make sense to me that we do that before we would grant approval. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, you’re presuming that it’s not working. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It’s a 24, 25 year old system. You’re in a CEA, and one of the things that we asked in our recommendation to the Zoning Board is to make sure it’s functional, also. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s no indication that it isn’t functioning. MR. SEGULJIC-Then it should be an easy test. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, except that at this time of year, it’s not so easy to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-I can appreciate that, but. MR. FORD-How deep is it? MR. MAC ELROY-The pipes are probably 15 inches down, small diameter pipes, but it’s, you know, there’s no indication of operational problems. A system like this is, and particularly a system, while it’s 24 years old, it’s been used seasonally. It gets plenty of rest time over the years. MR. FORD-How many distribution boxes are there? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s no distribution boxes on this system. It’s a mound system. So it’s a pressure distribution. It goes up to a manifold and distributes from the pipes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess my one comment was we made that request in October. MR. MAC ELROY-You made a request for certification of the adequacy. MR. SEGULJIC-Making sure the system was able to handle the added capacity as well as the system was functioning properly. To me, we have a chance to look at a septic system to make sure it’s functioning properly, and it’s over 20 foot, we have you now. Well, you’re before us now. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it’s one of the things that we requested. MR. MAC ELROY-And I provided a letter that indicated what would be adequate for certification in that process. MR. HUNSINGER-If the laterals aren’t functioning properly, what’s the correction? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, they would be flushed. I suppose over time if there was any solids that had migrated to the system under pressure, which is somewhat unlikely, but a scale or a film sometimes can form within that, then they’re flushed out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you’re going to have some turbidity in the pipes, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, you may have a scale or film that builds up within the piping, but again, you would flush that out. If you opened up the terminal end of each pipe, then you could blow that out, effectively, and that’s what was discussed as far as a maintenance procedure, but I didn’t feel it necessary to do that prior to granting an approval. MR. OBORNE-And I will say, I totally can appreciate what you’re saying. A CO will not be issued unless it’s functioning. I don’t know if that gives you any level of comfort. It does me, but, you know, the CO will not be issued. Especially if this is a condition of 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) approval. It has more teeth into it, it’s an enforceable, make sure that it’s functioning it’s enforceable. That’s the key word. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, there was also another comment about gutters. Do you intend to put gutters on the (lost words)? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the existing house has a certain impervious area which won’t change. There are drip edge, as water runs off the roof, there’s drip edge infiltration along the edge. Now, the north edge there is a stone bed, so to speak, that it falls into. That’s the south side. That is, I mean, that could be enhanced. Certainly by digging an infiltration trench, putting stone in it, and that might capture the water better than it does today, but I think that, you know, a lot of the properties around the lake that have not fallen under stormwater review, not all, but certainly some of them, they’ve done this in some form or fashion, controlled stormwater. They’ve done things to, you know, that would tend to address stormwater management in their own way. It may not be drywells or it may not be some other, you know, more technical device, but there’s ways of doing it, and I think this is an example of that. So, yes, I would say that we would propose to enhance the infiltration trenches along the drip edge of the southerly side of the house. Northerly is pretty much, is in place. There is a stone bed that does capture it at the drip edge. I don’t know if you have a picture from that side, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Stone, drip line right there, up to the left there. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Right there, you can see the propane tank, and on the foreground of that, yes, that’s a stone trench. That captures the runoff from the roof top. MR. SEGULJIC-And with regard to the septic, I would agree that we could put a condition in there that it would have to be, I guess, pass inspection, documentation, satisfactory performance. Must be functional. MR. OBORNE-Must be functional. Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Good. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can just reference that November 4 letter. Right? MR. SEGULJIC-What do you mean by that? MR. HUNSINGER-They stipulated in the letter that they would agree to do all that. MR. MAC ELROY-I had made recommendations within the letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So in any approval we can reference those. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually what I did is I put incorporation of the November 11, 2009 from Dennis MacElroy into the record regarding Floor Area Ratio and septic system upgrades, and a second condition, a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued unless the Director of Building and Codes signs off on the septic system upgrades and water saving device installation. th MR. MAC ELROY-It’s November 4 letter. th MRS. STEFFAN-November 4. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And functionality of the system. MRS. STEFFAN-And system functionality. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. SIPP-In the approval of your Area Variance, the Chairman of the Zoning Board added he would like a recommendation to the Planning Board to discuss the vegetation between the house and the lake. Have you thought of anything or done anything to change this situation? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I’m not sure what changes are warranted, but if, some of the photos will show you in some sense. I mean, there is a relative, it’s not a steep slope. It’s a relatively level area from the house to the lakeshore, and there are probably, I was there this morning, just refreshing my memory. There’s probably literally 50 trees in that area, in that 35 foot area of the area of regulation, I’ll call it, 35 feet. The house is farther back than that, but within that area, you know, in the ranges of species and size. So, if, I don’t know, is it appropriate to dig that up in an area and plant some herbaceous ground cover? I don’t know. I’m not sure that that, what function that that, whether it’s needed or whether it’s appropriate. There’s not a stormwater runoff condition, where is the runoff coming from. The drip edge off the roof is there in the house area. The driveway breaks toward the road in the back. So what falls on the land, the natural rainfall that falls on the land, is the only thing that, if only in, you know, a significant intensity storm would anything not infiltrate immediately into the soils. So I’m not sure if it’s really warranted, other than the exercise of creating a buffer. MR. SIPP-Well, I’d like to see a little more low growing herbaceous plants within five feet or so of the lake, that take up the last, because that does slope. When I was out there that day, I didn’t pay too much attention to the lakeside. It was all on the garage side, and I just looked out and it does slope. You do have a slope there. MR. MAC ELROY-It does, but does that mean that there’s necessarily a runoff situation? MR. SEGULJIC-Just looking at what the Code says, there are shoreline buffering requirements. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I’ve reviewed those. MR. SEGULJIC-Where no vegetative buffer exists, one shall be created with the width of at least 15 feet perpendicular to the shore. I can see you have one story of the buffer. We’re really looking for, we’re looking for that middle story still. Well, actually you have two. The grass, the Section of the Code goes further to say that turf is not good enough. So really you’re missing two stories of. MR. MAC ELROY-Is this from 179-8-040? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, in particular B, buffer requirements. MR. SIPP-I mean, you’ve got a reasonable amount of trees there, but you also, if you read further in the Code, it says that you need some understory to supplement the grass. The grass is not a good filter. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. I guess I’m wondering what stormwater is directed into that location. Are we treating just the natural rainfall that falls on the lawn? MR. SIPP-Well, I think any slope you get going towards that lake, I don’t care where it comes from, whether it’s off the roof or it’s just coming off the trees, it’s going to flow towards the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. The effort to have the infiltration trenches along the drip edge captures that runoff. MR. SIPP-Yes. In most cases, but not every. MRS. STEFFAN-The Planning Board, I mean, we’ve argued this before. I mean, in this particular situation, they want to put an addition on the home, and they’re not disturbing any land around the lake. There are established trees in this location, and I’m not sure what purpose it would serve to dig that up if you’ve got established trees. Anything that you’re going to dig down, if you’re going to have to put a herbaceous border in, you’re going to have to dig down about three feet in order to prepare a bed for those plants. Then you’re going to be disturbing the root systems of established trees, and then you’ll be doing those trees harm, and so, you know, I understand, on one hand, wanting to put a herbaceous border in, but from another point of view, you may be harming the deciduous trees that are well established within that area, and so, in the short run, you may be doing more harm than good. So I don’t know if I agree with. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think you have to go down three feet. They can work around that, Number One. Number Two, the Code says they have to. That’s what the Code says. MR. SIPP-And it’s pretty specific as to number, and it may not have to be very many. MR. SEGULJIC-And the Zoning Board came back to us with a recommendation for it. MR. MAC ELROY-To consider. I think the language of it didn’t. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s A point of view, it’s not THE point of view, and so, that’s up to the Planning Board to decide. So, I don’t know. I’m throwing out my position. I don’t know how other people feel. MR. SEGULJIC-It says turf does not protect water quality as well as a natural buffer. That’s what our Code says. MR. MAC ELROY-I guess I would add to that, when there is a stormwater runoff situation that occurs. MR. SEGULJIC-You have stormwater running off that site. Every site has stormwater run off of it. MR. MAC ELROY-That rain falls on the natural yards, on that lawn area. MR. SEGULJIC-Yards are not natural. Look at what it would naturally be. It would be leaves on the ground, low growing shrubs, some middle growth, and then trees. That’s natural. Turf is not natural. The Code says turf does not protect water quality. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m certainly not here to argue with the Board about planting. I guess I’m wondering about the, you know, the spirit of the situation of, you know, whether this is an appropriate requirement in this specific situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. What’s the feeling of the rest of the Board? MR. MAC ELROY-I think if it’s a matter of planting some herbaceous ground cover in certain areas along the frontage, the owner will do that in order to add the addition, but. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that would work. MR. SIPP-That would be what we would. MR. SEGULJIC-That would work. MR. HUNSINGER-How do we define that? MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SIPP-Well, 179-8-040, buffer would consist of, and it gives A, B, C, and D, and if you can fall within these guidelines. MR. MAC ELROY-The use of existing natural vegetation is generally preferred. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the natural vegetation is, what, grass? That’s not too natural. Kentucky Bluegrass is not too natural for northern New York. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don’t know that that’s what that is. MR. SIPP-Well, I don’t know, but I’m assuming that somebody in Fescue or rye or grass itself does not have deep enough roots to absorb that much moisture. MR. FORD-Do we have indications that the current runoff is an issue at that particular location on the lake? MR. SIPP-Well, as I said, I never went down. MR. SEGULJIC-The fact that people have to clean their boat bottoms. MR. FORD-At that location, that specific lot right there. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have a boat on the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anybody near you have a boat on the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-The point is that there’s growth that accumulates on the bottom of the boat. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s growth. Several years ago, people didn’t have to clean the bottoms of their boats. Now you can always tell, that guy lives here because the bottom of his boat’s. So, yes, there is. MR. TRAVER-Well, if I could suggest. You indicated that the applicant might be willing to plant, do some supplemental planting in that area. Could you tell us specifically or discuss with the applicant specifically what that would be and perhaps that would be acceptable and we could make that a part of the approval. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I would follow the guidance of this document that talks about herbaceous ground cover and make suggestions of, you know, and maybe there would be some area that currently is grass that there may be some square footage of some herbaceous planting materials. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, and I think the Code is fairly clear. I mean, it doesn’t say exactly where it should go, but it does say for every 50 linear feet of shoreline, one large tree, and smaller tree or shrub. You probably meet that requirement. MR. MAC ELROY-That would be six trees, based on that requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. You probably meet that requirement for the trees, and then it talks about a smaller tree or shrub, one for each 50 linear feet. MRS. STEFFAN-But is the Code talking about re-development of the shorefront? We’re talking about an addition to a building that’s not within the setback of the lake, and so I’m not understanding why we need to disturb this area. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review kicks that in. MRS. STEFFAN-And we have the discretion of whether, to make the applicant do it or not. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes, ma’am. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’re adding to the septic system, which is adding to the flow of liquid into the soil, and the general direction in which that’s going to go is downhill towards the lake. You’re doubling, almost doubling the size of that septic system. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No, they’re adding an additional holding tank to it. They’re making it better. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. We’re adding a second septic tank to meet the septic tank requirements, but it’s a 450 design. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s going to have a 2,000 gallon capacity. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the flow, not the size of the tank, but the flow, amount of water flowing through there, is the important thing. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, and that shouldn’t change. MR. SIPP-You could have six septic tanks and still have excess water. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s the same, perhaps it’s the same number of people, it’s just, it’s an added bedroom. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. OBORNE-If I may, the applicant has offered to follow the guidelines. So, for sake of argument. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-I guess, what form does that need to be in to be able to satisfy the Board tonight to move on? Does a plan have to be submitted to show that, or is it just a condition of approval that we would propose that or implement that during the course of construction and have Staff acknowledge that? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d be okay with that, because it’s very prescriptive. What it says, you know, it says for every 100 feet of ground cover buffer you have to have 10 herbaceous plants, and then it has a list of all of the accepted plants. MR. OBORNE-Would you agree that the large trees are sufficient on the property? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So then we just look at the smaller trees, and large shrubs, the understory, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s just the smaller trees. MR. SIPP-Yes, the understory, yes. MR. TRAVER-So if we can quantify that. MR. OBORNE-It’s quantified right here. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s very prescriptive. MR. FORD-It’s all in the Code, basically. MR. SEGULJIC-And then I’d be okay if you just looked at it and said this is fine, instead of having to come back here. MR. SIPP-So what we need is a section that says that the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that going to be clear enough for Staff, though, Keith? MR. OBORNE-179-8-040 B & C. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think we just make the statement that the larger tree requirements are met. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be safe. MR. KREBS-But it also goes on to say, under B(2)(c) ground cover density minimums may have to be altered to accommodate large trees and/or existing vegetation. So, if there’s lots of large trees that are already there, which there seem to be, then you don’t necessarily have the requirement for. MR. OBORNE-And I think Madame Secretary had said that we’re just dealing with the understory at this point, and I think that’s going to come out in the condition of approval. You’re 100% right, Don. MR. KREBS-Yes, but I’m reading about ground cover. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Turf is not an acceptable ground cover. They want to see natural, or plants. MR. KREBS-My comment, Tom, is only that if there are a lot of trees, you may have less. MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-Okay. Just so that you’re not going to have. MR. MAC ELROY-We’ll propose something that’s appropriate. MR. KREBS-For every 100 feet the 10 exactly. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments, questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open the public hearing. Is there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is. There is from the Lake George Water Keeper. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m surprised that he’s not here. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think they’re up in Bolton. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, in Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Keith. Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. Mr. Chris Hunsinger, Chairman of the Board, and Members of the Board, “The Lake George Water Keeper Program has reviewed the submission materials for the above referenced site plan application. From the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board’s prior discussions, we would encourage the following: ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS) The Lake George Water Keeper recognizes the OWTS evaluation by a licensed professional provided by the applicant and supports the conclusions. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the requirement of the installation of low flow water fixtures, which will maintain the wastewater flows to the OWTS, including an additional bedroom. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Because the renovation of an existing single family dwelling (SFD) is on the shoreline and within the critical environmental area of Lake George, stormwater management should be required for the entire structure. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends infiltration and rain gardens to be appropriately located to capture runoff from the roof and driveway. SHORELINE BUFFER The existing lawn, which slopes to the lake and includes a rip-rap shoreline, does not adequately infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff. The approval of this renovation should be conditioned with the planting of an adequate shoreline buffer. A shoreline buffer includes a four tiered canopy of trees, shrubs, ground cover and a duff layer. All plantings should be native species. This property could have a viable buffer to the maximum extent practicable, with a width of at least 15 feet, as stated in Queensbury Town Code §179-8-040 B. Buffer Requirements. The buffer will reduce the size of the existing lawn and the additional vegetation will better infiltrate and treat stormwater. In addition, because of the proximity to Lake George, prohibition of the use of all chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) should be conditioned as well. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your thorough discussion of the above issues. Sincerely, Kathleen SL Bozony Natural Resource Specialist/Lake George Waterkeeper” And that’s the only public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KREBS-I have a question, and I’m going to ask this of Keith, but, you know, we went through this up in Lake George once before where we suggested and enforced a rain garden, and then the neighbor sued and said that was an infiltration device within 100 feet of the water line, and so they couldn’t put it in. MR. OBORNE-The caveat with that was that was a Major Stormwater project, and that’s the difference, under 147. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. FORD-This is not. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest no rain garden, just to alleviate any potential issues. MR. FORD-Yes. That’s the first time tonight that a rain garden has been mentioned. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, well, and, Don, you went exactly where I did, because, you know, this property, one corner is 48 feet from the, and the other one is 50 feet. So there’s no way a rain garden’s going in between there and the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board inclined to move forward on this application? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA action. So if someone would like to make a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan 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 construction of a 625 sq. ft. second story residential addition above existing garage. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/27/09 tabled to 12/17/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.This application is a Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c.Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and d.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e.The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) g.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. h.The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff i.This is approved with the following conditions: 1.The incorporation of the November 4, 2009 document from Dennis MacElroy into the record regarding Floor Area Ratio and septic system upgrades. 2.A Certificate of Occupancy on this project will not be issued unless the Director of Building and Codes signs off on septic system upgrades and water saving device installation and system functionality. 3.That the applicant will enhance infiltration trenches on the southern side of the home to capture roof runoff. 4.That the applicant will add understory plantings identified in Code Section 179-8-040A, shoreline buffering, and also Sections B and C regarding buffering requirements. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, you’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Happy Holidays. SITE PLAN 36-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) JARED LUSK, NIXON PEABODY LLP OWNER(S) ARTHUR L. HULL, CHRISTINE D. HULL ZONING MDR; LC-10A LOCATION 311 WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 FOOT TALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. NEW TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT A SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE UV 66-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 147.23 +/- TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-31 SECTION 179-5-130 JARED LUSK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 36-2009, Cellco Partnership. Tonight’s action, for the Planning Board’s information, is the Planning Board is to acknowledge the Lead Agency status for SEQRA purposes tonight, and commence SEQRA review. Location is 311 West Mountain Road. The existing zoning is bifurcated between MDR and LC. SEQRA status Unlisted for Site Plan Review and Unlisted for Use Variance. Project Description: Applicant proposes the installation of a 120 foot tall monopole cell tower with a 12 foot by 26 foot equipment shelter on a +/- 147 acre parcel on the west side of West Mountain Road within the Adirondack Park. Staff Comments: The applicant intends to utilize a portion of an existing dirt road for access to the site. A thirty foot wide utility and access easement is associated with the road along with a 10 foot wide utility easement associated with the overhead wires adjacent to West Mountain Road. Access to the site will be improved with the grading and graveling of a 12 foot wide drive with drainage controls. The average drive slope is approximately 4.5%. The lease site for the tower is located at approximately the 508 foot contour and encompasses a 10,000 square foot area. The actual amount of clearing and grading for the project, including the access road, approximates 20,000 square feet. This number may be conservative as the limits of clearing have not been distinctly noted on the grading plan. Soils follow after that. They are highly erodible soils. Let me check that for one second. They are not highly erodible soils. I apologize for that, but they are accessibly well drained soils. So it’s very 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) difficult for vegetative measures to be installed on this property. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do want to go to additional comments. I’d like to read this into the record. Verizon Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law and as provider of “personal wireless services” under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see section C of submittal for further clarification). Per 179-5-030G, it is stated that where shared use of existing towers or structures is not proposed, the applicant must provide documentation of the inability to utilize an existing tower or structure. The applicant has considered three existing structures (see section E of submittal). The applicant has stated that upon discontinuance of use, the Zoning Administrator will be notified within 30 days and actions will be taken to remove the proposed tower within 4 months (see section K of submittal). Per §179-9-090, The Planning Board may wish to consider the posting of financial security in the form of a bond, letter of credit of other instrument in order to ensure that improvements are carried out as specified in the plans and approvals. The Board shall follow the procedures in the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations or New York Town Law §277(9) for such financial security. Please see attached for guidance. Fire Marshal’s comments are attached. Application review, I have deemed that the application is complete at this point, and so has the Zoning Administrator, and the application protocol follows after that. As you know, you have sought Lead Agency status. So that’s complete. The Zoning Board of Appeals has consented to your Lead Agency status, as has the APA. Tonight you are to acknowledge Lead Agency status, open the public hearing, do your declaration on SEQRA, positive or negative, if you deem that you have enough information to do so, and then a recommendation to the Zoning Board can be accomplished, and with that, I’d turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LUSK-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. My name is Jared Lusk. I’m with the law firm of Nixon, Peabody, representing Verizon Wireless, and with me is Jean Marie Frawley. I first have to admit that I spent some time here in Queensbury in the early 1990’s. One of my college floor mates was from Queensbury. I have driven past it, but it’s the first time I’ve been to the Town Hall. So, I’m glad to be here. I must say that this project is not new and novel to the Town or to the process. We started this process, I believe, back in 2005, and I started work on this project in 2007 with a pre- meeting with Craig Brown to go over the site preliminarily and have been working on it ever since. So, when I say that I have two bags full of files, and so if you ask a question or specifics I may have to go back to the bag to find some information, but I trust we have the summary of the proceedings. As we go through the process here, I submitted an extensive application process, and I trust I’ll refer to exhibits in there, but I’m assuming everybody has had the opportunity to review the application so that I don’t have to re- hash it line by line. Is that fair? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fair. MR. LUSK-So what I’ll do is just go through the highlights of the application. I think, as you know, we’re proposing a 120 foot monopole. We’ve applied to the APA. It’s gone through their sort of sifting and review process, and I believe, based on the correspondence with the APA, they’re satisfied, pending, obviously, approval from here. As you know, with projects, you know better than I, with projects that are both APA and Town approvals, it’s difficult, sometimes, to juggle the interests of both parties, but in meeting, pre-meeting with Craig back in October of 2007, and getting, we did our best, here to resolve the issues, but the reason why we need this 120 foot pole is outlined in Exhibit E, and that’s really where most of the information is located regarding why we’re here, and if you were to go to the exhibits, in the back, in the first propagation, I can actually refer to it here. You guys have seen this before. It’s not your first trip to the rodeo with cell towers, but as you can tell, again, the light blue that you see here, and again, it’s in Exhibit E as the existing coverage provided by our existing Glens Falls sites, and we’re trying to, as you have read the paper and are well aware, Verizon Wireless has been involved in a multi-million dollar expansion of service in the Adirondack Park, and I’ve personally been involved with most of it over the last three years, where we’ve made some significant progress. This is a site where you see white is, in this particular area, is where we’re trying to cover, again, extend the coverage from Glens Falls. Our capacity in Glens Falls, and I’ll get into capacity in a minute. There’s a lot more users of phones with e-mail and data and pictures that are being sent, and we really truly are trying to build out the network and our goal here is to get to this area of green, expand it to the west, out of Glens Falls, and that’s, as I said, clearly delineated in Exhibit E. So really how we got to this point is we’re trying to solve the issue of expanding the coverage. Does anybody have any questions about, really, the coverage problem that’s outlined in Exhibit E? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-I can personally vouch that it exists. Because I’m a Verizon user, and my kid’s mother lives off West Mountain Road, and they have very spotty coverage. Yes. MR. LUSK-Not everybody often believes us because they’ll look at the phone and see one or two bars and think that there’s good service, and it’s hard to convince people that we wouldn’t invest, Verizon wouldn’t invest millions in a tower if it wasn’t needed, but, as you can see, our goal here is to get this coverage. So if we sort of establish there’s a need, the next question is how do you solve that problem, and if you were to go to Exhibit Three of the application, and I notice somebody had it out on the table. Exhibit Three of Exhibit E, there’s a search ring, if everybody has that, that basically says our coverage area is in yellow. This is what we’re trying to cover from this area, and the RF Engineer, what they do is they take the time to look at the topography, and again, in the Adirondack Park that’s generally the biggest challenge, is trying to find a location that if you put a tower you’ll get coverage to the entire area. Again, dealing with the APA, also from an area that the tower will be substantially invisible from their perspective, and of course nobody likes to see a tower, so we like to get them as short as we can anyway, in an effort to deliver the service. So, based upon the coverage needs and the topography of the area, the purple ring is really the area that the RF Engineer said, hey, if we can get a tower in this area, this should cover this area, and that’s when Jean Marie and her staff step in. Their hand of that search ring said, here, we need to go find some parcels, and we head out to the area and locate it. So that’s really where we are, based upon that, and the process is, Jean Marie and her staff will go out and identify a series of parcels within that ring or close to that ring. They’ll drive the ring, say, well, here’s an open parcel, this has got a lot of trees, this might work, or there’s an existing tower, there’s an existing tall structure, and they’ll take the coordinates of those sites, shift them back to the RF Engineer and say hey, here are some potential sites, rank them one through whatever, and the RF Engineer in this case will come back and say this one works, this one doesn’t, this one works, this one doesn’t, this one works, this one doesn’t, and rank them again, in preference, based upon coverage area, and then we search and then approach land owners about potentially leasing property based upon the ranking of coverage, again, putting that all in the context of the substantial invisibility that the Adirondack Park Agency requires. So in this circumstance we’ve gone through a number of sites, and I know the first, your first preference, and not unique to Queensbury, is that you identify potential co-location towers or co-location opportunities and go out and search them. Here, as Keith so eloquently stated, there were three potentials, one of them that came out of, was the Luzerne water tank. That came, that was, again, in our October 2007 meeting with Craig, with Skip Alcall from the Agency, was raised again, as going on. I was at that meeting. We left the meeting. We all went up to the water tank. It’s just simply, do you have pictures of that? MR. OBORNE-Not of the water tank, no. MR. LUSK-Of the water tank, but you all know where the water tank is, I assume. It’s about 60 feet tall, not above the trees, and there’s just not enough real estate around it, and so you couldn’t co-locate on the walls of the tank, and get any coverage, because again the trees attenuate it, the coverage, and you would, and we’ve provided propagations of the coverage from the water tank, Exhibit Four of your application. Again, this is the coverage that you could get, and, again, it leaves substantial gaps. So our only, our option was we looked at, even though there was very little real estate, we contacted the neighboring property and said, hey, would you be interested in leasing, and they just didn’t call us back, and to be perfectly candid with you, we didn’t get any cooperation from the Town regarding leasing the space, and so that, not only would the site not work from an RF perspective, but the Town really, despite asking us, or I guess it was Mr. Alcall that really pushed this site. It’s just not viable because we don’t have a landlord that’s willing to lease it to us, and it’s just, from a coverage perspective, doesn’t work. The other two sites were from the two existing tall towers, one on West Mountain and one on Luzerne Road, and they’re very tall and identified, and I know one of the Town Engineer’s comments is really, why don’t, we showed you the coverage that would be generated from going on these towers, and in that packet of information that I gave you there’s another write up that talks about it, but it was, the interference problem was discussed in Exhibit E, as to why it’s a problem, but you can’t, ideally you can’t place a tower and run coverage over the whole regional area because, again, that facility can only handle so many calls. There’s eight channels on it. So it’s an eight lane highway, and the more you use, obviously the more users you use up the capacity of the tower, and if you were to cover the whole city with it, it would create interference and the whole city would essentially be using that tower, and it just wouldn’t work, and essentially what it does is creates interference with the other towers that are operating. So you have to 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) keep them low enough so that there’s a hand off between each ring, in the sense that when you’re traveling and you get out of the coverage of one tower and you happen to be on the phone, it clicks on to the next tower, but you can’t have it overlapping too much that the phone doesn’t know which tower to talk to because both of them are talking to it like it’s the host site. So, does that make sense to you? I know it’s stated out, but this we could, essentially we could co-locate on these towers, but it would create such an RF problem that it would wipe out the rest of the site because they’re existing. So you need to keep it low enough to. MRS. STEFFAN-So sometimes your cell phone dies. You’re driving down the road and sometimes it just, you know, you get disconnected and then somebody calls you back or you call them back and you get re-connected. So you probably switch from one signal to another. MR. LUSK-Well, it could be there was a gap, or if there’s interference, your phone doesn’t know which tower to talk to and it will drop. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LUSK-Because it caused confusion. MR. HUNSINGER-My question on your comments, though, is there an ability to put in a new tower and eliminate some existing towers? Did you look at that? MR. LUSK-As far as other sites? Well, again, when you look at the, you have to, when you look at the topography, so you’ve got to be, we’ve got this mountain that we’ve got to get alongside of and shoot this way, to get the coverage to it. So could you, in the Glens Falls area, potentially eliminate towers? Possibly, but again, you’re dealing with two issues. You’re dealing with the interference thing and capacity. Again, the existing sites now are virtually reaching capacity, and by eliminating them, you’re not fixing that problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LUSK-So more and more users, you need to provide more and more channels for your phones to operate, and he stated that in that letter that’s there as well, is the, in the Exhibit E, talking about the capacity issue as well as the. So essentially that eight lane highway is fully needed now. We need to find an exit ramp. MR. FORD-Were any tall existing buildings explored? MR. LUSK-The area was scrubbed, again, with Jean Marie and her staff as well as Mr. Alcall and the Agency, and I think everybody is in agreement that there aren’t any tall structures in that search ring that would work. The tallest structure was the water tank. The rest of it’s predominantly a residential area. JEAN MARIE FRAWLEY MS. FRAWLEY-Yes, there’s no tall buildings over that. MR. FORD-No, not in that immediate vicinity. MR. LUSK-In the search ring. MS. FRAWLEY-In the search ring. We’re limited to what we have, we, we stay within that or a little bit outside the boundary (lost word). We brought in the West Mountain tower, the tower on top of the hill, even though it’s outside the ring, because it’s visible, and then our RF has to tell us, whether or not (lost words) so it didn’t work, but there’s no tall buildings. It’s more residential, lower homes, stuff like that. MR. LUSK-It’s important to know, when you look at this, when you look at the coverage, he has, as he described in his RF narrative, the RF Engineer tilted down the intent as the 10 degrees, the maximum that you can tilt them down, so that the coverage went as short a distance as possible from the tower, and even with that, you saw the interference that’s created. So it’s just, the only structures that were available were this, and I’m sure you’re familiar with the APA guidelines. If there were a tall structure that we could, you know, hang our antennas on and get by the APA process is about three months long as opposed to the years that were involved in. So if there were a way to work it, we definitely would have been on it. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. FORD-Outside of APA jurisdiction, however, there are no other structures, but you did explore those, that would cover this area that’s your target area? MR. LUSK-That’s correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just from the nature of the process, you’ve got to be in that ring to make it all work, as efficiently as possible? MR. LUSK-Correct. You’ve got to be in that area to resolve the, to get as much coverage as you can without creating shadowing. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s a balancing act. MR. LUSK-It’s a balancing, again, with the APA, keeping it as short as possible, just above the trees, so that it’s not a tower standing straight up in the air. So we were able to locate the, again, I can go through each of the other sites that we’ve analyzed. Again, we’ve handled the three sites, but again, it’s thoroughly outlined in Exhibit E, the different sites that we analyzed, and we essentially got to the whole property. There was this existing logging trail they were interested in leasing, if we could put it up high enough up the hill that we could put it just above the trees. So it appeared on paper anyway that we could meet sort of everything that we needed to do to get coverage. As you can see in the green propagation that I’ve previously provided to you, and outlined in Exhibit E, the coverage fills that, sort of that circle, that coverage area that we’re looking for, which is basically the maximum capacity that we could, coverage area that we could hope to get from a tower that’s just above the trees. MR. SEGULJIC-The only other area I could think of, and I don’t know if you looked at it, would be the, and I don’t know if it’s up yet, the one we approved for, what was it, Channel Eight? MRS. STEFFAN-The radio station, isn’t it a radio station? MS. FRAWLEY-Channel Eight. Channel Eight I did through the original Aviation and Dix, and I’d been before you. You required us to go to them, and we did. They gave us all the coordinates and everything, an RF had looked at that. There’s the same problem with the ones on West Mountain. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that’s fairly recently, because that got approved within the last six months. MS. FRAWLEY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MS. FRAWLEY-But we had approached them. They were going to, behind us, they were behind us on the other, but they had all their RF information, and we had their engineer with Verizon’s, and it won’t work. It’s going to be the same situation that the two existing ones. MR. FORD-Too much interference. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, which brings us back to this lot. MR. LUSK-Yes, which brings us back to this lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LUSK-Does anybody have any questions on how we got to the (lost word) property, because then I could turn, shift to the actual details of the site. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess the only thing that I’m concerned about is going too far tonight. Because when I read Staff comments, and I read the VISION Engineering comments, there are enough outstanding items so that I don’t know, as a Board, how we could do SEQRA tonight, because I don’t think we have enough information, and you did hand us a package tonight, but our guidelines are we don’t usually accept materials or submissions the night of the meeting. So there’s obviously no way we can review your 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) responses to Staff comments and VISION Engineering comments. So, I’m not sure how far we want to go. MR. LUSK-And that’s okay. I mean, I received the Staff comments, the packet, I believe it was Monday or Tuesday. So we tried to put some responses together from that, I think they’re pretty, as far as we could in a sense. The bottom line is this, that we go through so many iterations of the plan, with regard to the APA and here, we don’t have the Site Plan completely finalized. We understand what we’re doing. The APA is happy with it, and once we get before Site Plan approval, I think the primary issue was the erosion and sediment control issues. I know the Agency is satisfied with that. I know at the same time we will be, at the Site Plan approval process, provide you with all the details that you need and more details regarding the plan, with regard to erosion and sediment control. The engineering comments that were raised were predominantly the RF issues that I just raised. So, again, I’m not trying to push you too far, but again we didn’t want to invest a great deal of money in the SWPPP and complete, we’re below the SWPPP threshold of one acre. Our engineers have certified that, but it’s close enough that we don’t want to end up the bulldozer having to turn left to move around a tree or something and disturbing more than an acre. We’re going to complete the SWPPP, but we also wanted to, before we invest all the time and money in completing that, we want to make sure we have a plan that’s designed and finalized, you know, at least from your perspective, that you like the plan, getting through it, and there’s the possibility of actually obtaining the Use Variance. So what I’d suggest in that letter is the engineering comments do directly relate with Site Plan, and if we could get kicked up to the Zoning Board of Appeals, go through any issues that they have, and come back and surely deal with the Site Plan comments that are listed there, again, predominantly dealing with the erosion and sediment control, we’d like to do that, rather than investing the time and effort into developing an erosion and sediment control plan for a project that may never get past the preliminary problem here and the Use Variance, if you know what I’m saying. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but the difficulty for us is that we have to have the stormwater plan in order to complete the SEQRA. I mean, that’s a big part of the SEQRA process. So, you know, it’s kind of a Catch-22. I mean, you have to do it in order for us to go through the evaluation process. So you’re in a tough spot. MR. LUSK-No, as I stated at the beginning of the meeting, I haven’t had the privilege of going before the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board either. I don’t expect, is there any way you could shift us up there and not completely do SEQRA? No, they won’t? MR. OBORNE-No. SEQRA has to be taken care of before any application is approved or evening used. MR. LUSK-At the ZBA level. MR. OBORNE-At any level. Yes. You have to go through SEQRA. MR. LUSK-Yes, but I was saying, if it was going to be more than one meeting at the ZBA, we could go to the ZBA, present our things, get their comments, and then sort of, then pivot back to here, give you the Site Plan and the SWPPP again. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that that would work. I would, I think what Mr. Lusk is saying is reasonable, because as you’re going through SEQRA, you’re going to see what you can do to mitigate your concerns. The main concern that I see, and again, I’m not the one that performs the SEQRA, the Board does, is sediment and erosion control, and there is a stream nearby also, and there are some very, there’s a pocket wetland nearby, too, which I’m not too concerned about that, but it really does come down to how the Board feels performing SEQRA. Are you satisfied with what they have presented in order for you to be satisfied making a determination concerning SEQRA. If you’re not, you know what to do. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, from what the Staff Notes recommend to the Planning Board and what VISION Engineering recommends to the Planning Board, I don’t think we have enough information to do SEQRA. I mean, our advisory staff is telling us that we don’t have enough information, and so as a Planning Board, I don’t think we can do SEQRA, but I’m one person of seven. So, you guys need to weigh in on this. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the rest of the Board feel? So you just commented that it is your intent to provide a SWPPP? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. LUSK-Yes, because it is below the one acre threshold, I mean, for review purposes, you know, I don’t think we need to prepare a SWPPP, but we are going to prepare one for the project just for, to comply with the DEC, but to be extra conservative with the DEC regulations, for us. I mean, there’s, you know, sort of, I don’t know if we’re creating a problem internally with, it’s not required. So, for the Town to shall we say get involved with the review of a SWPPP when it’s not required may be an exercise in futility from their perspective since it’s not required, but we would do it over the abundance, in the abundance of caution. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, it’s really more of an administrative issue anyway. MR. LUSK-Right, and, like I said, you know, I understand what the Board’s saying with, or at least Mrs. Steffan is saying, with regard to that. We can, you know, we intend, or as we say in this letter to you, to provide further detail regarding that at the Site Plan level, and if the Board would be willing to accept it, obviously, we can’t go anywhere until we complete that Site Plan process. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I mean, just, well, I mean, I’d like the rest of the Board to weigh in on their feelings as well, but, you know, I mean, just a couple of the issues that Staff raised, you know, the APA wetlands, the existing stream. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess from my perspective, I think all these things can be worked out. The one thing we (lost words) SEQRA, and you know what I’m getting at. MR. LUSK-No, and believe me, I understand, I sit in the same, on the same side of the table in my hometown. So I understand where you’re at. MR. FORD-Well, you can appreciate, then, our position. When we come to a SEQRA question, and we can’t answer yes or no, we have to say, well, maybe or perhaps or what if that doesn’t fly. MR. LUSK-I know you normally don’t look at the information that I provided, but if you look at the letter, we respond to each one of the questions, and the stream is, we’re not within 50 feet of the stream. We purposely avoided being within 50 feet of the stream. There are no wetlands on the project area within 100 feet of the project area. I mean, these are just things that we can state to you as fact. So if there was a way that we could at least resolve some of those questions based upon what I’ve provided to you, certainly, again, I’m happy to come to as many meetings as we need to, but, you know, if we can resolve some of the issues and get the ball rolling again, I’m not trying to push you. Like I said, I’ve been in the same boat. MR. HUNSINGER-We appreciate that. Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LUSK-But again, I went, if you go through the letter, I go through each comment and answer it, and if anybody, if we can just go through it, I can answer the questions that you have, and we’ve put the time and effort into it anyway, and at least we can, because they’re pretty definitive in where they are, as far as those issues of the stream and the creek. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly that’s a measurable response. So, I mean, it’s yes or no. MR. LUSK-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-But I want to remind the Planning Board, we have decided, as a Board, administratively, we will not accept materials the night of the meeting and act on them. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re right. MR. FORD-And we just got 11 pages. MRS. STEFFAN-And I just, you know, I told everybody that I would try to keep us honest, and so I’m trying to do that, and I’m sorry for you guys, but as a policy decision, we’re trying to do the best job that we can, and so, unless we can review the materials, and all of us spend a lot of time preparing for these meetings, and so, you know, we go 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) through all the material pretty carefully, and if we don’t have the chance to do that, I don’t think we’re doing the best job we can. MR. TRAVER-And with regard to moving the project forward, and allowing time to review this material, you know, I don’t know what our agendas look like. Certainly this month they haven’t been too bad. Maybe we could accommodate getting them back in fairly quickly. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, that’s what, I was just looking at the calendar, and, I thth mean, it is the 17, and our, and the application or submission deadline was the 15, which was Tuesday, and so we could change the deadline and put them on the January agenda, if the Board wanted to do that. I mean, we have the submission in hand and the Staff has a copy of it, and so we could consider that for next month. MR. TRAVER-Well, and it also depends on what’s already on for next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Last I knew we weren’t very full. MR. OBORNE-We are not awfully fully. That is correct, but we do have two meetings. We’ll have two meetings next month. Some are lengthy, they will be. Some are pretty easy, but you are correct, the deadline has past. You’ll need to get the VISION Engineering also. The holidays are here. Take that into account. Staffing levels are low. MR. LUSK-Again your options are January or February. I mean, we’re not going to construct it in March. So, at the same time, we would want to be able to complete the final edits, shall we say, to the Site Plan, to make sure you had those in sufficient time too, before the meeting. MR. OBORNE-I think the bonus of, if you go to February, is that it’ll be that much easier at Site Plan Review. Everybody will have wrapped their arms around it. Everything would have been vetted, and VISION Engineering will hopefully give you a signoff by then, and then come April. MS. FRAWLEY-Can he give us more than two days to respond, though? That’s kind of where we didn’t get the drawings done. MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s the protocol, I know, that’s the protocol. MR. LUSK-I mean, we did apply, you know, part of, from Verizon’s perspective, we applied in May and we responded to your letter, and so we’re trying very hard to be as responsive as we could. MR. OBORNE-I understand that. However, you’re not at Site Plan Review, and this is a Site Plan Review. MR. LUSK-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So you now have a chance to respond to the Site Plan Review. You still have to get through SEQRA before you can move forward. That’s just the law, that’s 617. MR. LUSK-Right. MR. OBORNE-With that said, the silver lining, again, to come full circle, is that in February you’ll have your SEQRA done, recommendation, Use Variance, and in March I can foresee Site Plan going pretty smoothly. I mean, I would imagine, if the Board is comfortable with everything that’s been presented. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any additional information? I mean, you’ve had, you know, a couple of days to review the Staff comments and the engineering comments. Is there any additional information that you would like to provide that you did not provide in the submission that you just provided this evening? MR. LUSK-No, no I think we went line by line through both our engineering comments and the Staff comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any new drawings or plans that you feel you’d want to submit? They’re all inclusive in here? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. LUSK-No, the plans, we’re not, we’ll complete those in time for the February meeting, and if you give me the submission deadline for the February meeting, we’ll. th MR. OBORNE-It’ll be the 15. MR. LUSK-Of January? th MR. HUNSINGER-January 15. MR. OBORNE-I will say if you’re not going to accept these, give them back to me and we need to, we’ll go through the proper procedure of stamping them in, getting the dates on them, or, in lieu of that, if everybody here, and I know this is being nit picky, will say received at Planning Board meeting 12/17/09, by applicant, then we don’t have to mail them to you. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, and it says right on the submission that it was hand-delivered. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, if you’re comfortable with that. MR. FORD-Our objection to taking it on an evening is we don’t have a chance to review it. I don’t mind taking it on tonight, as long as I don’t have to take action on something I haven’t read, and I’ve got two months now to read it. MS. FRAWLEY-Well, this is basically just telling you we’re going to make the changes recommended by VISION and your Department. Literally, with getting these Tuesday, trying to get this done for a hearing on Thursday, my (lost word) was ready to shoot me. MR. HUNSINGER-But if we bring you back in February, you can update the plans, you th can submit the plans by the 15 of January. We can have our engineer review them, Staff review. MR. LUSK-What would be the date in February? President’s week is not great for me. thth MRS. STEFFAN-The 17 or the 24. thrdth MR. OBORNE-I have the 16 and the 23, deadline would be the 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this is that weird calendar starts on Monday. MR. OBORNE-That’s February. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, I’m looking at the Zoning Board. MR. OBORNE-We’re going to get you a new calendar, by the way. I’ve talked to Pam about that. thrd MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re right, it’s the 16 and the 23. rd MR. LUSK-If you wouldn’t mine putting me on the 23 so that I can come. President’s week is the week before, is it not? MRS. STEFFAN-The kid’s vacation from school. th MR. HUNSINGER-President’s Day is February 15. MS. FRAWLEY-Yes. We can get the plans to you. MR. HUNSINGER-The one thing I will do this evening is I will open the public hearing, and we will, of course, table the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And the other thing that I will do is ask the Board to consider the resolution provided by Staff to accept the Lead Agency status, which was in your package. So, if anyone would like to put forward that motion. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 66-2009 FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. WHEREAS, in connection with the Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 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. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of quick questions. The visual impact. We did the study, and it looks like, summarizing it, it looks like there’s going to be minimal visual impact. MR. LUSK-Buried in the trees. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s going to be the same height as the trees, more or less. It’s not going to be 20 feet above the trees, is what I’m seeing here. MR. LUSK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then, Number Two, how does it all play out with the APA. The APA has some say in this action, do they not? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-They’ve got to get approval from the APA. How does that all play out. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Well, the APA has acknowledged that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board will be acting as Lead Agency status for this project. With that said, they still have to go through their APA channels and process. MR. SEGULJIC-So they have to get approval from the APA, separate of this? MR. OBORNE-Correct. After. MS. FRAWLEY-But after, we’ve already started APA. MR. LUSK-Yes, we’re all set with the APA up to the point of, again, I believe, the only thing they told me that we’re lacking is the approvals from the Town of Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So once you get that, the APA will theoretically approve you? MR. LUSK-In theory. Yes. MR. FORD-So they’ve looked at everything? MR. LUSK-When I tell you they’ve looked at everything, they’ve looked at, I walked the hill with Skip Alcall myself. So he’s looked at this. So, you know, the other issue with 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) SEQRA, I know that one of the Type II actions is if it’s a Major project in the APA, and I don’t know if you follow the regulations of the, SEQRA Regulations that say that Major applications of the APA are Type II actions for purposes of SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-That probably would not be our position, I believe. MR. LUSK-Okay. MR. OBORNE-What do we have this down as? MR. HUNSINGER-We have it down as Unlisted. MRS. STEFFAN-Unlisted, yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. LUSK-But I don’t know if you’ve considered that. There’s some case law in Franklin County talking about the fact that, when the APA’s Major project review is equal to or more, shall we say, intense than SEQRA, and so therefore they’re not, SEQRA is not required. MR. OBORNE-I will certainly look through that. I’ll research that. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s interesting that no one’s brought that up before. MR. OBORNE-Well, we haven’t had anything in the Park. MR. HUNSINGER-Certainly no cell towers. MR. OBORNE-As far as cell towers, right. MR. LUSK-Okay. I’d be happy to provide the case to you if you’d like, for your counsel, and the Type II. MR. OBORNE-Let me research that and give you a call, Jared. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you did submit a Long Form. I assume it’s probably the same Long Form you submitted to the APA. MR. LUSK-The Long Form we don’t submit to the APA. They don’t conduct SEQRA. They conduct their own Major Project environmental analysis. MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure in our Town Code under the Telecommunications section, that a Long Form is required. MR. LUSK-Correct. MR. OBORNE-If that’s the case then, you know, that’s codified under Town Code. MR. LUSK-Right. I’m not quibbling with whether we should submit a Long Form. I’m just saying that it is, for purposes, if you read the regulations for the Type II actions, there’s Major Projects under Adirondack review are listed there. MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. MR. LUSK-So some towns follow that. We’re not objecting, if you want to do your own SEQRA, but I’m just telling you that, as I read the law and the case law says it’s not necessary. So you could avoid that SEQRA process. MR. OBORNE-I see what you’re saying. There are many towns that do require an Unlisted SEQRA form for Type II actions also. I mean, so that’s a head scratcher to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. MR. LUSK-I wish I had my thing, I could, but. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, as long as this is buried in the trees, then. MR. SEGULJIC-It would make it a lot easier. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because if it wasn’t, then we’d have to look at pine trees, take pine trees and things like that. MR. LUSK-We do that well with the APA. They get down to what color the needles are. It’s a fun process, with all due respect to the APA. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what happens as the trees grow, you trim them down? MR. LUSK-What our arborists and engineers have said, the trees have a certain height that they reach, and so that we’re about nine feet above the trees, and here we’re about nine feet, and the trees are about 100 feet tall, give or take, in that particular area, and they’re not going to grow much taller. It’s an established forest, and the big trees will fall and the smaller trees will go up in their place. MR. SEGULJIC-So you don’t foresee it as a problem? MR. LUSK-We don’t foresee it as a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LUSK-You don’t see150, 200 foot trees, except out in California. In the Northeast, the trees only grow so tall. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If I could add for the record, though. I mean, it does say from the APA, in rd the December 3 letter, that the Adirondack Park Agency concurs with the Town’s role to assume Lead Agency status under SEQRA. So it seems to me that they’re acquiescing to that, regardless of what the project is. MR. LUSK-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Well, I’ll certainly look at that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then you opened the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did open the public hearing. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing will be kept open. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: rd This will be tabled to the February 23 Planning Board meeting with a submission th deadline of January 15, so that the applicant can address VISION Engineering comments and Staff comments, and present new information based on satisfying that information. th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I did have a copy of the Type II actions, and it’s under Item 36, actions subject to the Class A or Class B Regional Project jurisdiction of the Adirondack Park Agency, and then this came from the Town’s prior attorneys, and they had written in the margins, it has an exception which is Section 807 of the Executive Law, and the comment that they wrote was that 807 deals with approved jurisdictions, and then they write, Queensbury’s land use laws are approved, so Class B Regional Projects would be subject to further SEQRA review as they would not be Type II actions. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/09) MR. LUSK-So we’re a Class A Regional Project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, not a Class B. MR. LUSK-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Okay. MR. LUSK-So, again, we’ll go through SEQRA. We’ll go through the exercise. I said that more for information purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m always happy to do that research, too. This is how we get educated, but we’ll have the Town Counsel look at it as well. MRS. STEFFAN-It would just seem remarkable, to me, in my limited experience as a Planning Board member of five years, that a telecommunications tower could be anything, you know, it could be a Type II action for us. I mean, that would be remarkable to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Stranger things have happened. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially when it comes to SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to come before the Board this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for coming. We will see you in February. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in February. Thank you. MR. KREBS-I’ll ask one question, though. I think everybody understands the coverage problem. So we don’t have to go through that again, because we kind of did that last time. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business to come before the Board? I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. FORD-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 30