Loading...
1996-06-25 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 25-96 Tax Map No. 13-1-11.2 Site Plan No. 28-96 Tax Map No. 54-5-1.1 Thomas A. Burke 1. Michael J. Stevens 2. Subdivision No. 4-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE Jane Lowell Tax Map No. 54-2-7 6 . Site Plan No. 30-96 Tax Map No. 93-2-4 Sprint Spectrum, L.P. 11. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. --- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST CATHERINE LABOMBARD MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND NEW BUSINESS: --- SITE PLAN NO. 25-96 TYPE II THOMAS A. BURKE OWNER: THOMAS & PATRICIA BURKE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: LOCATED AT LAKE FRONT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF MASON AND LACKEY ROADS. MODIFICATION OF A 28' WIDE, 24' LONG "L" SHAPED WHARF RESULTING IN A COVERED 28' X 40' LONG WHARF. THE 40' LONG PIER TO HAVE OPEN SIDED ROCK FILLED CRIBS TO SUPPORT WHARF & COVER. PER SECTION 179- 16 DOCKS ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-11.2 LOT SIZE: .214 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 THOMAS BURKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-96, Thomas A. Burke, Meeting Date: June 25, 1996 "The applicant is proposing modification of a 28 foot wide, 24 foot long L shaped wharf. The height, length, and setbacks of this proposal all conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has received a permit from the Lake George Park Commission for this proposal. Staff would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 25-96." MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I would add is that I was out there today, and the finger that actually goes out toward the lake was removed due to ice damage. So, if you went out there, you saw just the platform up against the shoreline. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? Would you come to the table please and identify yourself for the record. MR. BURKE-My name is Thomas Burke, Mason Road, Cleverdale. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is a Type II. We do have a public hearing. Okay. comments by the Board? So we don't have a SEQRA. Any questions by Staff, MR. GORALSKI-Let me just make sure there are no correspondence. MR. PALING-Yes. County Planning. There's none indicated. Well, there's Warren There's No County Impact. MR. GORALSKI-Right. There is a letter. Do you want me to wait until you open the public hearing to read it? - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. PALING-Yes, please. We'll do that all together. All right. If there are no comments or questions at the moment, lets go to the public hearing, unless the applicant wanted to say something. I don't know. It's not necessary at this point. MR. BURKE-No. I'll answer any questions, though, if you'd like. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing is open. Does anyone care to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you want to read the letter please. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. This is addressed to George Hilton. "I've been a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Burke in Cleverdale for 15 years and have found them to be the most considerate of their neighbors in every way. I understand they wish to construct a covered U- Shaped dock to accommodate their boat. I have seen sketches of their proposed plans and wish to inform you that I have no objection to them proceeding with this project. Yours truly, Mrs. Thomas A. Rave, Jr." -- MR. PALING-Okay. Good. That's the only letter, John? MR. GORALSKI-That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. There's the height, 13' 9". So everything is okay there, and that's been checked out. All right. If there is no other comment, then I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. If there are no questions, we can go right to a motion on this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-96 THOMAS A. BURKE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: As written. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer MR. BURKE-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 28-96 TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL J. STEVENS OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 36' X 60' BARN. CLASS A FARM - FARMS, ALL CLASSES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 54-3-10, 54-5-1.1 LOT SIZE: 17 ACRES LOT SIZE: 17 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 MIKE STEVENS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-96, Michael J. Stevens, Meeting Date: June 25, 1996 "Applicant is proposing to use his 17 acre property as a Class A farm. As a part of this application, a 36 foot by 60 foot barn is proposed to be constructed. The applicant has indicated that this barn will be used for the keeping of a horse. As proposed, the barn meets all setbacks listed in the - 2 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) Zoning Ordinance. Staff foresees no problems associated with this use at this location and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 28- 96." MR. PALING-There is a SEQRA. You do have a SEQRA on this. MR. GORALSKI-It should be attached to the application. MR. PALING-We have not seen it here, neither this or the next two that follow it, but George said you would bring it. MR. GORALSKI-I'll look in the box. attached to the application. Yes. There's a Short EAF MR. PALING-Okay. public hearing. So we'll do a Short SEQRA on this after the MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Warren County Planning Board said No County Impact, and there is a letter in the file that I can read during the public hearing. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? Come forward and identify yourself for the record, please. ~ MR. STEVENS-I'm Mike Stevens, and I'm the owner of the property that we're discussing on Ridge. MR. PALING-You're familiar with the Ordinance that says how many animals per acre and that kind of thing that you can keep on a property like this, with one horse, if that's all you ever have, you'll certainly be well within it, but do you intend more than one horse? MR. STEVENS-Well, yes. We'd like to have, we're a family of four, and I'd like to have the permission to at least have one for each member of the family if we so decided to do that. The property's had horses, and they've been approved for horses. MR. PALING-Okay. It's, what, 17 acres? MR. STEVENS-Yes. MR. PALING-One horse per three acres, I think, that would be what you're limited to, yes. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-As long as you're going to be within that. MR. STEVENS-We fall way underneath that anyway. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Any of the Board members have comment or question? Okay. There is a public hearing on this matter, and we will open the public hearing. Does anyone care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-There is one letter in the public. MR. PALING-All right. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, it's not a letter, it's a phone conversation. Mrs. Pruyn stopped by the office on June 24, 1996 to review the file and wanted it noted that she had no objection to the project. MR. PALING-Fine. I wish they were all that way. Okay. Now the - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) SEQRA on this is the Long form, is it not? MR. GORALSKI-It's a Short form. This is an Unlisted Action. You can use the Short form. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I can read you the answers on Part I, and then I'll go through Part II with you. MR. PALING-Okay. If you would, please. MR. GORALSKI-Since you haven't seen it, I might as well read·it to you. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Excuse me a second, John. I don't think I closed the public hearing. If there's no one that cares to speak on this matter, then the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE ",- RESOLUTION NO. 28-96, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the MICHAEL J. STEVENS, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation' Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 4 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-What do you plan on doing with the horse waste? MR. STEVENS-I should have brought my wife here for that answer, but we have, what we thought we'd do with it is what everybody else that we talked to did. We don't profess to be farmers. I mean, we just figured we'd have a few horses and try it out, but I have plenty of people that want the manure. I mean, that stuff is like gold, apparently. I've had quite a few people ask me, as soon as I get it, can I have it. So, it really wasn't an issue. We had several people that offered to come up and take it. So I really didn't concern myself with it. MR. STARK-Have you got any flooring going in? MR. STEVENS-Yes. There'll be a concrete floor with, we've heard so many pros and cons about the different ways of doing it, for right now we're going to put the concrete floor in, with wood slats, so that if it's too tough on the horse's hooves, I'll put plank over that later I but like I say, I really only foresee one or/two horses. So I don't foresee a heavy wear and tear in there. So we'll probably just leave it with the concrete. MR. STARK-You're going to have power in the barn? MR. STEVENS-I didn't initially, but by the time I end up getting power out there, my primary residence will be there next year. We're going to also live there, but we were just putting the horse in front of the cart, so to speak, and have the barn first, which I guess is the opposite of what a lot of people do, but we're going to have a power pole up there anyway. So I guess we will tap on to it to have lights. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-The application says 17 acres, but the parcel says 15 acres. MR. STEVENS-There's two parcels. There's a 15 acre piece, and then there's, 14.8 something and then 2.8 something. It comes up to 17 acres. There's a little jut off that next to TLC Boat Company. That's another two and a half acre piece or something like that. The total comes up to 17. It would be right in the front. MR. PALING-You want to show us on the print, because it says here 15, and I know the other says 17. MR. GORALSKI-I think it says "Lands of Bowen" on it. MR. STEVENS-It says "Lands of Bowen" right now. MR. MACEWAN-So this little jut down here. Okay. MR. STEVENS-Correct. MR. PALING-Here it is here. Is that yours? MR. STEVENS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-It would be in the southeast corner. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-So this map has to be changed when it's filed? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it doesn't have to be filed at the County. It's just a site plan review. We have a file copy that shows the entire - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) parcel. MR. MACEWAN-That's good enough for you, then, to show where the barn is? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-96 MICHAEL J. STEVENS, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: To construct a 36' by 60' barn. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE --- ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JANE LOWELL OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 8.212 AC., 8.212 AC., 8.212 AC., 8.634 AC., & 76.275 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7 LOT SIZE: +/- 108 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BILL ROURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-This calls for Preliminary and Final Stage on this one. Lets just go ahead. Do we have any comments from the Board? Lets talk about this now. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you go through Preliminary, do your SEQRA review, make a motion on Preliminary, and then if you feel it's appropriate to go on to Final, fine, and if there are changes that need to be made that you can't do Final, then we'll have to wait until next month. MR. PALING-Well, I think it's important that we have a public hearing in here. Okay. Lets do the Preliminary Stage now, right through until the end. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1996 Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Jane Lowell, Meeting Date: June 25, 1996 "This application is for preliminary stage approval of a five lot subdivision on Chestnut Ridge Road. All proposed lots conform to the area requirements of the SR-IA zoning district. The lots range in size from 8.2 acres to 76.2 acres. Any final subdivision plat must indicate a 100 foot setback from the DEC wetland on this property. The percent of slope for the rear portion of these lots also needs to be indicated as part of any final subdivision plat. Staff would recommend a stipulation that these two requirements be provided on any plat prior to recording at the Warren County Register of Deeds." MR. PALING-Okay, and there's nothing else on this one? MR. GORALSKI-Not that I know of. I'll check. - 6 - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. PALING-All right. Is there someone here to represent the applicant? Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. ROURKE-My name is Bill Rourke. I'm a licensed Land Surveyor from South Glens Falls. We surveyed the property. DAN LOWELL MR. LOWELL-Dan Lowell, one of the owners. MR. PALING-All right. Any comments or questions by the Board on this? MR. MACEWAN-Just for Staff. Was there any comments from Rist- Frost? I noticed there wasn't anything in the packets. Did they have an opportunity to comment? MR. GORALSKI-No. There were no comments because there's actually no construction being proposed on any of these lots at this point. MR. PALING-You do have two points in your comments, though. MR. GORALSKI-Right. ---- MR. PALING-Are you familiar with the comments that he just made? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any problem there? Okay. I think the best thing to do right now is go to the public hearing. So I'll open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone here care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Which one are you discussing at the present time? MR. PALING-Lowell, Jane Lowell. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-You're not taking them in order? MR. PALING-Yes, we are taking them in order. Tonight's schedule, the first one on the schedule you have was canceled. The first one for Michael Chrys will not be heard until July. Then the second one was Thomas Burke, and the third one was Michael Stevens, and now we're on Jane Lowell. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-You've done Michael Stevens? MR. PALING-Yes, we have. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-What was your determination? MR. PAL ING- It was passed. It was okay. I'm sorry. There's nothing much I can do right now. If you want to talk to us later about it, okay, but that's something that's gone, and we're on the microphone and tape now to continue. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Can you tell us what the determination was? What was the building going to be used for? MR. PALING-It's a barn to hold horses. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-How many horses? MR. PALING-One for the moment. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Is it going to be just for private use or for public use? - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. PALING-As far as I know, for private use. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-We just arrived, and we were interested in that one. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we are on the record here. So I'm kind of at a loss. I just commented, we went so fast, I can't believe it, but those things happen and there's nothing we can do about it. The next time we'll be here until 11 o'clock trying to get them. So, I'm sorry, sir, but if you want to talk to us afterwards, fine, but I'm going to have to proceed with the rest of the hearing. I'm sorry. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-We want to thank you for your cooperation. MR. PALING-Okay. Then if there's no further comment on this matter, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now this one is a Long SEQRA, isn't it, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. - MR. PALING-Yes, and again, we don't have it. MR. GORALSKI-You didn't receive it? MR. PALING-No. MR. STARK-We got it, right here. MR. PALING-Okay. I did not get it. All right. MR. GORALSKI-Was it in the packet I gave you tonight? MR. STARK-No. We had it anyway. MR. MACEWAN-It was in our original packet. MR. PALING-Okay. Then the applicant has filled out Part I, right? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to do Part II? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-1996, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before JANE LOWELL, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE - 8 - ---- -.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Paling ..-- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. Preliminary. I'll entertain a motion to approve the MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question. On the southerly lot line between lots one and two, there's an old foundation there. Just out of curiosity, have you guys ever seen a lot line running down the middle of an old foundation? MR. GORALSKI-I've seen it run down the middle of an old foundation like that, yes. MR. MACEWAN-It's not a big deal I guess? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's not like they could re-build on it or anything like that. MR. MACEWAN-What was the foundation to? MR. LOWELL-I believe it must have been an old barn in the past. It's mostly gone now. MR. ROURKE-It's mostly filled in. MR. MACEWAN-It's not that old, old foundation? MR. LOWELL-It's very old. It's cobblestone. MR. ROURKE-It's mainly filled in, some stones and depression was left. MR. LOWELL-Yes. You can just make out part of it. MR. MACEWAN-Would it have historical significance? I'm raising the question. I'm not trying to be a stickler, but I've just never seen a lot line run through the middle of a foundation. MR. GORALSKI-I wouldn't think that an old foundation would. I know the Town Historian is doing a survey of barns in the Town, but that's just a foundation. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments? All right. Why don't we go to a motion, then, on the Preliminary. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1996 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For subdivision of five residential lots of 8.212 acres, 8.212 acres, 8.212 acres, 8.634 acres, and 76.275 acres. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following v~te: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Now the Preliminary is approved. Now do we have any comment before we proceed on the Final? /- MR. STARK-John, how come the two foot topography lines don't continue on for the whole property, only in the front? MR. GORALSKI-I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that at Sketch Plan you discussed that and determined that a waiver was appropriate and that they didn't have to provide that. MR. ROURKE-We requested that. MR. MACEWAN-We should have done a waiver at Preliminary, then. MR. GORALSKI-Well, yes, actually you're right. MR. MACEWAN-Lets put the waiver in when we do Final. Can we do that? If that's the case, then we've got to go back and rescind the Preliminary motion. MR. GORALSKI-Or just make a motion to modify. MOTION TO MODIFY PRELIMINARY STAGE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION NO. 4- 1996 JANE LOWELL TO GRANT A WAIVER FROM TWO FOOT CONTOURS, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Now is there any comment from Staff or legal in regard to going to final on this? MR. GORALSKI-Jeff and I just discussed it. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. You're Subdivision Regulations don't expressly require that Preliminary and Final be at two meetings. They require a two step process. You've already done the first step. I don't think there's any legal impediment to going on to Final, if the Board is comfortable doing that. MR. PALING-Okay. What's been the trouble we've run into in the past by going directly to this? - 10 - "--' .. .-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. MACEWAN-The only reason in the past it's usually been much larger subdivisions, it's usually been engineering comments that have held things up. MR. PALING-And we don't have an engineering comment problem. We don't have a public comment problem. MR. GORALSKI-Typically, in a situation like this, and I think I discussed this on the phone with Bill, that the applicant runs the risk that if Preliminary, if something comes up in Preliminary that needs to be changed, then the Board doesn't want to hear Final, then you could put it off, and, typically, as Craig said on a larger subdivision, there are going to be some minor changes·that need to be made, but there's really nothing significant on this. MR. STARK-Why couldn't we have heard the Preliminary last week and the Final tonight? Is there a reason? MR. GORALSKI - No, you could have. We just thought, instead of making them come out on two separate nights, they could come out on one night. MR. STARK-Okay. ~ MR. PALING-All right. Now we don't have to go to another public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-No. There's no public hearing. MR. PALING-The public hearing and the SEQRA we're done there. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. PALING-All right, then. MR. GORALSKI-I would just recommend that in your motion you include that on the final plat that a note showing the 100 foot setback from the DEC wetland and the percent of slope be added. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll move into the Final Stage approval for the Jane Lowell subdivision. Are there any questions or comments by the Board? MR. STARK-The 100 foot setback from the wetlands. other stipulation? What was the MR. PALING-It's in here, the 100 foot setback and the contours. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1996 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by For subdivision of five residential lots on Chestnut Ridge Road, with stipulations, the final plat must indicate a 100 foot setback from DEC wetlands, and the percent of slopes for the rear portion of these lots also be indicated on the plan. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 30-96 TYPE: UNLISTED SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. OWNER: WILLIAM & CATHERINE EHLERT ZONE: LI -lA LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF LUZERNE RD. AND I-87. PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 150' HIGH COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA AND PLACEMENT OF UP TO - 11 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) 5 RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS, EACH MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 30" X 30" X 60" HIGH. ANTENNA AND CABINETRY WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN A CHAIN LINK FENCE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-4 LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION: 179- 26 LARRY CALLANDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-96, Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Meeting Date: June 25, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot high communications tower and associated equipment cabinet. The cabinet will be 30 in. by 30 in. by 60 in. high. The applicant has received a Use Variance from the ZBA for this proposal. Access to this location will be from an existing gravel drive located on the property. Existing vegetation and a proposed 8 foot high chain link fence will screen the radio cabinets at this site. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 30-96." MR. CALLANDER-I'm Larry Callander with Sprint Spectrum. This is Tony Stellato with Clough Harbour and Associates. We apologize for being late. I had understood that we were fifth on the agenda. So I thought we had time. MR. PALING-Well, we're moving rather fast tonight for some reason. I can't explain it. I wish it would happen more often. MR. STARK-Let me just ask a question. On the Use Variance, it said that there was no negative environmental impact, to make ita negative declaration. Did they do the SEQRA? MR. GORALSKI-This was an uncoordinated review. They did a SEQRA for the Use Variance. You have to do one for the site plan review. Included with your package is the motion to approve the Use Variance. Warren County Planning Board approved, and that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. moment? Any comments or questions by the Board at the MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to hear what they have to say first. MR. PAL ING- Yes. Would you kind of give us a description overall of this, please? TONY STELLATO MR. STELLATO-Sure. Up on the board here is a site plan, and it shows the existing property on Luzerne Road, and the building out in front is the truck center and the existing access off of Luzerne Road, and behind the building, to the north of the building, is the existing gravel parking area. Our facility is located at the northwest corner, toward the rear of the property. Our facility is located at the northwest corner. We're going to provide a small extension of the gravel surface so that we can get access back to the site. There's an existing stand of mature trees in that corner, and we've tucked the facility neatly into the center of that stand of trees. We'll be clearing a path through the center of it so that we can get our access drive through. Our project area is roughly 100 by 100, which constitutes the ground lease that Sprint will have from the truck center. Our monopole will be 150 feet tall and shown here to the right of the site plan is a schematic drawing showing what the monopole will look like. There'll be an antenna array at the top, and it'll be a slender pole. It'll fade to a dull gray. Next to the pole will be a pad with some radio equipment on it, approximately three cabinets, refrigerator sized. They won't need to be in a building. They'll - 12 - -- '- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) be freestanding, and that's the long and the short of it. The whole facility would be surrounded by chain link fencing to protect it, and there will be no water or sewer hook ups. There won't be any traffic generated by the project because after it's constructed site visits will be limited to approximately once every couple of weeks, once a month, for routine maintenance by a technician in a passenger type vehicle, a Ford Explorer or Jeep Cherokee, something like that, just to monitor the equipment and make calibration adjustments, that type of thing. We also have, we've completed a view shed analysis for the project, and I can show you that. I have an exhibit board. MR. PALING-Self-supporting means there's no wires, guide wires and stuff like that? MR. STELLATO-That's correct. Larry's handing out a booklet which basically has the same information that's up here on the board. There's some photographs and a map. We've mounted it on the board because it makes it easier to explain. The view shed analysis consists of what we call a balloon test. We flew a series of three weather balloons tied together at the height of the proposed tower, I keep calling it a tower. It's a monopole, at the location of the monopole, at the height of the top of the monopole, and that location is here on the view shed map, and we've canvassed the area to take photographs from different locations, to show where, from certain locations, where the top of that monopole would be. Now, Photograph Number One is, I'm pointing to the location west of the site. It's on Richardson Street looking over the Northway toward the project. I'm sorry, over here. This is the location, looking across the Northway toward the proj ect, and you can see the balloon's just barely visible above the trees there. We're showing that this is within the view shed, but again, you can see the quality of that view, or the significance of that view is very small. It's just the top of the tower. View Number Two is from the Northway, right by the bridge overpass at Sherman Avenue. It's looking southwest toward the proposed monopole. You can see the upper, say, quarter of the proposed monopole at this location. Again, it's a distant view. Photo Number Three, I'll point to the location here on the map, and this is from Northwinds Mobile Estates off Luzerne Road, and it's looking east, and my pen, again, is at the location of the top of the proposed monopole, and again, you're seeing the upper two thirds of the tower in this location. It's a relatively distant view. View Number Four is New Hampshire Avenue. It's looking northeast toward the proposed monopole. That's the location in the photo right there, and you can just see the top, less than quarter, of the tower from that location. It's a distant view. There's, again, some existing buildings and vegetation blocking the view, and then View Number Five is from the northbound lane of the Northway near Exit 18. Again, a distant view of the monopole. What these photographs do is they form the border of what we're calling the view shed for the project, and the view shed is delineated on the map in yellow. So the area that are colored yellow are the areas where you can see a portion of the monopole from, and even if it's a small portion, such as this photo here where you can just barely see a length of the monopole, we're still counting that as part of the view shed. These photographs were verified by taking a USGS map and cutting cross sections through the location where the proposed monopole would be built, and plotting a line of site from various vantage points to ensure that we had picked up all of the view shed, and in fact we had picked up a couple of small areas outlying to the west, and then the remainder of the vicinity will be areas where the monopole won't be visible, either because of existing vegetation or existing topography blocking the view. I think it's significant to note that when we were in front of the County Planning Board, two of the County Planning Board members made mention that they had seen the balloons flying and they thought it was noteworthy to notice that they really couldn't see it from very far away or for very much - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) distance. Their opinion was, and I don't know if it's reflected in their record, but their opinion was, at the meeting, that the view shed was pretty confined, and that it was a good location because of that. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Where do you plan on getting your power from? MR. STELLATO-Power, again, shown on the site plan, there's power servicing the Arrowhead Truck Center on Luzerne Road, and our power consumption is very low. It's similar to a single family house, a small single family house, at that. It'll be 100 amp se.rvice. It's very low power installation. It doesn't generate the type of demand that you might tend to think. MR. MACEWAN-What is the tower to be used for, for a cellular phone or something? MR. STELLATO-The technology is very similar to cellular. It's called PCS, and the major difference, at this point, is that PCS will be a digital technology. It'll be protected. You won't be able to intercept the calls on a scanner. There's much/more capacity in the system to handle a number of users. The voice quality should be better, and there'll be more services available. Through PCS, you'll be able to eventually get an integrated beeper and phone. I think that's the major difference, but the technology works a lot like cellular, except that the frequency is different, and, therefore, the design for the location of towers, antennas, follows a slightly different route, and a slightly different technique. It's not one for one the same. MR. WEST-But it will be for cellular phones, initially? MR. STELLATO-Well, it will be for, I think Larry Callander can probably give you a little more on this. MR. CALLANDER-Yes. As Tony said, the major difference at this particular point is that it's a digital technology, and as Tony talked about, it's much more secure. You can't eavesdrop on the calls. From the standpoint of what our facilities are like, they're very similar to cellular, but ultimately what this may lead to is, as Tony indicated, integrated paging and phone service, but also wireless transmission of data, and that's really something beyond the capacity of cellular, because you have the ability to transmit much more information over a digital signal than you do that, than you do existing wireless. We also operate at a frequency that's roughly, cellular, right now, operates between eight and nine hundred megahertz, and we'll operate between 1800 and 2,000 megahertz. So it's a higher frequency. Typically, what we're looking at in terms of sites are lower type towers. We have a capability of trying to use much more tall buildings if we can, and certainly shorter towers, if at all possible. So those are really the differences between our technology. What we really represent, what PCS really represents, is really the next generation of wireless technology, and more and more, even the existing cellular companies will probably have to convert over at some point in time in the future. MR. WEST-Is the hardware, though, the cellular phones that would use this technology, are they available now, today? MR. CALLANDER-Yes, they're available, but it will be a different type of phone, and ultimately what we see coming about in the future, you know, within the next couple of years, are probably duo mode phones that can operate both on eight to nine megahertz and then be able to switch over to a higher frequency setting. So the phones are available. In fact, Sprint Spectrum was the company - 14 - --- '- -.,. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) that launched, commercially, the first PCS network in the Baltimore/Washington market last year in 1995, and we already have something in the neighborhood of 60 to 80,000 customers in the Baltimore/Washington market, and we hold license in most of the maj or metropolitan areas across the United States, and we're currently working in 33 different markets to launch our PCS technology, and the first ones, hopefully, will come on line later this year. MR. WEST-How many customers are there in this area that equate to the demand for this tower? MR. CALLANDER-For one specific tower, I'm not sure I could ânswer that. What we're doing, in terms of launch this year, is our office, which is based in Latham, in the Town of Colonie, we're focusing on providing service to the Albany and Syracuse markets, and also covering the 1-87 corridor, as far north as Glens Falls, here, and also covering the Thruway from the New York City area, which is a separate territory from ours, on the Thruway, as far out as Syracuse, and then we have other offices that cover New York City and Rochester/Buffalo area. So we look to be providing coverage to most of New York State here within the next 12 months. /' MR. STELLATO-What I'm told is that, in the Washington D.C. market, you would think what would happen is that the company, a lot of the customers would jump from cellular and go to PCS, but actually a lot of those 60,000 initial customers were new users, and cellular is experiencing new customers at a greatly increasing rate every day, and so I think we can anticipate that a lot of the initial customers won't be customers that are one over from one of the cellular carriers, but they'll actually be new users signing up for the first time. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we might be getting a little bit off the real subj ect . I didn't mean to interrupt, but I think we're getting a little off. Any other questions? MR. MACEWAN-Just for Staff. I'm just curious. The other tower, on the other side of the Corinth Road, off Big Bay, how tall is that, do you know? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. It's a different construction. This is a monopole that we're, that's a tower. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-I really don't know. MR. WEST-How tall are the water tanks? MR. STARK-One hundred and ten. MR. WEST-They 110? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. WEST-So this is 40 feet higher than those. MR. STARK-They're a pencil compared to them. MR. WEST-Yes, I know. MR. PALING-Did you comment in regard to the view with and without vegetation? Did I hear it, or could you comment on that? MR. STELLATO-I did, and I can point it out for you again, if you'd like to see it. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STELLATO-Okay. MR. PALING-I missed that for some reason. MR. STELLATO-The areas in brown are the areas where the view is shielded, regardless of vegetation, okay, it's by topography alone. Now the green areas are where vegetation is what blocks the view, but you don't want to look at that and say, when the leaves are off the trees, you're going to see it in all these areas, because, really, what you're picking out is, take for instance anyone of these photographs where you're looking at a distant view, and you're going to be looking through trees, trying to pick out a slender monopole, and really, even the defoliated trees are going to prevent, to a large extent, any significant view within these outlying areas. I mean, you can see how far away you are. Photograph Number One, which is roughly a mile away, you know, and you can see from that vantage point how far away that monopole really is, and if you can picture in your mind's eye what that's going to look like at that distance, and looking at that through trees, I don't think it's going to be what you might, you know, what prompted the question. ~ MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments, questions at the moment? MR. WEST-What's the diameter of that pole at the bottom? MR. STELLATO-There's a number of poles, different poles, that could be used, and they would vary slightly. The largest it would be at the bottom, I think, is around six feet, six to seven feet. That's pretty typical for a 150 foot monopole, but exactly I couldn't tell you at this point. The vendor, it could be one of several vendors. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, I have two questions. One is, you mentioned that you floated three balloons when you did your study. Am I to assume that the diameter of three balloons is going to equal the 14 feet that this antenna array is? MR. STELLATO-No. The reason we did three balloons, the balloons are about three feet in diameter when they're blown up, and when they're grouped together it'll be an eight to ten foot ball. The reason we do three balloons is that's really what you need to see from a distance. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I was just curious as to the relationship between the span of the three balloons compared to a 14 foot span. MR. STELLATO-Well, like I said, if you look at the balloons, and that's about eight to ten feet, depending on how the balloons happen to be flying. MR. GORALSKI -And you don't have a picture from right over the Luzerne Road bridge, right adjacent to the site? MR. STELLATO-I don't think we do have a photo from there, no. MR. PALING-That would be from the bridge, John, you're saying? MR. GORALSKI-Right, on the Northway. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-Why was this location chosen? Is there some strategic - 16 - --- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) reason why you chose this particular area versus some other? MR. CALLANDER-This particular location was selected by our RF engineering staff, and in fact, we were actually looking at a location just a little bit to the north off Sherman Road, because if you look at a topographic map, there's a particular point there where there's a slight rise. So our original search area was in the vicinity of that Sherman Road area. In looking at that, we had some concerns about locating it so close to residential properties. As a result of our investigation of this particular area, we identified the Arrowhead truck and autobody as a good location because it was in an area where there were a lot of commercial uses, and it got us a little bit away from the residential ar€a to the north, and there's a lot of trees right around there where we could at least shield the base of the tower from view for the most part. The difficulty in siting a monopole like this or any facility that tall, you can't hide it. If we could hide it entirely, the site really wouldn't be any good to us, because we do need, essentially, line of site in order to be able to cover as much an area as we can, and minimize the height of the tower, and that's the reason why we ended up at this particular facility. MR. PALING-Okay. At this point, lets go to the public hearing.-- So we'll open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak on it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHERYL DANIELS MRS. DANIELS-My name is Cheryl Daniels. I live on Maine Avenue, just kitty corner across the road from Arrowhead Trucking. MR. PALING-Okay, and how close are you to this, where you live, and can it be pointed out on the map? MRS. DANIELS-I don't know if I can. MR. WEST-On this one probably. MR. GORALSKI - It's on the other side of Luzerne. You know where the west end park is? MR. WEST-Yes, just past the overpass, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. DANIELS-The western park play area is in our back yard. MR. GORALSKI-It's this street right here. MR. PALING-Okay, and there's the pole. How far are we talking? MR. GORALSKI-You're probably talking about 500 feet. MR. PALING-Five hundred feet. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it must be less than 500 feet, because they got notified. MR. PALING-All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. DAVID KELLY MR. KELLY-My name is David Kelly. I also live on Maine Ave. I live a wee bit closer, in fact. There's a lot of questions that have to be asked. First of all, as I know, the Town of Queensbury fought the water towers, okay, and lets face it, the water towers ... 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) do look bad. This is going to show up from the Northway, no matter how you look at it. I don't care where you're coming from. Eventually, you're going to see it. In every area that I've been and I've seen towers even similar to this, it's definitely visible. It kind of takes a little away from the area, but the biggest concern I have is how is this going to affect our phones. Is there going to be interference with our phones, our t.v.'s, our radios, any of our electronic devices, computers, you name it, whatever you want to come to, scanners. MR. PALING-Good question. MR. KELLY-What kind of affect does this have, and if there is an affect, is anything going to be done to remedy that affect once this is up? And if they have to put a part in or whatever, and it breaks, are they going to fix it somewhere down the road if something goes wrong with it? MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Anything else? MRS. DANIELS-I'm also wondering what it's made of, what the tower is going to be made of. - MR. PALING-Okay, the material in the tower. MRS. DANIELS-If it's going to act as a lightening rod, they said it's going to be concealed with trees. I'm sure some of you were around a lot of years ago when we had the fire, in West Glens Falls, when half of West Glens Falls burned. I would hate to think that that's going to be a lightening tower, with all those trees and no water available to that site, that we're going to have another fire. Also taking into consideration is the playground that's right directly across the road from Arrowhead Trucking. We have a lot of children around there. I know my grandchildren, they live in Georgia most of the time, but they do come and visit. They play on that playground. My grandchildren are normal children. They're not absolutely perfect, but they're pretty good kids, but I'm not guaranteeing that that's not going to be a curiosity thing for them, and not just my children, but any children that's taking advantage of that playground may want to go over and investigate what that big tower, it's quite an attraction for the kids. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. KELLY-And you'll also have problems with, there's a lot of three wheeler and four wheelers that go back there. Regardless of the fact that they're not supposed to be back there, okay, that's regardless. We don't even have to look at that. The problem is there's a lot of them back there, and what happens if they start messing around with this? Because there's tons of them. I mean, you can go there on any given weekend, and you'll hear them. They're allover the place. MRS. DANIELS-Especially on the Lake Zoli area. You people are aware of where Lake Zoli is or was, and that's a real big three wheel and four wheel area. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. DANIELS-And this property borders right on the Lake Zoli area. MR. PALING-All right. Anything else? MR. KELLY-I'd like you to consider what it's going to look like, okay. You did that with the water towers, and even though the City of Glens Falls got them anyway, you're still going to see it. It's still going to be visible. People are going to come and see it, and it just doesn't look good. I mean, I'm not saying you can't - 18 - - '- '--'"' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) put it up, but maybe farther back or something. Just get it out of the view of people coming in from the Northway. People see this. You bring in businesses. You bring in people by how the area looks. You start seeing stuff like this, it does not look good. MRS. DANIELS-What is it going to do to our property values? I mean, most of us in West Glens Falls are trying to clean up our act. It used to have a reputation of being "West Glens Falls" and nobody wanted to be from "West Glens Falls". We're doing a lot to clean up our act. We're looking good up there. MR. PALING-Yes. Looking much better. MRS. DANIELS-We sure are. We take pride in our neighborhood, and we take pride in what our properties look like, and we're worried about that too, what our property values are going to be with something like this very close to us. MR. KELLY-And there's more and more commercial areas coming in this area. I feel like you're forcing me out. Okay. I feel like somewhere down the road you're going to come down and say, well, geez, now this one wants to go in on the corner of you. This one wants to go in on the other corner. If this is the case, come/out and tell us. Fine, then we'll live with it. Then we can deal with it, but you're putting a lot of commercial areas in that are~ now. You're putting us right in the middle. You've got Corinth'Road where there's commercial areas and you've got Luzerne Road where there's commercial areas. We're sitting right in the middle here. MR. MACEWAN-You should remember that the zoning only allows certain things in certain zones and the only people with the power to change the zoning in the Town is the Town Board. MR. KELLY-Exactly. MRS. DANIELS-That's why we're here. MR. KELLY-That's why we're here. Because, see what we're saying, what we're looking at, though, is, if this is what they're going to do, fine. We're looking for somebody to come out and say, listen, what we want to do is we want this whole area commercial. We see that they're doing that with, where Corinth Road goes into Main Street. All of those used to be houses. When I first moved up there, they were all houses. Okay, and we see that. That's fine. The people know that now. They know that's what's coming, okay, and the people that are left there, they're selling, they're going to sell when they get the right price for it, and everybody knows that, but if this is going to happen now, then fine, lets inform us, too. MR. MACEWAN-The only way that any industrial or commercial use could encroach on your neighborhood or property, you would certainly be notified well in advance of anyone petitioning the Town Board for a change. You could voice your concerns and your opinions, but this particular site, it's an allowed use. It's light industrial over there. It's allowed there. It's one of the uses for that parcel. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. KELLY-Yes, thank you. MR. PALING-Would you care to come back up, and we're going to, I have four or five questions that I'd like you to comment on. Excuse me. Does anyone else care to talk on this matter? Okay. If there is no one else that cares to comment, we're finished over here. Then we'll close the public hearing. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Would you care to comment, first, on the effect on telephones, t.v., radio and that kind of thing? MR. CALLANDER-We're granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission, and as a requirement of that license, we are required to operate within a certain frequency, and as I indicated, that was between 1800 and 2,000 megahertz. It's a relatively high frequency. It's roughly twice the frequency of cellular. Most appliances, hand held telephones and things of that nature, operate at a frequency that's significantly lower than even cellular, and as a result, because they are operated at difference frequencies, there should be no interference. Oftentimes there's a concern. There's even a concern in our industry that we avoid locating near AM radio towers, and largely that's a function that, even though AM radio operates at a significantly different frequency, because of the power that they operate of, they have a tendency to kind of bleed over and create havoc on our network. We're operating at a fr~quency that's no more than 100 watts per channel. So we're not putting out a high level of power as Tony Stellato indicated. It's basically running the facility at 100 amp service. So there isn't a big power being generated by the base station that operates there. So, in terms of interference, we don't anticipate any problem with appliances or anything of that nature. MR. PALING-Have you had any problems with them anywhere, interfering with anything, home appliances? MR. CALLANDER-No, we haven't. Cellular's been operating for a long time, and that hasn't created any problems that I'm aware of with home appliances and portable telephones and things of that nature. We operate at an even higher frequency. So there'd be even less likelihood that there'd be any problems caused by it. MR. PALING-Okay, and the second question I have is regarding the material that's in the tower, and will it act as a lightening rod? MR. STELLATO-The tower will be constructed of galvanized steel. In fact, it will be a lightening rod, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I don't know if you've ever looked at a Niagara Mohawk Substation, and they put up lightening rods around their facilities to actually attract lightening, and there will be, you know, because of the height and the material of this facility, it will tend to attract lightening strikes, and the way we deal with that is we put in an extensive grounding system under the ground to safely transfer that lightening strike to ground. So, in fact, if there is a lightening strike in the area, the chances of it hitting the tower and being safely conveyed to ground, as opposed to hitting a tree or hitting a building, are greatly increased. So, I think that's a positive thing. MR. PALING-Okay, and they talked about, you know, the kids being around there, and it being an attractive hazard, lets call it. How safe is it, I guess the question is. How well protected is it? MR. WEST-Does it have like a ladder to access it? MR. STELLATO-Well, first of all, the first means of protection is the whole facility will be fenced, and the fence will be eight feet high. MR. PALING-Eight feet high, chain link? MR. STELLATO-Chain link. We do call for three strands of barbed wire at the top, although the barbed wire will be up out of reach. So we don't anticipate that being a problem for somebody leaning up against the fence. There will be a gate which will be locked. - 20 - -- ~ -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) Then the facility itself is alarmed and remotely monitored, both at Sprint's local switch, which will be in Albany, and in Kansas City, Missouri. So if there is any evidence of tampering, it will be immediately picked up on the remote monitor, and someone will be dispatched to the site. MR. PALING-What kind of sensor are you going to be using in that? What senses the presence? MR. STELLATO-I don't know for sure. Do you? MR. CALLANDER-Yes. What it would be is, once somebody got into the facility, if they were to touch any of the equipment, and I àon't know the exact particulars of it, but if somebody was to get inside the perimeter fence and touch any of the equipment, all the equipment has sensors on it, and that would immediately trip an alarm at our Latham office, and as Tony mentioned, it would also be tripped in our Kansas City control center. So immediately, we have Staff that are on call 24 hours a day. They have beepers that would immediately trigger a call, and it would either be a call in to local police or a call to local service personnel to go out and check out that facility. The equipment itself is self contained in metal cabinets. The cabinets are really heavy duty. They-' re designed to take a lot of abuse. They're designed to take a direct hit with a bullet and not be punctured. So it's all heavy duty equipment. The tower itself is not able to be climbed by anyone at the base of the tower. You need specialized climbing gear in order to get up to a level, say 20 or 30 feet above ground, before there would be any way for anybody to continue climbing up the tower. I mean, that's our biggest fear is to have some child get inside that facility, potentially get hurt in the facility or climb the tower, and those are safe guards that we take very seriously, and we feel we've taken every possible measure we can to avoid any mishap from occurring. One of the other considerations that we attempted to do here, really dealt with the siting of this facility. We tried to tuck it in the trees. It is behind the Arrowhead autobody. If anybody was to come off Luzerne Road, they'd have to actually go through that whole yard and go way back to the corner of the property. So, it's not like it's plainly visible right there on the roadway where it might be attractive to some kids playing. So, we've tried to take every measure we can to minimize that potential problem. MR. PAL ING- You'd be protected against the All Terrain Vehicles then, too, the same would apply to them. The presence of them, I don't know if there's much we can say about that, and then the site thing, I think you've addressed that. Now, the five questions I think raised, I think, have been answered, commented on. Does anyone else have any comments or questions? MR. STARK-Property values. MR. PALING-Property values, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just wanted them to expound again on the frequencies, because there's so many, like, remote phones that have different channels. I can't use my remote phone in my neighborhood. It doesn't work, but I brought it back to Ray Supply where I bought it and it works fine down, on Upper Glen Street, but it doesn't work at all in Bedford Close against the mountain, and I'm just, the thing is, it's got 10 channels. It's the top of the line, Panasonic type of phone. Consumer Reports says it's a good phone. It doesn't work up there now. It doesn't work very well, lets put it that way. So now I'm just wondering, even though you operate between 1800 and 2,000 megahertz, there still is all kinds of run ins on all those frequencies, and I don't think, can you really say it's foolproof, that it's not going to interfere with anybody's? - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. STELLATO-Really there isn't, in the 1800 to 2200 megahertz range, there isn't a whole lot of overlap. There's really nothing else there. There were some miscellaneous users there that really nothing residential. Nothing that would be in your house. What is there is being phased out, and this band ii really dedicated to PCS. Your cordless phone is in a lower band width, and I'm not sure exactly where it is. I think it's somewhere in the six to seven hundred range, but I think that it shares a band width with baby monitors and with walkie talkies. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then those people around the neighborhood down on that lower end of Luzerne Road and the lower end of Corinth, there shouldn't be any? MR. STELLATO-There is so much distance between where your cordless phone operates. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, when you said 1,000, I just didn't realize that there was that much of a difference. MR. STELLATO-Yes. There's a whole lot more in between, in between those things and PCS is cellular and a few other things, and really those band widths, as you get up to those higher frequencies-, are pretty well defined, and there's not a whole lot of other things in them. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, then that has nothing to do with the channels that you change on your phone? MR. CALLANDER-No, because within that particular band width that those phones work at, each channel may be separated by, I don't know, maybe five megahertz or two and a half megahertz or something like that. So there's a very narrow, you might actually, those phones, if you look at the phone, and again, I'm not sure what the frequency is. It may be, operate between something like 550 and 570 megahertz. So those channels are all divided within that, and the more users you have, the big problem with those phones is the more people that have phones, the more likelihood that when you pick up the phone, one of your neighbors is going to have one, and they're going to be on the same channel. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I mean, my conversations have been heard in my neighbor's homes. So, you answered my question there. I think she had brought up a good, a valid concern about that. I just wanted you to expound on it, and I appreciate that. MR. PALING-I guess the last point brought up was effect on property values. I don't know whether you want to comment on that. MR. CALLANDER-Well, one of our considerations, when we were locating this facility, was attempt to try to locate it in a zone where it would be compatible. This particular property is zoned Light Industrial. While it is somewhat of a different use, it is still commercial in nature, and we feel that this is the best location for this particular type of facility. I realize there are two other towers to the south, in the general proximity of this area, and I really don't think that this is going to present much of a change. This tower is shorter than those other two towers. So I think, arguably, it might have less impact. MR. MACEWAN-Do you, offhand, know the height of those other two towers? MR. CALLANDER-Well, because of the fact that I've been in the industry for a while, you can usually get a pretty good estimate by the segments that are on the tower, and my guesstimate is that I believe that Cell One tower that's on the west side of the Northway is about 240 feet. - 22 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. STELLATO-I think it's 280. MR. CALLANDER-Yes. So that was 280 feet, and I believe the NYnex tower on the other side is approximately 150. MR. MACEWAN-The NYnex tower is closer to your height of your tower. MR. STELLATO-150 to 180 I'd say. MR. CALLANDER-And again, that's just ballpark, looking at the ground trying to estimate it. MR. MACEWAN-will your tower be painted at all, or will it just be left natural, galvanized steel? MR. CALLANDER-No. It'll just be left the natural galvanized steel, and gradually that will weather to kind of a gray tone. You can paint the tower to match the sky when it's blue, but when it's gray, it doesn't really match the sky, and if you paint it lighter colors, it tends to contrast against the vegetation that's on the ground. Leaving it to weather to a natural surface is probably, I think probably the best way to handle it, because, you know, on cloudy days, we seem to have a lot more cloudy days than we do bright, sunny days, that's one way to avoid any contrast. It won't have any kind of a shine to it. If the sun hits it, you're not going to get a glint off it, because it is going to weather to a dull surface. MR. MACEWAN-Your tower must be very similar to the towers, the high tension towers that are up behind the Aviation Mall, right there behind Sears. MR. CALLANDER-Yes. I believe those are steel poles. MR. MACEWAN-Because galvanized monopoles. those are those, they're like octagon, They must be right around 125, 130 feet. MR. CALLANDER-Yes. Those towers, and I can't picture in my mind how wide they are at the base, but you have to remember that those towers are designed for that cable run as well, and there's some significant loads going there. So it's a different application. So it may not be the same size at the base. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just thought of something. A friend of mine was concerned about this, and she wanted me to ask this question. Maybe you've already answered it. I came in late. Why couldn't the tower be put on the mountain, like the radio station tower is up there? Then maybe you wouldn't have to go up so high because it's already on an elevated piece of land. MR. CALLANDER-What we've attempted to try to do here, and we had some information for the Zoning Board when we presented it to them, but the objective here for this particular facility is to serve, not only the 1-87 corridor, but also the west side of the City of Glens Falls. We have a site that's in Hudson Falls, and that covers kind of a, the eastern edge of the City of Glens Falls, but we really have nothing to cover the suburban areas in Queensbury at all, and this particular location allows us to provide good coverage, not only in vehicles but also inside buildings. One of the other primary objectives with PCS is for people to be able to take a phone, one phone number, and be able to contact them from anywhere they go. So what we're trying to do is to get good inside coverage in the more densely populated urban and suburban areas. This particular site will not only allow us to cover most of the southern and central parts of Queensbury, but will also give us good coverage in the City of Glens Falls and also as far north as the Great Escape, Aviation Mall and other commercial corridors. So this is why we wanted this particular site. If we were to locate - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) up on the mountain, because of the nature of PCS and the fact that it is a higher frequency, we would not be able to provide that kind of solid coverage to the 1-87 corridor and the City of Glens Falls and the suburban areas. So we really kind of need to be more centrally located. MRS. LABOMBARD- I don't know much about the physics of this, obviously, but I'm surprised to think that a tower of that magnitude only covers that small of a radius. I mean, I thought you were going to be talking, you said up as far as the Great Escape. I figured you were going to be talking up as far as Johnsburg or something, or 50 mile radius or something. MR. CALLANDER-Yes. Again, the nature of PCS is we utilize very low power. It's not high power base stations, and small hand held, 100 watts total, and we're really only operating 100 watts per channel. AM radio stations, you know, 50,000, 100 watt radio stations, if you want to try to draw some comparisons, and the small hand held units usually only generate about six tenths of a watt, in terms of power. So you are operating at much lower powers and higher frequencies, and the higher frequency you go, the more line of sight it becomes. Lower frequencies have a tendency to bend a little bit over distance, and you can kind of get around hill£ and buildings, whereas with PCS, because it's a higher frequency, it's much more line of sight oriented. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm learning a lot. MR. PALING-Do you have lights or anything like that on this tower? Is it high enough for that? MR. CALLANDER-One of the things that we are required to do as company policy is to verify whether or not the towers exceed any FAA minimums. This particular tower, because of its height, it's only 150 feet, it will not have to be lighted or painted in order to comply with any FAA requirements. It's similar, we think the Nynex tower is 150 to 180 feet. That's not lighted, but you'll note the Cell One tower, because of its height, has a red light on it. So we won't have any kind of lights on it at night at all. It won't be visible. MR. PALING-Okay. Then at this point, SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-You should have in your packet, it doesn't look like the typical Part I, but in the application. MR. STELLATO-We have it right in the computer. It's the new form, too. MR. GORALSKI-Right. It just doesn't look like the one they're used to having. MR. STELLATO-Yes. It's the identical information, though. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So, what I can do is I can go through Part II. MR. PALING-Right, but the Part II is our regular Part II. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I'm going to read through the Part II for you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-96, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: - 24 - -' ----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., the and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. - 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Was the Zoning Board of Appeals lead agency for this application? MR. GORALSKI-There was no coordinated review done. So you folks would be the lead agent for the site plan review. The Zoning Board was the lead agent for the Variance. MR. MACEWAN-Therefore, they had to go through two SEQRA reviews? MR. GORALSKI-Right, two separate SEQRA reviews. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-All right. Is there any further discussion on this matter? I guess not, then we can go right to a motion. Would someone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-96 SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As submitted. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Is there any other information to come before the Board? MR. STARK-John, in the future, if there is a subdivision larger than the one we had, can we, even if it inconveniences them a little bit, have the Preliminary one week and the Final the next week? MR. GORALSKI-It's up to you. If the Board is more comfortable that way and you want that to be your policy, that's fine. MR. PALING-If there's any kind of complexity, we do get into problems if we try to do it the same time. MR. STARK-This one was a very simple one. ..-- MR. GORALSKI-Right. Typically what we do, just so you know, is if we do put the Preliminary and Final on, we make sure that the applicant understands that if there are any changes at Preliminary, that they're not going to get their Final application reviewed, but like I say, if you want them to be separate, that's fine. We can do that. MR. PALING-Okay. John, on the SEQRA, I think we're doing that a little bit different than we're used to, at least. If there's going to be a SEQRA, we usually have it in our packets, and I guess I missed it, but two of the three were not there tonight. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know why those EAFs were not in your packets. I can check on that. MR. PALING-Well, George told me they wouldn't be, but I'd just like to point out that I think they should be. MR. GORALSKI-They wouldn't be? Usually they're attached to the application. MR. PALING-He said they wouldn't be. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe he checked and he couldn't find them and that's why he said they wouldn't be, but you're absolutely right. You should have a chance to review that before the meeting. We'll check on that from now on. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Vittengl and Flower, what's the deal with them? MR. GORALSKI-Flower is going to submit a revised plan. Vittengl does not require a site plan review, because you folks reviewed it and made a recommendation to the Zoning Board previously. MR. MACEWAN-Is there any messages that you came bearing for us tonight with reference to Hiland Park last week? MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good question. MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. MACEWAN-You know nothing about it? - 26 - '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. GORALSKI-No. I don't know anything about it, to be honest with you. The discussion of whether or not it required a modification of the POD? MR. MACEWAN-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I don/t know the answer to that. I think either our esteemed counselor the Zoning Administrator would have to make that decision. MR. MACEWAN-I would like, I don't want this to be something that's forgotten about. I want to find out what's going on with this. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I will make a note of that. MR. MACEWAN-Because I don't think what we did was right, unless I'm all messed up. MR. GORALSKI-What we'll do is send you some type of a memo of explanation whether or not there should be a modification and how it'll be handled. I'll get you an answer in writing. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, did a Ron St. Germain come to do a vegetable stand? MR. PALING-We had three of them last week. MR. MACEWAN-Those were all Coon. MR. GORALSKI -That was all Lee Coon. That name sounds familiar, but maybe he's on for this month. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I thought maybe he was going to be put on at the last minute, too. Maybe it'll be for next month. MR. GORALSKI-I talk to so many people and tell them what they need to do, sometimes I forget the names. The name sounds familiar, but I'm not sure. MR. WEST-Is there two regular meetings next month, or is it looking like three, or what? MR. GORALSKI-There will be at least two. Actually, I can tell you that Nemer Ford is trying to get a transient merchant license in an expedited manner, and they had mentioned, what about getting a special meeting of the Planning Board. MR. WEST-What would that allow them to do? MR. GORALSKI-They would have a car sale at the Aviation Mall. MR. PALING-For a one shot deal? MR. GORALSKI -Right, and they would need a transient merchant license to do that. MR. MACEWAN-What is it with these car dealerships, some of them want to go to the airport. MR. GORALSKI-I asked him that. I actually asked Frank Romaine from Nemer that yesterday, and he said it's just a marketing thing that's going on in the industry today that they have what they call off site sales and they get a license from the Department of Motor Vehicles to have off site sales. It's just a marketing gimmick that they're using these days. MR. PALING-John, we're into summer time now, and I'm willing to cooperate with anyone in that regard, but do you think that if - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) that's what we're going to do, that you could poll the Board first, and see how many are going to be there? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That's exactly what I told him is that, this time of year, it's very tough to get the Board together for special meetings. I told him that what was a more likely scenario is that the Town Board would review the Transient Merchant license on the 15th and could possibly give approval contingent on the Planning Board's approval on the 16th, since you guys are meeting the next night, and if the Town Board is willing to do that, then it's a policy decision of the Town Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, I had heard that they were selling cars ·over in the Mallon Route 9, Passarelli's Mallon Route 9. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now this is what my friend told me. MR. GORALSKI - Used car sales are an allowable use in Highway Commercial zone. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, I mean, I asked her, are the cars right there in that parking lot? MR. GORALSKI-What we did is we limited him to, I forget, I think it was 16 cars because the site plan review for the Mt. Royale Plaza had 16 parking spaces in excess of what was required for the Plaza. MRS. LABOMBARD-That sounds plausible. MR. GORALSKI-So he's allowed to have 16 cars there. MR. STARK-He's not even rented out anyway. MR. GORALSKI-No, he's not even close. The parking lot's empty. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, why would this person who lives, I mean, I thought that Plaza was really nice. It's amazing the way people perceive things different than the way we do. She just thinks that whole operation there is the biggest eyesore in the world, and I'm like, you're kidding. We've tried so hard, and he's put in all this nice landscaping. He's got the berm, and she said, yes, well it's a used car lot, and I'm like, what are you talking about. MR. MACEWAN-Give us an update on two recently approved projects, as to where they kind of stand. What's going on with the Toys nRn Us and the CVS. MR. GORALSKI-Toys nRn Us has submitted their building permit application and plans. They're under review right now. I would estimate that it will probably take at least two more weeks for the Building Inspectors to review the plans. They have said it is their complete intention to be open this fall, and absolutely be open before Thanksgiving. MR. PALING-Yes. They should be able to do that. MR. WEST-Where are they going? MR. PALING-Where the old Grand Union is on Glen Street. MR. GORALSKI-CVS is, they have not submitted building plans yet. They had applied for a Sign Variance, which I believe they were denied. MR. MACEWAN-That was for those off site signs? - 28 - '- _/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. GORALSKI-Right. No. Not for the off site signs. They wanted additional wall signage, and they were denied that. MR. STARK-What about the islands? MR. GORALSKI-The islands, my understanding was that, now let me get this right. Your recommendation was that they not put them in, is that correct? MR. STARK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-And so I believe what the Zoning, I'm not exactly positive. I believe what the Zoning Board said is they were-going to give them like a one year approval in order to see how the traffic patterns go and if it works. MR. PALING-Similar to what we did. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not positive on that one, though. MR. PALING-Well, that's the condition we have on that, isn't it, for one year? And they're going to have that traffic study. _/ MR. GORALSKI-And the whole thing about the traffic study, I think the Zoning Board basically concurred with your determination. MR. PALING-Yes. It sounds like it. I think they're saying the same thing we did in regard to that one year. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So, that's my understanding. MR. MACEWAN-Any other big projects on the burners? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the old Grossman's building, Aldi's food store, it's similar to Sysco, food warehouse type of place, they met with George and I believe Jim this past week to go over their site plan review application. I believe this is the first store in the area, and they're talking about doing a lot of landscaping and I believe they're going to close off one of the road cuts. MR. PALING-That's kind of an ugly site right now. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and I think that's really about it. aware of Curtis Lumber's Use Variance application. You're MR. MACEWAN-I knew that they were going to go apply for it. MR. GORALSKI-They have applied for a Use Variance application along Big Bay Road, near Exit 18. The Zoning Board tabled that last week. They wanted more financial information, I believe it was, because a Use Variance application, you have to prove that you can't get a reasonable return from the property as it's currently zoned. They have very strict criteria, especially compared to the Planning Board. So they were looking for some more information to justify granting a Use Variance. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, have you heard anything about Indian Ridge, anything else? MR. GORALSKI-Indian Ridge, they held a public hearing, as I'm sure you're all aware. The Town Board held a public hearing. They are now waiting for the Clerk's Office to type up the minutes. At which point, our office will make a list of all the comments from the public hearing and report back to the Town Board. The developer has submitted a draft of the POD agreement that they would envision, and right now the Planning Department, the Town Counsel, and all the Town Board members are reviewing that. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-What about, I wasn't there that night, but I was told by some of the residents of Fox Hollow that they had an engineer, an environmental person and a lawyer there that brought up all kinds of questions that the applicant couldn't answer specifically at that point. Is that true? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think that's a distortion, to be perfectly honest with you. They brought up a lot of points. I think it's up to the Town Board to determine whether what they brought up was relevant and/or accurate, and if it needs to be addressed by the developer. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, basically, it's in the Town Board's hands now? MR. GORALSKI-Right. You're out of it until they start coming in for their separate site plan reviews. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MACEWAN-If they come in. MR. GORALSKI-If they come in. determination either. The Town Board has not made a SEQRA ...-- MR. MACEWAN-And there's no time frame for them to do that. Am I correct? MR. FRIEDLAND-Just before they make a decision on the POD they have to do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, they could deliberate this until the end of the year. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I mean, if they're looking for more information. MR. MACEWAN-Did they actually put their formal request in for the zoning change, their formal petition? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-So then they have from the day of the public hearing of their presentation, they have 60 days? MR. GORALSKI-Not for a zone change. A zone change is a legislative action. The Town Board doesn't even have to act on it if they don't want to. Speaking of re - zonings, Mr. Wood and Mr. Lemery met with the Town Board workshop last night to discuss re-zoning of the Aviation Road property again. I believe Monday night they'll pass a resolution referring that to the Planning Board for your recommendation. MR. PALING-What does he want to do with that this time? MR. GORALSKI-He just wants it re-zoned Highway Commercial so he can sell it. MR. PALING-Okay. So he has no specific business type in mind. MR. GORALSKI-That's what he said last night. MR. PALING-He wants to re-zone it for the purposes of selling. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. He's transferring the property. MR. PALING-And how do we figure in on this? The Town Board will designate us? MR. GORALSKI-On any request for re-zoning, they ask you for a - 30 - -- -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-Were any of you guys on the Board at the time when that was in here the last time? MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MACEWAN-It would be worthwhile, if that comes back to us, give copies of those minutes of that, the last time they were here, so that they can review them and see where it went. If I remember that, we didn't want to go with Highway Commercial, but I think we were leaning toward Neighborhood Professional, or something like that. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's like you could put a doctor's office or dentists office in, or a lawyer's office. MR. PALING-That was covered so extensively in the newspaper that I feel I know it. MR. GORALSKI-Two things. One is, since most of you were not on- the Board, I should make you aware that, before I came back to work for the Town, I was working for Mr. Wood on that re-zoning. So I will not be involved, and Miller, Mannix and Pratt will also not be involved in that because they were involved in the first one. MR. FRIEDLAND-We represented the neighborhood who opposed the Red Lobster re-zoning. I would assume we won't, but I haven't spoken to Mark. MR. MACEWAN-I'd say that's a pretty good assumption. MR. WEST-Did you say what he wants to get it re-zoned as? MR. GORALSKI-He wants it re-zoned Highway Commercial, and I believe the discussion last night, in the discussion last night, they talked about limiting it to some of the uses in the Highway Commercial zone, but not all of the uses. I know, specifically, they talked about eliminating automobile repair and auto sales and that type of thing. MR. PALING-How about restaurants? MR. GORALSKI-I believe that was included. MR. PALING-Was included. MR. MACEWAN-I remember that, when the big argument came up about the Red Lobster being the chosen restaurant for that site, the argument, the contention on one side of the panel was saying that it was a sit down restaurant, and they were citing all these tie ins to it, as far as what definition of sit down, I don't know if it was the Uniform Building Code or wherever they were getting this documentation from, and I remember the other side who were against it gave the definition of what it is, and believe it or not, Red Lobster fell into the fast food restaurant, surprisingly enough. MR. PALING-I wouldn't have guessed that one. They don't have a drive through. They don't have much of a take out business. MR. GORALSKI-At any rate, that will be coming to you in July. MR. PALING-In July? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MR. MACEWAN-Providing the Town Board. MR. GORALSKI-Passes the resolution, which, all indications last night were that they would, forward it for a recommendation. I'm not saying they've made a decision. MR. PALING-Now there will be a public hearing in association with this. MR. GORALSKI-Well, let me ask you that right now. Does the Board want to advertise a public hearing for that? MR. PALING-I think we've made it very clear that we want to advertise a public hearing, that we feel like we make a decision that we're not fully qualified, or we don't have complete material, and we just went through this, and we regretted a decision we made, after listening to the public input, and I would poll the Board. MR. STARK-We did poll the Board. We needed a public hearing. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. --- MR. PALING-We object if there's anything but a public hearing, a full public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-And my understanding is, legally, even though they don't have to have a public hearing, they certainly can have one. MR. FRIEDLAND- I believe that's correct. The Town Board has to have a public hearing before they re-zone it. I don't think you do. MR. PALING-I don't think it's fair to ask us to render a complete recommendation if there is no public input. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's the truth. MR. MACEWAN-Is there anything in the Zoning Ordinance that governs these? MR. GORALSKI-Re-zonings? No. MR. PALING-Do you need any further communication from us in regard to our feeling about this? MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so. MR. FRIEDLAND-Section 179-93 Article 13, Amendments. MR. GORALSKI-The public hearing is held at the Town Board. My understanding is, although it's not required, they can get any input they want, whenever they want. MR. FRIEDLAND-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Did they want a special meeting, did they say, for that? MR. GORALSKI-Not necessarily. Do you want a special meeting for that? MR. PALING-It's going to take a long time. I assume the public is going to turn out for that like they have for. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would that be a July meeting or an August meeting? MR. GORALSKI-It would be July. - 32 - -- '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/25/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, could we make it earlier in the month? I'm leaving. I'm going to the OlYmPics. That's why I rushed to get here. I totally forgot about this meeting, John. Then I realized, I've got to come, because I won't be here next month. I got worried. I said I've got to catch the tail end and see what's going on. MR. PALING-John, if we have a busy month next month, and we try to put this in with six or seven other items, I think we'll have an impossible. MR. GORALSKI-Well, why don't we wait. Tomorrow's the deadline then, Bob. We can call you up and you can come in. We can go over what we have, and we'll call the Board. MR. PALING-Sure. If we're that busy, we might want to do it on a separate night. MRS. LABOMBARD-Maybe like the 9th. MR. MACEWAN-When are you going to be down at the OlYmpics? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm hoping to come the 16th, that evening, if I'm all packed and ready to go. Until the 1st of August. MR. GORALSKI-There's another re-zoning proposal submitted for just up here on Bay Road. Do you know where Oedekerk's, the Oedekerk's Bed & Breakfast is? MR. PALING-Yes, I think I know. Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And then there's the Harris property and the Zverblis property that goes out to Sunnyside. All those farms in there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. That's where the strawberry farm used to be. MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's currently zoned Rural Residential 3 Acres. They would like it re-zoned to some one acre density. I don't know. MR. PALING-Why~ MR. GORALSKI-I would guess that what they want to do is market it for a subdivision. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Who owns the property? MR. GORALSKI-Oedekerk, Harris, and Zverblis are the three names on the application. I think that's about all the surprises ~ have for you. MR. PALING-You've done very well. surprises. Well, if there are no other On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 33 -