Loading...
02-28-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 7-2012 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 295.6-1-1 Subdivision No. 3-2012 Douglas Coon 16. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.12-1-12, 13, 14 & 25 Site Plan No. 13-2012 1St Advantage Dental -Qby. 20. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-7.3 Site Plan No. 14-2012 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP 24. FWW 1-2012 Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.4, 27.5 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 02/28/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, February 28th. For members of the audience, if you haven't already done so, if you could turn the ringers off on your cell phones. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There are also handouts for the public hearings that are scheduled this evening, and I will talk about those later when we get to the public hearings. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) MICHAEL E. CUSACK, ESQ. OWNER(S) TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING RR-SA-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 1127 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 120' MONOPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IN A RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. USE VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM USE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR-5A ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW, AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE UV 4-12; TB. RES. 85-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 4.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-1 SECTION §179-9, 179-5-130 MICHAEL CUSACK & STEVEN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 7-2012, Use Variance 4-2012 is the application, Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless is the applicant. Requested action tonight is the Planning Board is to Acknowledge Lead Agency Status, commence a SEQRA review, and potentially issue a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the Use Variance. Location - 1127 West Mountain Road. This is an RR-5A zone or Rural Residential Five acres. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Warren County referral was a No Action. Project Description: Applicant proposes a new 120' monopole Telecommunications Tower with supporting 12 by 30 (360 sq. ft.) equipment shelter. Telecommunication Towers in a RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Nature of Variance: 1. Use variance relief required as per §179-5-130C. Telecommunication Towers restricted to Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial Districts with in the Town of Queensbury. What follows is the Code reference. Staff Comments: The applicant intends to utilize a portion (approximately 350 linear feet) of an existing gravel drive associated with property owned by the Town of Queensbury for access to the site. A thirty foot wide utility and access easement is associated with the road. Access to the site will be built with the grading and installation of a 12 foot wide gravel drive with drainage controls off of the existing road; the average drive slope is approximately 3.5%. According to the applicant, access was considered to be built near the water tower in order to reduce overall road length and disturbance; however the Town of Queensbury Water Department anticipates the need to expand south of the existing water storage structure at some point in the future and as such the road location was changed. The lease site for the tower is located at approximately the 630 foot contour and encompasses 100ft.x100ft or 10,000 square feet in area. The actual amount of clearing and grading for the project, including the access road, approximates 17,000 square feet. It is my opinion that this number may be conservative as the limits of clearing have not been distinctly noted on the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) grading plan. Note: It appears as though tree cutting has occurred on this property and may have been conducted by the adjoining property owner; no town work has been performed in this area. This is the ubiquitous Hinckley, cobbly, sandy loam, eight to fifteen percent slopes are the soils. What follows is Site Plan Review. There's no real immediate issues on Staff's part, and I'd turn it over to the Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CUSACK-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Mike Cusack, the attorney for Verizon Wireless, and with me this evening to answer any questions the Board might have I have Steve Matthews who's our professional engineer who worked on the plans for the site. To my right is Rick Andrus, the radio frequency engineer from Verizon Wireless who prepared the report that's at Tab Six of our application package, and to Rick's right is Jean Marie Frawley who's been before the Board with me in the past, who also worked on the site selection from a real estate standpoint from Verizon's behalf, and the purpose of this project, just to give a brief recap, is to provide adequate and safe coverage, third generation and fourth generation services, to the Aviation Road and Dixon Road area of the Town of Queensbury, including areas west along West Mountain Road, County Route 58, Potter Road, Mountain View Lane, portions of 87 and US 9 and the numerous residents and local thoroughfares and places of business in the vicinity. It's been discussed before. We were here before the Board on the first site, at the fire department, which was denied without prejudice back on March 17, 2009, with a recommendation that we go out and consult with Town officials and try to look at alternative sites for the property, and after meeting with the Town's attorney, Town Supervisor, Water Department and a number of other officials, we arrived at the decision to re-locate the site to the current location where it's proposed, and the Town Board has gone through the process of approving the lease and looking at things with the Water Department to try to get our facilities on the appropriate location of this property. The property itself is fairly large. It's 4.82 acres. Certainly a lot larger than the prior site we were looking at, and larger than most sites we look at. The exact location of where the tower itself was selected in consultation with the Water Department, which wanted to leave enough room to the south in case they had to replace the tank that's there. So they didn't want us going right next to the tank in the cleared out area that they've cleared out and excavated, and they asked us to stay a little bit going up the hill towards the left hand side. Having said that, our driveway location where it's proposed now is approximately 300 feet of existing driveway plus 250 feet that will be extended, and that proposed location was arrived at after doing the site walk and consulting with the Water Department. I won't say that it's engraved in stone. We think it's the best location. From a civil engineering standpoint, it gives a modest grade and it allows us to sweep to the left around the Town's area, but I know there's some question on that, on where the driveway is located. My initial comment would be is it's certainly something that could be worked out as part of the normal Site Plan Review process if there's any questions on that, but very much making use of existing roads and existing entrances, using the Town's road to the extent practical, and then splitting off that to the left to leave the Water Department's space relatively undisturbed. It would be our desire tonight to appear before the Zoning Board tomorrow night with a recommendation and having the SEQRA process addressed, if we can address that. Purely on that point, just from a civil engineering standpoint, the last letter we have in the file from the Town's engineering firm dated February 10th raised two questions, and I just would like to respond to those verbally tonight because the letter is relatively new. The first comment talks about the fact that Steve, who's to my left here, provided a response that addresses the stormwater calculations for the 50 year storm interval in conformance with Section 179-6-080 of the Town Code. However, there's a very small increase, and rather than having monitoring, the Town's Engineer indicates that they will not take exception to the Planning Board granting a waiver from continuous monitoring. So I'd like the record to reflect that I'm going to request that waiver tonight, and, you know, if the Board decides to grant it during Site Plan Review, fine, and if not, again, we can work that out as part of the Site Plan Review process. It's something that you have our commitment on. The second comment that the Town Engineer raised is that in Steve's initial design, the swale alongside the driveway is proposed to be vegetated as grass and not lined. So the engineer asked Steve to run a calculation based upon a 100 year return interval storm, and provide a channel armoring, if that's necessary. Now Steve's run those calculations, and I have them here, and I'll file them with the Board. His calculations conclude that there's no armoring required, but again, as part of the Site Plan Review process, if it's something the Board wants to see, we're agreeable to keeping that as an open issue, but for SEQRA purposes, we believe that all of the concerns have been addressed, that there aren't any open issues environmentally, and I think that everything that's left on stormwater or drainage can be covered as part of the routine Site Plan Review process. A couple of points on our visual analysis and the tree removal. In our visual report, at Tab Seven of the application package, this is based upon a balloon test which Techtonic Engineering, Steve's firm, did during October of last year, and we have a discussion in there about how the terrain combined with the dense, mature vegetation provides a significant natural buffer that screens the ground based equipment and lower portions of the tower from view to much of the area, and importantly 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) Verizon Wireless has limited the height of the communications facility to 120 feet. There is a four foot lightning rod on top of that. So we've been referring to it consistently as 124 feet, to reflect the actual structural height. However, that's a very thin improvement. It doesn't really add to the visibility in any material sense, and this height allows the antennas to clear the surrounding terrain and vegetation, and provide service to much of the intended coverage area. In some cases views of the facility are entirely blocked, and we've given you photos showing that, and in other areas, only upper portions of the tower facility will be visible. To further address visual impact, Verizon Wireless has provided a report from a qualified air space safety consultant at Tab Eight of their application package that documents, so long as tower height is less than 200 feet above ground level, which we're well below that here, no tower marking or lighting will be required under Federal Aviation Administration or FAA regulations. So we have a clean project in terms of the Town's requirement to site a facility in a manner that minimizes tower lighting or marking as required by the Town's regulations. That brings us to the variance question, and the reason that we need a variance here is because no matter where we place this facility, inside our search area, or in any of the surrounding areas, it's all restrictively zoned. So this entire portion of the Town for telecommunications towers purposes is zoned out. So from our standpoint, when you can't find an existing structure to co-locate on, you are looking at building a new tower, and there isn't anywhere in the area we're looking an allowable zone. So from our standpoint it's a practical comment to make, but the variance is unavoidable. So we hope that we've evaluated alternatives suitably. We know we have to make that proof to the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night, but if there's any comments or questions that you might have, I was thinking, unless you want me to go through every single thing in this book, I was thinking that we can stop now, take questions, and try to respond. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Do you think you have settled on the issue of the location of the road? MR. CUSACK-We think our location is the best location, particularly from a civil engineering standpoint. What I'm anticipating are comments from the counsel to one of the neighbors here who's suggested that perhaps we can move the road inward on the property, more towards the center a little bit more to avoid removal of vegetation, and on that point, removal of vegetation, we haven't removed any vegetation. The Town hasn't removed any vegetation. There was a severe storm event, as everyone knows, back in August, and there was a blow down of some trees on the adjoining property owned by Mr. Ball, and in the course of cleaning that up, according to our survey drawings, it looks like some of the tree removal activities extended well into the Town's property. MR. HUNSINGER-So were there trees removed from the Town property? MR. CUSACK-As far as we can tell, yes, and we show that on the plans, the area where the removal occurred. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think, Keith, you had some pictures there that kind of showed the blow down area. MR. MAGOWAN-Along the road there, isn't it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, it's right next to the, I mean, I knew there was a lot of trees blown down in that general area, but I had no idea until you kind of get up there. MR. CUSACK-Right. If you want to get an idea of the before and after, I can give you two places to look. The adverse weather conditions occurred in August of 2011. The visual report and the photographs that are included in that report are based upon an October 3, 2011 site visit, and if you want even more photos, behind the Full Environmental Assessment Form at Tab One there's a letter report from Colin Deal of Techtonic Engineering, who visited the site on November 15t". So, again, after the weather event, but before the logging operation on Mr. Ball's property, and there are detailed photos in there. Let me walk through a couple of them, and what unfortunately has happened here is that when you look at the photos behind Tab One, I'll just start with Photo Number 10, as an example. So you go to Tab One, towards the end of Tab One you'll see some photos that look like this. There's one with a water tank on it. So you get to that page, it shows the Town's water tank. Photo Ten shows the view north from the tower site. Photo Eleven shows the view northeast. Photo Twelve shows the view east. Photo Thirteen is southeast. Photo Fourteen is south from the proposed tower and so on. I submit with due respect that even after the trees fell there was still a fair amount of tree cover on the Town's property, and that's in Fall conditions, you can see all the leaves on the ground, and I think that the tree removal operation, not attributing fault or anything, I think it just came too far over the property line right into the Town's property. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-And it certainly appeared that the only trees that were removed were ones that were damaged from the storm. I mean, all the stumps were all up in the air and everything. MR. CUSACK-Yes. If you walk up there you'll see a mixture of stumps that are straight and a lot that are tipped over. So it's mostly fallen trees, but some that were upright as well. MR. KREBS-You've asked that the road, wouldn't it make sense to bring the road from the gravel area where the water tank is over, rather than? MR. CUSACK-There's approximately a six foot berm there, that the Town has hollowed out. So if you were to come in, in that cleared area that you walk up against that there's an edge, and it's like this, the terrain. You could go to the left of that is the best, our best estimate. Steve, do you want to comment on that? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. If you were standing at the water tank and you look north, there's a significant berm, it's actually probably as much as 12 feet tall I believe, but if you were at the water tank and you turn south, there is a flatter area where a road could possibly be built towards the tower location, yes. Right there, sort of light area right directly north of the water tank is where that large berm is. MR. OBORNE-It is every bit of 12 feet. MR. CUSACK-So if the Town can sense, I mean, it's the Town's property, and if it makes sense, you know, we'll engineer to what's required, as long as it's reasonable, we're happy with it. Like I said if during Site Plan Review you want to talk about that, we'll talk about it. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, what we're talking is, you said the berm's over on this side, the north side, right? MR. CUSACK-It's really the northwest side. It kind of wraps around, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So, now what was the problem moving the road up into here more and coming, they want to, in case another tower, they wanted to put it here, right? That's what they're saying there. What's this little clearing here? MR. CUSACK-That's their turnaround area, and part of the area they're reserving, but if we avoided that. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, if you brought it up and brought it in here, you know, you'd be far enough away for the new tank, and then you wouldn't have to disturb what trees were left along the property, Mr. Ball's property. Correct? MR. CUSACK-So if we could get around that berm and the Town agrees, and it's reasonable, we're open to it, and I think it's a legitimate Site Plan Review issue to talk about when and if we get the variance. MR. MAGOWAN-It's amazing one of those trees didn't come down in that storm. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we talk about the comment from Chazen, the increase in stormwater runoff? Is there no ability to further engineer that? I guess I'm confused based on the comments that you made earlier what the real issue is. MR. CUSACK-The real issue is that the Town Code says the stormwater should be managed to a zero, and there is a miniscule amount that is unavoidable based upon the design that we have. Now all that will change if we change the road, of course, right, we'll be looking at it again. The way we left it was that the engineers both agreed it was non-material, but that it was an increase that strictly did not comply with the Code and therefore we should request the waiver. So that's my understanding of the issue. Can you quantify it at all? Is it a percentage that's known or was it just that you know there's going to be some? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, I mean based on the fact that currently the area where the tower is woods now. When the proposed development takes place, there'll be gravel areas and gravel access road. Some areas that will be grass but cleared so no woods. As a result, there's an increase in stormwater runoff. The percentage over the entire watershed which I calculated to be over 60 acres, is very small, and that coupled with the high permeable soils in the area, I guess both the Town Engineer and I agreed that it's a, to increase that, I think it calculated less than three percent, the Town Engineer recommended that the waiver would be acceptable, and we're requesting it here tonight as well. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? Okay. We have at least a couple of commenters. The purpose of the public hearing is so that interested parties can provide comment and ask questions of the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to comment if they could state their name for the record and speak into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. If you have any questions or comments, I would ask that you address them to the Board, and with that, good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening. Thank you. My name is Claudia Braymer and I'm with the law firm of Caffry & Flower. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. We represent an adjoining landowner, Mr. Ball, who opposes the proposed telecommunications tower, and I'm going to let him give you his initial comments and then I will follow up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RONALD BALL MR. BALL-Okay. Thank you. Again, my name is Ronald Ball. I own the property to the south of the water tower, and I'm here today to ask you to re-think this project. I believe there's really serious issues up there, and I'm going to explain to you what they are. In 1963 that tower was built. In 1963, from the east front, there was a straight road that went straight to the tower. That road washed out several times since 1963, so they moved the road to the left, put an elbow in it to stop the erosion. They never corrected the problem from the erosion in front of the tower. Sometime in the past seven years or so they issued a permit to the house or to the resident to the north of the tower. I believe their name is Walker but I'm not sure. He did extensive excavating to the north side of the water tower. He created, when he did that, a peninsula that the water tower sets on. This water tower is a half a million gallons of water. It weighs 200 ton. Three days ago a water tower in Wilmington, Massachusetts collapsed because of corrosion. Now if you permit them to go and clear up behind that water tower, the west of the water tower there's a ledge, and that ledge is about eight foot high. They're going to clear behind it to put their tower up, possibly a half acre. That water's going to run downhill. It's going to saturate behind the water tank, and it's going to loosen the soil and it's going to make that project very dangerous. Someone could possibly be hurt. That tower could collapse, and boy you better start thinking about it because I'm not making any of this up. All you need to do is go up and stand in front of that tower and you look down toward the West Mountain Road and you'll see the trenches I'm talking about and you can see where the Walker family did the excavating over there and this sets on a peninsula, and that's ready to go, and even if you don't put the tower there, I think you've got problems with it. That's all I have to say. I'm going to let Claudia take over from here. Thank you very much. MS. BRAYMER-Thank you. We certainly appreciate that the applicant has been cooperative in this latest siting proposal, working with the Town's attorneys, as Mr. Cusack has already stated, but Mr. Ball, as you've heard, does oppose the project, for that reason as well as for the reason that the proposed tower would create significant negative visual impacts on the community as well as on his individual property. I will try to keep my comments brief because I've outlined all of this in our letter to the Planning Board dated February 22nd, but I do want to address two major items. First, the negative visual impacts of the tower, and also the elements for a Use Variance. I know that would be in front of the Zoning Board. I just want to briefly go through that tonight as well, especially since the applicant has stated that there is no alternative for this project that it would be impossible to get without a Use Variance and we strongly disagree with that statement. First the applicant needs a Use Variance because this is an area zone Rural Residential, and that Rural Residential area is intended to preserve and enhance the natural open space and rural character of the Town and is extremely important to the preservation of the Town's rural character. This telecommunications tower is going to be vastly out of character with this location within the Town. Contrary to the applicant's claims, there would be an inadequate natural visual buffer of the tower from the south and southeast views. The proposal involves clearing approximately 17,000 square feet of forested area from the site including some mature vegetation, and I do want to address the fact that, as the Chairman stated, there hasn't been any removal of standing trees. Any trees that were removed from the site were knocked down as a result of the hurricane in August of 2011. Additionally, the Town, as the landlord here, has not made any promises that it won't clear mature trees, any remaining mature trees in the future. So we have that potential for additional trees being cleared leading to the inadequate natural buffer that the applicant is relying upon here. Additionally the trees are going to be removed not only for the construction of the tower itself but for the road access that you were 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) talking about and the location of that is right along the boundary line with Mr. Ball's property to the south southeast of that lot, and again, the property was heavily wooded in the past, but the potential for negative visual impacts have been compounded because of the hurricane destruction on both of the properties, both Mr. Ball's property and the Town's property where the water tower is located. Additionally, the maximum building height in the Rural Residential zone that we're talking about here is only 40 feet, and this tower, as Mr. Cusack has said, will be 124 feet tall, which is three times the legal limit. This height is not justified when the average height of the trees is only 80 feet in that location. Therefore, the applicant should be required to obtain a variance for the height of the tower. The applicant should also be required to provide a visual impact assessment of the new tower from the closest neighboring properties, and this visual impact assessment should provide, should stimulate the conditions on the property taken after the clearing and construction have taken place. The photographs that are provided in the visual impact assessment do not provide a realistic representation of the views of the tower from the south. There are some photographs from the development across the street, but if you'll take a look in, I believe it's Appendix Five, for instance, Photograph Eighteen is a view north toward the proposed location. So that would be from the south looking north, and that does not tell me anything about what the visual impacts are going to be of the tower. It's just a bunch of trees. MR. MAGOWAN-Are you sure it's Five? MS. BRAYMER-It's in Tab One. If you go behind the Full EAF. It's the Techtonic pictures that Mr. Cusack was referring to from November 15t". It's our position that that assessment should be bolstered. The second item I'd like to talk about is the elements for a Use Variance, because as I mentioned earlier, contrary to what Mr. Cusack said, a variance is not unavoidable. Yes, there are no commercial light industrial or heavy industrial zoning districts in the alleged search area, but the Town Code also provides that a telecommunications tower could be co-located on any property where a telecommunications tower exists or where another tall structure exists, and there are other towers that have been looked at previously, namely at 145 Aviation Road, and there are other tall structures in this search area that it's our position have not been adequately looked into, nor has, for instance, the SEMO site, the State Emergency Management Office site, it doesn't appear that the applicant has even approached that landowner to find out if it would be feasible to co-locate a new tower on that lot. They've summarily dismissed that location. Also there's possibly the water towers right at Exit 19 south of Aviation Mall, as a possibility if the antennas were facing the correct direction that that could be providing coverage to the Aviation Dixon area. As completely outlined in our letter from February 22nd, the applicant cannot satisfy the separate legal standard applicable to telecommunications towers. As I'm sure you know, it's not the regular variance standard that's in the Code, but it's the separate standard established by case law. It's our position that it's not necessary, this new tower is not necessary to provide safe and adequate service. As I provided in my letter, there is already existing 3g and 4g service in this area, and while I possess a smart phone myself, I do not think it is necessary to be able to access Facebook or even text message all the time. They have clear phone service. You can also see that from their website. I did not provide a print out of that page. There's no compelling reasons for this alternative site, as we've already stated. As I stated in the letter, this is actually outside of their search area, and it would result in decreased network performance compared to a site that is closer or in the center of their search area, and as I already stated they did not thoroughly address co-location or shared use of an existing tower or tall structure. I didn't mention the American tower located on Abbey Lane. They dismissed that because it was outside of their search area. However, this one is also outside of their search area. So co-locating on an existing tower would be the preferred alternative, according to the Town Code. Finally, in the Use Variance standard, there is an element about the minimal intrusion on the community and it is our position that this would be more than a minimal intrusion on the community because of the visual impacts. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that you recommend denial of the application and recommend to the Zoning Board and recommend to the Zoning Board that they pay particularly close attention to the impacts upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic and open resources of the Town, as well as the public safety issue raised by Mr. Ball this evening. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else that wants to comment? I know you have some written comments, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I do have public comment from Ms. Braymer's firm. I'm not sure if you want me to read it in. I think it would be pretty much going over what was already stated, and it is quite lengthy. What I can do, if the Board prefers, and I don't know what direction the Board's going to go in, I can provide copies to the Board. It is considered public comment, though, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-How long is it? MR. OBORNE-It's seven pages. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any relevant points in there that weren't raised by the verbal comment? MR. OBORNE-I'm pretty sure Claudia touched on all of this. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to make sure we take into consideration any issue that's been raised. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. I mean, the only way, I mean, to do it right would be to read the whole thing in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And it would take about probably 20 minutes, which is fine. I don't have a problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think it'll take you that long. MR. OBORNE-All right. I'll tell you what. I'll attempt, Claudia, I'll attempt to, I'm not going to go verbatim with this, because you touched on most of that, if that's okay, but I will certainly go through the, all the way up to the public necessity has not been established. MS. BRAYMER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If that works for you. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-All right. I shall proceed. February 22, 2012. "Dear Board Members: This firm represents an adjoining landowner, Ronald Ball, who opposes the telecommunications tower proposed by the above-referenced applicant. Mr. Ball opposes this project due to the incongruous nature of the project in this Rural Residential District. It would have negative visual impacts on the community as a whole, and on his property in particular. With respect to Mr. Ball's property, the visual impacts would result from both the base of the structure and the upper portions of the tower, including the 12 panel antennas, GPS unit, microwave antennas and lightning rods. Contrary to the applicant's claims, there would be an inadequate natural buffer between the applicant's tower and the adjoining lands. The applicant intends to remove trees along the boundary line with Mr. Ball's property to facilitate construction of the tower and the access road leading to the tower. Mr. Ball objects to the removal of any trees on the Town's property as it would eliminate the last remaining natural screen between the applicant's proposed tower and his land, where he intends to build a new residence. Although Mr. Ball's property was previously a heavily wooded area, the potential negative visual impacts from the tower have been compounded because of the devastating and massive forest destruction caused by Hurricane Irene in August 2011. Therefore, due to the negative visual impacts of the proposed project upon the Town's natural, scenic, aesthetic and open space resources, Mr. Ball urges you to deny the applications before your respective boards. Furthermore, the application for a use variance must be denied because the project does not satisfy the legal standard for a use variance. The Proposed Cell Tower Does Not Meet the Applicable Standard for a Use Variance Notably, the applicant has selected a site for the proposed telecommunications tower that is outside of the zoning districts and areas - Commercial Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial Zoning Districts, or any property where a tower or other tall structure exists - specifically designated for such towers by Town Code § 179-5-130. See Town Code § 179-5- 130(C). Additionally, this project does not fall within the limited exceptions to the applicability of Town Code § 179-5-130. See Town Code § 179-5-130(D)(2). Therefore, the current proposal requires a variance from the requirements of the Town Code § 179-5-130. The usual standard for a use variance found in Town Code § 179-14-080(B) does not apply because a telecommunications tower is considered to be a "public utility". Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y. 2d 364, 371 [1993]. Instead, a different standard applies to applicants seeking a use variance for a public utility. In order to obtain a Use Variance for a public utility such as a telecommunications tower, the applicant must demonstrate that: (1) its tower is necessary to provide safe and adequate service; (2) that there are compelling reasons for the approval of the selected site; and (3) that there would be only a minimal intrusion on the community. In this situation, the applicant cannot demonstrate "that the construction of a facility on the proposed site is necessary to provide safe and adequate service." Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Fort Ann, 1 A.D.3d 89, 94 (3d Dept. 2003) (citing Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y. 2d 364, 372 ([1993]). In addition, the applicant cannot establish that there are " `compelling reasons"' for preferring the proposed location rather than an alternative site. Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, Hoffman, 43 N.Y. 2d 598, 611 ([1978]). Finally, the applicant cannot demonstrate that "the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community". Site Acquisitions, Inc. v. Town of New Scotland, 2 A.D. 3d 1135, 1137 (3d Dept. 2003). Therefore, the applicant's proposal for a telecommunications tower must be denied because it cannot meet the three-pronged standard applicable to use variances for public utilities." That's where I would stop at this point. Claudia did talk about a public necessity. Definitely talked about alternative locations. Did talk about the project would cause more than a minimal intrusion on the community. If you'd like me to read that one in, that would be fine. Whatever the Board's wish is, and that's all I have at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-All right. MR. CUSACK-I'll try to do a quick response to Claudia's points. The first item I'd like to comment on is the statement that a variance is required for this project, and that's not true. If you look at 179-5-130(D) of your Town zoning law, which is your tower regulations, Subdivision Three states, "Where these regulations conflict with other laws and regulations of the Town of Queensbury, the more restrictive shall apply, except for tower height restrictions, which are governed by these standards." So within your tower height restriction, within there it tells you how to handle, as a Town, tower height, and there are two countervailing things that come into play. First we have to design a tower that's capable of supporting co-location, as well as our own needs, and second that the proposed tower on the height, the maximum height of any new tower shall not exceed that which is necessary to provide service. So this is part of the proof that we go through for the, before the Zoning Board of Appeals when they look at the need for our site under Rosenberg standard, but just to give you a re-cap, we're confident that with the information that's provided in Tab Six and throughout the application that we're demonstrating need for a certain amount of height. It is the Town's decision whether this thing is 100 feet tall or 120 feet tall to allow for co-location, that is your decision. We do require a certain minimum height to operate. Where we like to be at least 20 feet above the tree line, which here have been logged by our surveyors has high as 80 feet. So there is a balance in there, but at the end of the day the height restriction of 40 feet is not applicable. Instead under the tower regulations the Town has set up a regulatory framework where you balance the needs of the applicant against the desire of the Town to have this tower also support additional users, and we've kind of split that in the middle, and we're not making it too tall. We're not making it too short. This is what we like to call a just right height. It allows for our use as well as use by other carriers, two other carriers, and in our lease obligation with the Town, we are also required to provide space for Town and County emergency services free of charge. So that's all built into this design. It's something that we talk about with the Zoning Board and also talk about with you during Site Plan Review but we think it's addressed in our application package and that no variance is required. Second comment I'd like to address is Claudia has correctly printed out the Verizon Wireless printer family coverage map and attached that to her letter, but this is not used to indicate actual wireless coverage. This is a map that's printed for consumer usage, so that if you were to walk into our store today and be confronted with the multitude of choices and handsets, there used to also be analog handsets, if you can remember that far back. You go to this map to find out whether your community is within a digital service area, a third generation service area, or a fourth generation service area, and that's the color coding that's on that map, and if you read the footnotes, there's two very important footnotes in there. The first one says access to the 4g LTE network within the extended coverage area. Certain conditions may cause your service to connect to 3g in this area. So they're telling you upfront, you know, we're still rolling out our 4th Generation network. They're telling you upfront that you may have it, you may not, and then you go to skip a line about roaming charges in Canada, which isn't applicable here. It's more applicable up in Watertown and St. Lawrence County that area. There's a lot of Canadian roaming issues, but go to the next line it says these coverage locator maps depict predicted and approximate wireless coverage. The coverage areas shown do not guarantee service availability and may include locations with limited or no coverage. Even within a coverage area there are many factors, including customers equipment, terrain, proximity to or inside buildings, foliage and weather that may impact service. Some of the coverage areas include networks run by other carrier, the proximity to or inside buildings, foliage and weather that may, excuse me, I read past where I was supposed to read there, the coverage depicted is based upon their information and public sources and we cannot ensure its accuracy. We're operating the network here, so that last part's not really applicable, but there are areas where we share the network with other owners or it's not entirely owned by Verizon Wireless or it's someone else's network altogether. For the most part we have a national footprint, but there are some carve outs. That's just not applicable here, but we get this question a lot in zoning, how come it says in here, you know, when you go to the store maps, that you have service here. What the map is really saying is that if you have service, it's going to be a mixture in Queensbury of 3rd Generation and 4th Generation service, and that it's going to be variable, but that's the type of a footprint that you're in. These had a lot more meaning years ago when there were areas that were analog only and you didn't want to buy a digital phone even, you know, with all the bells and whistles on 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) it. If you were only in an analog area, it wouldn't work, so why pay the upgraded cost, and this was a tool that consumers could use to help figure out where they were, and that's the genesis of that. That's why we have it on our website. So I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. We're not trying to mislead anyone, but it's a tool that's designed for something else. The last thing on the service that I wanted to comment on, is that this isn't about data usage. This isn't about web surfing. It's not about Facebook and Twitter. Everything is transitioning now, over towards data. I said this when I was here in 2008, that as far as we were concerned that all of the service we're doing now is a data call even when it's what you can consider a traditional voice call, it all gets broken down into 1's and 0's and encrypted and sent out over the line, but that, to some people, may sound like a little bit of fluff. So Rick, in his report at Tab Six, put in a statement from FCC Chairman Genachowski, that's attached to our report behind Tab Six, summarizing where the technology is going and why we're doing everything that we're doing. This is Verizon Wireless. So they're usually ahead, and they're usually building ahead and they're trying to get the network set up right before the crisis hits. So, yes, we want to have good service here before the network is a disaster and we have to come in and, you know, dig it out in reverse. So we're trying very hard to do that, but notwithstanding that, that this enhancement goal, notwithstanding that, there's a legitimate need to get the coverage to a certain standard. The whole national framework for emergency services is transitioning now. There are dates that have been set, and the objectives are nothing short of being able to call 911 from a text message or from a Facebook page, or from a digital thing, and what happened, and what really set off the FCC, and I don't mean to be dramatic, it's covered in the Chairman's statement, is that the wave of complaints that came in after the Virginia Tech incident, where people tried to text message for help and wound up having to make a voice call, and give away their position in a situation where they didn't want to be found or heard, that was a very real event and it had some very real effects nationally. It seems distant to us. It seems like, you know, just another story, but the fact of the matter is that none of the networks now are set up to take this type of information digitally, and you can text message anyone else except your PSAP, you know, your public safety answering point, and so there's a national movement on to convert the networks over to handle these types of things, and we have to be able to take input as a network, from a variety of devices. It can be something as routine as a handset, all the way down to something as silly as a, seemingly silly as a PlayStation handset that happens to have text messaging capability. That's where this is all headed. It's not about convenience and social networking. It includes that, but a whole bunch of more serious things on top of that. So there was a request in 2008 when I was here, mostly from the Zoning Board, but perhaps from some of the Board members here, to give some background, you know, where is this going, why are you doing all of this, and I gathered some of that together, and Rick and I put it in the report, and it's there for your consideration and we want it to be taken seriously. If there's any question on alternative sites, I don't want to sidestep it, but we feel we've evaluated all of the alternatives that were mentioned in Claudia's letter. These are not workable solutions for what we're trying to do in the residential areas that we're trying to serve. The water tanks are great for over by the Mall. The flagpole tower on Abbey Lane that's at the Ramada Inn is, as I said back in 2008, it has internal antenna mounting positions. I believe there's four on the tower. Rick and I actually permitted that tower for Sprint back in 2000 or 2001, and three of those positions are taken. Verizon Wireless is running three networks. We need three positions to put our antennas there. So even if it worked, which it doesn't, it covers that area well, but it doesn't get into residential areas over, off of Aviation Road. Even if it worked, we'd only have one antenna bay to put our antennas, and we'd have to chop out two of our frequency sets. So there are limitations on these facilities. The SEMO tower was given much more than a cursory look. That's a similar objection that we had back in 2008. So at Tab Six I included the structural analysis which was done by Clough Harbor and Associates, establishing why we can't use that tower in its current configuration, and I'll be as consistent as I can with what I said in 2008, and indicate to the Board that there's an underground bunker there. That tower is attached or connected to the underground bunker. It's not as easy as going in and taking that tower down, because our foundation for our new tower would be, have to take into account the underground facilities and improvements that SEMO has there for emergency communications. It's a very crowded site. It's what I would call a fully developed site. It has several large highway garage barns for large dump trucks and, you know, other highway type improvements around, and then there's the SEMO bunker underneath with the tower, in a clear area. There's not a lot that we can do there. I would respectfully submit to you, as I will explain to the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night, it's also in the middle of a residential area. It has a lot of similarities to our fire department proposal that we were originally proposing back a few years ago. We're in very close proximity to residential areas there. We think we would be stepping into the same sort of objections, even if it did work, and I'm not saying that it would, but it's, again, closer to the Northway, closer to the Mall. It helps that area, but it doesn't really get us into the residential areas that we're trying to serve there now, and Steve and I went up to the site on December 12th, and I'm trying to be as nice as I can about this and not say anything inflammatory or anything like that, but what we noticed when we were there is that a lot of trees had been removed. A lot of them were on the Town's property, well over the property line, and not all of them were, you know, fallen down stumps, and, you know, there was some removal of upright trees and they were on your 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) property. It's not a problem there that we created, but we are willing, in addition to asking for a landscaping waiver, we are willing, if you think it's important enough and required in this case, to propose reasonable landscaping at this site, to try to recover some of that which was lost in the storm and the ensuing logging operations, and again, I'm trying to say that in a non- inflammatory fashion. I just want to be clear that from our standpoint not all of this is Mother Nature. There was some tree removal here that perhaps could have been avoided that's on the Town's property. We'll do our part. We just don't want to be responsible for reforestation. If you could help us on that we'd appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I had a question on your propagation map, in Section Six, and maybe I misread this, but it's one of the last maps where you show the proposed in a brown hatch and it says that the Luzerne Mountain Radio Tower is at 100 feet, but you've proposed 120. MR. CUSACK-Yes. The Luzerne Mountain site is, it's almost up towards Lake George. What we saw on a USGS map was a radio tower indicator. We can't tell you if it's a radio tower or if it's a, the top of a former fire station or whatever. There's something there that's marked as a tower. So Rick considered that as a potential alternative. It's not the alternative that we're putting in front of you now. It's something that's further north, well up on top of Luzerne Mountain. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CUSACK-And what the brown cross hatch shows, correct me if I'm wrong, Rick, but what it shows is that if we were to broadcast from that mountaintop location it would be like the older sites from the old days where it would spread the service over a wide area and interfere with service from existing sites, and at the same time not really serve the areas local because it would overshoot the area local that we're trying to get to, and that's what the cross hatch shows you is it shows you from that particular location that it would pick up in this particular case the coverage area that we're looking for, but it goes into the coverage area of two to three other cell sites and it creates massive interference. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CUSACK-And there's a long explanation to that, but I'll try to keep it short. We aren't building mountaintop sites anymore. You want the sites to be close to the areas that they're trying to serve, not really on top of them but closer to the ground, not covering as much distance geographically because there's a limit to how many devices you can get on a site, even today, and you want to contain it to a small area where it's going to function reliably and not interfere with other sites in the system. You probably heard Rick and the other rest of the team give the same type of a comment about the TV 8 tower when we were building the Luzerne site, taking that through the permitting process. We don't like to be on the very, very top of the mountain anymore. The reason the Town site works very well to be frank with you is that it's at the foot of the mountains, the much larger mountains, and it allows us to kind of nestle in there, before the Luzerne mountains go up a 1,000 or more feet in height behind our site, and it also allows us to accomplish the objectives from that site that the Town asked us to consider carefully. If I had to tell you why we like the site, in a nutshell, we like it really for two reasons. Number One, it allows the consolidation of public utility uses on a single parcel. There's already a water tank there. Water tank operations are being conducted at that site. We're bringing, they're a public utility use. We're a public utility use. From a land use perspective we're consolidating two public utility uses from a, to a single location. Secondarily, from the perspective of alternative sites, this site is less centrally located to residential areas than any of the other sites that we looked at. The primary problem that we had with the fire department site, from our perspective, is that you had homes all around it in 360 degrees. Some of the other properties that we looked at in the area also had homes around it in 360 degrees. Here you're up against the side of the mountain. We really can't go any further away from the residential areas. We're on the outermost edge of the residential areas. It's less centrally located. What we found, the last time around, is when we were centrally located, there were more views of the facility. There were more people closer to it, and it seemed to stick out more, because you're down in the flat area, there's no backdrop. There's no mountain. There's no increase in terrain behind it to help lose the site visually. We think that that's why this is a good site. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on the concern that was expressed by the removal of the trees for this project, how that could cause a hazard for the water tower to become unstable? MR. CUSACK-Yes. I think that that is truly an engineering questions, that that's why, we've had two engineering comment letters from the Town's engineer, Chazen, addressed to the very specific questions of the stormwater design and the runoff design. You've head Mr. Matthews testify earlier that he's working with the engineer. They both agree they have it down to a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) manageable level, but I look at this as purely a civil design issue. The water has to be handled on site properly and drained down through the channels that we're proposing, whether they're lined with rock or left with grass is still out on the table, but, you know, that's purely a design issue. We're very aware of the terrain. Every one of us has been to the site, including myself, and if you go up, behind the water tank and behind where the tower is, it drops off very, very significantly and then goes back up the mountain, and so you are on a knoll, but it's a stable knoll. There's nothing in the engineering information that we've developed to date which indicates that this is about to wash away or is like a sand dune at a beach as an example. There's rock there. There's a mixture of rock, soil, everything. You have all the usual, you know, geological characteristics there, but suffice it to say, even after this is approved and we go to apply for a building permit, one of the requirements is that we do a geotechnical investigation, which an engineer runs, and then another engineer takes that data and designs the foundation, and it's based upon core drillings into the earth to find out whether they're going to have to pour the foundation or do a pad or anchor into the rock, if there's enough rock down there. So they take all of that into account, and you've had some very, very bad storm events, you know, throughout the State in the last several years, but particularly in the last year, and the water tank, fortunately, has survived that very, very well. The only impact I see here is, and in terms of the environment and SEQRA, which we're here to talk about today, is the visual impact, and, you know, there's a slight disagreement between us and Mr. Ball on, you know, how much of it is due to the storm. There's some trees blew down, and after the trees blew down there was a logging operation to get out the downed trees and clear that land out, and, you know, I don't think that our tower is any more of a risk to the stability of that property than the single family residence that Mr. Ball's planning on building there. We're talking a very small area. We're talking a 20 by 20 pad probably of concrete, certainly far less than the foundation of a house, and engineered to drain all the water away from there, properly handle stormwater. So I'm very confident that we can do this. We've done it throughout the State and throughout the country, at mountaintop sites, in deserts, you know, in the Adirondacks. It can be done and it's a matter of engineering. MR. MATTHEWS-Could I add something to what Mr. Cusack just said? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if you could get on the microphone, please. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. If you take a look at Sheet SU-1, the survey plan of the plan set, you'll notice the contour map that our survey crew picked up. It shows the location of the lease area with the center of the tower about southwest of the water tank. The contours actually divert water southeast, and stormwater runoff from the site will go nowhere close to the water tank. The stormwater runoff will actually go southeast away from the water tank. So there should be no impact as far as direct runoff towards the tank from this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, while you're at the table, let me ask the other question I had. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, going to the site and seeing the blow down from the storm, I don't know what the wind was measured at or what the estimated wind was measured at. What's the tower engineered to? What's the strength of the wind that you engineer that to? MR. MATTHEWS-1 don't know that wind speeds during that storm, either, but I believe, we personally do not design the tower. That's going to be by a tower manufacturing company, but they are designed to the TIA Code, which is Rev G, and usually 90 miles an hour is the speed they use. I believe that is noted, we do not state the wind speed on the plans, but it is 90 miles an hour, that's typically the wind speed used for the design. MR. MAGOWAN-It's the same as the parking lot lamppost and that, isn't it? MR. MATTHEWS-That's correct, and that's the same wind speed required by New York State Building Code as well for this area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what concerns me with the tree blow downs in that particular area at the time was really I think more of the saturation of the ground. That really got saturated with the winds and that's why you had, you know, the major blow overs. Now some of the trees that looked, like you say, they were standing up, I've cut quite a few trees in my day that were blown down, and one particular one I remember standing on when I cut it when I was younger, stood right back up and I almost ended up in Glen Lake, and it actually stood right back up like it did nothing, and, you know, if someone were to have viewed it a couple of weeks later standing up, and a couple of more rains, it would have looked like the tree was upright, you know what I'm 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) saying, and so I can't say all of them stood up and cut down, but, I mean, that's what it kind of looked like, some of the trees, and I know that area got hit pretty hard. So I guess my concern would be is the stormwater runoff. We had that much saturation with the wind shear and the trees blew over, you know, our design for the, your design for the footings and the entire aspect, you know, would be something I would be concerned of. That's all I have to say right now. MR. SIPP-Well, that's true, because if you get the top broke off and hit another tree what's left there is not going to grow until you cut it down. That's why you see your stump. The tree itself may not have totally blown down. It may be a leaner or the top came out and knocked down the tree. So it's hard to tell if you're not there first thing in the morning to understand what happened. I do think the comment on leaving the temporary stone dams in place are a good thing to be done, in order to cut down on your possible runoff that you're going to have. MR. MAGOWAN-Because that is a steep grade going up there. MR. SIPP-1 mean, they're going to have to be in for the construction of the road. So leave them right there to do the work. MR. CUSACK-We're agreeable to that, like indicated earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments? Is the Board comfortable considering the SEQRA review this evening? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we can do that. The only concern I guess we could say we don't necessarily have a definitive answer to is issues around the security of the water tower, but there must be some kind of maintenance that's done by the Town, examination of those structures periodically. I mean, if there was an issue with it, it would have been addressed. MR. OBORNE-One would think. MR. TRAVER-Yes, one would think, indeed. MR. OBORNE-1 do want to remind the Board that prior, if you're going to go forward with SEQRA, is to acknowledge your Lead Agency Status prior to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion to acknowledge the Lead Agency Status? There is a sample motion in our Board package. RESOLUTION RE: ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP #7-2012 CELLCO Tax Map ID 295.6-1-1 Site Plan: Applicant proposes a new 120' monopole Telecommunications Tower. Telecommunication Towers in a RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Use Variance: Relief from use requirements of the RR-5A zone. Planning Board shall acknowledge lead agency status, may conduct SEAR review, and provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS, in connection with the Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (1127 West Mountain Road) 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, MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HEREBY RECOGNIZES ITSELF AS THE LEAD AGENT FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW IN CONNECTION WITH USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012 AND SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS 1127 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SEQRA review. Mr. Krebs, Short Form. MR. TRAVER-Would that be the Short Form? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you want me to do that? MR. KREBS-Yes, you can do that, sure. MR. OBORNE-Should be a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. The Short Form is in the application. MR. OBORNE-1 have the Long Form in the application. MR. KREBS-I think he's saying we need the Long Form. MR. OBORNE-1 have a Long Form right here. MR. HUNSINGER-They're both in here, yes. I'm sorry. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The Long Form. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, potential large, can impact be mitigated by project change? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. KREBS-Somewhat. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-There is the potential, but it is mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-So, Number One, small to moderate, mitigated by Site Plan Review. Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, small to moderate. MR. KREBS-Yes. Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, and we're anticipating it can be mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they did provide the visual assessment as part of the SEQRA review. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Documenting that the visual impacts are fairly minimal considering the project. MR. TRAVER-Right, but it has to get to a Site Plan before it, reality, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Then, after conducting SEQRA review, I'll make a motion that the Board find a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 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 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) 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 28th day of, February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NOES ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? Again we have a sample resolution in our Board package. Typically we select A or B, either that we have not identified any significant impacts or that we have identified areas of concern. MR. KREBS-Right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 04-12 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP Tax Map ID 295.6-1-1 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a new 120' monopole Telecommunications Tower. Telecommunication Towers in a RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Use Variance: Relief from use requirements of the RR-5A zone. Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 4-2012 FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CUSACK-See you next month. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2012 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DOUGLAS COON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION BAYBERRY DRIVE & MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 15.59 ACRE PARCEL INTO 11 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.37 TO 8.99 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-93, SUB 2-89 BROOKVIEW ACRES (1964) APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 15.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-12, 13, 14 &25 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Sketch Plan Review. Douglas Coon is the applicant. Subdivision of land is the requested action. The location is Bayberry Drive off of Bay Road. MDR is the zoning, Moderate Density Residential. SEQRA Status at this point is not applicable. We are at Sketch Plan. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 15.59 acre parcel into 11 lots ranging in size from 0.37 to 8.99 acres. Comments: At this point in time the Planning Board is asked to review the sketch subdivision and convey any concerns or comments to the applicant. The majority of lots (9) are proposed to the west of the main horse farm with one (1) 1.45 acre parcel fronting Meadowbrook Road. Town wetland mapping has indicated the presence of wetlands and these will need to be delineated on the survey. Variances will be required as presented and are listed below. As presented, lot sizes for Lots Two through Ten 1 acre minimum. Lot widths - Lots 1, 3-7 would require 100 feet road frontage relief, and wetlands on- site will need to be qualified and quantified in order to determine density and setback requirements. Additional Comments: Archeological and endangered species documentation required prior to SEAR, and water and sewer to service planned subdivision, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Doug Coon and Tom Hutchins. We're here for a Sketch Plan to start the discussion. This is an interesting piece of property because when Doug bought it, this is an existing approved filed subdivision, which is the extension of Bayberry Court, which you see when you drive up there. So there are 17 lots that are approximately a third of an acre that are fully approved on this site. There's the large lot in the back with the horses, but the remainder of them average about a third of an acre, and he could, because this is fully approved, we met with Craig, and this could be, as a grandfathered subdivision, this could be constructed the way it is, but they're small lots, and Doug feels that it would be preferable to not create so much road. This has a loop road. It's a lot of road for the number of units. So what we're proposing is to modify the subdivision to connect it to the sewer line to go to Meadowbrook Road, not with a road, but just with the sewer line, and to reduce the number of lots from a total of 17 existing lots to 11 lots. They would be substantially larger than what's on the existing subdivision, the existing approved subdivision. They wouldn't be an acre in size, which would be required today in the MDR zone, but they would be a lot larger than what they could be if he were just to build what's there, and so he'll wind up with fewer homes, fewer lots, and a lot less Town road, and a subdivision that has 11 houses with Town sewer and Town water. So it seemed like a situation where less is more, more in keeping with the size of the lots next door, rather than build these smaller lots, and fewer lots, and thereby fewer traffic. So we wanted to run that by you in a Sketch Plan context before we have Tom Hutchins do all of the engineering and submit this to you as a Preliminary, but that's where we are, and that's what our thoughts were, and we hope that this is something that the Board can support. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Just a clarification, I guess from Mr. Oborne. If the smaller lots are pre-approved, would the fact that they are requesting that the subdivision be re-defined call into need the variance for lot size, even though it's a pre-existing? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I believe that would be Craig's determination. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Again, I can't speak for Craig, though. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-But I'm sure that is the case. MR. TRAVER-It's an interesting point that they're making the lots bigger, but still now needs, because of the change in Code, needs a variance. MR. OBORNE-Just to remind the Board also, MDR, if you have water and sewer, is one acre. If you have either, if you have neither water or sewer, it's two acres. Even if you have sewer, it's two acres, or if you just have water it's two acres, but this has both. MR. SIPP-Now, how many lots are serviced by the one road? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) DOUG COON MR. COON-1 think there are probably 13 lots in there now, and they're part of Brookview Acres and they're roughly, I think probably a third to a half acre, as they exist right now. MR. SIPP-So you have total? MR. LAPPER-Thirteen plus eleven. Twenty-four. MR. SIPP-Twenty-four lots serviced by the one road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-You know that that, 183-27, part of it reads subdivisions containing 15 lots or more shall have at least two street connections when exiting onto public streets. MR. LAPPER-That is the Code now, but that was not the Code when the subdivision was approved. So again, we have a grandfathered subdivision that we could build 17 new lots on top plus 13 which would be 30 lots, and still wouldn't require an extra road. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I live in a subdivision that's got 73 houses on one road and it's, we had it this winter with a tree across the entrance and there was a lot of scurrying around to get it out of the way. MR. LAPPER-In this case when the subdivision was first approved the original owner put a deed covenant in that prohibited a connection to Meadowbrook Road, for whatever reason, they didn't want this to be a connector road between Bay and Meadowbrook. So whether or not that might or might not be a good idea in terms of traffic in the neighborhood, it's not permissible because that benefits all the existing homeowners. So they have the right to say no because it's in the deed covenants. So we just look at it as we could have 17 lots more with one entrance or we could have 11. MR. HUNSINGER-1 had a similar question, I suspect I'll get a similar answer, and that is the, you know, the 1,000 foot dead end street, it's probably that long already. I mean, I didn't measure it, but it's probably over 1,000 feet already. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess you have the same answer. MR. LAPPER-The same answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Interesting. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-I guess I still thought the lots were small in this proposal, but based on 11 versus 17, I'd rather have the 11. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we all would. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCH INS-Essentially what we're doing, what we did with the layout, this is the configuration as approved. Here's the existing Bayberry Court. Right now this drive, the Town road comes down to about here, and Doug's house sits right about here. So this was the additional approved 17 lots that we're talking about, and there's like 1600 feet of new road associated with those 17 lots. Well, what we did is essentially took this configuration and mirrored it over here so that we have another, it's just another cut de sac adjacent to, I probably should have shown both of them so you could get the reference, but it's just another very short 460 foot cut de sac adjacent, just, essentially just like this one over here. MR. HUNSINGER-So back in '64 when this was approved, it shows roads going north. Were there additional subdivisions approved (lost words) your property? MR. LAPPER-1 think that was just the case of subdivision planning where you plan for your adjacent neighbor for future development. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I was starting to speculate here, well maybe you had the deed restrictions not to go through to Meadowbrook Road because the anticipation was that it would go to Meadowbrook Road (lost words) property. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. TRAVER-That's probably a traffic issue. MR. COON-1 do think, in talking with John Hughes when I was there, first there 30 years ago, I just think the idea behind it was they didn't want through traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. COON-1 think that was the only reason, but I could be wrong. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, we've kind of had this debate a number of times with different projects and properties, and, you know, it's always kind of this interesting tradeoff. People don't want the through traffic, but yet when you have, you know, dead end subdivisions that lead to a main artery, it creates a lot more traffic on that main artery and creates the traffic problems that people complain about. So, you know, you kind of trade one problem for another by doing that, but I certainly understand your position. MR. LAPPER-I'll be back to talk to you in two months about a connector between Luzerne and Sherman, so, on the first subdivision project, and we'll have to talk about dampering the possibility of people driving fast. So, you know, you're right, it cuts both ways. In this case you could say that it would relieve pressure on Meadowbrook if there was a way, but then the neighbors would be dealing with another residential street. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, just because Paul Schonewolf isn't here, of course he'd be concerned that for emergency vehicles getting in and out, you know that's the one problem with no connection. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-It's already there. MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously in '64 they weren't concerned about wetlands. So when you take out the land for wetlands, do you still have enough property to achieve the density? MR. LAPPER-We have an interesting and complex answer to that. Doug, we've discussed this with Craig, and we'll submit it when we make our full submittal, but Doug has a stipulation with DEC that there are no DEC wetlands on this property. There's a very small area of Army Corps wetlands that we'll have flagged, right by Meadowbrook Road, but there's nothing that's considered a DEC wetland on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that's filed in the Clerk's Office as a stipulation. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Keith, did you have anything you want to bring to our attention? MR. OBORNE-No. I'm not too sure about the non-DEC wetlands because I wasn't privy to that conversation. Our mapping does show DEC wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But they'll have to do a delineation. So it doesn't really matter, and the mapping is notoriously inaccurate. MR. LAPPER-What this is, it's dated '98, 3/5/98 stipulation and order, matter of Doug Coon vs. DEC, and that's how the whole thing was settled that Brookview Acres is exempt from the requirements of ECL. So we'll get that into the record, but that was something that was taken care of 15 years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Thank you. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) SITE PLAN NO. 13-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED 1ST ADVANTAGE DENTAL-QBY AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PHRG, LLC ZONING CM-COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION 1092 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROVAL AFTER THE FACT FOR SEVEN EXISTING SPACES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES 5 NEW SPACES; ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING TO BE PAVED. CHANGE TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 15-1994, SUB 4-1994 LGLC REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-7.3 SECTION 179-9 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Site Plan 13-2012 1St Advantage Dental - Qby. The requested action is change to approved site plan. Location is 1092 State Route 9. Commercial Moderate is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes approval after the fact for seven existing spaces. Further, applicant proposes 5 new spaces; all existing and proposed parking to be paved with stormwater controls designed. Waivers requested from landscaping, lighting, and grading requirements of site plan review. What follows is my review. There are some issues with erosion and sediment control lacking. I think more than anything the parking lot landscaping should be considered along the north parking lot as per§ 179-7-050. There are a couple of other comments in there that I'm sure the Board will entertain. We have Fire Marshal comments are attached, and as a reminder again, waivers for landscaping, lighting, and grading requirements have been requested, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing the applicant. First of all, I guess, we have gone through all the engineering and Staff comments. We would intend to comply with most of them. The one that I would like some input on from the Board is the landscaping along the north property line. That area looks down on the back of a car maintenance repair area with the neighbor. There's really not enough room there to adequately put landscaping, unless we get an easement and put it on the neighbor's property, and it doesn't seem to be an issue now. I'm not quite sure why it becomes an issue with what we're proposing. MR. HUNSINGER-How much space is there between the edge of your pavement and your property line? MR. NACE-There's about five or six feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-So by the time you put any landscaping with height to it, like a spruce tree or an arborvitae or something, you know, you're starting to encroach into the parking spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you had? MR. NACE-No, that's all. I'd be glad to answer any specific questions you have, but I think, having gone through the engineering and Staff comments, we will comply with everything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? I mean, basically you're just looking to add some additional parking spaces. MR. NACE-We're adding, they have several parking spaces that they've been using that are just gravel spaces. We'd like to pave those. We're adding four spaces up on the south side of the entrance drive that are totally new, and we're paving, in the back we're paving an area that'll be dedicated turnaround area for trucks. When they get delivery vans in there now they have a hard time turning around, and that area in the back that's going to be paved will provide an area for people out of the back parking lot to be able to back into and turn. MR. MAGOWAN-That is a tight parking spot up there. MR. NACE-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-No questions or comments from the Board? Anyone concerned about the lighting plan? They've asked for waivers on lighting. I personally wasn't there after, it was still light out when I went up there. So I couldn't really get a good idea of the lighting plan, and this certainly didn't come under the new Code when it was originally approved. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-1 drive past that all the time at night time and to be honest with you, you don't see it. MR. KREBS-You don't even notice it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-It's kind of up and it kind of actually sits back, you know. MR. NACE-They currently have lights going up the edge of the driveway to illuminate the drive and there are lights on the building that illuminate the parking lot for safety, but generally they're not open after, except in the dead of winter for an hour. MR. HUNSINGER-So are all the parking lot lights turned off after the employees leave? MR. NACE-1 couldn't tell you that. I don't know. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, if they're on, they don't stand out. MR. NACE-Yes, I've never noticed it from the road, put it that way. MR. TRAVER-Particularly not in the neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments, questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and since there are no commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. This time they did submit a Short Form. Board members ready to consider SEQRA? MR. TRAVER-It's a Type 11. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's Unlisted. MR. TRAVER-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. MR. TRAVER-How come I have Type 11 no further action required on mine? MR. KREBS-Yes, that's what I have. MR. OBORNE-It's Unlisted. That's a mistake. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the agenda says Unlisted. MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. OBORNE-Short Form. MR. TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in Questions One through Five?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I'll make a motion that we have a Negative SEQRA finding. RESOLUTION NO. 13-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 1StADVANTAGE DENTAL-QBY., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 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 28th day of, February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Now we need a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, any special conditions? MR. KREBS-Just that they meet Staff comments, satisfy Staff comments and engineering comments. MR. OBORNE-That means he's going to have to put in landscaping, then, to satisfy me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, but then we're going to grant him a waiver for grading, landscaping and lighting plans. Okay. MR. OBORNE-That's unfortunate. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 13-2012 1St ADVANTAGE DENTAL-QBY. Tax Map ID 296.9-1-7.3 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes approval after the fact for seven existing spaces. Further, applicant proposes 5 new spaces; all existing and proposed parking to be paved. Change to approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/28/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2012 1ST ADVANTAGE DENTAL - QBY., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 7) 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; and 8) With the exception of landscaping, the applicant will meet Staff and engineering requirements. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. NACE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2012 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2012 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; NACE ENG. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTH SIDE WILLOWBROOK ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 37 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-08, SUB 9-2000, LGLC REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-08, SUB 9-2000 LGLC REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 2.17 ACRES, 2.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.4, 27.5 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 14-2012 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings is the applicant. Requested action, multifamily apartments requiring Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Location is south side of Willowbrook Road and actually it's north side of Willowbrook Road. Existing zoning is in the O zone or Office. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Project Description: Applicant proposes 36 apartment units dispersed between 4 eight unit apartments and one four 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) unit apartments on an overall parcel size of 4.75 acres. Site Plan Review, there's just some clean up on the ID numbers. The parcels will need to be combined if they haven't been at this point, to avoid any Area Variances. There is some comment by Staff on sidewalks. If you remember the project that is to the south of this project, there's a crosswalk that goes across now that ties into a sidewalk that goes to the Willows. Was approved by this Board. I don't think it's unreasonable to have that, the sidewalk from this project attach to it for pedestrian purposes, especially in this subdivision which has an absolute dearth of sidewalks. Sign details, I question has Army Corps been contacted for the disturbance within the boardwalk area of the wetlands, and there's one thing that I did attach to my notes, and that has to do with wildlife corridors. It would be of great benefit if the Planning Board would entertain that. It would reduce the amount of grading that the applicant has to do. I think that's a positive. They wouldn't have to plant there, and that's a positive, and again it's an existing hedgerow right now that does serve as a transient area for wildlife. There is a Type C buffer that is required in that area, and obviously the Planning Board can maximize or minimize that as they see fit, and the rest are pretty much mundane issues, such as the plant symbols and some of the planting numbers are a little bit off, and one other is there is a large stockpile on the site right now. If you made a site visit, you can't miss it. It is not on the plans, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Rich Schermerhorn, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. MR. HUNSINGER-What else did you have to add? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. For opening, I just want to go back on just a little history of the project. This is the last two lots that remain in the overall project. I bought the land about eight years ago, went through the Site Plan Review process, subdivided the property, brought sewers from basically The Harvest Restaurant down to the project, and then brought them up Bayberry Drive to service Baybridge, and the two, I think it was about a year and a half ago I came in on the remaining two lots that we're discussing tonight, and I had it approved for a 36,000 square foot office building, and unfortunately with where the economy's gone today, office use hasn't been anything that's, well, hasn't worked well for me. I've had, you know, I've tried to get interest in the office part of the project and it hasn't worked. So I went back and proposed the four, eight unit buildings, and a four unit building, and as far as I know I believe I meet all the requirements of the zoning and planning, but like I always say at all my meetings, if there's anything that's requested, I'll certainly change it, move it, entertain any of the public's concerned, because just because something's written in a Code book or zoning book doesn't mean I won't adapt to different ideas. The one positive, from I guess a planning position, the footprints of the square footage of what I'm proposing now and what was approved a year and a half ago as the office building is pretty much the same. What significantly changed was the office building had pavement area of 85,000 square feet, where the pavement area now for the apartments is 42,000 square feet. So the paving area has 50% decreased. The other thing is, is the permeable area, with the office, was 104,000, and with the apartments it's 146. So I have twice what is required under the Code now, and 20% more that was a previously approved for the office, and the other thing is, as far as the traffic flow, I had 180 parking spots with the office building that was approved, and with the apartments, I have it to 62. So I've decreased it 118 parking spots, and the one thing from experience with the multifamily apartments is when it comes to traffic, it's not a large impact. It's not like an office building or like a, I've used this example before. It's not like someone rings the bell, like at a school, and everyone leaves at the same time. Apartments are spread out. There is a letter to the effect updating the traffic report. The other thing that I know that will probably come up, and I checked today, and it wasn't in the Staff Notes, but I just like to be prepared because I know what the Planning Board members usually ask me about, you know, children. This particular project won't be limited to 55 and over. It'll be young adults. Young professionals, and believe it or not I'll get a lot of seniors, because half of the apartments are ground floor units, and I'm finding that all my seniors are snapping up the ground floor units, and the reason for it is they're still very independent but they're also affordably priced. So it opens it up to a lot of people that can afford them. So I know I'll get a lot of seniors. Now I'll never say we won't have children in them, but the one thing about the children is I did call the school today, to Doug Huntley's office, the Superintendent, and I got his assistant, and she referred me to go on line and it was in the Post Star I think, I don't know, six months ago, an article, but there's, on line, there's been a decline for the last seven years of enrollment at the Queensbury School. So I know as far as burdening the school with more apartments, that doesn't seem to be an issue. They're projecting, they're 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) hoping that it's going to go up a little bit, but when I talked to her today, they're just hoping that it'll remain flat, because there's no guarantee what's going to happen, because there has been a decline for the last seven years, and we're not the only one. Glens Falls is having a decline, too. So just to hopefully answer some of those concerns about could we get too many kids that are going to burden our school system. Right now, you know, we should be okay with that. The other thing, I'm trying to think of major, oh, the sidewalk issue. That was clearly something we forgot, because I agreed when we approved the senior center that I'd add the sidewalk on the cut de sac, and I'll certainly do that on this, and certainly I'll answer any other questions, and I think a lot of them are questions, or engineering comments that were made from Chazen, which we certainly, we've agreed to and we'll address in the plan. MR. LAPPER-Let me answer a few questions, and then we'll give it to Tom. Keith mentioned in his Staff Notes about combining the parcels and of course that would be a condition. Rich had this set up originally for smaller office lots to be flexible to see who would come in and want to rent or own their own office, and now we'll be combining those. So we've really addressed Keith's issues with combining the lots, adding the sidewalk. The stockpile soil will all be used and will be put on the plan as well, but before I turn it over to Tom to go through the details, when you look at the Chazen letter, of course there's 24 comments. There's really nothing that Chazen said that requires any change in the plans. It's mostly just notes, technical notes about the stormwater plan and the new stormwater regulations and showing an orange fence to make sure that the contractors will stay away from the wetland and delineating corners and boundaries, and there's some other ones that Tom will address, but all stuff that just would get added to the plan and wouldn't change the project at all. So we're hopeful that at the end of the discussion that you may feel comfortable granting an approval contingent upon getting a signoff from the engineer, and in terms of, there was a comment from him about archeology and endangered species, and all of that was addressed when we got the subdivision approved eight years ago, as Rich said, for the whole subdivision, and this is, of course, the last development out of this whole subdivision, between the imaging center and the daycare, and Rich's office and the medical building and then all of the senior projects, everything's been done. So we nailed all this eight years ago, before we got started on the project. So those are my general comments. Let me hand it over to Tom. MR. TRAVER-Before we talk about engineering, can you comment on the issue of the wildlife corridor? MR. NACE-I think what Keith is talking about is this north boundary line right here. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. NACE-Along this north boundary, we have proposed some grading to provide a little bit of a berm, buffer to the adjacent property, and we've also provided landscaping that conforms with the type of buffer required in your zoning. I think Keith is suggesting that that be left natural, which is just a hedgerow of miscellaneous scrub trees, I guess you would call them, and the natural grass. I think that as far as a wildlife corridor, whether they're trees that deer can graze on or the natural grass probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference. I think I preference would be to leave the landscaping to provide a buffer. MR. TRAVER-1 think part of the issue might be that in grading and re-planting the area, you disrupt the corridor, so the animals find alternate routes. MR. NACE-Well, if it were connecting two wild sections of land, I would say that there might be an issue there, but I'm not sure we want to promote wildlife going across the brook and onto Bay Road. I'm not quite sure, you know, it's not an established corridor that has historically been used, because there's no destination point for them to go to on the west side. MR. LAPPER-The neighbors, Tom, might prefer this because it's a little more dense. MR. NACE-And I think we would prefer it, too. MR. SIPP-1 think what they're looking for is to increase edge, you know, if you had to take down part of an area that's wooded and so forth, if you create an edge, which grows better and is more attractive to certain kinds of wildlife. MR. NACE-An edge, you mean a natural material? There would be right at the very hedgerow itself. MR. SIPP-Instead of being solid, you create a pathway which has an open to the sun more than it would be if it were left as it is. That's, I don't know how to describe edge. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. OBORNE-This is not, it's not a habitat area. It may be for birds, certainly, I mean, without a doubt, but it's a transect area is what it is, and it tee's in to an existing wetland. So it gives more area for transect, and there is, as you look, as you go to the east, there is a connection all the way over through the wetlands. MR. NACE-Agreed. There's a connection, it's marginal, but there is a connection here to the wetland. Along the west there's really nothing, and I don't think, you know, with that scenario we'd want to promote wildlife going through, and if it were a place where you were connecting from one wetland to another, in an established corridor that was used, I can see the value. MR. OBORNE-I respectfully disagree. I believe that that is an established corridor right now. That wetland area that's draining from the north to the south is certainly an established corridor, and that's just my argument there. That's all, and I'm just asking the Planning Board to consider it, and, again, you don't have to plant, you know, landscaping. I think it's almost a win/win, unless you want to look at it from aesthetic purposes, also, you know, there is a required Type C buffer there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Between uses. MR. NACE-I think what we have provided for landscaping constitutes as a Class C buffer. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'll certainly, you know, whatever you'd like, but I would think the neighbors would want as much of the existing vegetation that I have there now. MR. SIPP-It doesn't have to be large. It's just that it is opened up so you get re-growth or better growth for deer, birds, bees and so forth. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I'm in favor for whatever you want. I just, whatever's suggested I'll comply with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? I'm sorry, was there anything else that you wanted to present? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-My only comment is that I'm not against leaving the corridor, but I don't think it's the place for deer or animals to be running, because we don't want to develop that along Bay Road. MR. SIPP-Well, yes, but you go north of here on the College property and go to the back where that stream is, you've got wildlife. MR. KREBS-Yes, but there's also plenty of access to that wildlife area from other areas than right off Bay Road. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the idea in edge is to make it more. MR. KREBS-I mean, all of that area along Meadowbrook. MR. TRAVER-I think the question is do we want one less corridor in that area. MR. KREBS-I'm not sure that putting landscaping in there is going to create one less corridor. MR. OBORNE-No, but my intent is to leave it as is. MR. MAGOWAN-They're asking not to them to clear all the way back to the line and re-plant it is to leave as much buffer as you can. MR. OBORNE-Leave it as it is. It's working just fine. MR. SIPP-See, he's opening up in order to get his road and buildings in. That's what I mean by creating edge. It's a way of keeping wildlife in the area. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. SCHERMERHORN-1 do know there is a significant amount of deer out behind my senior project, because I have a large portion of, we left it as open space and some of it's wetlands, and I was talking with Mr. Coon in the lobby and we were just talking how we have all these turkeys and I told him that a month and a half ago I had some residents call and they said they saw a small black bear out in our garbage area, and we said, we're thinking, no, they've got to be kidding, but I do remember, because I used to walk on Rockwell Road when I lived in Masters Common, and we did have bears that would cross, and they would go over to the area where Queensbury now has their walking trails out behind the Hiland Golf Course, but I do know I've created a sanctuary for this wildlife because they are out behind the Willows and they're very tame now and they feel protected because nobody's hunting them, and where I'm building the newest addition to the Willows, we approved it a year ago, we can actually see the deer stand out there in the morning. So they are out there. Whether they cross Bay Road or not, my office is there. I don't see it, but again, I'll do however you want me to transition that, we'll do whatever you're comfortable with, but right now they do have a happy home and I think they'll continue to stay there. MR. TRAVER-That would be less of an expense for you if you didn't have to go, you know, do all of that. I remember, talking about the bear, I remember, and this has got to be many years ago now, but there was a black bear that actually was tranquilized out of a tree in Crandall Park, right next to the library. That's got to be 15 or 20 years ago now, but I remember reading that in the paper and thinking, wow, Downtown Glens Falls, a black bear in a tree. It's amazing. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. KREBS-Well, I was driving up Sweet Road about three days ago and seven deer crossed the road in front of me. So there's corridors all over. MR. TRAVER-There is. MR. KREBS-Yes, right behind Gambles. They came up for donuts. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? Building colors? MR. SCHERMERHORN-1 was going to keep it in keeping with the Willows, and maybe change it just a shade difference, something that just blends with my office, the Glens Falls Rehab. I guess we'd call it earth tone color, just something very similar in nature. It won't be anything bright like blue or red or yellow or anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Similar roof colors, too? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, on the way of the earth tone colors. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-1 was just looking, again, at the engineering comments to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Most of them are cookbook type stuff out of the manual. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I remember initially being surprised at how many there were, but as Jon said, a lot of them do seem to be. MR. NACE-1 can respond to all of them adequately and it will not change the actual design. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Keith? MR. OBORNE-If I can ask a question, I'd greatly appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-What do you plan on doing with the pile of dirt? Is that just going to be spread or? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. That pile, I plan on taking it away. Honestly I just haven't had the time to move it. I just moved it there about a month and a half ago, and I did put up silt fence. Bruce Frank has been out to inspect to make sure. MR. OBORNE-Totally stabilized. No issue with that whatsoever. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. No I plan on moving it fairly soon. I actually have some berms I want to build in my development for landscaping, and we were going to take it over there, but it's just been frozen. MR. HUNSINGER-How deep's the frost? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right now some areas we only have about four inches. Some areas we're not finding any right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm not surprised. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sometimes with a winter with no snow you actually get deeper frost. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we've had so many days above freezing, though. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I know my lawn is still frozen solid when I walk outside. It's like sidewalk. MR. SIPP-1 asked before our session started if you had any idea of the number of children that would be inhabiting these new apartment complexes. Is it one per family or one for every two families? Have you run across this in your other? MR. SCHERMERHORN-You know it's been difficult, and I had a Town of Moreau meeting the other night, or last night, and they brought up the children. It's getting harder to gauge the children from what you have in there, and I'll tell you why is because they're not out riding bicycles and rollerblading like they used to be. They're inside doing Facebook and the things that I get mad at my kids about, but they're doing all these Wii games. Now my kids are older. They're not doing that anymore, but unfortunately kids are indoors now and the other thing I'm finding is the schools, there's a lot of homework now, and I know from experience, they don't have a lot of extra time to go outside and play like we used to. So it's a good question because I'm having a hard time. The only time we know if there's a concentration of children is by when the bus, in the morning when the school bus comes and picks up, but that's really quick, too. MR. SIPP-You've got three different routes. There's the grade school, middle school and high school. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. SIPP-So you have four in each category. You have 16 kids but they're being picked up. MR. LAPPER-You drive up Meadowbrook when the buses are there at Rich's complexes, there's (lost words). MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. We certainly do not discriminate, but I have the right to have people fill out a proper rental application. We run credit reports on them, and, you know, these are two bedroom units, and if we see on a rental application where someone puts down that they have five children, then it becomes a Code issue and it's not an adequate, and we have the right to choose the best applicant for the unit. We're not discriminating. It's just I have the right to choose the best applicant, and fortunately there's been a very high demand for the apartments, and it was very high even during the building boom because I've been building them since, you know, for years here. So I don't want to say I select, but we're careful about where we place people, but I'm not finding people that have large families anymore. I mean, they're out there, but if someone has three, four, five kids, they're generally looking for a house to rent. MR. SIPP-The reason I ask is that there's a possibility of two other developments close by, and one is 81 units and another is 160. MR. TRAVER-Well, talking about burdening the school with more kids, we're also burdening the school with a lot more tax revenue. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Everything is, and I know the one project, the Bay Road one that you're talking about, that particular project 1, just from a developer, I would envision that as being, I don't like the word higher end, but I think they're going to be higher priced apartments, based on the design, for what the Town's been looking for, and I think you will get maybe more of the retirees, maybe some of the younger professionals that may not have kids. It's really hard to gauge these things, and, you know, the other one, I think it was only Sketch Plan was the Valentes, and again, it's hard to gauge where we'll be with these. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. KREBS-But I think you're right that as the population of seniors grow, we're seeing more and more seniors when they get to mid-70's they decide they want to move out of their homes into an apartment so they don't have the requirements of doing the maintenance, etc., and I think we can see that all over. It's not only in this part of the country, but all over the country. MR. OBORNE-And they want to stay in place, too. They want to stay in place. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Here's the other thing. Queensbury is a nice place to live. We have all the stores, the outlets, grocery stores. We have a lot to offer here, and with that, though, unfortunately, though, does come the growth, but with the growth comes the commercial, and right now Queensbury has what Town of Moreau has, which I'm building in in the Town of Kingsbury, and it's a catch-22 because a lot of people don't want the density coming in, but they want the tax revenue. Like Town of Moreau is real excited about this new development that was announced. Well, some people don't want it but it is a good thing, and the only way you're going to get it is if you have the density. So it is a tradeoff, and I always say that it's smart growth that developers and Planning Boards have to work together on. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN MANNIX MR. MANNIX-Good evening. Dan Mannix. My wife and I and family live, we border up to the north of Rich's property. Well, two things. Just so you're aware of the corridor, every night the deer come from ACC through the residential lots across Bayberry, through our front yard across the field into Rich's field to the wetlands, every night, for whatever that's worth. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MANNIX-But that's not going to stop if there's apartments there. They'll just go in the other backyards I'm sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MANNIX-But a question about the disturbance within 100 feet of the freshwater wetlands. Is there going to be a variance required? Are you going within 100 feet of the stream? MR. SCHERMERHORN-1 don't believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a permit required. MR. OBORNE-It's a Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. MANNIX-Okay. So you're going to be within 100 feet of the stream? MR. LAPPER-Just grading. MR. MANNIX-Just grading, and is there going to be a variance required for the setback from the north side? MR. NACE-On the building side. MR. MANNIX-And the height requirement is two story buildings? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. MANNIX-And there's three on the north side? And so the discussion earlier as far as the hedgerow, are you planning on leaving that undisturbed? Do you prefer to leave that undisturbed, or do you prefer to? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Whatever you and the Board would like I'll do. MR. HUNSINGER-Since you're a neighbor, if you have a preference? MR. MANNIX-We talked about it before when he had the commercial building approved. I'd just as soon leave the hedgerow that's there now in place. It's a mature hedgerow, and you said the dirt that's there now is going to be taken away. You're not going to be. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. That was just temporarily in place from the one I'm building right now. MR. MANNIX-Okay. I remember when you were doing the work that you're doing now on the south side of Willowbrook, the grading trucks and the dump trucks were in and out of there. I was surprised how much dirt you moved. So I was just curious if you were going to do that on this side as well. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We'll have to remove some because it's clay soil and we bring in good base for underneath the slabs of the foundations and in the parking lot under the sidewalks, since if I don't the sidewalks will heave on us. MR. MANNIX-Is there going to be an elevation change? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There is some, only because the land slopes. MR. MANNIX-Which way, to the south, north to south? Because just so you know, just over our hedgerow there is a, where water pools, and it's just about all year until late July and August it dries up, but it's not a big pool, but it's not dry. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I might be able to grade it. MR. NACE-The elevation of the apartments will be a little higher than the existing. There'll also be a swale down through here with a drain in that area. MR. MANNIX-Okay. I appreciate it. No, I just had questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? We previously mentioned the number of engineering comments, but they do tend to be fairly technical in nature, as opposed to design in nature. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I reviewed them again quickly. I think, you know, they require a signoff. I didn't see anything that, Number Seven, there's a pre-development subcatchment map that wasn't provided, I'm assuming you can take care of that as well. MR. NACE-Obviously, yes. MR. TRAVER-So, you know, I didn't see anything that was a real. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the design issues that we did talk a little bit about is the use of sidewalks. You offered to put them in but we didn't really say specifically where they would be located. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We originally, for the property across the street that we approved, we put it on the edge of the road and we would just make it all continuous, coming out of the development, and connect to it, and that would go towards the Willows, which would be to the east, because the dentist office is next to me and there's nothing to connect to there because she's already built and developed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But we could certainly show it on the plan and have Keith or Bruce just, add it as a condition for them to. MR. SIPP-Number Nineteen on the engineer's, shall add a note or detail indicating a topsoil seed and mulch specification as well as appropriate application rates, which is kind of, I don't think you can buy fertilizer in the State of New York that has any phosphorus in it this year. So you're not going to get a good catch. Well, you might get a good catch, but it's not going to grow. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. NACE-1 think that note is already in the landscape plan somewhere. MR. SIPP-Yes. (Lost words) regulations here as to how much grass seed per thousand square feet or something like that. MR. NACE-Yes, we'll take care of that. I think the note's already in there. He may not have seen it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What other issues do we have? MR. SIPP-Most of them are just stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The boardwalk. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was just going to mention that. MR. LAPPER-Let me address that. We did that for the Girl Scout camp on Meadowbrook adjacent, and when you're only putting piers in the wetland, that doesn't require a permit. We didn't require one there. We wouldn't require one here. Just to hold up the boardwalk, because it's not a permanent. It's just a construction thing, and then it's just a post. So we won't have to go to Army Corps for that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And how I know that's true is because I did the, from office to the Glens Falls Rehab building I have the wooden boardwalk, and I called Kevin Bruce from the Army Corps of Engineers and he came up and met with me and he said I didn't need a permit for it, but I did, when I went to build it, I did go to Dave Hatin, got a building permit to do it, and the only reason I put it in is it does, I do notice that the residents, the seniors, the people in the office buildings on their lunch breaks, everyone seems to like to walk around through the complexes and they do use that bridge continuously. I see people using it, even on the weekend. So I thought it was a nice addition. MR. OBORNE-Any pedestrian interconnectivity is fabulous. I just want to make sure that you don't get, pardon the expression, smacked up side of the head for messing with the wetlands. That's all. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I mean worst case scenario it would come back on me if, for whatever reason, Dave Hatin thought it needed to go to Army Corps I could certainly call him up, because he's not going to issue me a permit if he had any doubt. So I wouldn't do it without going to Dave Hatin anyway and to get a permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Obviously the sign would have to be Code compliant. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Trash enclosure details? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. It'll be the same of all the ones I do, it's the chain link and I put the vinyl slates that match the color of the siding through them. MR. NACE-We will provide details of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. KREBS-Ready to go with a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we need to do SEQRA first. It's Unlisted, but he submitted a Short Form. MR. OBORNE-Short Form. MR. TRAVER-Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Before you start, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Now I'll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2012 & FWW 1-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 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 28th day of, February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Conditions? MR. LAPPER-The hedge is one condition. MR. KREBS-Yes. The two conditions. We'll use the draft as the proposed motion, and the two conditions are the north buffer will remain as it is today, and, Number Two, will add sidewalks and connect to the sidewalks along Bay Road. MR. OBORNE-Engineering signoff. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Willowbrook. MR. LAPPER-Along Willowbrook Road. MR. KREBS-Yes, Number Eight is engineering signoff required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. MR. LAPPER-Don, that's along Willowbrook Road, not Bay. MR. KREBS-I'm sorry, Willowbrook. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to say anything about the colors? We probably should have that in there. Colors to be earth tone, similar to existing buildings in the subdivision. MR. KREBS-Okay, and we'll add colors will be in earth tones and similar to those that have been used prior in the apartments. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a couple of things in the draft resolution that you need to mention like Item Two and Item Six. MR. KREBS-Okay. Do you want me to read the whole thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you don't have to read the whole thing, but just, you know, hit the highlights here. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 14-2012 & FWW 1-2012 SCHERMERHORN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 37 unit apartment building. Multifamily apartments in an Office zone require Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100 feet of freshwater wetlands requires a Freshwater; A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/28/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2012 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2012 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, LP, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6) 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; 7) Waiver requests: The Planning Board does not grant waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting plans. 8) Engineer signoff required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator and the following conditions: a.North buffer remains the same. b.Sidewalks will be added and connected to the sidewalks on Willow Road. c.Colors will be earth tone, similar to the existing building. 9) 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; 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) 10)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 11)The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: MR. KREBS-We granted stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting plans. MR. OBORNE-Just to make sure the applicant is aware that the Board's not granting waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. Correct? Because, Don, you said you granted those waivers. MR. TRAVER-Right, correct. MR. OBORNE-But you're not, because they're required to have stormwater and landscaping. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It's all part of the plan. MR. OBORNE-And it's fine, with my comment, it's on the record, it's fine. MR. TRAVER-I'll second the motion as amended. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. Is anyone here for Queensbury Partners? MR. OBORNE-Nobody's here for Queensbury Partners, but we certainly can discuss it one more time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we all have a copy of the letter from February 2nd MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-We've offered a discussion item, joint meeting, whatever they would like. MR. OBORNE-What I have is penciled in for here at the Queensbury Center for March 22nd for the potential for a workshop on this subject, pending the ZBA being on board with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Now my question to you is would you want to conduct a workshop specifically for Queensbury Partners on that date regardless of the ZBA coming or not? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't know. I mean, since the ZBA seems to have issues with the plan as it stands, I don't know how productive the meeting could be in their absence. MR. OBORNE-Well, I have a meeting tomorrow, weather permitting obviously, with the ZBA. We certainly will, regardless of the weather, having a meeting with the ZBA prior to the Planning Board's next meeting in March. So at this point, you know, we're penciling it in, and obviously Chris and I can communicate, after I discuss it with the ZBA. My question to you is would you want one regardless, or only if the ZBA's on board with it? MR. KREBS-Well, I'm not going to be here on March 24th, but my feeling is that what we created with the applicant was what we thought was the best solution, and the Zoning Board just either didn't understand it or disagrees. I mean, basically we were trying to prevent having huge parking lots along Bay Road and moving the buildings up. So we created variances. MR. TRAVER-They understood it. They disagreed. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there's a lot of stormwater problems there, and also wetlands problems. MR. KREBS-I didn't think they were encroaching on the wetlands. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they were in the adjacent area, certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they'd need Freshwater Wetland permits. MR. OBORNE-But the ZBA is tasked with a totally different task than this Board. You're plan review Board, you know, they're, you know, quasi-judicial. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they're, I think some of the concerns, too, is how many variances there are, you know, to be waived or changed, you know, and so what was brought up to me that, you know, what about all the previous and the past people that we have denied, and, you know, I think it would have been a lot easier for them to make a decision if there was a couple, but there were so many, and I think that was one of their main, you know, it was like, wow, there were just so many that. MR. OBORNE-They've been known to grant a waiver or two in their day. MR. TRAVER-1 almost feel as though it's really, the ball is kind of in their court, I mean, to say to us. MR. OBORNE-The applicant's court. MR. TRAVER-The applicant obviously fundamentally, but also in discussions with the ZBA to then come to us and say, you know, you guys looked at a proposal. The ZBA had some issues with it. We're making a counter-proposal, and now we want to discuss it again, rather than have us set a marker for a date. I mean, I think it's a great idea to set aside a date. Maybe we should do that anyway as a marker, but to stipulate that they have to be on board or what the meeting necessarily will be, how do we know where we'll be by that time? MR. OBORNE-You don't, and quite frankly it is not on the ZBA at all. If they're uncomfortable with it, they're uncomfortable with it. I mean, there's nothing we can do about that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-You're pushing the design, to a certain extent, but the applicant is definitely in lockstep with you. So, you know, my, as your Town Planner, I mean, I believe it's on the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And I wish Matt was here to explain a little bit more, but, nevertheless, you know, I'm not sure what's going on with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my feeling is, you know, having looked at the draft agendas for March, the meetings aren't very heavy. MR. OBORNE-No, they're not. MR. HUNSINGER-They're a lot like this month. There's like four, five items each meeting. So, I mean, we could certainly have them as a discussion item at a regular meeting. I would only see 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) a need to have a special, you know, evening set aside if the Zoning Board was willing to do a joint workshop. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And I won't know that until tomorrow night. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So, getting back to Keith's point, should we leave that as a marker pending further communication from the ZBA, just so that, since we're here, you know, we can kind of pencil it in but not make it definite until we hear, presumably soon, that something is in the works. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Otherwise, if Queensbury Partners wants to come back and give us an update on, you know, presumably what they've been working on tonight, they could do that, as you say, at one of the meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there's room in either meeting in March, don't you? I mean, I don't remember specifically. MR. OBORNE-I do. I do, for, as a discussion, but that does leave it to, what is the Zoning Board going to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I mean, also there's only going to be four members here. Well, I believe the two alternates will be able to sit in the March meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So that's six. So that's good. I know that there are a couple of members from the ZBA that are not going to be around either. MR. HUNSINGER-March isn't a great month, it sounds like. MR. OBORNE-It's not. March nor April. Specifically March. MR. SIPP-Did we have something to bite into, specific things that they did not want or didn't care? MR. OBORNE-Well, I would suggest you read the minutes. There were a lot of public issues, public comment that there were issues with, and certainly review the minutes to get the tenor of it. I do believe that there's audio with it also. So you can certainly get the total package of what's going on there. I can't speak for the ZBA. I just can't. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we leave the 22nd of March open as a possible joint workshop date. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because if that's going to move forward as a workshop, we'll hear about it soon. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We'll know tomorrow. MR. OBORNE-And a joint workshop with the ZBA, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. OBORNE-If the ZBA's not on board with it, then we'll let the date go. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We'll do a discussion item at a regular meeting. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. We can do it at the end of a meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/28/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, last time they kind of stated that it was an informal joint meeting, but they couldn't, now that it's been presented to them, can they discuss it a little bit more than? MR. OBORNE-I think in the workshop setting, yes, absolutely. Now that needs to be noticed. There is, you know, you don't necessarily have public comment, but the public is welcome, and if either of the Chairs wish to entertain public comment, that's totally up to you, but with that, I think that in the workshop setting is the way to go. I mean, I really do. They don't have a complete application in either. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-There's no engineering done, and I understand why. I think we all do, but I don't think we're going to be going back to the ZBA with an application that's not complete. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds good to me. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MR. TRAVER-None that I'm aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 39