Loading...
05-15-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2012 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 1. Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch/French Mt. Bear Pond 2. Tax Map No. 278.-1-77, 13 Site Plan No. 28-2012 Tracey Williams 2. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-15 Site Plan No. 26-2012 Kevin &Ann Dineen 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 Site Plan No. 27-2012 John & Pamela Cembrook 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-43 Special Use Permit No. 9-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 9. MOD TO SUP 45-2009 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 Site Plan No. 30-2012 Church of Our Lady of the Annunciation 15. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-3 Site Plan No. 29-2012 Royal Hospitality 20. MOD TO SP 49-2005 Tax Map No. 288.8-1-5.2 Site Plan No. 7-2012 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 29. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-1 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 05/15/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 2012. For members of the audience we welcome you. There's copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout back there for public hearing procedures. If you are here for a specific project and you intend to speak during the public hearing I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the procedures and I'll explain more details when we get to the first public hearing. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes from March 20th and March 27th, 2012. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2012 March 27, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 20 AND MARCH 27, 2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We have two administrative items this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SB 08-2005 MT. HOLLOW H.O.A.-TABLED TO 5/15/2012, NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-It was tabled to this evening. No new information is submitted. We do have a letter and we have someone here from the applicant. MS. BITTER-I'm sorry. Mickey Hayes had asked me just to inform the Board that he did schedule a meeting with Craig Brown for May 31' at 10 a.m. to discuss the outstanding issues and was hoping that this matter could be tabled to June. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record? Thank you. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter, attorney for the applicant. MR. OBORNE-1 would state that it should be tabled out to July at this point, because the meeting's on the 31St MS. BITTER-That's correct. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. OBORNE-And you're not going to be able to turn that around for a June meeting. MS. BITTER-I'd agree with Keith. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Wow, that's awesome. MS. BITTER-And that's on the record. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The 17th would be fine. MR. TRAVER-The 17tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until the July 17 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SP 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND-TABLED TO 5/15/2012, NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-Which was tabled to this evening. Again, no new information was received. Was there any? MR. OBORNE-The only update is that the application to the APA has not been submitted, and at this point there's not a heck of a lot we can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So we'll just leave it open, wait for that to go through the protocols and process and once we get the updated plan we'll get it scheduled. MR. HUNSINGER-Since we don't know when that might be, table it? MR. OBORNE-You might want to go out to July 17th again. MR. HUNSINGER-Table it indefinitely or table it to a date? MR. OBORNE-Let's table it to a date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the July 17, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE EXPEDITED REVIEW SITE PLAN NO. 28-2012 SEAR TYPE II TRACEY WILLIAMS OWNER(S) CHARLES TUTTLE II & OTHERS ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 16 TUTTLE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 692 SQ. FT. U-SHAPED DOCK WITH 608 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 3-97, AV 4-97, BP 11-568 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA OTHER L G CEA, LGPC LOT SIZE 0.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1- 15 SECTION 179-9, 179-5-060 MR. HUNSINGER-We did have an item for Expedited Review this evening, Tracy Williams, and that's been withdrawn. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the applicant has withdrawn the application, and as such it is no longer to be reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if there's anyone here in the audience to comment on Tracy Williams on 16 Tuttle Lane, that project will not be heard this evening as the application has been withdrawn. We have three recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-2012 SEAR TYPE II KEVIN & ANN DINEEN AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL- RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING WR- WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 96 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK & PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-12; SP 11-07, AV 29-97, SP 37-92, AV 60-92 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179-9 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. The location is 149 Birdsall Road. This is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County referral is not applicable at this point. Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 96 square foot residential addition to existing single family dwelling. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from shoreline setback & permeability requirements of the WR zone. Further, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Staff Comments: Although the project is small in nature, the site is currently over built relative to code with existing permeability calculated at 64.7%; the addition will add 96 square feet. Thus the permeability will be calculated at 64.4%. Consideration should be given to increasing permeability by removing existing hard surfacing that currently exists on-site. Concerning the requirement that a written certification from a Licensed Professional be provided for septic compliance, the applicant has provided sign-off on the cover page. There's really not a whole heck of a lot going on as far as site plan reviews with this. It's a 96 square foot expansion to the bathroom, but I will go through, for the record, what the quantified shoreline setback is. Shoreline setback is relief requested for 4.2 feet from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement. Permeability is relief for an additional 96 square feet of hard surfacing and expansion of a nonconforming structure, that must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. We are proposing a 96 square foot master bathroom addition to the existing single family residence. The addition itself is wholly within the setbacks. It's the existing building that's too close to the shoreline. So that's, we need our shoreline relief for that. As far as the tradeoff of hard surface, I've talked with the owners, and we can take up 96 square feet of pavement. We can take up a strip of the existing pavement that's along the end of the driveway and replace that with grass. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Anything else you wanted to add? I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. FORD-That took care of my concern. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mine, too. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The birch isn't coming down, is it, the birch? MR. HALL-The one that's, no, the one that's right here on the top of the retaining wall? No, we're not going to be that close to the retaining structure. We're only coming out eight feet from the house, and it's about 14 or 16 feet out to the retaining structure. MR. MAGOWAN-It kind of leans that way. MR. HALL-The birch itself. Well, it's not coming down by us. It may come down by the grace of God, but it's not coming down by us. MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds like a good tradeoff there, permeability. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments or concerns from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-With this addition, are you providing more toilets than were there to begin with? MR. HALL-Yes, there will be an additional water closet and an additional shower and an additional lavatory. There are no additional bedrooms. MR. SIPP-No additional bedrooms. MR. HALL-No additional bedrooms, and I do have, as Keith stated, I did sign off, I spoke with Ivan Bell who installed the septic system and has maintained it every three years since its installation. I have a letter from him this evening as well. MR. SIPP-And that is located where? MR. HALL-It's located, can you go back to the site real quick? It's up on top. It's right behind where the garage is. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. HALL-The garage is the structure that's closest to Birdsall Road, and there's a green area. It's right behind the garage, and that does meet the separation distance to the shoreline. It's just, see the retaining wall structure that key pad there, it's just to the right of that. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a pumping system, too, isn't it? MR. HALL-It is. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I saw the manhole covers there. MR. HALL-Yes, it comes out of the house. It goes into the septic tank which is right there by the house and then there's a pump that pumps it up on top. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? It's a Type II SEQRA and there is no public hearing scheduled this evening. So if there's nothing else from the Board or the applicant, I'll entertain a recommendation. MOTION TO RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2012 AND SITE PLAN 26-2012 FOR KEVIN AND ANN DINEEN, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: That the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: MR. FORD-May I just ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. FORD-The current application's proposal, does that include that modification in the lessening of the? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. TRAVER-Well, it does now. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, I would argue yes. MR. HALL-Based on my testimony, yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would add to that that permeability relief would most likely drop tomorrow night if you were to offer that. MR. FORD-Just wanted to make sure. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's a good clarification for the record. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2012 SEAR TYPE II JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) P3 REALTY ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 121 BIRDSALL ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 1,524 SQUARE FOOT SFD WITH 816 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AND RECONSTRUCT A +/-6,646 SQUARE FOOT SFD WITH 858 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE. PROJECTS IN AN AREA WITH SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND FILLING AND/OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF GLEN LAKE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR PROPOSED GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-12; BP 05-272 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, ROUND POND CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-43 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PAMELA CEMBROOK, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. John and Pamela Cembrook. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. Location is 121 Birdsall Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type 11 SEQRA. Warren County referral, once again, is not applicable. Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1,524 square foot SFD with 816 square foot detached garage and reconstruct a +/-6,646 square foot SFD with 858 square foot detached garage. Further, stormwater controls and updated wastewater system are proposed. Projects in an area with slopes in excess of 15% of the proposed construction and filling and/or hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline of Glen Lake require Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from side setback requirements and maximum allowable height for proposed garage. Staff Comments: The application has stormwater and erosion and sediment controls designed for the project. The proposal calls for extensive shoreline disturbance and as such a double turbidity curtain is provided for in the SWPPP. Nature of the Area Variances: Side Setback - Request for 5.75 feet of south side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement. Height relief- Request for 10 feet of height relief from the 16 foot maximum requirement of the WR zone. What follows is Site Plan Review, and obviously we'll pick that up on Thursday, assuming that they get through the variance applications tomorrow, and obviously we can go into detail with that, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. I'm here tonight with Pam Cembrook and Jeff Reddick representing the project. As Keith said, we're here seeking recommendations to the Zoning Board regarding the two variances that we need. One is a side line setback. We've oriented the house to allow the family to best use the house, considering the orientation of the lake, and, additionally, it helps us avoid a wastewater variance. We're putting in new tanks on the east side of the house, and this allows us just enough room to put the tanks in without a wastewater variance. So, one or the other, we thought the Site Plan, or excuse me, the zoning variance was a reasonable tradeoff for that siting of the tanks. In addition, the garage to the rear of the main house would have a height that exceeds the zoning 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) requirements, still would be lower than the neighbor's house to the east, by the way. The peak of the new garage would still be lower than the house to the east, or, yes, the house to the east. We have provided, with our Site Plan design, not only detailed house siting, but also comprehensive landscaping on the entire project site, as you've probably seen from the plans, as well as a new compliant wastewater system and new compliant stormwater system. So we've really gone out of our way to try to rebuild this site to be compliant with Town standards and Town goals. So I'll open it up to questions. Unless you two want to weigh in with anything. JEFF REDDICK MR. REDDICK-Jeff Reddick from Redbud Design landscape architecture, working with Tom and the Cembrooks to develop the landscape site plan. A significant portion of what we're doing on the lakeside of the property is One, making sure that our setbacks are met between the Iakeshore and the actual structures. Two, all of the development that would have to happen between the Iakeshore and the house is one using retaining walls but rebuilding walls with on- site materials and then during the excavation and the construction of the house our intention is to salvage on-site materials. So we don't have to bring a lot in, we can still maintain the character of the neighborhood, and then the construction of the wall should also really, I want to make it clear, too, that we're considering them landscaped walls rather than retaining walls because their design and their look is going to be truly integral with plant material. Plant material is going to be integrated into the wall. So it's not just going to be a solid mass of material and the walls are going to act as part of the control system to manage the flow of water from the house or from the site toward the lake, in combination with all the stormwater and the rain gardens that have been developed, and we've also used a significant amount of plant material from either the native plants list for rain gardens, which is provided by the Lake George Association and also from the Town of Queensbury Code. Roughly 60% of the plant material that is currently on the plan actually comes from either of those two lists. So, again, to back up where Tom is coming from, we're really working hard to protect the lake and to also achieve the goals of the client at the same time. MR. FORD-Where did the other 40% come from? MR. REDDICK-It's plant material that fits the site. It's not necessarily native, per se, but it still fits the region. Nothing is invasive. We're absolutely not suggesting any invasive plant materials, but there's certain plants that just maybe aren't native by definition but are still ornamental. So it's a compromise between the two, but we're definitely over that 60% mark for the native/plant materials defined by the Town. MR. FORD-Thanks for that explanation. MRS. CEMBROOK-Also to clarify, several years ago, the hill was taken down, part of the mountain was taken down by the neighbors and all the trees and everything were taken down. There's nothing back there. It's like a desert back there. So we will be replacing with trees and shrubs and things that used to be there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not suggesting it as part of this, but I just wondered in looking at the site, do you plan to do some work on the docks, too, in the future? MRS. CEMBROOK-Not right away. Right now what's there is sufficient for what we need. MR. SIPP-In relation to the landscaping, is what is there going to remain? In other words, you've got a clump of birch trees and some white pine, and I think a good size hardwood, oak. MR. REDDICK-The easy answer to that is there's only one tree that needs to come down and that's the oak that's very close to the, what I'll call the roadside entrance to the house. It's unfortunate, but the other oak that is on, it's closer to the lake and on the north property line, I believe, is going to be able to stay, and the birches and the pines that sort of occupy the southwest corner of the lot. All of that material there that you see, other than the birch that's closest to the house, all of that material we've designed to stay. MR. SIPP-Beside you've got two red maple, I think, or you have some red maples, and some hard maple. They're going to all stay. MR. REDDICK-Yes. MRS. CEMBROOK-And again, we will be replacing some of those in the back where there is nothing now. There will be trees and it's shown on the plans where they'll be all along the driveway. There will be trees added. So, more so than what we're taking down. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. SIPP-Did you have a comment from our engineer about, wondering what, one of the things, questions. MR. JARRETT-One of the Town Engineer's comments? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Do you remember which one it was? MR. SIPP-Well, I'm trying to. MR. TRAVER-About the grading, Don, Number Ten? MR. OBORNE-Rain gardens may be subject to sedimentation and invasive plant species? Is that the maintenance of the rain gardens? MR. SIPP-Rain gardens, maximum depth of six inches and there's one in here of nine inches. That would be changed? MR. OBORNE-It would be Number Nine. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Number Nine. Yes, we don't necessarily agree with the Town Engineer that six inches is the limit for rain gardens. It depends on how they're designed, but we will discuss that with them. Definitely we target less than a foot of depth, and we like the fringe area to be shallow, less than six inches, but the center area can be deeper than six inches depending on what plants you propose and what the soil conditions are like. So we plan on discussing that with Chazen and resolving that. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? You know, when I first saw the plan, first of all, I really like the design. I think it's a great design, and then when I went to the site I can see that it kind of models one of the other houses that's near there, but in looking at the plans, you know, my first gut reaction was that it might be too much for the site. Do you have a response to that comment? I mean, it's a big house for what you propose. MR. JARRETT-Well, that may be first impression. It is a good size house. They have the property to support it. We're not exceeding the Town zoning allowances. They have a large property. It goes all the way back to Mud Pond. They're unique in that aspect. They can support that size house, and with the exception of the side line setback, which we could meet if we absolutely had to, we don't think it's conducive to the design of the site. We don't think it's conducive to the use of the lake, and we would need a wastewater variance to do it because the tank sizes that are required for a new house, a new wastewater system. We don't think the reorientation of the house to meet side line setbacks is warranted, but if we had to, we could do that. DONALD MILNE MR. MILNE-Chris, in response, my name is Donald Milne, and I am a past president of the Lake Association. Way back when (lost words) was representing Courthouse Estates. Two things come to mind here. Number One, in terms of the side yard setback situation, the current building is much, much closer to the side yard than this new building will be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, understood. MR. MILNE-Second of all, in meeting with the architects and so on with my daughter, we built our own house, I've learned that she's trying to correct the mistakes we made, and one of them is that when the grandchildren show up, there's no space. So she's trying to account for that and she's fitting it into the site, I think in a very meaningful way, and by getting Tom Jarrett involved and getting Jeff involved with the rain gardens and the landscaping design, she's being very cognizant of the Critical Environmental Area of the lake, and she's been used to that with what we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. REDDICK-One other point that we'd like to bring up, too, is making sure that the Board recognizes the 16 foot right of way that's basically utility easement that cuts through the back third of, not the back third of the property, but the back third of the property that's between the lake and the actual road. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. JARRETT-The rear of the current garage, there's that utility easement there. MR. REDDICK-So that makes it difficult to fit in some of the things that are desired within the footprint of meeting the shoreline setback, but also not compromising or having to work against the easement. So it's restricted what seems like a bigger lot to actually a smaller lot than what it potentially looks like when you're calculating the numbers. MR. FORD-1 want to tell you my appreciation for the care and consideration that has gone into this design. MRS. CEMBROOK-Like I said, we've spent a lot of time. My husband, we love Glen Lake. MR. FORD-It shows. MRS. CEMBROOK-1 grew up on Glen Lake. My parents built their house on Glen Lake. I worked at Storytown when I was a teenager. My kids have worked at Storytown and my daughter is now going to be summer interning at Glens Falls Hospital. So my children love this lake. They call it their paradise, and this is where they want to be and they want to come back, and so we're trying to accommodate that. MR. FORD-And you're not going to detract from that paradise with this. MRS. CEMBROOK-No, we love it. We cherish it, and so if you were to see where the septic is currently and where the gray water system is currently, it is very disturbing, and so what we are correcting will be tremendous, and fixing up the backyard, I mean, it's a desert back there right now, and it's bothered us. My husband and 1, we bought it about seven years ago now, and, six years ago, and so we just haven't done anything with it because we knew that we wanted to build our own house and have this house be for our kids when we retire here, and we didn't know what we would be able to do and so on, and we would just love to get some plant life back there, some trees, some shade, and it's really been, there's nothing there, it's a desert, so we would like to do that, and we would like to move forward with this project. We've spent a lot of time working on it and planning it, and I know on numbers it looks like a huge place and people are like, oh, my God they're building a mansion, but it's really the house that we're going to retire to with our family and have room for our children and our grandchildren when they come and make it comfortable for them. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? Like the last project, this is a Type 11 SEQRA and no public hearing is required for a Zoning Board recommendation. If there's no other comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion, recommendation. MOTION TO RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2012 AND SITE PLAN 27-2012 FOR JOHN & PAMELA CEMBROOK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-See you Thursday night. MRS. CEMBROOK-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Not Thursday. MR. JARRETT-Not Thursday? MR. OBORNE-We'll see you on Thursday. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-It's next week. MR. OBORNE-You're coming back on Thursday. MRS. CEMBROOK-Wednesday and Thursday we have a meeting. MR. OBORNE-Zoning Board tomorrow, Planning Board Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Sorry to break it to you, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry. I was thinking a month ahead. MR. JARRETT-If I could have the Board's attention for a second. I've got another project coming up later on the agenda, and if the Board thinks it's worthy of consideration now, it's simple, then I'd request you look at it now. MR. HUNSINGER-Which project is that, Mr. Jarrett? MR. JARRETT-That's the Church of the Annunciation, Our Lady of the Annunciation. MR. TRAVER-The parking spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm sorry, what's the question? MR. JARRETT-Would you consider that now, as opposed to later on the agenda? MR. OBORNE-Or after, we've got one more recommendation ahead of you, San Souci. I think what the applicant is asking is before the tabled item, Cellco, goes on, that he be heard. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's okay. MR. OBORNE-That's up to the Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I don't have an objection if the Board doesn't have any objections. MR. FORD-1 don't. MR. JARRETT-Would you like me to stay or wait until after the next recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we'll do the next recommendation. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 MODIFICATION TO SUP 45-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; NACE ENGINEERING LOCATION 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD SPECIAL USE PERMIT: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF "PERMEABLE" PAVERS ON EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING SPACES. FURTHER, APPLICANT SEEKS AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A +/- 665 SQUARE FOOT PATIO WITH ACCESS DECK AND STAIRS TO ACCOMMODATE FOUR TABLES AS WELL AS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 6 FOOT TALL, 112 FOOT LONG STOCKADE FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY. MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 26-12, SUP 45-09, AV 39-09, BOH 14-09 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-9, 179-10 TOM CENTER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. OBORNE-Yes. Applicant is San Souci of Cleverdale. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief for the Area Variance. 92 Mason Road is the location. Existing zoning is WR. SEQRA status is Unlisted. Warren County review was a No County Impact is my understanding. Project Description: Applicant proposes to modify approved site plan to include the removal of vegetation and the installation of "permeable" pavers on existing gravel parking spaces. Further, applicant seeks after the fact approval for the installation of a 665 square foot patio with access deck and stairs to the south boundary. Modification to approved an approved site plan and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from side setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure, fencing requirements and permeability. Staff Comments: The applicant last appeared before the Planning Board to gain site plan approval for expansion and modification of existing site on 6/25/09. Since that time the applicant has roughed in the approved kitchen and operated the restaurant without completing the requirements of the previously approved site plan. Further, installation of a 665 square foot enclosed patio with access stairs and landing, buried, with fill, the existing propane tank within the patio enclosure and the installation of a 112 foot long, 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence on the south property line has been accomplished by the applicant without Planning Board review and approval. This is under the auspices of a Special Use Permit. Tonight we're here for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. What follows is the area requirements and the requirements of the area requirements. Side Setback- Request for 7.15 feet of south side setback relief after the fact for the installation of stairs and deck leading to unapproved patio. 2. Expansion of a non-conforming structure. 3. Front (west) fence height and style - Request, after the fact, for 2 feet of fence height and style along the 15.5 feet of architectural front placement of 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence. Front (east) fence height and style - Request, after the fact, for 2 feet of fence height and style along the 28 feet of architectural front placement of 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence, and finally Permeability - The quantification of permeability will need to be verified by the applicant. Staff calculates additional hard surfacing at approximately 800 square feet. Note: This includes the new patio and pavers denoted to the northeast not previously approved. What follows then is Site Plan Review and we'll bring that up, ostensibly, on Thursday, and there are additional comments that are associated with this. Just to let the Board know, the following are issues in need of address relating to the approved site plan, the installation of the holding tanks, stormwater controls, attached Fire Marshal comments and approval of after the fact improvements. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I'm here this evening with Larry Clute and Tom Center. I want to start, after that very detailed description of events, just to clarify, there's four variances that I understand that we're seeking this evening. One is relative to the side setback of the steps and the landing which lead to the patio. The second is the addition of the patio, which results in the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The third is the height of the fence, which I understand is really relative to the western side of the southern boundary line because the eastern side of the southern boundary line actually has arborvitae that ends there, and the fourth is relative to permeability and I'm going to have Tom Center, in a little bit, just quantify and qualify our stormwater proposal and the changes we wish to make to the site. Just to give you a description, I know you're all very familiar with San Souci. San Souci is a unique site as well as restaurant that has been servicing the folks at Cleverdale for many, many years. They have a nice little community gathering there, area there that they all enjoy. Since 2006 when Larry Clute purchased this property, he's made it a priority to implement certain improvements. I know during the discussions in 2009 it was identified how he had reached out to the neighbors to address concerns that they had with the past runnings of the restaurant so that he could address those concerns with changes that he made. As the Board is aware, this is a popular site. There's a lot of people there during the summertime, and one of the concerns that Larry had was people waiting in the parking lot to be seated. I think they were even going into the road. He was concerned with their safety. To address that safety concern, he constructed this patio. This patio serves the purpose as a waiting area. No food is served there. They just wait there to be seated inside, and it actually will close around 9 p.m. The second area was the patio created impermeable space, which we understand, but the proposal for stormwater that Tom Center is going to explain is that we have a way in which to offset this additional permeable space, I'm sorry, impermeable space with additional permeable space. Specifically we're looking to add permeable green parking areas on the western and eastern side of the patio, as well as permeable crushed stone along Cleverdale Road. Again, I'm going to let Tom quantify and qualify that as Staff has requested. The last is the fence. The fence along the southern side will obviously provide a privacy buffer to the immediately adjacent neighbor, the Lindstroms, which really was Larry's concern. Because of the unique setting of the site being on both Mason Street and Cleverdale Road, it provides an implication that there's architectural front sides on both sides of the structure. Having that fence carry six feet all the way to Cleverdale Road really doesn't have a negative implication because the property line actually ends about four feet to the edge of pavement to Cleverdale Road. So there's really not a negative aspect as 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) to the vision or the screen utilizing those parking spaces right there. So overall when you look at the site, the purposes of the site, the benefits it provides to Cleverdale, we feel that these improvements should not be deemed negative or a detriment to the community, especially with the stormwater proposal that we're suggesting to implement here. I'm going to let Tom go into more details on that. MR. CENTER-Tom Center of Nace Engineering. What we were trying to do with this proposal was try to use some of the newer green re-development products that are out there and allow for off use times there to be more green space on the property. The permeable grass parking area is a new type of paver cell that's a plastic cell that allows topsoil to be in between the cells, allows grass to grow, transfers the load down to the soil interface and spreads out the load from vehicles, and is used for overflow parking areas and in off use times allows the grass to grow up through it. The gentleman has been at several of our continuing education green product seminars. This was, I saw this as an opportunity to try this in small areas. We're talking about two areas that are 20 by, about plus or minus 20 feet by plus or minus 47 feet, and the other areas is about 18 feet plus or minus by 46 feet. So they're relatively small areas. This is a product that is used in re-development type of situations. This has, all of them, the grass and the crushed stone, has a one foot storage reservoir for stormwater, which would be primarily in the first half inch of rainfall, what not, would be able to collect in those stone reservoirs and then dissipate through time, and also allow vehicles to be parked across, driven across, and any other storm would do it as it does now, and flow off site. What we're looking at, as far as storage capacity, the grass parking area to the southwest, which is about 1,065 square feet, in that one foot stone reservoir would have about 420 cubic feet of storage in the stone voids. In the southeast corner, it would have about 352 cubic feet of storage, and then in the crushed stone parking to the rear along Cleverdale Road, that area would have about 520 cubic feet of storage, which is much more than the three and a half foot by twenty-five foot by foot and a half stone infiltration trench that was designed, and is still going to be installed along the porch roof for the additional area that was previously approved. If the Board feels that the additional permeable areas that we're providing are enough, we will eliminate that, but it can still be installed. I didn't show it on this plan because it would get lost and what we were trying to show was the permeable parking areas, the permeable grassed areas and the changes there. So I was trying to limit any confusion in regards to there. The paver area, the paver patio area, as you can see we've talked about adding some patio trees out there, and hanging baskets, something to try to bring some green back to that area, and also up in the southwest corner, some shorter arborvitaes to also bring back some green into that same, you know, that green parking area space, but also not block the view for vehicles coming in and out up in that corner, and that's kind of the gist of what we were trying, I was trying to find, you know, I saw this as an opportunity to use a newer product in a small site and somewhere that has nowhere really to put stormwater on the site and try to keep it on. I know we talked in the past when we were last here about grading the parking lot and trying to create a rain garden up in the northwest corner. The problem with that is everything flows down Mason Road in this area. If we were to try to do something like that, when you get into the 50 and 100 year storm design, you start flooding out that area of the parking lot, then, now you're introducing water right over your holding tank system. It's just not a good design to try to do something up there. I'm trying to keep water away from there, but still trying to get some sort of permeable, pervious area for the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-1 had a question about the patio. What assurances can we be given that, in fact, that is merely going to be a waiting area with four picnic tables and that food and beverage will not be served there nor taken there? LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-I've got Scott Parker here who manages the store, but we've pretty much developed the hours for that and the purpose for it and we'll continue to do so. It would be very difficult for us to actually operate that as seating space anyway. It would be problematic. We have no intention of running it as additional floor space. It's just shear overflow. That door is right at the bar where everybody is typically standing, and in the summertime it's just, it's packed, and so usually the families are outdoors. That's what prompted this space here. It's non-smoking. We have that well posted. It's very conscientious of the neighbor. Sound wise it's just really meant for overflow, exactly as Stefanie has described, and we have no intention of operating it otherwise. MR. FORD-Overflow or waiting area? MR. CLUTE-Well, it's semantics. It's waiting area, but I call it overflow. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. FORD-Because if the interior overflows to the exterior and people are bringing food and beverage out, that obviously is my concern. MR. CLUTE-Yes, no, so as you describe, no, I'll call it waiting area. I'll use your word. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many parking spots are you really adding, five? MR. CENTER-No. Initially before we got into this, the new green permeable area designed, I wasn't involved in writing the application that was presented. So we are maintaining the 16 parking spaces, but as everybody knows, parking is a little different there. There's a large setback off of the road. These parking spaces are, as Stefanie said, it's a very unique parking situation how people park there. So we have proposed the 16 parking spaces. We're maintaining those 16. How that gets divided up when they actually park there is not part of the plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It seems where 10 is you could have two spaces there, couldn't you? MR. CENTER-The reason that there's not another parking space there is because we're probably a foot and a half short from having a compliant parking space right there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the other ones that you've got, 11 through 16, not all of them, but some of them are doubles. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The reason I bring it up is one of the real problems with, I didn't mention in the write up here, and it's not something that the ZBA's going to face, but Mason Street is a very narrow street as you know. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the people that live on Mason Street don't want no parking, they don't want to see No Parking signs there because then they couldn't park in front of their house if they have guests. On the other hand, on Friday and Saturday night when the Sans is humming, people have got to have some place to park, so they park down Mason Street. So the more people that come around and stay over here on Cleverdale Road and park over there, and if we gain any parking space, that's to the. MR. CENTER-1 believe by stretching that parking, that permeable grass parking towards the railroad ties that we do pick up a couple of more areas where cars could park. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you could get a couple of more in there. MR. CENTER-But as far as, if you were to look at black and white code compliant space, you know what I'm saying? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got it. MR. CLUTE-By no means is the Sans parking normal at all. We run three deep in that area, and typically that's all employee parking. We try to crowd the employee parking, but technically Tom can't call it three deep. We don't meet the standards for, as he says, a parking space, but typical operation in the summertime is three deep on the Cleverdale Road side, and actually they start getting two to three deep up on the Mason Road side as well. I don't know how the system works, but this neighborhood has it down pat, and it works, but we can't count those spaces, but we are three deep. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you can see the problem. I mean, if we can't get a fire truck down Mason Street, we can't go in and start interviewing people in the San Souci to move their cars. MR. TRAVER-With regards to the permeability, can you, I'm concerned about how we can make a recommendation on permeability when we're not looking at a specific number. I mean, there's the 800 square feet mentioned in Staff Notes. MR. CENTER-Yes, the 800 square feet of additional permeable area? When you look at the previous plan and the green areas that are in there, and the hard surface, that's how we gained the additional permeable area, by including the crushed stone and the permeable grass parking areas, and offsetting that with the additional paver, the paved area. We also had to account for 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) the landings and the stairs as hard surface. So, that, you know, running the numbers, you look like you're gaining more permeable area with the change in the crushed stone and the grass parking area, but they're, you know, with the tradeoff of the patio, it's not as big as we thought it was, but the areas for stormwater storage are rather large, because now we've increased, not only have we increased the permeable area, but we've increased the storage area for that, you know, smaller storms, those, the first flush, the sedimentation, if you will, that first rain event from going off site. MR. OBORNE-I would add that the 800 square feet is a conservative number, just based on scaling. It's actually most likely a little bit more than what is actually on site. So I wanted to have a hedge there. My concern is that the permeable pavers with gravel are not permeable. That's the issue, and they cannot be counted as permeable. That is an engineering issue that the two of you will need to work out. MR. CENTER-These are, like we had talked about in our couple of meetings, these are new, green infrastructure for re-development applications. MR. OBORNE-Definitely retrofits, absolutely. MR. CENTER-They are retrofits. They are, you know, I included the cut sheet with the package. I don't know if you saw it, and you can see further information in regards to those pavers and how they talk about the storage reservoir and the potential for eventual infiltration of the storage area. Now, again, do we call, have they been designed for the infiltration rate? No, they've been designed as storage items. These are small sites. These are small areas. We are, you know, again, conservative in the amount of storage that we're going to get in those areas, but it's much greater than what was previously approved. I think it was a good tradeoff. It's a fairly expensive product. These things aren't cheap. That's why not a lot of people use them, but, you know, for these areas, you know, I think it's a good chance to see how they work. It's a good application, it's small areas, and it's in a very tight confined space, and from everything I've seen at the, you know, they showed us the sections where they've had them actually growing grass and able to do all that, and use them in, you know, overflow parking areas. Let's face it, these areas and this type of use, they're not there for the morning, predominantly, a lot of times out of the year. So you're going to have that green area that'll be open and won't look like just parking area and dirt and gravel. We'll be able to try to, you know, get some grass growing in those areas and have more green, and I think that's the tradeoff with trying to do some of these things. MR. OBORNE-I would add that that's a discussion between Sean and the engineer at this point. If I could just add one more thing. The actual permeability has not been quantified at this point. So that's going to be difficult for the Zoning Board tomorrow night. So I just wanted to let you know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you, I realize we're kind of getting away from, we're getting into Site Plan issues more than the zoning recommendations, but since we're talking about the permeable pavers, can you talk about the maintenance of those? Because, you know, the Town Engineer has expressed some concern that if they're not properly maintained they won't be able to maintain the same level of infiltration. MR. CENTER-Well, these areas, I think when you get into the maintenance, you're talking more in regards of the permeable concrete and the permeable pavers where that it's a concrete item, it's a concrete block, if you will, that has porosity to it and that can get clogged up. These are wide graded stone on top that has, you know, that allows, that transfers the weight through the plastic paver pieces to another membrane at the bottom. There's two layers of a geo grid textile fabric above and below the stone course which spreads out the vehicle load, and we're talking about passenger cars here. So it's not like we're talking high traffic areas. That's one of the things they talk about in these. They're not really recommended for high traffic, heavy load type of vehicles. We're talking about passenger cars. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the example shows buses. MR. CENTER-It does show in some areas for travel across those larger vehicles, but as far as maintenance, you know, the permeable grass is going to be a grassed, grass strips, if you will, which will filter any sediment out through the grasses and what not. The crushed stone parking area, again, is a wider graded stone which has some maintenance to it and it doesn't require sand, you know, they say not to sand them. Those are things that we've discussed in regards to those areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. CENTER-And this isn't a high traffic winter type of facility. There's less use during those times of year, but certainly we would agree to some sort of maintenance agreement in regards to that, whatever the Town Engineer, you know, it would be the specifications of the manufacturer, whatever his maintenance agreement is, or maintenance requirements. We can spell those out. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? This is an Unlisted action. Does this fall under the? MR. OBORNE-Let's not do that tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-No? Okay. MR. OBORNE-Let's do that at Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 just think there's too many nebulous things for you to do an environmental review at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sure. MR. OBORNE-But you certainly can move the recommendation forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Unless there's any questions or comments, would anyone like to move a recommendation? MR. TRAVER-Are there any concerns that we want to point out to the ZBA with regard to any of these variances? Perhaps the fact that permeability is not quantified? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I mean, I think they have to have that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. BITTER-Wait a minute. MR. CENTER-1 guess I got, the question with regard to permeability is not stated, our contention has always been that these are permeable applications for, and for application on the site and for basic, for permeable area modifications, that's, we've quantified the areas in the site utilization write up in our boxes. We have addressed that. The disagreement, I suppose, is whether the engineer, the Town Engineer agrees that these are pervious items, if you will. MR. OBORNE-Correct. He doesn't agree that the crushed stone is pervious. Those are impervious. That's off the table. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's in Code, that's in the Town Code. MR. CENTER-Well, no, that's straight pervious, crushed stone. These are pervious systems, when looked at as a whole, they're a poly system that has geo grid top and bottom. It's not just crushed stone. It's a system that has a poly grid that stone is put into, that a geo grid is placed underneath. The stone is underneath that, the stone reservoir, and another geo grid is placed underneath that. So this is an entire system as a whole. That discussion in regards to crushed stone not being permeable is when you just box out and area and bring in just crushed stone. So I would, you know, again, these are new green infrastructure type, and I know Mr. Sipp has sat in some of the courses that we've taken and I've really got to say that these are permeable systems and it's a system as a whole. MR. TRAVER-And we're not making, in our comment to the Zoning Board that you'll hear shortly, we're not making an engineering judgment as far as, you know, whether it's permeable or not. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We're simply noting and making them aware that there's, you know, the amount of permeability is under discussion. MR. CENTER-Okay. Thank you. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-Seems fair. Anything else? MR. TRAVER-Okay. MOTION TO RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2012 AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT 9- 2012 FOR SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern, and that is with regards to the permeability and the review ongoing by the Town Engineer about the amount of permeability being proposed. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to go out of order of the agenda again, as we discussed a few minutes ago. Next to appear will be Site Plan No. 30-2012. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE ANNUNCIATION AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 448 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PARKING LOT BY 46 SPACES WITH SUPPORTING STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED USE OR PLACE OF WORSHIP REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 27-88 LOT SIZE 6.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-3 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 30-2012, Church of Our Lady of the Annunciation. This is a modification to an approved site plan. This is 448 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is Neighborhood Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Engineering review was accomplished. There was not a Warren County submittal. Project Description: Applicant proposes an expansion of an existing parking lot by 46 spaces with supporting stormwater, landscaping and lighting systems. Erosion and Sediment controls designed for the proposal have been submitted and reviewed by the TDE; proposed disturbance approximates 41,000 square feet. Modification to an approved use or Place of Worship requires Planning Board review and approval. My site plan review, I had no immediate issues whatsoever. Additional comments: Future parking expansions should consider permeable asphalt, especially in areas that have high to hyper percolation rates such as this location, and the comments from Chazen are attached, of which there are five, and I shall turn that over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. FATHER JOE BUSH FATHER BUSH-Father Joe Bush, the Pastor of Our Lady of the Annunciation. DAVE CAPERON 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. CAPERON-Dave Caperon, part of the facility building committee. MR. JARRETT-The project involves expanding existing parking based on need. We're actually below the Town standards for parking right now, slightly, and we propose 46 additional spaces to the west of the Church, along Aviation Road, and the parking would include stormwater management and lighting compliant with Town standards. We think this is a good proposal. We're supporting it with landscaping on the front and within the interior of the parking and on the east side. I think it's straight forward. We'll open it up to Board questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I really liked your interior landscaping in the parking lot. Yes. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, as parking lot's go, that's one of the nicer ones. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. FORD-1 have no concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Is one of the reasons for the additional parking so that parishioners don't have to walk across Aviation Road? Is that part of the thinking? FATHER BUSH-That was a consideration. After Queensbury Union Free School had re- designed the front of their parking lot, less parishioners were going over there and we needed additional space on our side of the Aviation Road, but that would also stop them, or they wouldn't have to cross Aviation Road either. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've got to be fast to cross it there. MR. HUNSINGER-1 know. Well, there's not a lot of traffic on Sunday morning. MR. OBORNE-You'd be surprised. MR. JARRETT-At certain moments there are. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Seeing as there's no other questions from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled on this item. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't see any hands going up. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show that no comments were received, and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action under SEQRA. They submitted a Short Form. MR. OBORNE-It's a Short Form. That's fine. MR. TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. SIPP-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. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-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. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-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. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-Then I'll make a motion that we find a Negative SEQRA review. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE ANNUNCIATION, 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 15th day of, May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just looking at the engineering comments. At first I thought that maybe we could just condition it that they address them, but I do think at least on one of them requires a little discussion with the engineer, and that's on the calculations on Item Three. MR. JARRETT-It's actually pretty minor. I don't see it being a problem to resolve. Even if we agree with them ultimately it's not a problem to change our design. We have a lot of area there and we have a lot of potential volume. So I don't see a problem in this site. There's some sites that are critical. I don't necessarily agree with him offhand, but I noted the comment and I think we can resolve it pretty easily. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I figured you could, but it's a question of how do we address it in the resolution. MR. JARRETT-I (lost words) comments, I thought they were quite minor. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just make a condition that it's resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-If we can't resolve it, we have to come back. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-We don't want to do that. MR. OBORNE-You don't want to come back? MR. JARRETT-Not ever again, Keith. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, a lot of the comments are, you know, revise, please revise accordingly, you know, and so I was thinking maybe we can just condition it that you take care of these items. MR. JARRETT-The one item I think you're referring to is time of concentration, which is a technical component that really is not going to affect our design all that much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Would you like to put forward a resolution, Mr. Traver? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 30-2012 CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE ANNUNCIATION Tax Map ID 302.5-1-3 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes an expansion of an existing parking lot by 46 spaces with supporting stormwater, landscaping and lighting systems. Modification to an approved use or Place of Worship requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/15/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO 30-2012 CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE ANNUNCIATION, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff, with particular note to Item Five, engineer signoff is required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. 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 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) 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; 4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 5) 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; Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. FATHER BUSH-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. The next scheduled item is the Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, but before I introduce that, it is the intention of the Planning Board that we will table this item this evening. The only action that we will take is to table it, and I was just 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) wondering if I could get a show of hands for how many people had intended to speak during the public hearing. Okay. I guess if it please the Board, I would like to move forward on the Royal Hospitality project and do the Cellco Partnership last. Do I have any objections? MR. FORD-1 would like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2012 MODIFICATION TO SP 49-2005 SEAR TYPE II ROYAL HOSPITALITY AGENT(S) JOHN H. RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1533 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING SITE PLAN BY ADDING LIGHTING TO FOOT PATH AT REAR OF PREMISES, INSTALL DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ALONG SAME PATH TO THE ADJACENT MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND REMOVE FOUR TREES AND CLEAR BRUSH NEAR SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 49-05, SV 2-08, AV 62-05, AV 75-03 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 4.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-2 SECTION 179-9 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready. MR. OBORNE-Okay. This is a modification to an approved Site Plan. Royal Hospitality is the applicant. Location is 1533 State Route 9. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This is a Type 11 SEQRA. Warren County referral did issue a No County Impact on this. Project Description: Applicant proposes to modify existing site plan by adding lighting to foot path at rear of premises, install directional signs along same path to the adjacent miniature golf course, and remove four trees and clear brush near southwestern portion of the parcel. Site Plan Review, pretty minor. I do state that any removal of existing trees should be discouraged. If trees are to be removed they should either be relocated or replaced in a different location. Second one is Staff recommends that the brush to be removed along the south line be limited to the eastern half of what is proposed as full clearing will expose refuse area associated with the Lumberjack Pass Amusements, and Per §179-6-020C, sidewalks and bikeways horizontal illuminance not to exceed 1.0 foot-candles. Proposal has illuminance approaching 4 foot-candles, and one additional comment is have lighted pedestrian bollards been considered? His did not go to the engineer. So there's no engineering comments with this, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for Royal Hospitality, and with me at the table here is Marilyn Stark, one of the members of Royal Hospitality. We're here seeking a modification, as Keith said, of the existing Site Plan approval for this parcel, and really four aspects of it. One is the installation of light poles along the pathway. Second is installation of signs in and about the pathway in the parking area. Third is removal of some of the brush at the southern boundary of the property and fourth is removal of four trees also near the southern boundary. The purpose of all these proposals is to improve the visibility between this parcel and the miniature golf parcel adjacent on the south. It's pretty straightforward. The one thing I did want to make clear, and I mentioned this to Keith, I think, briefly this morning is that on the application Site Plan we did list four signs at 24 by 16, and actually two of the signs that when they came in are a little larger. They're 36 by 25's. That is one change from what you have before you, but other than that, it's a pretty straightforward application, and we're open for comments and questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you own the miniature golf course, too? MR. RICHARDS-No, no. This is an accommodation to the people who own the miniature golf course. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In other words, somebody else is asking you to do this? MR. RICHARDS-That's part of our agreement is that we're trying to encourage the foot traffic between the two places. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, because I'm not sure what trees you're cutting down. At the top of that, at the driveway, the top of the stairs start, there's two pretty dead trees, but it didn't look like those are the ones that you're talking about. MR. RICHARDS-Are you talking about kind of the brush removal? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I'm talking about. MR. RICHARDS-As far as the tree removal, we're talking about pine trees. It's shown on the site plan. MR. MAGOWAN-I think you're talking about the big dead trees? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's what I was talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And I believe those are the, I know where, the dollhouse. I think that's her property there. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, if it's the dollhouse, that's not something we're asking for at this time. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I think the trees that they were talking about was clearing the ones that I think that we had them plant when they did the Site Plan Review, so the pines. MR. RICHARDS-That's exactly right, and as a matter of fact, Tom Nace used the existing Site Plan sheet and just made the revisions on that. So that's exactly right. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The two primary Staff comments, did you consider pedestrian bollards instead of taller overhead lights? MR. RICHARDS-You know, we put the application in for the four light poles, and got the cut sheets a little later. We can certainly take into consideration any recommendations the Board has, but that's the application as it stands. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I wasn't there during night, so I couldn't really see what it would be like with all the parking lights on, but it seemed to me as though, between the parking lot from the Lumberjack Pass Amusements and the parking lot lights for the hotel, that that would already be pretty well lit, and I just think maybe some pedestrian scale lights might be a better fit. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, this is the Lumberjack. That's like a seasonal miniature golf, isn't it? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. That's correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, it's not something that is 24, you don't maintain that walkway in the wintertime. MR. RICHARDS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-So, you know, if a footpath or, you know, solar lights, you know, it's really only a summer, yes, just something that you could actually remove in the winter, if need be, or something that can lightly illuminate, because I went up there again last night, as the dusk came down and the lights were in the back, and, you know, like I say, a mild illumination, there was a lot of spill off from the, you know, that I thought was ample. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I assume your main concern is safety. MR. RICHARDS-Just general visibility, safety. MR. HUNSINGER-You want to make it feel welcoming and friendly so that people will be, you know, willing to do. MR. RICHARDS-The path leads to the miniature golf, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what's on the signs? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. RICHARDS-The sides, should be in the application. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I see the signs on the drawing. Is that listing what's down here or was that arrow signs directing people to that or what? MR. RICHARDS-Both. It's an arrow and a listing of the miniature golf adjacent parcel. MR. OBORNE-It's in your packet. You should have a copy of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's written. Other questions, comments? MR. TRAVER-Well, I would just echo the concern about the lighting. I mean, what's proposed is just too bright. I mean, it exceeds by four times the Code. So if you can consider, you know, as has been discussed by other members, some type of, you know, more like a low power pedestrian lighting in addition to the existing light source that's going to, should eliminate that issue of excessive lighting. MR. FORD-1 concur with that recommendation. MR. RICHARDS-Any other recommendations from the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-How do members feel about the tree removal? MR. DEEB-I looked at it the other day. I think it's a shame to cut those down. MR. MAGOWAN-It's beautiful back there. I mean, it looks nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only one that's going to see it are the hotel guests and the neighbor. Sol kind of, I mean, yes, it looks nice. It looks very attractive, but, I mean, the only people that are really going to be impacted are the two adjoining properties. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you want to cut some trees down, cut those two dead ones over there by the. MR. RICHARDS-The dollhouse. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Before they fall on somebody. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That was just my thought. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Could you reiterate the rationale for the cutting of the trees, please. MR. RICHARDS-Same as the lighting and the signs, improve the visibility between the two parcels and encourage pedestrian traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-At the neighbor's request. MR. RICHARDS-We're working with the neighbor, that's certainly true, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, one of the things about customers and retail, they won't go to something if they can't see the front door. They talk about that with malls. If you can't see the door, you won't go there, and it's the same thing here. I mean, they're trying to create a visual path as well as a, you know, actual pedestrian access. So, I mean, to me that makes sense, but I guess the Staff comment was, you know, would you be willing to replace those trees, put them somewhere else? I think maybe that allays the concerns that members have of taking trees down. MR. RICHARDS-I mean, I don't know what you had in mind for where else to put them. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, I look at the tree setting and stuff like that, and if you went with a low voltage like a solar low light, you know, you're going to be entertaining the thought from people to, you know, it would light up the walkway a little bit more to, more enticing for people to follow the path. I don't think by cutting the trees is going to say, ooh, hey, let's go that way. MR. DEEB-The visibility to the parking lot is pretty well open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, you can see the parking lot and you can see the light and you can, you know. MR. TRAVER-So your thoughts are that with the path and the lighting, potential customers of the miniature golf course will not need the trees cut down to note that opportunity? MR. MAGOWAN-That's my feeling, yes. MR. DEEB-That's my feeling. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mine, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MR. TRAVER-And the signs are also going to be directing traffic to that. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you're asking for how many signs? MR. RICHARDS-Four. They're shown on the Site Plan locations. MR. FORD-With the increase in size of at least one sign, that may offset the need for cutting trees. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, would these be a permanent sign, or are these a seasonal sign? MR. RICHARDS-They're seasonal. They're more than 60 days. They'd be throughout the summer and into Labor Day. MR. TRAVER-You'd be taking them down at the end of the summer? MR. RICHARDS-That's my understanding, yes, after Labor Day. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a need for that many? MR. RICHARDS-That's what we're proposing. If the Board feels that's excessive, we'll take that into consideration as well. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, like, because you've got the playground and everything back there, and 1, you have one sign, you know, setback that shows an arrow pointing over to, you know, the golf course, you know, Lumberjack Miniature Golf, you know, pointing at the path. I mean, how many do you need to show the way? It's like the yellow brick road, you know what I mean? MR. RICHARDS-That may be. We've suggested four, and we're open to comments. MR. HUNSINGER-No one's going to see them. MR. TRAVER-It's not going to be an eyesore. Myself, I didn't have a problem with that part of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Can you comment on the second of the Staff comments about the brush cutting? The concern that the extent of the cutting that you're proposing would pose a refuse area? MR. RICHARDS-As I say, we're open to suggestions, recommendations from this Board. MR. TRAVER-So you have no problem limiting that brush removal to the eastern half of what's proposed? MR. RICHARDS-1 would just, you know, before I say yes or no on anything you're suggesting, I would just ask the Board's consideration for just a minute so I could talk to the neighbor. I don't want to start making decisions, we've come up with an agreement to propose this to you, and if there are certain conditions you want, I would certainly want to run that by them before I say yes or no. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. RICHARDS-We'll take just a minute. They're here tonight. Are there any other suggestions you have before I respond to that? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. OBORNE-Did the Board want to keep the trees? Did they want them cut? MR. HUNSINGER-It sounded like the majority of them wanted them left. MR. OBORNE-So that's one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I think you could do with two signs instead of four, personally. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don't think we need all the signs. MR. DEEB-I don't think they need all the signs. They're temporary signs, and the time limitation is 60 days on a temporary sign. I think the recommendation was they're opened up until, how long were the signs supposed to stay up? MR. MAGOWAN-Until Labor Day. MR. RICHARDS-Until Labor Day. MR. DEEB-From what date? MR. RICHARDS-1 think May 1St MR. DEEB-Which is over 60 days. MR. RICHARDS-It would be over 60 days, yes. MR. TRAVER-Now, the only response I would have to that is recall that now we are reducing the visibility of the neighboring amusement by not cutting the trees down. So that might strengthen the argument for better signage. MR. FORD-That was my idea, a tradeoff to leave the trees and keep the proposed signs. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'd rather have permanent trees than temporary signs. MR. FORD-Right. MR. DEEB-I guess I would agree with that, too. I don't know if they need four, but that's up to them. It's their property. MR. HUNSINGER-So signs are okay. We'd like to leave the trees. MR. RICHARDS-Keep trees. Signs okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And find a way to reduce the lighting. MR. RICHARDS-And like the Staff said, you want those bollard lights? Is that what you? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be my preference. We'll take a two minute recess. MR. TRAVER-And the brush cutting. MR. HUNSINGER-Would any pedestrian bollards exceed the one foot candle light? MR. OBORNE-Not typically, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I can't imagine they would. MR. OBORNE-And they're downcast, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Just look at the lights. Four additional ones, it's almost commonsense to do one for pedestrian lighting, that's almost like parking lot lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Keith, he mentioned that two of the signs might be larger than what was shown on the diagram. Are they still Code compliant? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. OBORNE-Yes, they're Code compliant. We did run that through Craig, and for the record these are not viewed from a right of way, and they are directional signs. So he's not going to enforce that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There's your answer. MR. OBORNE-And it's based on your Site Plan approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Whenever you're ready. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you for your consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. RICHARDS-As you can see, there's been some back and forth and we've been trying to resolve this. In talking to the adjacent owners, it doesn't sound like that's something that they feel would work for them, and they did point out that the light is the same pole that's currently in the back by the back entrance, but if those are the conditions that the Board is requiring, it's not something that, at this point, we could go forward on. So I guess we'd ask for a decision on the existing application. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you like a decision, or would you like this to be tabled? MR. RICHARDS-1 think at this point we'd like a decision on this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Before we do that, though, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. I guess the neighbor, right? I'll need to get you on the microphone, please, sir. I was just commenting, as long as I've been on the Planning Board, there's always the first time for something. So I guess that's this evening. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREW KELLY MR. KELLY-Good evening. Andrew Kelly, attorney for Lumberjack Pass Amusements, the neighboring property owner, and Lumberjack and the owners of the hotel have been in litigation since 2008. The terms that we're discussing here were agreed to before anything was built on the site. There was an existing Site Plan, but there was an agreement in exchange for a water and sewer easement in the front of the property. We went into litigation to enforce the terms of that agreement. We've been through the State court and the bankruptcy court. These terms were approved by the bankruptcy court and now we're coming to kind of get our agreement to, this is part of the enforcement process of our agreement and the whole idea was to have a visual connection between the hotel and the golf course and have a path that people could actually see, they could see that it lead to the golf course, not just a path that might lead into the woods, but that it would lead to the golf course, and that's the purpose of these, and that's why we need the things that are in this application. So I just wanted you to know the background of that. It's not something that the neighbor simply, is a wish list of the neighbor's. It's something that has been, it's been something that's been taking a lot of time and effort on both sides, for several years, and this is kind of the last step in the process, and it looks like the Board is not going to approve these things. MR. HUNSINGER-So help us to understand the conditions of the judge's ruling. Did he specify the height of the poles? MR. KELLY-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KELLY-There was a settlement agreement that he approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KELLY-That we chose those poles because they already have three of them behind the hotel right now. They match exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. TRAVER-So you would like to have some kind of a plan to link the two properties, it sounds like. So if this application is not approved, would you be coming back with a different proposal to accomplish something similar? MR. KELLY-At some point we would have to, yes, if we're going to accomplish that goal. MR. TRAVER-Well, I ask that because we could table this application, as opposed to denying it, and that would give you an opportunity to get back on the agenda sooner rather than later, with a modified plan that could be in response to our requirements, the Code compliance and that type of thing. MR. KELLY-Okay. Let me ask about the lighting. If those lights already exist in the back of the hotel, are those nonconforming or? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have different standards for parking than we do. MR. KELLY-No, this wasn't the parking. There's three that go, there's a path from the back door of the hotel to the playground. That has three different, that's the lights that we chose. There's different lights in the parking lot. The parking lot lights are much taller, different type of light. So I don't exactly understand, and if you look at the application, the exhibits show some of the two different styles of lighting that actually exist in there now, and as far as the trees go, if both owners are in agreement, I mean, there's a lot of trees back there that four of those trees would create a view shed. In the original agreement there were not supposed to be any trees there at all, but we understand that there are certain standards, but if you take away four trees just in this one spot, you have a chance to see, actually see that there's a golf course down there, rather than you just see a path going off into the woods. That's the purpose of taking that one visual corridor there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You keep referring to the agreement. Now was this an agreement between Lumberjack Pass and Royal Hospitality? MR. KELLY-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And Royal Hospitality's no longer an operating corporation, right? MR. KELLY-It's the same people. I don't know their corporate structure, to tell you the truth. We just signed an agreement in the bankruptcy court a few months ago. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's really an agreement between Lumberjack Pass and Comfort Suites. MR. KELLY-Well, they're the franchisee of Comfort Suites. So I'm not sure what you're driving at. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wondered who the agreement was with, that's all. MR. KELLY-Royal Hospitality, and the Stark Group also signed the agreement, the managing company. MR. DEEB-Can I get back to one of your comments? You said the removal of trees is going to open up the golf course itself. MR. KELLY-Well, no, it's a sight line between the parking lot of the hotel toward the golf course. MR. DEEB-My comment is this. When I was up there looking at it, if you do take those trees down, the only thing you're going to see is a building, nothing about a golf course. MR. KELLY-Well, you see the golf course, where you get the clubs, there's a sign on the building. MR. DEEB-But that's the only thing you really see. I thought the objective was to see the golf course itself. MR. KELLY-No, the golf course slopes down the hill. So you can't really see it from, you just want to see that it's there. MR. MAGOWAN-See, I looked over and I just saw a parking lot on the other side, which I saw, you know, between the trees you want cut down and the opening where I noticed the dead ones. So I viewed over and like right there. I'm looking right through and I see it perfectly. By taking 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) down the trees up on the knoll, alright, you're really just taking it away from really more the playground. The visual, you want the people coming out of the hotel is I can see right over, see the building now. MR. KELLY-Well, yes, from that angle you can see it, but, you know, it's a semi-circle back there. So from, you go further to the back like where most of the people congregate, now then you don't see it, but my question is, if the hotel owner and the golf course owner both have agreed to do this. Why is it, you know, isn't it something you can approve? You can't see it from Route 9. It's not that everybody else can see it. It's just the people that are involved in these two properties. MR. TRAVER-Right. It is part of the Code that it be subject to Site Plan Review, and we do have regulations and we have recommendations from our Staff and other members of the Board. I would like to recommend to you, and obviously you're free to do whatever you like, but I would like to recommend that you have an opportunity to explore this further with the Staff of the Planning Department, and if we are to, I mean, we can basically deny this, right? We can approve it with conditions, but you've already indicated that you won't comply with that anyway. So there really isn't much point in approving it with conditions, but if we table it to a later date, that gives you another opportunity to take a look at what it is you're trying to accomplish and see if there's a way that you can accomplish it by modifying what you're proposing, not eliminating what you're proposing, but modifying it based upon the discussion that we've had with the applicant tonight. If you decide that you can't do that, it can still be denied. It can be re- reviewed at that later date. If you deny it now, then the application is gone. MR. KELLY-All right. Well, I would like to table it, then, but can you clarify that you're not going to allow any trees to be taken down? Is that, no trees can be removed? MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I'm hearing from the majority of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, again, we're talking about the application that's before us tonight. Now, if you come back with a different application, we would take a different look at it, obviously. MR. FORD-You've heard our concerns that we have voiced, and if you take those back to the table, as you look at the potential for revising this application, you come back after the tabling and move forward. MR. TRAVER-And you won't be any worse off, you know, to be on the agenda later, and you may find that there are solutions to some of these issues, and I can tell you that the issues, just to review, the issues, and again, I'm just speaking for myself, but I think I have the flavor of the Board. The trees, as proposed, not to be cut. The lighting to be pedestrian bollard style lighting, which would illuminate the path, but not add to the illumination which was under 179-6-020C, sidewalks and bikeways horizontal luminants not to exceed one foot candle, and as proposed they're four foot candles. So that was a concern, and some limitations on the brush removal, mainly for visual reasons, just limited to the eastern half of what was proposed on the site plan. If you can come back with accommodating those concerns, you may have a much more favorable review on the part of the Planning Board. MR. KELLY-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. It's a little unusual to have your neighbor say that it's okay to table the application. So I thought we ought to have you on the record saying it's okay with you. MR. RICHARDS-This is a little unusual, and we tried to approach this, obviously this is a contentious issue and I'm not going to drag the Board into this. Obviously I disagree with some of the things that Mr. Kelly said, but we tried to approach this in a constructive manner, and our agreement was anything we had agreed to do was all subject to this Board's approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RICHARDS-And this Board has not approved it, and we are not intending to ask that it be tabled. So we'd ask for a decision tonight on the existing application. MR. HUNSINGER-So you do want us to take it to a vote? MR. RICHARDS-We'd like to have a decision tonight on the existing application. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I'll put it to the Board. We have sort of two choices here. Steve and I were just kind of talking about it. We can either move forward, as I thought we were about 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) to, and approve it with conditions, or we can deny it in its current form. I don't know if anyone has a preference? MR. FORD-1 have a preference. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Mr. Ford. MR. FORD-Deny it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think the applicant has been clear. I'm assuming that he wants it on the record that we did look at this and denied it. I think to approve it with conditions when the applicant has signaled they don't intend to comply with what the recommendations are, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did we close the public hearing? MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we open it? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I believe you did. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-There were no written comments, right? MR. OBORNE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right, because the applicant's neighbor's attorney commented. Sorry. MR. OBORNE-1 didn't want to point that out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING SP #29-2012 ROYAL HOSPITALITY Tax Map ID 288.8-1-5.2 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to modify existing site plan by adding lighting to foot path at rear of premises, install directional signs along same path to the adjacent miniature golf course, and remove four trees and clear brush near southwestern portion of the parcel. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/15/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2012 ROYAL HOSPITALITY, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 15th day of May, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-So, since the application was denied, that's in its current form. If you were to come back with a revised plan, we obviously could consider that. MR. RICHARDS-Right. I understand. All right. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. TABLED ITEM: 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 APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 120' MONOPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITH SUPPORTING 12 BY 30 (360 SQ. FT.) EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATED ON TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DEPARTMENT LANDS. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IN A RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 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 & RICK ANDRUS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-As I mentioned earlier this evening, it is the Board's intention to table this, but we will introduce it and we will take public comment. Keith, would you like to summarize the Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I shall summarize. Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless is the applicant. Requested action is Site Plan Review. Location is 1127 West Mountain Road. This is in the RR-5A, Rural Residential Five Acre district. SEQRA status is Unlisted. This was a Negative Declaration back in February. Warren County referral is on file. I believe the Planning Board is aware of the issues. Right now the tabling is basically based on the fact that geo technical testing needs to be accomplished and needs to be reviewed by the Water Department's engineer, and I believe everybody's aware of where we are with this application, specifically the Planning Board. If there are any questions that you need answered, with confusion, I'm sure Mike would be more than willing and able to do that, as would I, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CUSACK-Thank you. Mike Cusack, representing Cellco Partnership, Verizon Wireless, and with me tonight is Rick Andrus, the Radio Frequency Engineer who's listed on the application. He'll be with us in a moment. When we were here in March, the way the discussion ended up in the minutes is that we were looking to get together with the Water Department and the Water Department's engineering firm, which had yet to be hired, to look at the site, consider the plan, and make sure that what we were proposing would work with their potential future need for additional water tank space at the property. Earlier in the hearing process before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, the question came up of possibly moving the driveway to a more central location, and that was something that we couldn't agree to do without the Water Department signing off on it, and as a result of those discussions, they wanted to take a closer look at it. So they didn't have their engineer yet. They were in the process of hirin C.T. Male. C.T. Male was subsequently hired and reviewed the application and on April 10t they wrote a letter to the Town advising that, you know, they could, an approach that could be taken would be to approve the project with the condition that they'll review the geo technical study with our application for building permit, and that's the usual process for a tower. It's the process we followed when we replaced the AM tower over on Everts Avenue. Because the geo technical testing is intrusive, we have to bring a drilling rig into the site, do borings into the soil, and, you know, if there's trees like there are on this property, we have to actually cut our way in to get the drilling rig to the site, and the only nerve racking item on that list for us is as the applicant is you're the Planning Board. You have our application in front of us. We didn't have your permission to go in there and cut down trees. Once you cut down the trees it's awfully difficult to replace them, because they've been removed. So our plan, initially, was to go along the driveway route that was proposed, because C.T. Male's preliminary feedback was we're not going to be able to move that driveway. So if we were able to get our rig in there and clear the path that's on the driveway that's proposed, that seemed to make the best sense to us. However, as the applicant, we didn't want to step on any toes, you know, with the Planning Board and just assume that it was okay to go in there and remove the trees. We tried addressing it with an entry and testing agreement that I ran by the Town's attorney, and after we deliberated on that, it was close to this meeting, and we just decided to show up and basically discuss with you what we were now proposing to do and show you on a piece of paper what the plan is, and the Town's Zoning Administrator and Planning Department were very cooperative. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) They volunteered to go to the site with us. They had a meeting at the site last week, and I've given you, tonight, a picture of the path, we'll call it, for lack of a better phrase, the path of least resistance. It's not on the driveway area, but it is the shortest route in. It's interior to the property. It's not located near Mr. Ball's property, and as the photograph indicates, the area is somewhat clear now, though there is some tree removal work that would have to be accomplished in that area. So with the Board's permission, and if this is the approach you want to take, which is to do this test up front, we will perform the test using that access route and get the results over to C.T. Male for review and report back, hopefully wind everything up. We did agree with Mr. Hill, as well, to extend the shot clock timeframe under the Federal law out to the end of June to allow all this to occur. So I think that we've addressed the moving parts as best as we can right now, and I'll take any questions you might have. MR. HUNSINGER-1 had two quick ones. The first one is based on this handout that you gave us. You're not planning to remove that 12 inch diameter tree, are you? You're going to go to the side of it? MR. CUSACK-No, that has to come out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CUSACK-That has to come out. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the second question is I understand that you're kind of waiting for the meeting this evening and you're like literally ready to let them roll in real soon. So the timetable that I understand we're going to do is to table this until June. MR. CUSACK-That's correct, and I think that's realistic to get it done in the next couple of weeks, so that C.T. Male has a chance to review it and provide a report to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CUSACK-It's a pretty standard review. As I mentioned, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on board with the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Do you expect it at all likely that your site plan proposal will change as a result of this testing? MR. CUSACK-We do not, based upon our past experience on similar sites being close to other structures, hillsides, retaining walls, things like that. This is workable, but it does have to be reviewed, and if in the course of the process a change comes up, we will be back with the further revision and quite possibly another extension. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I might have missed a meeting, but I assume that when you first started this, you did look at putting a walkway around the water tower and putting antennas there and that wasn't suitable for the reach that you have to get. Is that correct? MR. CUSACK-That's correct, and it's addressed in the report at Tab Six of our application package. We need a freestanding tower, and in the course of considering the prior application, at the firehouse, which was down in the lower area of Aviation Road, the Town directed us to this site. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. What's your range of coverage, your first wing? How far out will you go, will you be able to get out with that signal? MR. CUSACK-How much will this cover? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. Are you filling a void is what I'm asking you. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. We're filling in a gap in service in certain areas of the northwestern corner of the Town of Queensbury, roughly from Aviation Road heading north up towards the next exit which would be 20. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we see that all time, from an emergency service aspect. MR. CUSACK-Correct. The tower, speaking of emergency services, the tower is designed for their use. The Town negotiated the right for Town and County emergency services to have 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) space on this free of charge. That's a lease obligation that we have. You have a copy of our lease describing that in the application package at Tab Two. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I just think we have to be mindful of the fact that as time goes on more and more of our residences don't have phones, and they rely on cell phones and whether you agree with that or not, it's not people my age it's people younger than me that are more prevalent doing it, but the fact of the matter is that the Town has a certain responsibility now to make sure that there's cell coverage every place. We don't need another incident like happened the other night down in New York. MR. CUSACK-No, we do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. TRAVER-So we'd be doing two things. One would be to extend and the other would be to table. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I know there's a number of people that are here to offer comment to the Board. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to make comments. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to speak their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We use the microphone to tape the meeting. The tape is then used to transcribe the minutes. Tapes of the meeting are also available on the Town's internet site if you ever want to go back and listen to a meeting, you can. I would ask that you make any comments or questions to the Board. The purpose is not for you to engage the applicant. The purpose is to provide comment to the Board, which then takes your information and weighs it in our deliberations. Typically when we have a full evening like we do this evening we do limit the comments to three minutes. We do have a timer. A buzzer will go off when your three minutes are up. I would ask that you be respectful of that time. There will be another opportunity for the public hearing, for the evening that we table this to. There is also opportunity to provide written comment to the Town. When written comment is provided, it is either read into the record verbatim or copies are provided to the Planning Board before the meeting. Having said that, Mr. Fuller, if you want to be first, I saw your hand up first. MATT FULLER MR. FULLER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Matt Fuller from the law firm of Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth. I represent Matthew and Elizabeth Montesi, the owners of property at 9 Hillside Drive. I did send a letter to the Town Board and the Planning Board a couple of weeks ago voicing my clients concerns. Obviously, just for the record, my clients are opposed, in general, to the tower, but also with my guidance they understand the legal limitations the Planning Board exists under in reviewing cell towers. So we won't get into any frequency or any of those debates tonight. My clients' real concern, and I think you've got an opportunity here to avoid the skyline that one sees when you look at Prospect Mountain right now. It's dotted with towers, and I've given you some pictures from some crude internet research that I did, and though I was on the other side of a project in Washington County on Pilot Knob, I'm here to suggest a Frankenpine. I think the Planning Board has in its discretion the ability to shield that, and with the West Mountain side, it's an opportunity to do that. Again, we would like to not see the tower there, but I also understand the reality of the legal limits that this Board exists under. So, you know, we would encourage you to, given the month that you've got here, with the applicant coming back, to have them submit a shielding plan, similar to that which I've, you know, the photos that I've submitted with the letter. They've come a long way, and we're not looking for a pipe cleaner or a, you know, they can now cascade them out and make them look like trees. I will say I struggle to find the one on Pilot Knob now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because you can't find it. MR. FULLER-You can't find it. so, you know, Understanding, again, the concerns that you live under, we'd like to not see it there, but with that being said, I think the suggestion to, you know, mitigate the visible impacts of this tower should be taken into consider, and that is in your authority, and I would ask you to do it, and lastly I would point the applicant over to the Ridge Road transfer station because we need service on that side of Town. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. GEORGE WINTERS 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. WINTERS-George Winters, 4 John Clendon Road in Queensbury. I was in favor of the one down there at the fire station because there is some dead spots in the area, and I think that it's very important that, you know, with all the cell phones in use, that we have adequate towers, and that's the proper place for that is up on West Mountain, like the guy said, make it a pine tree. You can't even see it. So I'm for it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. STEWART SIMKOWITZ MR. SIMKOWITZ-1'11 try to be quick. I know there's a lot of technical information that's going to come your way tonight so I'll get into the human factor. A gentleman over here said. MR. HUNSINGER-Could I have your name, please? MR. SIMKOWITZ-Stewart Simkowitz. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SIMKOWITZ-We want to make sure every citizen has cell phone service in Queensbury. The question I ask is at what price? I brought here tonight, that I can leave with you, information about cell phone towers. We're not supposed to talk about, as I said last time, just the health factor here. I understand that statute was written, but we can talk about the health in reference to property values, in reference to aesthetics. We can talk about that. So I'll read something small first. The Appraisal Institute, the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters, spotlighted the issue of cell towers and the fair market value of a home, that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a decrease in home value, two to twenty percent. I can go on all night. This one here states about the effect of the perception of cell towers. Now unless the gentleman from Verizon would like to debate me on the very existence of supply and demand in the housing market, then we have to look at five people coming to look at a house, and two of them with families, looking up here and saying, well, I don't want to live near here because we think it's harmful. Nobody on this Board, and Verizon will not deny, nobody will deny, that people have that perception, and when you have that perception, and two people want to look at your home instead of five people, you are breaking down the prices of the homes in Queensbury. This is hurting the value of homes, and this is something that it can be turned on, turned down on. So this gentleman suggested a Frankenpine or whatever it's called, you know, we'll put a tree and somebody will come and will see, this looks like a pine tree with this large metal hunk sticking out of the top, and that'll get us healthy. That'll do it. I'm a little angry that I'm even here, that we're even discussing this. Verizon came to you last week, I don't know if anybody remembers this, but some of the reasons that they gave were, Number One, we have a cell tower on top of St. Peter's Hospital and they don't mind. I don't know if anybody remembers that. Well, what is the reason for that? Is it aesthetics? Have we all stood in front of a hospital building and said my, how beautiful, we don't want to ruin the aesthetics of this hospital building? Do we compare that to the beauty of a Town like Queensbury? Is it the health factor? Patients who spend a few weeks or a few days in a hospital and we spend our whole lives? We have children in that neighborhood, and these articles right here, I don't have time, in three minutes, to read all of these, tell you about how thin the skulls and how this does cause, asbestos and lead. They were healthy until we found out they weren't healthy, until we killed tens and hundreds of thousands of people. They think this is the Verizon Planning Board. This is the Queensbury Planning Board. I believe you're here to take care of us, the citizens of Queensbury, and nobody appreciates it more than me. I'm happy not to be driving on the Long Island Distress Way anymore. I've been up here seven years and I appreciate and I love this Town, but I have a ten year old boy that you saw here last week. There's another girl from Queensbury here. I don't want to bring a bunch of children here, but we have children here, and I think this Planning Board should consider that when they vote on this. The next reason they gave you, which is the best reason of all, that somewhere in the Board room somebody yelled out, Joe, Harry, for lack of knowing their names, let's give the Queensbury Planning Board the guilt trip. I don't know if anybody remembered that, but he stood like this and said, guys, members of the Board, whatever he said, this is, we've been trying for this for three years now, we've been turned down. Well, three years, is that where it clicks off? If it's wrong for three years, is that where we approve it? If it's wrong for three years, it's wrong for thirty years. I hear the buzzer, and I'll finish up by telling you that I spoke with a member, and employee of the Town of Queensbury from the Water Department, and he gave me the best reason of all for putting the tower there. He said to me, I asked him why, in a residential area, this doesn't belong in a residential area where there are children and the value of the homes are going to be, I keep saying that where I really would like to talk about the health, but his answer to me was, because we have to put it somewhere. I'm not going to mention names. You probably all know who I'm talking about, but that was his exact answer to me. I think it's ludicrous. I think the answer was silly. I don't mean to insult anybody. Because we have to put it somewhere. He 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) doesn't live over there. It's not going in his backyard. If we have to put it somewhere, put it there. Give him a residence lease for it, but I'm upset about this because we moved in there and we have children, and there are reasons to turn it down, if you consider how the health factor and the perception of the health factor is going to take the property values, and I'd like to talk about more, but I understand the buzzer went off. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SIMKOWITZ-And thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Who'd like to be next. Mr. Ball? RON BALL MR. BALL-Ron Ball, Queensbury, New York. Anybody heard of the American Firefighters Association? Three hundred thousand members, they all agreed on one thing. They would not allow a cell tower on their firehouse. I don't know how many firehouses it is, but 300,000 members is a lot of members. They voted on that, not to put one on there because the unknown risk to health hazards. Not only them, every American line industry, airlines, all have radar on the nose of their planes. First thing a pilot's trained, shut your radar off as soon as you get on the ground? Why? Because they don't want the health, their baggage handlers and employees on the ground affected from the radiation from the radar. Okay. Now, 1990, New York Telephone Company in Glens Falls was the pioneer of cell towers or radio tower. It changed hands and went to Verizon. For the past year, this is on the corner of Pine Street and Glen Street, Verizon's big building there, okay, the past year they had a crane set up there and they renovated the whole building. They took the crane down, they took the cell tower off the roof. No more cell tower. Do you know why? Because they're afraid of the radiation to their employees, the health of their employees. Okay. You ask them. They're back there. Ask them why they took it down. If they want to put one up, then all right, let's try one of ours, but if they don't want to put one up, don't put one up near us. Not good enough for them, it's definitely not good enough for us. There's 1.9 million towers in our Country today and it's expected to increase 48%, 48%. So if there's 50 of them in the Town of Queensbury now, there's going to be 25 more. How many people are on the Board and how many cell towers are in Queensbury? Nobody, bet you can't even find out. They don't even know how many permits they give out for them, but I'll tell you, less than six months ago, Verizon completed a cell tower less than two miles from where they're putting this one, on the West Mountain Road, right between Pitcher Road and Luzerne Road, on the west side of the West Mountain Road. Same size, 120 foot tall. Six months ago. How many more permits have they got in? How many more cell towers are they going to put in our area? This is getting ridiculous. Everybody in our area has got cell coverage. Why does this gentleman say, well, we need the cell coverage? We're covered. Where they need it is up north or out near Sacandaga or some place, remote areas. Okay. I want to get to the, recently there was an inspection by C.T. Male done that was read at the Town Board meeting and it addressed the situations of the water tower, but it never mentioned the north side. John Strough and 1, on March 27t", sent a letter which was read by Keith Oborne, line six, that specifically states the north side of the water tower, which is dangerously close to the property line that's there, and that side, on the north side, the gentleman has a permit to put a driveway in, and if he doesn't put the driveway in, the property's going to be landlocked, but when he puts that driveway in, that's going to bring that water tower, the existing water tower, dangerously close to a steep edge. This should be studied, looked at, because if you allow them to put the cell tower up and then the additional water tower, which the specifics said wider and shorter, if you get that in there, the shorter one, what's going to happen is this gentleman puts his driveway in, which he has a permit, they may tell you you've got to move the existing water tower. Then where are you going to put it if the water tower's there? I think you've got to do some serious planning here. You've got to see what the neighbor plans on doing before you make any decisions on this. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could have you wrap it up, please. MR. BALL-Okay. I'm going to wrap it up right here, now. The Zoning Codes are in place not only to protect the health and well-being of residents, but also to protect the purpose and intent of our Town's community plans which in part is to minimize visual intrusions such as communication equipment and to protect residents from unsafe structures and equipment. There have been hundreds of fires in and around cell towers, and I'm going to show you these cell towers, if I may approach the Board, because I only have one photo. Cell towers. Hundreds of cell towers. You see the top of this? It blew right off. Okay. Blew right off. You're going to put a 120 foot tall cell tower on that property and the tower blows off, we don't even have a piece of equipment that can put the fire out 120 feet high, no way, and there's more than that. I can bring more pictures in. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Your time's up, Mr. Ball. If I could ask you to wrap it up, please. MR. BALL-I've just got two sentences and I'll be all done. Okay. Our Town has Codes that say a 10% grade or less is needed for emergency vehicles to safely go on to a person's property. This hillside is three times greater than what's allowed. Three times greater. I talked to a volunteer fireman. He told me he doubted if a fire truck could get around the gate at the bottom of the road. Our fireman are precious to us, I'm telling you. You can't endanger their lives by accepting this, by giving them their permit. If there was a fire there, you wouldn't be able to get a fire truck up that hill, it's so steep. Our Codes say it should be 10%, it's somewhere between 25 and 30%. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BALL-I'm sorry if I got loud. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. I just saw a hand. Good evening. CARA GITTO MS. GITTO-Hi. My name is Cara Gitto. If you look where the water tower is on the map and you look just above it, that's my house, 1135 West Mountain Road, and I just want it stated that I oppose having the cell tower. It cannot be disproved that it won't be harmful to my children, to myself, to my family. I have a lot of respect for the Planning Board. A couple of years ago with Schermerhorn down at the end of the road by Gurney Lane, they wanted to put in office buildings and what not. People fought it. People came to an agreement. There's adult, senior housing there now. We came to a decision. There needs to be a better place. There's a better place. It doesn't need to be right there where my house, where my parents' house is behind it, and all those houses right there within a half mile. There must be a better place. It's just so inappropriate to be there. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. DEBBIE SIKORAK MRS. SIKORAK-I'm Debbie Sikorak. I live at 1161 West Mountain Road. I wasn't planning on speaking tonight, but I have a few things I would like to add to this. You're going to deny a hotel cutting down trees that are not visible to anybody but the hotel, but you're entertaining permitting them to cut down a 12 inch in diameter tree, where we have already lost so many trees due to a microburst, thank you Mother Nature. So that makes no sense to me, so they can go in and perform tests. It appears to me as though this is almost a foregone conclusion, which doesn't make me, a resident of that area, a very happy person. I don't want to sit on the front porch of my home and look and see a cell tower. It's ugly. I don't care if it's a Frankenpine. I don't care what it is, and then there was a comment about, well we have to provide cell service because there are so many people in this area who do not have it and they are now relying on cell phones versus a house phone. Pardon me, that is a choice. You do not have to have a cell phone versus a land line in your home. If you don't have service with a cell phone, get a land line. What did we do for all of those years when we had no cell phones? We had land lines. We didn't have answering machines, let alone a cell phone. So these are things to consider. I'm sorry if somebody down the road doesn't have cell service. I really am, but you know what, suck it up, deal with it and move on, because we've all done it for years, and that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, in the back. KYLE COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Hi. My name's Kyle Collins. I live at 21 Lehland Drive in Lehland Estates, right across the street from the proposed cell tower. I'd like to elaborate a little more on what Ron Ball touched on with the proposed cell tower. The recommended grade for some property for firefighters or other emergency vehicles is 10% or less. The steep grade that is there now is three times than what is allowed by Town Code. Will they be able to get one more emergency vehicle up there? Will they be able to turn around? No. I've been up there many times. You're putting the safety of our firefighters and EMT's at risk. There are cell towers all the time, more than you know. Just poke around on the Internet a little while and check out cell fires, cell tower fires. I have found numerous sites and information where there were wiring issues, lightning strikes, animals making nests and/or biting wires, just to name a few. The Planning Board will have the ultimate decision on this. If they feel that they safety of our volunteer firefighters and EMT's is compromised because this steep grade does not meet Code, they must vote no for 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) their permit. Public officials are responsible for the safety of our first responders. That is why we have Codes in place. For the sake of a cell tower which is not needed, by the way, because everyone I know in Lehland Estates and surrounding there, maybe one or two houses don't have cell service. Everyone else has cell service that I know of. Nobody else has any problems. Do not put our volunteers at risk or the environment or the people who live in the area. There are thousands of acres up there in jeopardy. Many lives could depend on your vote. We also do not need cell service in our area. Everyone I know gets perfectly fine reception, blah, blah, blah. I just said this. Here we go, on the Verizon website, it even shows that our area has complete coverage. So why do they need to put a cell tower there? Just get on their website, it shows it. They've got coverage. It's all in red right there. This is not a place for a cell tower. It is not aesthetically pleasing. Many trees will be cut and cleared. So what are you going to do, cut and clear all these trees to put up a Frankenpine, really, in the middle of, you're going to clear all these trees to get up there, and then you're going to have one tree sitting right there? Yes, that's going to look real good. I don't care what it looks like. All of our property value is going to go down. Is that what you want for the Town of Queensbury, lower property value? I didn't think so, and what about the radiation? This is a big concern of mine. I've got three children. One a newborn with Down Syndrome, and I really don't need him to have any more problems. They say it's unfounded. There haven't been enough studies done by neutral parties on the long term effects. I'll tell you what, I've heard nothing good, and we don't need to take that chance of the cancer, tumors, autism, depression, short term memory loss, etc. that it could bring. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I saw a hand in the back. JANET BLIVRO MC MILLEN MS. MC MILLEN-My name is Janet Blivro McMillen. I live on Sunset Drive, and, no, I do not have cell phone service in my house, but I have mixed feelings. I realize it's difficult to sort through all the information, especially because there seems to be so much emotion and misinformation out there. Even experts disagree on whether cell phone towers are harmful or not. It's kind of like global warming, I think. Some people think it's happening. Some people don't think it's happening, but the experts and the scientists don't even agree. Before doing my own research, even though I and many of my neighbors can't get our cell phones to work in our homes, I have felt it's best to err on the side of caution. If there are legitimate health issues involved, I would never want someone to suffer ill health just so I can use a cell phone, but, after reading numerous articles, often contradictory, and comparing sources, I have come to think that this cell tower in question would not be any more harmful than microwaves or t.v.'s, according to the best knowledge we have at this time, and you can only work with the knowledge that you have at the time. It's a cell phone tower. It is not a high tension wire. In my reading I came across articles that suggested, just to be safe, a buffer zone between cell towers and schools, daycare centers, residential areas of anywhere between 250 to 1500 feet. If this cell tower is indeed a quarter mile from Lehland Estates, and the last time I checked a quarter of a mile was still 1320 feet, then I don't really see the deep concern. To link cell towers with autism or down syndrome is, I think, an emotional rather than a factual response, even though I can't imagine the heartbreak of having a child with such serious conditions. This proposed tower would be located in the woods, near a not very pretty water tower. So I don't understand the aesthetic issue, especially since so many others can't use cell phones in their homes, and that is a far more serious safety issue. This is only one tower. Last year during the Irene storm when we were without power for some time and had no cell phone service in our house, at least we could use them outside. That's hard or impossible to do in the winter, and we do lose power in the winter, and I do have a Iandline, but it doesn't work when the electric's out, and so I ask you to seriously consider allowing this tower to be built, and I would ask those who don't want it where it is proposed, and that seems to be a big area, does it have to go there? Could it go to the left? I don't know what's over on the other side, but where would it be more appropriate? I think we do need a tower. The only thing I've heard here tonight, and I came because I really have never been to one of these meetings, but I wanted to hear what people said, and it seems to me the only thing I heard would be the safety of the fire trucks, of the firemen, if that could be circumvented somehow, then, you know, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. Somebody mentioned breaking down the prices because the perception that cell phone, and that's what it is. It's a perception that cell phone towers are dangerous, and so, yes, whoever it was, a he or she said that it would break the housing, the prices down, bring the prices of their houses down, but I would counter with that my son just bought a house, not in this area but somewhere else, and he was concerned because he could not get cell phone service in the house. He didn't buy that house, he bought another one. So on the same side, on the opposite side, you've got possible people not wanting to look at your house because you can't use your cell phone in your house. So I think both issues, I don't even know if they're the most important. To me, health is, but when I did research, I read a lot of articles, and I didn't find these connections to all these health issues that some other people, you know, maybe I didn't read the same articles, but I guess there's a difference of opinion. I just think, you probably will proceed cautiously, and 1 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) think that that is what's necessary, but I would surely love to be able to have a cell phone in my house. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I saw a hand over here, sir, and then you can be next, ma'am. JOE MC GINNIS MR. MC GINNIS-My name is Joe McGinnis. I live at 28 Lehland Drive, Queensbury. I thank the Board for allowing me to speak at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Your welcome. MR. MC GINNIS-I've worked for DOT for a major part of my career and I've lived here for the same time. I do know the entrance, there's two entrances to Lehland. Those are the two right there. They are at least, well, not quite a quarter of a mile apart. So that will give you good judgment how close those houses are if they're within a quarter mile. A few points were brought up about the trees, and I was going to mention that, so I won't mention that again. I've worked very hard to have a residence where I live. I built a house there, and I wouldn't have built it next to a cell tower or next to a primary line. I just wouldn't have built it there. I wouldn't buy a house there, and my house value's going to drop $25,000. My hard work is going down the tubes. The health for all the people in my Lehland Estate neighborhood, it should be top priority. People don't think that there's a possibility of hazardous, harmful effects. Nobody's there telling me there's not. Okay. A lady talked about not having any problems with microwaves. I've worked in many areas, and one of them was working with appliances. The reason you don't have to worry about microwaves is because they're shielded. You go up against a door that's got a bad seal, you're going to have a problem. That's really all I have to say. I don't want to take all your time. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma'am. ELSIE BEDROSIAN MS. BEDROSIAN-I won't burden you with what I went over last time, and I know that health issues really don't count. However. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MS. BEDROSIAN-I'm sorry. Elsie Bedrosian. 16 Lehland Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. BEDROSIAN-What you are asking us as residents at Lehland and those people who live south and north of that cell tower when it goes up, you are asking us to accept future risk. If you'll think back years ago everybody was smoking. There was no risk. There is a risk now, and what we are dealing with here is future risk. Now is it worth that risk for $13,000 or $13,500 rental that you'll be receiving from Verizon, is it worth that? Specifically as I mentioned when you had your last meeting, women and children are affected mostly, and the quarter mile that the woman spoke about, things do happen within that quarter mile. I also would like to say that when you vote on this, please vote with your conscience. Would you accept that risk? Would you be willing to live there? And if this request falls on deaf ears and that cell tower does go up, I think that you should have an independent agency, company come in and measure the emissions from that cell tower, from the point of a quarter mile, 1500 feet, and then also at 5400 feet to see what the emissions are, and I'd like to ask the gentleman from Verizon if he knows what they project the emissions will be once that tower is up? Is there a number? Can he answer that question? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we'll ask him. Yes. MS. BEDROSIAN-Okay, and if that does not work out, if the emissions are greater when that company does analyze what comes out of that cell tower, will Verizon bring down that cell tower, or will Queensbury have to pay to bring it down? That's about it, and I would like an answer to that, you know, about the amount of emissions. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. MS. BEDROSIAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) SAMANTHA BALL MRS. BALL-I'm Samantha Ball. I live in Queensbury. Have been since 1999. 1 realize that when an application comes in front of you you're obligated to review it and make your decisions or, you know, try to come to some sort of agreement, but I feel like, after listening to everyone here, you really have a moral question that's being asked of you repeatedly, and is this right or wrong? And this is not business. This is our Town. This is our community, and a lot of times I think, you know, we think of a municipality as, you know, it's a business. We're here to make money, and I know you're not going to approve this based on the measly $1300 they're giving you each month. I think though, you know, the greater question is, regardless of whether, we're not allowed to talk about the health risks or not, because that's nonsense and we all know it. Would you live next to the cell tower, is my first question, and secondly, is this right or wrong? Is this causing harm in our community, and I can say, yes, it seems to be, and I don't think we need to like do the utilitarian argument, the greatest good for the greatest number, because I'm going to tell you I lived over on Algonquin for five years, and I'll be damned if I had cell phone service. I had a Iandline, just like I do over across the street where I live now. So I think the obligation to provide cell phone service is nonsense because like the gal said over there about the, you know, use a Iandline. We'll make do, but I think, you know, perception is everything, and we need to consider if this is a morally right thing to do for the Town of Queensbury, and I suggest it's not. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I would just add, since you mentioned it, that the lease that the Town is receiving for the cell tower, that has absolutely no basis in any consideration that we make. We're not a party, this Board is not a party to that discussion or decision. If it wasn't public knowledge, we wouldn't even necessarily know what it was. I just wanted to make that real clear. I mean, you alluded to it. I wanted to make sure everybody understood that. MRS. BALL-And I appreciate that, and I don't suggest that I think you're doing it for $1300 a month. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Of course not. MRS. BALL-I just suggest people think, they're going to do it because they're going to make money, and I know that's not your motive. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BALL-You're trying to provide a service to the Town, but I just don't think, across the Board, a cell phone tower belongs in a residential neighborhood. I don't want to see it over on Michaels Drive where I live, where there's plenty of vacant land that the City of Glens Falls owns. I don't want to see it. I don't want it near me, because it does scare me. It makes me think, okay, is my three and a half year old, is something going to happen? There are no studies been done because this is new technology. This is new service. I don't care if it's been around for 10, 15, 20 years. I mean, don't quote me on any statistics because I don't know them. I haven't done my homework like my father-in-law, but I think the consideration is, you know, is this good for our community? And I'm going to say, no, it's not, and people are saying it, and it is your obligation to listen to that, because I know it's not about business, it's about our community. Like Ron Ball says, you're here to provide people a place to build their homes, yes, do business, with a reasonable sense of responsibility in our community, and I don't feel like, you know, Verizon's not here for that. I mean, yes, they're going to provide service, but they're here to make more money, you know, without a doubt. They're not here because they're going to make our community pretty. They're not here because they're going to make our community better. I mean, give me a break, it's a cell phone tower. Pardon my sarcasm, but let's, you know, not in a residential neighborhood. Go stick is up, way up somewhere else. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma'am. JENNIFER BROOKS MS. BROOKS-Hello. Jennifer Brooks. I live on 1049 West Mountain Road. It's all been said about the health risks, and I just want to mention that my son does have a chronic disorder. So I feel very dear about having it close to my house. Besides that, I do want it to be known that I'm asking for a drawing that we can share with the Post Star and people who are not here tonight that covers what the water tower looks like at eye level. The proposed additional water tower that is needed and being studied by C.T. Male Engineers and the Water Department, and the cell tower itself at the 120 feet. I'd like that to be a big picture for everybody to look at. That's all. Thanks. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-1 want to address that before. You can go sit down, and that was a question that I had asked since the last meeting to now. There is no, as I understand it, there is no immediate plan by the Town to build a new water tower. The only reason why that issue came up is if there's an eventual need down the road. There are no current plans. There are no current proposal. So, I mean, what you have asked for can't be provided because there is no proposal, just for everyone's reference. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can we get just the cell tower and the water tower picture up, because I was going to ask that. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have those. We do have those, yes, there's a Full Visual Impact Statement. It's on file at the Town. Anyone can come in and take a look at it. It's public information. It's part of the public record. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-That's a 30% slope. This is a 10% slope. Good evening gentlemen of this Board. My name is John Salvador, and contrary to the condition enjoyed by most people in this room, we do not have cell phone service at our residence and place of business on Dunhams Bay on Lake George. As you are aware, there is a distinction between a municipal corporation and a private corporation. Article Eight, Section One of the New York State Constitution prohibits local subdivisions of the State, the Town being one of them, to gift or loan any money or property to and in aid of any individual or private corporation association or private undertaking. Verizon is a private undertaking. You can't loan money or your credit. The Town entered into a contract, two years ago, on a condition of approval of this project. They lent their credit to Verizon. That's a violation of the Constitution. Pursuant to Town Code Chapter 179 Section 179-9-090, it remains for this Board to make a finding that Verizon Wireless's application is complete after it has received sufficient information to make its findings under Section 179-9-070, and 080, to find, this finding of completeness has yet to be made, and cannot be made until after the public hearing is to be held at your next meeting. You hold these public hearings to gather information, and you cannot determine that the application is complete until you've completed the public hearing. Historically the Town purchased a small sliver of land in 1952 on which to site a water tower, and this is the water tower that is there now. I have a tax map here that shows that small sliver of land. Later in 1990, the Town purchased an additional parcel on which the Town did not require variances to site a water tower, a nonconforming use in a residential zone. The purpose for purchasing the additional land in 1990 was a thought that maybe they had to have another water tower. However, they abandoned that idea. I think it was built up in Gurney Lane, but we still have the land. There was no need for additional land in 1990. We had a water tower. It was working. The idea was maybe we needed another water tower, or maybe something like set aside land in case that one was an eminent failure, we had to build another water tower. Variances are understood to run with the land, and are not normally required for municipalities for relief from their own regulations. Why is Verizon getting a variance? The Town doesn't need a variance. Not only that, they got a Use Variance, and I'm waiting to hear, when are they going to get the Area Variance for building on excessive slopes? They haven't gotten an Area Variance for that. Circumstances involving EMS and firefighting equipment and personnel during construction must be evaluated. This is the most critical time for emergency response is during the construction phase. A lot of people going to be working up there, heavy equipment on steep slopes. It can't get worse. MR. HUNSINGER-In case you didn't hear the beeper, Mr. Salvador, the beeperjust went off. I'd ask you to wrap it up, please. MR. SALVADOR-All right. The other thing the design shows is that the utilities from West Mountain Road to the cell site are going to be run underground along the right of way. That's the worst condition that you can have, that when you disturb natural soil, and put these utilities in and then backfill, you've got a natural channel for excessive runoff. That has got to be addressed on the plan. The question of the low profile tank came up. Why low profile? That doesn't make any sense, no sense whatsoever. When you build these water tank, you need head. You need height. You don't need volume. Volume doesn't do you any good. The property to the north that was talked about. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. If I could ask you to wrap it up, please. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Can I come back after everyone else has spoken? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see. I want to give everyone else a chance to comment, first. MR. SALVADOR-Fine. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know how long that's going to take, John. I don't know. There's plenty of additional opportunity for you to provide additional comment. Don't worry about that. We have another public hearing scheduled. You can provide written comment. If you're reading from notes, you can just hand it in. MR. SALVADOR-But if you have time this evening, I'd like to mention that site north. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. RUTH SIMKOWITZ MRS. SIMKOWITZ-Hi. My name is Ruth Simkowitz. I live at 66 Sara Jen Drive. I just had a couple of comments. A lot of other points I wanted to bring up have already brought up. So I'll just say that I called the American Cancer Society and I spoke to someone there and I asked them exactly what tests, what studies have been done in regard to cell phone towers, and the gentleman started reading what was on their website basically, saying that, theoretically, the radio frequency waves that are produced by cell phone towers should be safe. Somehow that didn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Theoretically, there should be no PCB's in the Hudson, you know, theoretically a lot of things shouldn't be happening. There shouldn't be pink slime in our food. There shouldn't be, you know, asbestos. People shouldn't have been working at Ground Zero, exposed to all these carcinogens, but yet these things happen. Personally I don't want my family and other families to be a statistic. I also, I know you, the only way we can kind of (lost word) in on this is to say that it won't look pretty. Well, it won't look pretty. The trees that are there now are all deciduous trees. There are very few conifers and firs and evergreens. When the eight months come of no leaves on the trees there, it will be there for everyone to see, this huge cell tower and a water tower. Granted, that that's been there. Also another point I'd like to make is that what studies have been done on the effects of these waves on water? I mean, if this is our water tower next to a cell phone tower, and it's producing radiation, although it's non-ionizing radiation, but what proof do you have that that won't affect our water? Are we all going to be a science project, you know, at the end of the day? Do you have any answers? Can the gentleman from Verizon maybe shed some light on that? These are just concerns I have, and I don't seem to be getting any answers from anyone. I don't think there are any answers right now, and that's what scares me, and that someone would put something there near families, without having an inkling of what it could do is pretty repulsive to me, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. GEORGE DRELLOS MR. DRELLOS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. DRELLOS-George Drellos, 27 Fox Hollow Lane. I just have one question. If you could ask the gentleman from Verizon as to what the value of the tower, plus any of the outcrop buildings will be when it's completed, or if it is completed, as to what the value of the whole project will be, what the worth of the tower is and the buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. What the value would be. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. JOHN SIKORAK MR. SIKORAK-Good evening. My name is John Sikorak. I live at 1161 West Mountain Road, and I'm just kind of curious. Have you seen the plans that you said Verizon was going to do with the cell tower? How much dust is going to be hanging off this cell tower? I mean, I know right now that Prospect Mountain, they're trying to remove the towers and stuff off of there, and I can't understand why, you know, Verizon, if some of their equipment's sitting up there, why it won't come back down and be put on our tower down there that you're proposing. I mean, how much are we going to have hanging off this thing, and secondly, the Town of Queensbury owns a piece of land right on the corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road right there. Why 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) wasn't a site like that suggested rather than doing right in a residential neighborhood? I mean, you've got the nursing home and stuff there and so forth, and I just can't understand why that corner's been developed already commercially with the retirement home going in there. I mean, I call that a commercial venture. I don't really call that a privatized thing, you know, when people are laying there, and I'm also worried about my house, too. I've got tons of things here in front of me, of course we all do because there are studies that say there are things that hurt us from this, and I live pretty darn close to that, and I would have never known that this was even going on, had my neighbor not started saying things about that. So I wasn't even notified that there was a cell tower even going in that area whatsoever, and I'm sure you've heard that from other people, too, but there are other sites to be considered, rather than plopping it right down in a residential neighborhood like we're suggesting doing. I mean, Queensbury owns more land around here, and I don't know if there's other sites that aren't going to give the coverage or what it is, but it certainly doesn't belong up there. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma'am. CINDY JENKINS MRS. JENKINS-Hi. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. JENKINS-I'm Cindy Jenkins. I wasn't planning on speaking tonight. I don't even live in that area, but I do know a lot of people that do. I'm a teacher at Queensbury School for 32 years, and I will tell you something that's really scary. There's a lot of kids coming into school at five years old with a lot of baggage that they didn't ask for, and I don't know what's causing it, but I can tell you it scares me a lot. For my grandchildren at this point, I'm past having children, but little kids and you, I'm sure a lot of you are grandparents. You can be scared, and it's because we don't know the extent that certain things are doing to our health, and if there's any inkling of a doubt that it could cause health problems, don't do it. We can do without cell towers or we can put them in a place that are not near children or adults. There's got to be places around here that if we truly, truly need one, find a place away from residential areas, and I guarantee you if it was a different area of Queensbury, not Lehland Estates but maybe over by me or someone else, you're going to have the same battle on your hands. So you've got to find a place, if it truly is needed, find a place that it's not near residential places. It's too much of a risk, whether it's cancer, whether it's autism, whether it's any kind of health concern for our children and adults, you've got to do it. You've got to really dig deep and find a good spot for it if it's truly, truly needed. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. JEFFREY HILL MR. HILL-Hi. I'm Jeffrey Hill, 58 Sara Jen Drive. I just want to clarify a couple of points that I think are very relevant to the topic. One is that there was a question about distance of homes to the tower, and I believe there was a notice that was required by law that was sent to all homes within 500 feet of the tower. MR. HUNSINGER-That's correct. Well, it's 500 feet of the property. MR. HILL-Okay. Of the property. So give or take, a quarter mile is a very different distance than the potentially multiple hundred feet we're talking about. So it actually is, for anybody that had any question, very close to this neighborhood, and some quick math which might be far off would be that if we have 120 foot cell tower, we've got perhaps 60 foot trees, which is maybe on the high side. We have a 60 foot, correct me if I'm wrong, item to look at and remind us that there's a big question mark about what's coming out of that thing. Additionally, if there are a number of questions to, and for that matter, I've worked day and night for my whole life, and it horrifies me to think that, outside of my son's window, in direct sight and direct access, he can sleep eight to ten hours a night with whatever is or isn't coming out of that thing going straight into his brain. That's not a community I want to live in. That's not a community that anybody, anybody wants to live in, and I think finally I'm both disturbed that this is really even on the table, but I'm really happy to observe what's been going on tonight, because I think what's happened is that this community has handed you on a silver platter, and if not by law, the reasons that you need to say no to this tower. If there's any question about that, there's going to be some serious answering that I think this Board is going to have to do for this community, and finally, this matter will be before this Board perhaps dozens of times, and it does seem as though there should be a policy in place so that we know that we're addressing the concerns, whatever they might be, in their entirety, and that there wouldn't be the type of division that's occurring in this community over a topic like this. So what is the plan in this community, so that we say this is where the 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) proposed tower is planned for, for competitive advantage, not necessarily for necessity, and what is the Town's plan so that it can properly be an addition to the community and not a detraction in any way. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? MR. HILL-Also, I would like to yield some time to Mr. Salvador, if that's appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-It's not. Thank you. MR. HILL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Just for the benefit of the public and for people who attend either the Planning or Zoning Board meetings can appreciate the reason for the time limit is to give everybody an opportunity to provide comment, and it's only as good as it's enforced. We can't delegate time to another person just for the sake of delegating time to another person. I believe, ma'am, you had a comment that you wanted to make? And I'm assuming that no one else wanted to speak, because I didn't see any other hands up. Okay. MS. GITTO-Hi. Cara Gitto again. You mentioned just a few minutes ago about the testing at the water tower site, that there isn't testing being done. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's not what I said. MS. GITTO-Could you clarify, please. MR. HUNSINGER-I said there are no current plans to build another water tower. Yes. MS. GITTO-Okay, because I just want to know because over the last two weeks we've been in contact a couple of times, my parents and myself, with the Water Department, because they're felling trees, and they were saying it's because they're doing core samples. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. GITTO-Okay, for the water tower, or is that for? MR. HUNSINGER-It's for the cell tower. MS. GITTO-For the cell tower. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you were here at the beginning of the discussion, we talked about that. MS. GITTO-Okay. I just wondered, because it seemed like when you said it that it wasn't being tested, and that's what they said. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I never meant to imply that there were no tests going on. MS. GITTO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. MR. SIMKOWITZ-1 have just a comment. I want to thank the Board for listening to us. I know it takes a lot, and I can't tell you how much respect I have for the intelligence just to be on this Board and the patience to listen to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SIMKOWITZ-But I resent the fact that one member of this Board has been laughing and smirking at everything we say, and I want to go on record to say that. This is not a joke. We already know his mind is made up. He's expressed that, but this is not a joke, and I don't want him laughing at my wife or me. MR. HUNSINGER-None of us take this work as a joke. Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-If, in fact, this project has to be, and the Town has no use for that land for a tower, why don't they declare a surplus and sell it? Put it on the auction block, sell it. If Verizon is interested in it, let them stand in line and bid for it, and then get their permits. One other thing I'd like to mention. It's hard to see here, but this roadway continues right, very close to this 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) property boundary line. This is the property boundary line here. This property is actually, this line here is not a property boundary line. This line is a school district boundary line, and what they have done is created two tax parcels, one here and one here, but this property, by subdivision, is part of this. This plus this is 15 acres, in a five acre zone, you've got three residential homes back here. The only access is through here, and I'm telling you, you can't see it here, but these trees shelter the fact that this slope is very, very close to the property to the water, to the Town's property line here, and if this road is improved, it's going to erode and cause adverse stability to that tank. None of the contours have ever been shown in this area. They're all devoted to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Well, we will conclude the public hearing for this evening. We will leave it open. As I mentioned earlier, we do intend to table this project until June 19th. If the applicant would like to come back. We do have a couple of motions to consider, but before we do that, I don't know if you had any comments that you wanted to make based on some of the comments that were received this evening. MR. CUSACK-I'll try to answer the questions that you said you would ask us to clarify during the presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-I wrote down, I think, three specific ones, and I know one of them is kind of a moving target, but one of the questions was how many cells are you going to have on the tower. MR. CUSACK-Correct. The tower is designed with structural capacity to support Verizon Wireless' installations, the installations of two other users, and the County and Town installations which are typically at one location. So you have basically a four user structure. This is as consistent as possible with the requirements in your Code, as well as our lease with the Town Board, not this Board. MR. FORD-Could you clarify that just a little bit more in terms of four users? What does that really mean in the way of application to the tower? MR. CUSACK-Sure. It consists of two components, structural capacity and physical capacity or height. To add users to a facility, first of all the structure and its foundation must be designed with sufficient strength to support the equipment that's on top of the tower as well as the tower itself, under a certain wind load design that's specified for Warren County. There are requirements that you design to. That answers the structural aspect. That's the hardest one to get right at the beginning. You have to know what you're designing for because it dictates the size of the foundation, the strength of the steel and what not. The physical capacity element is something that's addressed in your Town regulations for any new tower. It's required that we provide a structure that's capable of supporting shared use, which is referred to as colocation, and, you know, this particular facility, given its height of 120 feet and the height of the surrounding trees, is pretty much limited to hold Verizon Wireless at the top and then underneath that, separated by approximately 10 feet, maybe 15 feet of space, would be another user, and below that another 10 or 15 feet, would be another user with antennas. Now the Town and County antennas are typically 22 foot long whip antennas, PD 220's, very, very similar to what you would see on a firehouse or a highway garage, the long stick shaped antennas, typically white or gray in color. They can go at the top. They can go at the lower portions of the tower. There's a little more flexibility with that. So it's a moving target on that, but it's easy to support. MR. FORD-How long would the arm be that would extend out from the tower to support that antenna? MR. CUSACK-The Town and County antennas would be standard, you know, offset arms or brackets, typically three to four feet. It could vary in size, depending on, you know, what else is nearby, if they mount in the middle of other antennas it might have to be adjusted, but more or less what you see now on the Warren County tower behind the County Clerk's Office, or, you know, at other locations such as the firehouse on Aviation. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you're talking about two cell users, or three? MR. CUSACK-Total of, it'll be designed for a total of three, counting Verizon Wireless. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, three cell users, and then communication as needed by the Town or the County? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. CUSACK-Correct. That's detailed in Tab 10 of our application package. You'll see a letter describing that from Verizon Wireless. The relevant Code sections are 179-5-130F(1)a and J(1), which require that we design for multiple users. MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't bring my whole package because I knew we were tabling this tonight. I know it's in the application, the value of the tower and the buildings. It's part of the requirement. MR. CUSACK-Yes, the value of the improvements is typically at or less than a single family home. I would estimate for this facility, not talking to engineers or anything, that we would be between $100 and $200,000 of improvements, counting driveway and utilities? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That includes the shed to house the equipment? MR. CUSACK-Yes, that includes the shed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And a secure fence? MR. CUSACK-Yes, that's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And there were a lot of questions about the emissions from the cell tower. If you could comment on that. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. I counted 14 comments of people concerned with that. At Tab Six of our application package, there's a report that Rick prepared. At the very end of this report on Page 11, it talks about the transmission power levels, and references a completed report entitled RF Safety, FCC Compliance of Proposed Facility, prepared by Millennium Engineering, at Appendix A, and this report documents that the proposed facility will be in full compliance with the current FCC RF Emissions Guidelines, and categorically excluded from local regulation under applicable Federal law, and to kind of bring that back to plain English. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, plain English would be helpful, yes. MR. CUSACK-Your power levels are typically 500 watts a channel or less, maximum. They operate at far less than that typically, but that's the FCC maximum allowable emissions level for this County. MR. TRAVER-That's actually quite a bit less than say someone who has a ham radio, say. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. It's less than the fluorescent lights we're sitting under tonight. If I brought a meter to measure it, we'd be in the thousands. MR. TRAVER-One of the things, and this goes along to what, with what Chris was saying. You heard, I know, a number of folks concerned, again, about the medical concerns, and I understand the thorough report that you did in terms of the RF emissions studies and that type of thing, but I think the context that the citizenry is looking for, I know you have addressed this issue in other site developments that you've had to do, are the issues regarding, you know, your comments about the American Cancer Society, and someone was comparing the radio waves to PCB's and lead and asbestos and so on. So, and again, we're tabling this for tonight, but just, something that would be very helpful for all of us, I think, and I've done quite a bit of study myself on the Internet regarding this issue, and, you know, you can find almost anything that you want to look for on the Internet, as I'm sure you know, but if you could put together some information regarding studies that have been done, and there have been some significant studies, and there are, in fact, positions that have been taken by major organizations, institutions, regarding this issue, I think that might be helpful to give some information to the public, beyond the mere RF numbers. MR. ANDRUS-If I could just talk, just for the practical spin on this. In the report that we put out showing the estimated coverage that we're trying to accomplish, if you look at those coverage boundaries, they're at a level of minus 78 dbm. If you do the calculation back to watts, that's one one billionth of a watt, meaning that your phone is communicating with a signal at one on billionth of a watt. It's noise. It's absolutely nothing, barely even noticeable above the noise. You've got a LOOK tv tower up on the ridge putting out thousands of watts. We're so low powered compared to that that it's. MR. TRAVER-That's the kind of context, I think, that would be helpful. MR. ANDRUS-Right. Then most of the studies that you see where health effects, when they are brought up, is the handset itself because you're holding it next to your head, and even though 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) it's still extremely low power, it's a tenth of a watt versus one one billionth of a watt that you're seeing from the cell tower. Now the user has a choice in that. They can put the unit on the seat next to them, across the room, use a Bluetooth headset or whatever, and the reason that these cell sites are becoming closer and closer to the people is because they're such low power. So in order to reach two people and make the signal usable and achieve the high data rates that are expected for LTE and what not, you have to be close to the end users. MR. SIPP-1 would say that if you could give us some comparisons, say, to a microwave oven or other common items that might be in a house, what radiation do they emit, as compared to what would come from the tower. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, I know I made a connection with a ham radio, but many years ago I had a ham radio set itself, and I think that the input of my antenna was 2,000 watts was the most that I could transmit, and I have no idea if there are any ham radio operators in that community. Maybe that would be information that you would know, but, you know, that kind of information, and the discussion about the microwaves or perhaps the fluorescent lights, information that's in layman's terms I think might be helpful to folks, beyond the raw data that you're providing, which certainly is useful from the engineering standpoint, but I'm hearing concern because there's information and misinformation out there, just like there is about the moon landing and every other kind of thing. So the extent that we can quantify and allay those fears, I think we can go on to address some of the other issues like the visual impacts and that type of thing which are perhaps more relevant. MR. CUSACK-And I just want to note that Mr. Duggan's report does make reference to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and their work in this area and it indicates that under that standard where the composite exposure of the proposed facility is well below one percent of their limits and that this report also makes reference, for further information, to a bulletin, OET 65, which is on the FCC website. It's prepared specifically to address these community impacts so that the community doesn't have to, and so that you know what you're looking at when you see something on the Internet, and it's in plain English and it's meant to simplify this for those who want to dig a little bit deeper into it. It's available. It's a free resource, and it wasn't prepared by us, and anything that I prepare tends to be viewed as suspect. So I would like to defer to those things and encourage people in the audience to actually look at what the FCC has posted on this topic. It's very obvious on their website. It's simple to get to. I think it still is a tab on their homepage, but if it's not, you just go to the Office of Engineering and Technology. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. For the record, could you state that website? MR. CUSACK-That would be FCC.gov. MR. TRAVER-FCC.gov, Federal Communications Commission. MR. CUSACK-Yes, for Federal Communications Commission. Yes. MR. TRAVER-And on that website look for information about cellular emissions, whatever? MR. CUSACK-Yes, it's usually on the left hand side, as a tab you can click and go directly to. If they've changed that, all you have to do is go to the tab across the top and find the Office of Engineering and Technology, and it's right under there. It's Technical Bulletin Number 65, and it summarizes a lot of what you've asked about. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many cell towers do you have? MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to get to that next. MR. CUSACK-Sure, I'm going to count Glens Falls in my recollection here because it's in our report at Tab Six. We've labeled all of the surrounding cell sites in the community, existing and planned, but in Glens Falls at Glen Street, on the CNA Building, rooftop, is the main site that's been servicing this area most recently. That's over capacity and not providing coverage to this area. That's the one we're trying to solve. Going to the north, the next oldest site is on Prospect Mountain, and that's been there since the 80's, maybe the early 90's. It's one of the original mountaintop cell sites from back in the days when cell sites covered 10 to 15 mile radius and were operating at four to five times the power levels we're operating at now. MR. TRAVER-Back in the analog days. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. CUSACK-Back in the analog days, and if you remember earlier discussions, I've gone through how there's not enough channels to go around. They had to break it up to digital. When they went down to digital and encryption, that affected the range, the effective transmit range, for the down link. So you have to have an uplink and a downlink for it to work. MR. TRAVER-And the transmission power when down, too, as I. MR. CUSACK-Went down significantly, at the handset level, if you remember, your car phone was three watts. It was screwed in to the floor of your car. You had a booster kit under the passenger seat typically with an external antenna. That was your uplink. That decreased to about one watt when you started coming out with the Motorola flip phones and the Star Tac phone, if anyone remembers that. The reason being is the battery. The battery adds weight and adds size to things. So the power levels went down, and, as those levels were dropping on the handsets, the digital conversion came in, and on the downlink side, took us from the 500, 1,000 watts, or whatever we were operating at back then, it was much higher levels, it forced us down to the levels that we're talking about here, to the point that now a phone is operating at .1 of a watt on the uplink. So you've gone three watts, one watt, .1 of a watt, down on your transmit levels for your hand held devices. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you only have two towers here. MR. CUSACK-No, no. I want to get back to that. Those were the older two towers. Then we started breaking the area up into smaller coverage areas so that in Queensbury we have the site that's just inside the APA that was referenced earlier. Let me give you the name of it and be official here. It's called Luzerne, and four and a half miles to the southeast at Exit 18, we have a site. I believe that's in the Town, and not the City, in the industrial area. I mentioned 333 Glen Street in Glens Falls already, and we also have a site approximately two miles northeast of here at the Queensbury Outlets, that's the facility that's on 149 as you're heading towards Fort Ann. The one new facility that we built here in Queensbury as well is the replacement of the AM tower on Everts Ave. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've heard a lot of complaints from people on the east side of the lake. They're of the opinion that you are on the Frankenpine tower, which you're not. Right? MR. CUSACK-We are not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why they don't have Verizon service. MR. CUSACK-Verizon Wireless service, and Verizon is not on that tower. MR. ANDRUS-The next available space was so far below the trees that you don't get any coverage from it. So we are working on a site over in that general area, though. MR. DEEB-Can I ask you to comment on Mr. Ball's explanation of the tower coming off the Verizon building downtown at Pine Street? He wanted to know the reason you took that down. MR. ANDRUS-Yes. It's the same reason that you don't build sites on, like Mike said, Prospect Mountain was a good site initially because there's very few users and you want them to cover as far as they can, as much power as you can. Now there's so many users that each site is confined to a one to two mile area in a more rural area, and the downtown city area you're looking at half a mile, best case, New York City two blocks if you're lucky. So, and Verizon was never on that tower to begin with, I believe, it was AT&T which is probably why they came off because they couldn't be on a Verizon building, but anyway, so you're replacing all these very, very high sites with five sites that are much lower that cover a much smaller area, because, you know, if you have a 300 foot, 250 foot, however tall that building is, in downtown Albany, that covers 10 miles, there's absolutely no way that you could provide enough capacity, in addition to it just provides interference to, you know, sites within that ten mile radius around it. So all the carriers now are replacing these high sites with sites that are 50, 60 feet on a four, five story building in the City to contain them to within a very small area so that you can provide the solid and building coverage as well, you know, provide enough capacity. So that's why that came down. MR. CUSACK-Yes. To more specifically answer your question, that is not a Verizon Wireless facility. It might be a Verizon landline facility. It might be a long distance carrier's facility. I don't know who owns that facility, and to hear someone say they took it down because of their fears of radiation, that would be a first for me, in 20 years doing this work. It doesn't make sense. I'm not going to comment on it any further except to say we're not on it. We never were on it, and I don't know what he's talking about. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. DEEB-I was just looking for clarification. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I thought, what I heard it was a relay for when the Olympics were in town. Yes. I think it was a relay from here to send a signal down to New York City there. MR. ANDRUS-For the Iandline. Yes, that has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can address the association between, in all their experience putting these up, between cell towers and the house values? Can they tell us anything that they might know about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know that was a common comment, but in the Town Code that is not any issue that, and we get into this a lot with controversial projects, and people don't like to hear the answer, but that is not something that we can take into consideration when we consider a project. It's not part of the Town Code. It's not part of the State Code. We can take into account community character, neighborhood character. I mean, you can read the Code yourself and you can see that criteria that we have to review projects under, but house values, any monetary value, is not something that this Board ever deals with. We're not allowed to. We can't. It's not in the Ordinance. It's not in the State law. I appreciate your concerns, sir. I have to tell you you are out of order. We did take public comment. I'm trying to give you a reasonable explanation. We're bound by law, and that's not in law. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 understand you're bound by law. I didn't know that you were bound by law on that also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 mean, we can't really speak about anything. MR. HUNSINGER-We follow the Town Ordinance. We are legally bound to follow the Town Ordinance. You can familiarize yourself with it. It's publically available anywhere you want to look. It's on the Internet. You can come get it. If you want to take a stab at that, by all means. MR. CUSACK-Yes. I agree that it's not an issue that's properly before the Board, even in terms of the evidence or comments that have been submitted tonight. There's no substantial thing that I can respond to. Every time this has come up, and that Internet study is cited and we look at it, it was done by a person by the name of Sandy Bond, looking at property in Christ Church, New Zealand, and it's not comparable to property here in Warren County, New York and the studies and follow up comments that you read on the Internet, once you follow this stuff down, you know, seem to say that even where they've looked at it in the United States, it's very fact specific, and just like you heard tonight, some people think the value goes up because they have access to modern broadband services, and some people think it goes down, and you could go on all day about this. Our position is that there's no substantial evidence that it impacts property values. MR. TRAVER-It's extremely subjective, and that's why we try. MR. DEEB-It's a tough one. MR. ANDRUS-But I think a good example is you drive north on the Northway past Exit 15, there's a huge community off on the right hand side. That tower's been there for. MR. CUSACK-Twenty years. MR. ANDRUS-Way, way before that community was, and didn't seem to have any problems selling that thing out or developing a building there. MR. CUSACK-It's a 180, 200 foot tower, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Could they answer why these towers blow up at the top? MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me, sir, if you don't mind. You're being disruptive of the meeting. I don't appreciate that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You're not going to answer why these towers? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. Do you mind? I'm really sorry. I understand people have a lot of emotions about this topic. We need to conduct a meeting. We need to all be respectful of each other. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Start with that gentleman right there. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, sir. If you want to speak, you need to get on the record, on the mic, please. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the tabling date? MR. HUNSINGER-We're tabling this to June 19th. Before we consider the tabling resolution, we have a resolution to extend the 50 day period for the Site Plan Review. There is a draft resolution that's been provided by counsel. If anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION RE: SP #7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS MOTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF THE 150 DAY PERIOD TO JUNE 30, 2012 FOR SITE PLAN 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING VERIZON TO COMPLETE SOIL BORING AND TESTING FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE AND TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE BOARD'S ENGINEER TO EVALUATE TEST RESULTS AND REPORT TO THE BOARD, Introduced by Stephen Traver whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The extension to June 30, 2012 assumes that all information necessary to make a decision will be received with adequate time for review prior to the Planning Board's scheduled meeting on June 19, 2012. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Then we do have a tabling, draft tabling motion to table this to June 19, 2012. Would anyone like to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the June 19, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-1 would just add for the record and for the public's edification that the public hearing will be held open, which means we will take public comment on the 19th. You are also free to provide written comments to the Staff or by e-mail to the Staff. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-See you in a month. MR. CUSACK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there any other business to bring before the Board? MR. OBORNE-No other business. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Schonewolf moved to adjourn. Is there a second? Second by multiple members. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/2012) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 15, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. See you Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 48