Loading...
06-19-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 34-2012 Michael Gleasman 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.5-1-7 Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development, LLC 3. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.12-1-1, 3 & 7.1 Subdivision No. 5-2011 Lisa Pushor, Scott Spellburg 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 19-2012 Enterprise Rent-A-Car 16. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-29 Site Plan No. 7-2012 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 21. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-1 Subdivision No. 2-2012 Joyce Shovah 34. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 295.14-2-36 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 06/19/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. Just a reminder for everyone in attendance to turn the ringers off on your cellphones. I've been known to forget myself. It makes the meeting a lot better if there's no distractions. Copies of the agenda are on the back table. There's also handouts for public hearing procedures. If you're here to attend a public hearing, I would ask that you make yourself familiar with the procedures and we'll go over those in detail when we get to the first public hearing. Our first order of business is approval of minutes from April 17th and 19th, 2012. Do I hear a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan April 19, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mr. Magowan PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA: SITE PLAN NO. 34-2012 SEAR TYPE II MICHAEL GLEASON OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 52 '/2 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING U-SHAPED WHARF AND REPLACE WITH A 164 SQ. FT. 30 FOOT LONG L-SHAPED WHARF WITH 480 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: SIDE LINE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 29-12; BP 11- 264; BP 11-237, AV 74-05, AV 96-04, AV 61-03, SP 40-03 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA; LGPC LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-7 SECTION 179-5-050, 179-9 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MICHAEL GLEASMAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could introduce the item. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Application Site Plan 34-2012 and Area Variance 29-2012. The applicant is Michael Gleasman. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Location is 52 '/2 Russell Harris Road. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County referral was yes. No County Impact was submitted. Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to remove existing U-shaped wharf and replace with a 164 sq. ft. 30 foot long L-shaped wharf with 480 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Side line setback relief for both north and south property lines. Staff Comments: The parcel has approximately 25 feet of shoreline frontage on Lake George. The applicant has removed the boathouse due to damage as well as the northern portion of the dock in order to accommodate a larger boat. The L-shaped dock will have a 480 sq. ft. sundeck supported on the north side with a row of 6 x 6 post located adjacent to the north property line. Any request short of an I shaped dock will require ZBA relief. Nature of the Area Variance: North side setback- Request for 20 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement as per §179-5-060A(7) for that portion of the proposed boathouse straddling the north property line. South side setback - Request for 10 feet of south side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement as per §179-5-060A(7) for the south portion of the proposed boathouse, and what follows is the ubiquitous request for shoreline plantings, which will be taken up on Thursday. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GLEASMAN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GLEASMAN-Sure. My name is Michael Gleasman. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MR. GLEASMAN-Pretty much he said it all pretty complete. Just like the existing condition, we just purchased the house in December. The existing, the boathouse had come down due to some ice damage. The dock, which is a U-shaped dock, is crooked and the opening, the opening that's there is too narrow. It would only accommodate a very, very, very small boat. It was only like, I would think it was, I think it was almost less than seven foot wide. So I really couldn't put any boat into the existing condition because the dock is also crooked and tilted. There was not even enough room on the other side. So rendering the existing dock condition completely useless. I could pretty much pull up a couple of canoes to it. So, what we want to do is just put a four foot wide dock, you know, dead center on the property, but then also have an open-sided sundeck going over the one side where it would, you know, cover the one boat essentially. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I would ask Staff, have we had any reactions or has our legal department determined whether or not the judge's determination up in Bolton Landing, which basically said the Lake George Park Commission has the right to make these decisions, and not the towns, has that been evaluated? MR. OBORNE-1 don't think at the Town level it has been at this point. I mean, it's still going through the legal process up there. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 don't have a lot of information on it. Obviously we're aware of it. MR. KREBS-So we'll just go forward and make these decisions and then determine later whether. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The judge didn't make the decision, but it was the Town of Lake George, wasn't it? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I believe it was the Town of Lake George, and I'm not sure what direction they're taking at this point. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've always felt that we shouldn't be doing it anyhow because most of these the water is in the Town of Bolton. So what are we doing with it? MR. OBORNE-You are asking a person who does not supply the Town with their laws. So you may want to discuss this with the Town Board. That's called punting. MR. GLEASMAN-1 did go through the Lake George Park Commission, and this was approved by them. They've seen this information. MR. KREBS-We have a copy of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion for a recommendation? MR. KREBS-I will. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#29-12 MICHAEL GLEASMAN Tax Map ID 240.5-1-7 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to remove existing U-shaped wharf and replace with a 164 sq. ft. 30 foot long L-shaped wharf with 480 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Side line setback relief. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the ZBA. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 34-2012 FOR MICHAEL GLEASMAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. GLEASMAN-Thank you very much. MR. KREBS-Good luck at the variance. SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEAR TYPE N/A LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 58.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 36 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.52. PROPOSAL INCLUDES INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN SHERMAN AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD AS WELL AS BOULEVARD ENTRANCE OFF OF LUZERNE ROAD. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE FUTURE VARIANCE; SB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-1, 3 & 7.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, as stated, Subdivision 5-2011, Sketch Plan Review for LARIC Development. Requested action, again, is Sketch Plan Review. Location is Luzerne Road. MDR is the density, Moderate Density Residential. There is no SEQRA status at Sketch. It is not applicable. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52 acres. Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval, and what follows are my comments, and additional comments. What obviously is required here is lot size relief for the lots. The MDR zone is zoned two acre, without water and sewer, and one acre with water and sewer. At this point there's going to be on site septic for each lot, and right now we're at Sketch Plan Review for this issue. We're not here for recommendation or anything along those lines. We're just here for a Sketch Plan. So 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 with Larry Clute. As Keith had just described, we're here seeking a 36 lot subdivision Sketch Plan. As you're aware from the plans that were submitted, this is essentially a continuation of the existing Burnt Hills subdivision. Burnt Hills has frontage on Sherman. This would actually have frontage on Luzerne, providing for a connector road. We've reached out to the Highway Department, the Glens Falls Emergency Squad, West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, as well as the West Glens Falls Fire Company. All of which support the connector road. I believe those letters have been provided to Staff for the file. The property was currently re-zoned for MDR, creating the two acre zoning. What we are suggesting is having lots between the sizes of 1.0 acre to 2.52 acres, which is an average lot size of 1.73 acres. We don't feel that this should be deemed to have a negative impact on area, especially looking at the lots in the immediate vicinity, and those lot sizes, not to mention the mobile home overlay district that is in this immediate area. To assist with aesthetics, Larry is proposing to have a boulevard entrance, as well as to assist with the safety of that connector road. He feels that will definitely assist. We are, we had mentioned in our submission materials, the buffer requirement because this abuts the district, the industrial district. There's a 100 foot buffer that's required. We're looking for the Planning Board to allow that 100 foot buffer, to encumber those lots that are known as Lot Six through Ten, as opposed to encumbering the industrial lots. MR. KREBS-Stefanie, can I ask you a question on that? MS. BITTER-Sure. MR. KREBS-Will that requirement be in the deeds on those lots? MS. BITTER-Absolutely. It'll be a deed restriction that we would be willing to propose. Topo will be available for Preliminary. That material was just finalized by Van Dusen & Steves. I know that Keith had mentioned the requirement about phasing because we go over the threshold of 35 lots. We were looking to see if the Planning Board would waive that due to the fact that we're simply requesting 36 lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that you wanted to add? MS. BITTER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. If no one else is going to make a comment, I will start it off here. I applaud you for the courage to put in a connector road. I mean, we've talked about it a number of times on a number of different projects and everyone's always shied away from it and had different reasons and all kinds of excuses for why it wasn't appropriate, and I was just thrilled to see it actually being proposed. It is something that's in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It's consistent with good planning, and it helps alleviate traffic concerns. I mean, there are all kinds of benefits from having a connector road to cut through from Luzerne to Sherman. So, if for no other reason than that, it looks to me like a good project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it's a win/win for the people up there to have that road. I mean, we listen, day in and day out, how the people have to go around to get to an ambulance call. Anyway, I think I agree with the Chairman. It's very much a win/win for the people up there to have that connector road. That's been kicked around for years. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. OBORNE-If I could. I'm sorry, if I could for the Planning Board's edification, this will be a Type I SEQRA and you'll be, it's a realty subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It's called a 553 rule, which I attached to my Staff Notes. With that you'll, when Preliminary comes in, you'll be seeking Lead Agency, coordinated review. We'll take you down the path. You know how to do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-They got a very high recommendation from the Highway Superintendent for the connector as to the benefits of that. MR. OBORNE-1 think one thing that the applicant did ask was, would you be amenable to waiving the requirement for phasing? They're one lot over the requirement. So I don't know what you all feel about that, how you feel about that? MR. KREBS-I certainly would be willing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I would, too. It's not a big deal. MR. HUNSINGER-What's your thought on how the project will be developed? Are you going to put in the infrastructure first and then sell the lots, or are you going to develop the lots yourself and then sell them? What's the plan? MR. CLUTE-No, we'd be putting the roads on in first. Actually, Queensbury requires that anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. CLUTE-I've got to, and then once Queensbury actually owns the roads, then I'll develop accordingly, but, yes, if approved, I'll be starting with, which Queensbury also allows, I'll start with a model on the Luzerne Road. Obviously I have road frontage on the Luzerne Road. So I'd start with a model right off the bat, before I even do start infrastructure, I'm allowed to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-So I'll start with a model, bring the road on in as quickly as I can, and start marketing the lots. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you proposing to develop all the houses yourself? MR. CLUTE-I'd like to, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. SIPP-With regards to the 100 foot buffer, what would this buffer turn out to be? If you can't do 100 feet, would it be a fairly consistent 70 feet? MR. CLUTE-It's a fairly dense piece of property, and so the 100 foot buffer, essentially, the way I interpret the buffer, the benefit, especially when you've got a residential backing up to say a commercial or an industrial purpose, the buffer really is more residential, protects his (lost word), so give him the 400 foot, deed it that way, and leave it alone complete no cut, and have that written as such in the deed, and it's very dense back in there. MR. OBORNE-And you'll show that on your clearing limits. You'll show that at Preliminary. MS. BITTER-Right. It's already in the Sketch. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. CLUTE-If the original Burnt Hills, or the already developed to Burnt Hills, the lots to the south, not to quite the extreme of 100 foot, but they have extremely deep lots which also have all been maintained as no cut, that essentially the original woods the way they were. So it's fairly dense, and that would just be consistently throughout. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and those are pretty deep lots, even on the inside of the circle. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. CLUTE-They're extremely dense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else from the Board? MR. KREBS-No, just that I love the boulevard entrance. I think that makes it, gives it a real prestige look to the subdivision. MR. CLUTE-1 was hoping, and I don't know if I was over thinking it or not, but as Steph had stated, is the thought, there's concern, connector traffic, what's the traffic going to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-And so to me the boulevard, you know, one way traffic automatically sets a tone for a speed. So I think that kind of slows it down, and then the curvature, we don't have direct pass through. It's still obviously a connector. So trying to take that into consideration, especially with the pre-existing neighborhood. Try to limit or control what we can, as far as the driving, within the design and I think we've done that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CLUTE-And again, that's one of the reasons why the boulevard, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's been lots of studies about using, you know, visual obstructions to calm traffic. Sometimes even just narrowing the road a little bit for a period of time. It causes drivers to slow down, and curves, of course, do the same thing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Anybody from Saratoga County tell you that now you've got two Burnt Hills within 10 miles of each other, because there's one in Saratoga County, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from Staff, any other issues? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, do you know when you're going to file the Preliminary? MS. BITTER-Next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Next month? Yes. MS. BITTER-We'll file the Area Variance at the same time. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be required, and the pre-submission meeting is required to be five days prior to the deadline date. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So keep that in mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Unless you had any other questions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we'd see it in August? MR. OBORNE-Potentially. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MS. BITTER-Thank you. TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT SPELLBURG AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STONE POINTE, LLC/SCOTT SPELLBURG ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LC-10A- LAND CONSERVATION LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF THREE (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO EIGHT (8) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 ACRES TO 44.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-11, SUB 5-06 APA , CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 38.52, 1.36, 52.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 SECTION CHAPTER §A-183 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;SCOTT SPELLBURG, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 5-2011, Preliminary and Final Stage, Lisa Pushor and Scott Spellburg are the applicants. Requested action is subdivision of land. Location is 45 Ellsworth Lane. Existing zoning is bifurcated, RR-3A and LC-10A. SEQRA status is Unlisted. I think the Planning Board is aware of the subdivision at this point in time. You've seen it about four times now. The issues that are, that the applicant's dealing with are of an engineering and technical nature. I will say, as a caveat, in order for Final subdivision to be approved tonight, Preliminary subdivision needs to be approved without conditions. If there is a Preliminary subdivision approval with conditions, those conditions must be met prior to Final being approved. It doesn't preclude you from doing SEQRA. You certainly can do SEQRA. Endangered species has been submitted, as well as any archeological issues. That's all been taken care off. The only issues at this point are technical in nature, and I believe that Sean Doty of Chazen has concluded that, based on our review, all technical comments offered have been addressed to our satisfaction, pending the completion of the above items. The applicant will obviously talk about these issues and it will be up to the Board to decide if a conditional approval is appropriate or an approval without conditions is appropriate, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. With me is Scott Spellburg. We've been here in October, February and April. I'm not going to get into the details of the project. Since we were last here, the geometry has not changed at all. We have made one modification to the concept you should be aware of, and that is we've added a phased line, and that's the red line on the plan up here. It completely makes sense to have a phase line there, and it's also the separation of ownership between Spellburg and Pushor, and you'll see there's a temporary turn around at that, just before the phase line, which will be constructed initially to allow somebody to turn around. Infrastructure would be constructed with Phase 1, the stormwater infrastructure that's appropriate, and since we were last here we've done 10 or 12 additional test holes. We have made modifications to most of the stormwater devices. Most were minor and technical, but we've made a number of modifications to those. We've made a fair amount of modifications to the stormwater model, and we have put together the legal maintenance agreement's documentation that has been reviewed with the Town. Has that been to the Town Attorney? MR. OBORNE-I'm sorry, what was that? MR. HUTCHINS-The maintenance agreement that came through? MR. OBORNE-That has been, there's no need for that to go to Counsel at this point. It's part of the file. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So we think we're in pretty good shape and we'd like to move forward with this and there are six comments outstanding from Sean. We're converging, we're coming together. Three or four of those are simple little wording changes in the, within the context of the report and the model. One of them is the maintenance agreement he suggests be reviewed by Town Attorney, and the other one I've got to make a couple of modifications to one of the ponds and we'll be there. So, with that, I'll turn it over to the Board for questions. Scott, anything to add? MR. SPELLBURG-Not yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any questions, any issues in the engineering comment letter that you can't meet, that you haven't already addressed? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I have to enlarge the ponds to meet the concerns, and I can do that. MR. SPELLBURG-This is in regard to Lot Two, correct, the first lot? That's my existing house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we talked about it at the last meeting. MR. SPELLBURG-I've never seen this one coming, trust me. I've done 15 more test sample holes, 12 more test sample holes, which some were only 10 feet, 15 feet away from the other test sample holes. So, you know, nothing's changed but numbers for me. I've put out my money and I'm really not seeing anything change in on the front page. I'm just watching the numbers change. Now I have a pond in my existing yard. Now it's been there 75 to 100 years, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) and nothing's ever moved, and I don't know quite why the engineer'd end up with a pond to meet some kind of DEC stormwater runoff on an existing lot, and say to cover certain aspects of the driveway or the roadway that's going down to the next couple of lots. Obviously I understand what they said, but that road's also been there for 75 years and it's going completely in the other direction. So me building a pond in my existing lawn doesn't really go over too well for me, so I'm asking for help somewhere along the line with that. The rest of the engineering problems are really minute. I have no idea how they even come to the surface, except for we're meeting some kind of guideline that doesn't really fit my residential area. Does that make any sense? MR. HUNSINGER-So you're talking about Item Two in the letter? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, the first lot. MR. HUTCHINS-It's right up here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-It's this lot right here. This is Scott's existing house, and I had had the section of driveway from here to here cross sloped towards the woods and it was just sheeting into the woods forever. I had the math to work. That short section of road was not draining to a DEC approved stormwater management device. However, we were comfortable with it. It's draining to a wooded area, and we felt that it made sense. They asked us to provide a DEC appropriate stormwater management area, which we've put here, because we didn't have space over there, but we put that pond in there, and that was on the last round. That's what he's talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SPELLBURG-The last time it was a swale up in the middle of my yard. So in the middle of my lawn, above my septic system, I was supposed to put in something that held water, and I was supposed to (lost words) test samples there. Now I'm up to a pond in the front of my yard and basically this all drains back to the swaling pond that's back 15 feet, 20 feet. So I don't know why I'm creating another one. It was really a hiccup for me. We did it so that we could get past the engineers, meaning this is what the engineer says, this is the numbers that I need to meet somehow to get this little section of roadway there that's already been there. So, with that all said, I'm just asking for, down the road, after we get past a couple more of your problems, this is an area that I would like some help with from the Town Board. I don't believe this (lost word) actually exists. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, understand the problem that we have is if you put it in the drawing, and if it's in the engineering report, then you're going to be obligated to build it. MR. SPELLBURG-Well, there's a point that, yes, we'll be obligated to build it, but it's also up to the Town Board whether I need to. MR. OBORNE-Town Board? MR. KREBS-The Planning Board. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board. MR. SPELLBURG-The Planning Board, sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SPELLBURG-At this point you can also say there's things that I don't need, and I'm asking for this permission. I don't know quite why I would go in the middle of my lawn or the front edge of my lot and now put a pond there. Nothing's changed from this lot back. Like if I were to sell that land to Bob, Bob would have to come back and build a pond in my yard? Am I making myself clear or understood, I guess? I just don't know why that would have to get changed. I did it because we couldn't match the numbers. I've been to these engineers three times and if you look at my maps, my maps haven't changed, just the numbers in the background have changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I understand and appreciate where you're coming from. If you weren't seeking a subdivision, you wouldn't have to do that. If it's an existing condition, you know, single family lot, there would be no requirement for you to do anything, but because you're before us for a subdivision, now you have to comply with all the stormwater rules and regulations, one of them being that the post development runoff cannot exceed the pre- 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) development runoff, and if your existing driveway is sloping towards your neighbor's property, that means that that runoff is now going on to your neighbor's property, and that's not allowed by State law. MR. SPELLBURG-1 understand. No matter what I do, that pond's never going to catch water from the other direction. MR. HUNSINGER-1 see what you're saying. MR. SPELLBURG-I'd have to turn around and elevate the neighbor's lawn to get water back to this end. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I misunderstood what your comment was. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, everything flows the other way. If I build that pond, the only thing it's going to do is catch the water that comes out of my yard and there's no water that comes out of my yard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, if it's not going to function, it won't meet the engineering approval. I mean, it has to function. I mean, the numbers have to show that it's going to function. If you did that stormwater device and it won't work because of slopes, the engineer will never approve it. So, I mean, it's not us. It's an engineering issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-No, it'll capture the road runoff if the road is constructed in accordance with the plans. MR. TRAVER-Right, but it would seem, and again, I'm not an engineer, but it would seem to me that this is an issue you could take back to the engineer and try to come up with an alternative stormwater management device of some kind. If this presents such a problem, there must be alternatives. Can you do a drywell? MR. SPELLBURG-But before you (lost words) the pond, I was asking permission not to build the pond in the middle of a yard. (lost words) I'd just dig a hole new pond. It's not going to do what the engineer said it out to do. I just, and I'll go with you. I will do what you guys, I was asking, (lost words) the Town would say, okay, we agree to everything, except for the existing (lost words). If not, I would just (lost words). MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, the issue for us to some degree, well, more than to some degree, is we deal with planning issues, but we have a Town Engineer that helps counsel us on engineering issues. So, you know, it really. MR. SPELLBURG-1 understand. I'm looking at the paper and looking at the numbers. I really do. I really do, and I don't want to make this a hiccup. I was looking for maybe some relaxation out of it. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not sure we can, though. MR. SPELLBURG-No, if you can't, that's fine. That was my question. MR. OBORNE-It doesn't preclude you from moving forward, though, at this point, with a conditional approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then five years from now there's no water in it, so you just grass it over. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. MR. OBORNE-As stated earlier, you can't approve the Final plan until the conditions are met at Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other questions? Well, we didn't really have any questions comments from the Board. So I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've seen this plan many times. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, we're down to the final engineering. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-As you pointed out, there's really no change in the lot lines or anything. Okay. If there's no questions, comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't see any takers. Any written comment, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the feeling of the Board? Is everyone comfortable moving with a conditional Preliminary approval? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there's no other questions or comments, we'll entertain SEQRA. It's a Type 1, which is a Long Form. I'm sorry, it's an Unlisted action, but they filed a Long Form. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's small to moderate impacts that are controlled by the project design. MR. KREBS-Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. MR. OBORNE-This is a community exercise for the Planning Board. So responses are warranted. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's some spots that it's two and a half plus. So there could be some that are less than three, but again, it's a small to moderate impact. MR. KREBS-Okay. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS- Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. The answer is yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Excavation for mining purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. KREBS- Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-Construction in a designated floodway. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Developable area of the site contains a protected water body. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Well, I was going to say, only the pond that's in his front yard. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, the new pond. MR. KREBS-A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. MR. HUNSINGER-No MR. TRAVER-No. MR. OBORNE-Don, if the Planning Board answers no to the question, you can move on to the next question, you don't have to go down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you don't have to go through all the examples. MR. KREBS-Okay. Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Make a motion to approve SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Negative Declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-Negative Declaration. MR. KREBS-Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LISA PUSHOR & SCOTT SPELLBURG, 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 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) 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 19th day of, June, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record, there was, Item One, we did answer yes, a small to moderate impact that's controlled by the project design. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary approval? I think the only condition would be the engineering comments. MR. HUTCHINS-Excuse me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. HUTCHINS-If you do a conditional Preliminary, does that mean we have to come back for Final? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because we can't have conditions on Final. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you have to meet the conditions at Preliminary before you can move forward to Final. I explained that at the opening portion of this. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other conditions that we need to worry about? Satisfy engineering comments. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #5-2011 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG Tax Map ID 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of three (3) parcels totaling 92.12 acres into eight (8) residential lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 44.1 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/16, 5/31, 7/26, 9/20, 11/15/11, 1/17/12, 3/20/12, 4/17/12 tabled to 6/19/12; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 LISA PUSHOR & SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff, with the condition that the applicant satisfy engineering comments. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; Duly adopted this 19th day of June 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-One big step closer. MR. OBORNE-If I could add. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Being, and this is for the Board to potentially consider, we do have room on the agenda, we could have room on the agenda in July, providing that the applicant is giving a deadline date to satisfy engineering comments and submit a Final plan to you. It is basically a formality for the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. OBORNE-If that would be amenable to the Board, Staff has no problem. We could fit them in. It would be probably a five minute exercise. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Once engineering is completed. It's better than waiting until August at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what would be a reasonable deadline for Staff? MR. OBORNE-I think that question should be asked of the applicant's engineer at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-We have meetings on the 17th and 24th of July. MR. HUTCHINS-I can't commit to an absolute date on the, that I'm going to have a signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, I can respond to it in two days. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But I might get more comments. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. That's been the ongoing thing. MR. KREBS-It doesn't sound like it, though, based on the last letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we're down to just six items. It's hard to believe that. MR. SPELLBURG-But we answer 12, come back with six. We answer six, come back with six more or vice versa. MR. HUTCHINS-If you could table us to a date in July, that would be great, and if we're not going to make it. I mean, really, we don't need to make another submission, right? MR. OBORNE-Well, you do need to make the Final submission. MR. HUTCHINS-The application's in. MR. OBORNE-Okay, but there may be changes to that as a result of these conditions. I don't know if there is or there isn't. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-But I would say that our final agenda meeting is on the 28th of this month. That would be the drop dead date, pretty much, for you to get approval for this so we can place you on the July agenda. If not, then we follow proper protocols and we'll table out to August. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the final meeting in July? MR. OBORNE-What's the final meeting? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The 24tH MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if we need to make a motion or anything. It's really kind of up to the applicant, and if they yet it in on time, you know, we can coordinate when we set the agenda and if they're in on the 28t , then they'll get in in July. MR. OBORNE-You have to give them a formalized submission date for completion of the engineering comments and submittal of a Final, if there are changes to the Final subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. OBORNE-The Final agenda meeting's on the 28th. So I don't know. That's up to you guys. MR. SPELLBURG-Well, we can try. MR. OBORNE-Fair enough, and if not, then they'll just be put on as an Admin item and we'll follow proper protocols. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. OBORNE-If that works. MR. HUTCHINS-So if we're clear by June 28th, we will get a July spot? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If I could have a formalized resolution to that effect, that would be greatly appreciated. MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION TABLING FINAL SUBDIVISION # 5-2011 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 LISA PUSHOR & SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the July 17th Planning Board meeting with a submittal date of June 28tH Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. MR. SPELLBURG-See you in July. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2012 SEAR TYPE II ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) JOSEPH MONSOUR ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 676 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 480 SQUARE FOOT OPEN SIDED COVERED WASH AREA LOCATED NORTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 60-96, SP 27-95 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 0.92 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-29 SECTION 179-9 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MARK MC MAHON & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 19-2012, Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Requested action is Site Plan Review for an accessory structure and, in this case, stormwater. 676 Upper Glen Street is the location. The existing zoning is Cl, Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County did issue a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 480 square foot open sided covered wash area located north of the existing building. According to the applicant, vehicles are currently washed in the open on the pavement. The proposal calls for a GEO-MAT oil and sediment interceptor to be installed under the proposed 480 square foot carport. The proposal also calls for the waste wash-water to be piped to an existing sanitary sewer to the north. The applicant has submitted an updated parking plan as well as stormwater controls designed around a two year storm event. Further, landscaping is proposed along the northern property line. This was all submitted after the tabling two months ago. What follows is Site Plan Review. Staff's issue, my only issue is the parking that is on site, and the comment best efforts to contain the 27 parking spaces, and I'm sure that Mark and I will discuss that as we go along and the Board. Further to this, it is a requirement of Chapter 147 that commercial development meet the 50 year storm event. It's difficult on this site. Chris will describe, or will go through some conversations he's had with the Town Engineer. What is before us, or before the Chair, is communication between the communication between the two of them, and I would like to just read the final one that was sent to me today at four o'clock is, Keith, I reviewed the attached and their responses appear reasonable, and that is responses to the engineering comments. We would not take exception to the planning board providing a waiver for 50 year storm compliance as the overall imperviousness of the site is not changing from pre to post development conditions. Provided the applicant incorporates the noted erosion and sediment controls, we would have no further comment on the project. What has been designed has been designed to a two year storm, which is greater than the first flush. I'm sure everybody's aware of that. The first flush is basically one inch at this point. They have given some. There are constraints on the lot, and I'm not going to continue to talk ad nauseam about this. I'll let the applicant go to bat for themselves, but, again, the issue is stormwater and the issue is parking, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BOYEA-Yes, good evening. My name's Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering, and then here with me tonight is Mark McMahon with Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and we're pretty excited about this. We're hopefully on our final leg of the approval process for this re-investment project that Enterprise is looking to undertake there. I believe they were before you at a previous meeting to kind of introduce the project, and then we received some comments that needed to be addressed. Again, this re-investment project includes the construction of just a covered canopy to do the cleaning and the washing of some of the car prep that happens there, but it's located in the same location that the car prep and the washing happens today. There's a lot of benefits to it in that right now any soap or water from car washing eventually just runs over the pavement, as it would in your home driveway or something of that nature. With the proposal, we now are taking the rainwater off of those car area. We're capturing any soaps or dirt and detergent and we're putting that into the sanitary sewer system, versus letting it run out over the pavement. So it's a huge benefit from a stormwater and a quality standpoint, and it's also a benefit to the customers as well as the operator to have this in a covered area. Also with this proposal is we're going to have a defined parking area, which is nice. Because now today we have a little bit of a wide open area where cars park at will and we've got a well designed parking plan now that has been submitted. It shows proper backup distance, circulation, access aisles and parking spaces. So we've striped in 27 spaces for parking plan. Now one thing I would like to point out is that that does not include three service spaces. So there'd be a total of 30 spaces total. The 27 spaces are there, accessible for customers and lot storage of vehicles. The three service spaces I'm talking about is obviously we're putting in a canopy, so we can park a car under that canopy and we have a space to do so all day, and then we have what's called a delivery space. So if somebody is coming and they're going to get into their new car, we don't walk them to the edge of the parking lot and sit in a car, could be dark at night or what not. That car is parked right next to the curb, next to the building. There's adequate space there for that, and it makes sense, when somebody comes in, they're right next to the building and they get a run down of the car and how the wipers work and everything. It might be a little different in every car, and then we have another space where we can prep cars right next to the canopy, the covered place that we're putting in right next to the trash barrel. So we have service spaces there so that we're not occupying the 27 spaces, using those services. We've thought ahead, put those in there. One of the nice things about this process as it came through the engineering comments from the last meeting, is we were asked to do some stormwater improvements, even though, technically, we're not disturbing an acre. We wouldn't have to do what the New York State DEC's asking us to do, it was still requested that we do that and we 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) take a look at it, and although we might not be able to imagine this site from (lost word) and design it right from the beginning, what could we do to make it better, because there's a brook, Halfway Brook, that I think everybody here's familiar with, that runs through the Town. So what we were able to do is we were able to construct a small shallow basin in this area. It's a small site. We were able to construct a little check dam to help filter the water. We were able to construct a small swale which filters water as it gets to the basin, and then the last piece that we were requested to do, and we've provided, is what's called a filter strip, and it just goes around the perimeter of the existing paved parking lot, and it is just something to catch that water and catch any floatables, any greases or oils that may exist, prior to it traveling further down into the grass and then into Halfway Brook. Altogether, we've put together a report, submitted the calculations and the design. We've reduced runoff by 97% on a one year storm, on your average storm, and 95% on a two year storm, and then, if you were to get into the bigger storms, it's less impressive, because the basin's smaller, it would fill up fast for a 100 or 50 year storm, but it will stop and help treat much of the required storms or the more frequent storms that are happening, and it's a great way to add a lot to this project as it exists today, and then one other note that we've added with the stormwater is, instead of paving the area in the rear of the lot where it's currently, cars have driven off, we've put in let's call it grass pavers. I'm sure this Board has seen it in many other projects, so we've put that component into it as well. There's some green space there, too, as well, and then it's also drivable at the same time. With the 27, well, 30 total spaces, obviously we have accessibility requirements, so we've provided now adequate, ADA, parking spaces that are up front closest to the facility. So it's a small project overall, 480 square foot canopy. We're collecting the sanitary sewer water, putting that into the sewer system, small stormwater improvements, but you combine them all and it's a pretty nice project that we're excited about and looking forward to getting any additional comments that this Board may have and then hopefully an approval so that we can move forward with the building permit, and we're here tonight to answer any questions this Board has. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Just about your parking situation. I've driven by there several times, and it just seems like there's a mish mash of cars all over the place. Now, with the new parking proposal that is in effect, is that going to reduce the number of cars that you have available for rental? MR. BOYEA-Well, it wouldn't necessarily reduce it. There's a couple of things that are happening here. One, an efficient layout is going to be a little bit more productive. So I actually have an aerial from like, I think it's 2006, random day, I don't know what day of the week it was, but there was 27 cars, 28 cars in that aerial, but they're parked all weird. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. BOYEA-And that's what makes it even look more congested. When we come up together with a well thought out plan, people have line stripes, that's where people park. We're telling them where to park. Now also Enterprise is a national brand. So there's other facilities, locations, in fact, we were talking before this meeting. He's got one that he can stockpile vehicles at down in the Saratoga area, that's big. So as the brand builds, there's other aspects of that, too, as well. There will be times, and I know Keith, he's been great to work with. We've had conversations back and forth, and we laugh about it sometimes, but there will be times that, and, you know, I didn't even think about this until Mark had mentioned it to me, but a natural disaster might happen, like that one in Vermont where the roads washed out. Well there's a contract in place with Enterprise so that they help FEMA and the rest of those agencies. So when you get an idea, a situation like that, then, yes, they're going to flood the local location, but it's not definitely. It's a one off type thing. It's no different than McDonald's having a five cent, you know, hamburger deal that day they're very busy at the same time, but not on the average basis. This should be adequate for Queensbury, New York. MR. DEEB-But you're saying there might be times that you'll exceed 30 parking spots? MR. BOYEA-1 don't want to misrepresent it. There could be, on an off chance, but it's not something that we're foreseeing as an operating basis. MR. DEEB-Okay, but it won't be habitual? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. OBORNE-Unlike the time when I visited the site. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. DEEB-But I'm sure once you get the assigned spots in, it'll create a little more organization for you. MR. MC MAHON-Yes. Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. KREBS-Well, my comment was it was brought up that there was a right turn exit sign missing, and we should make sure that that is back in place. MR. OBORNE-That's on the northern egress. MR. KREBS-Right. I had that as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess the question I had relates to parking as well. You're going to create those new, I'll call them new, parking spaces with the grass paver blocks. What's to stop a car from going beyond the paver blocks, though? MR. BOYEA-That's a good question. When you look at the map, you would say there's nothing, but that's where our stormwater pond is going to be. So they would, I think it would just be an obvious transition there, that if they're going to go any further then they're going to need a tow truck. MR. DEEB-Will you put some kind of a? MR. BOYEA-Well, it's only a foot and a half deep. So it's not. MR. DEEB-I wouldn't want to be towing cars out of there all the time. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, in the winter it'll be obvious because it's not plowed. MR. BOYEA-The snow banks. Right, yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I don't see any takers. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the will of the Board? Likely to move forward with this this evening? MR. TRAVER-Yes. There's the issue of the sign. That should be a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since the Board has indicated a willingness to move forward, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is actually a Type II SEQRA. I just had a comment to make. Not really quite sure the relevance of it, but I used to, I was a frequent customer of Enterprise when I worked for the State. Probably two or three times a month, you know, I would lease cars there, and it seems to me like for every time parking was a problem there was a day when there was hardly any cars there. I mean, it was never really a problem getting in and out or finding a place to park, although I have driven by it at times, like the day that Keith was there, when there's just kind of cars all over the place. I think one of the last time I rented a car there it was kind of like that. So, you know, I kind of see the value of the project, as you had pointed out, as, you know, sort of forcing the cars into their proper location, and a lot of times it was the customers more than, you know, I mean it was obvious that it was the customer cars that were parked along the back and on the grass and the mud, and it certainly wasn't a car for rent. For what it's worth. Again, it's a Type II SEQRA. So no SEQRA review is necessary. What conditions do we have? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) As Keith has mentioned there is an e-mail from the Town Engineer, I'll just read it again. I have reviewed the attached and the responses appear reasonable. We would not take exception to the Planning Board providing a waiver for the 50 year storm compliance, as the overall imperviousness of the site is not changing from pre to post development conditions. Provided the applicant incorporates the noted erosion and sediment controls, we would have no further comment on the project. So they do need to incorporate the noted erosion and sediment controls from the engineering comment letter. So that would be a condition. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would recommend that the applicant satisfy the engineering conditions with the exception of the 50 year storm. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That should take care of everything. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you get the right turn sign? MR. HUNSINGER-And the right turn sign. They did submit landscaping. Is the Board satisfied with what was submitted? I think it's what we discussed at the last meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We discussed it before. There's not an awful lot you can do there, because there's nothing to landscape. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other conditions? MR. TRAVER-The sign? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the sign. I guess whenever you're ready, Don. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2012 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Tax Map ID 302.7-1-29 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 480 square foot open sided covered wash area located north of the existing building. Accessory structures in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/17/12 tabled to 6/19/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2012 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 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) Type II SEQRA; 3) We want to have the applicant satisfy the engineering comments, minus the 50 year runoff requirement. 4) We want to make sure that on the northern boundary of the property there is a sign that says that you must take a right turn off the property. 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. 6) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 7) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) 8) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MC MAHON-Okay. Thank you. MR. BOYEA-Thank you very much. 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-5A-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-Keith, whenever you're ready. MR. OBORNE-Memorandum, Town of Queensbury Planning Board, from myself, Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner, date is 6/15/2012, reason, Cellco doing business as Verizon Wireless. "Planning Board members, the following is a status report on the Cellco application that has been under review by the Planning Board. Please contact me prior to the June 19, 2012 meeting if any members have questions, comments or concerns." I did not get any contact. "Cellco - The applicant has accomplished the Geo-technical analysis and submitted the findings to CT Male for evaluation, please see attached corresponding documentation and response. Verizon's agent's has offered to allow for the "reservation of space for an encroachment into the northeastern corner of the lease parcel if/when an additional TOO water tank is constructed on the premises". This appears reasonable pending the Water Superintendent's agreement with said offer. The Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval upon final deliberations. Further to this, the applicant has provided a response and information on the potential for fire hazards associated with the proposed use on the parcel as a result of public comment." Further to this, I think the Planning Board is aware of the issues with Cellco. This application has been vetted quite aggressively, and I believe that the Planning Board is aware of all the issues that are before it, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CUSACK-Good evening. For your record, this is Mike Cusack representing Verizon Wireless on this application, and with me tonight is Rick Andrus, the Radio Frequency Engineer from Verizon Wireless who's responsible for the technical aspects of this project. I think that Keith's given a very good summary of where things stand from the last meeting. A number of issues were brought up which tended to suggest Site Plan Review issues concerning the stability of the site and its ability to support the proposed tower facility with the Town's existing water tank structure and also their need to plan for a future potential second water tank on the property, and I believe that all of the engineering concerns have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. To address the concern formally, Verizon Wireless is in agreement, as suggested in my letter dated June 14th, with a type of condition on an approval, if an approval happens to be granted, that classifies a small area on the northeastern corner of the lease area, as a no build area reserved for future grading or other use, in connection with the future potential construction or maintenance of an additional Town of Queensbury water tank on the premises. In very general terms, the engineers felt that rather than build a retaining wall on the property at some future date, if a water tank is built, that perhaps it would be best to leave this area undisturbed so that some form of natural grading could occur to accommodate the future tank, and we looked at that, as soon as we received the information, and realized that the areas in question were not essential to the operation, maintenance or construction of the facility as proposed. It's a very small clip, if you will, of the corner to leave that space undisturbed. We 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) can certainly make everything work without that space, and even in the worst case scenario of there, at some future date, there being a need for additional ground space, the parties in question could always approach the Town Board and negotiate for an enlargement of the lease parcel in another direction to accommodate use of the facility. So we think that that's a good commonsense solution to the overall question posed by C.T. Male's review. In addition to that, we did respond to the fire safety question that was so prevalent in the last meeting, and interestingly enough, and we just enclose these for your reference, we found some statistics from the Office of Fire Prevention and Control at the State level, detailing that the vast majority of fires in New York State that are logged are residential in nature, and that the risk of fire, traditionally in New York State is highest for residential property where there's more sources of combustion, more activity, more things going on, if you will, including power, electricity, sometimes gas and oil, other fuel sources. So with that background, we think that the risk is very, very minimal and perhaps, if I can say this politely, being exaggerated somewhat. It's not something that we see in our practice and have seen in our history of these things being combustible facilities that, on their own, start on fire. Having said that, I think that we've answered the substantive questions regarding the design of the site. I wanted to circle back and also point out that in the earlier stages of this project, by which I mean the January, February, March timeframe, that Chazen Engineering, the Town's designated engineer for Planning Board activities, did review the entire site plan, all of the stormwater drainage, lighting, everything that's proposed on the project, and we agree with their findings and recommendations and would accept any approval or conditions or waivers that are required to conform to those. We think that the plan is sound from a civil engineering standpoint as well as from a Water Department engineering standpoint, as covered by C.T. Male, another engineering firm hired by the Water Department to look at this project. As to the potential alternatives that were mentioned and brought up repeatedly in the meeting, we think that the record is clear that there are valid technical reasons supporting the public need for the facility at this location. We defer to our prior submissions and Rick's report at Tab Six and our past discussions, as well as the fact that the ZBA approved the use of the property for these facilities. In simple, practical terms, this site makes sense because it allows the consolidation of public utility uses at a single parcel. Also with respect to alternatives, it's clear that we've evaluated a reasonable range of alternative sites, as detailed in our report, and we also want to mention that we were even asked at one point to evaluate Mr. Ball's property next door and after looking at that property, we concluded that we really couldn't come up with a better result, visually, for the community or otherwise for the community by moving the property 200 feet to the south, and having said that, we understand, and we respect the rights of Mr. Ball to object to this property, to this project, excuse me, and to comment before this Board, yet we have significant questions why the project would be more acceptable if it was moved slightly to the south, as opposed to in its current location. As to the engineering or other reasons that Mr. Ball raised, we believe that they've been addressed by the review that's taken place, both at the civil engineering level and the Water Department engineering level. In the end, we think moving this project to some hypothetical alternative site is simply going to mobilize a different constituency in the community that perhaps would come and raise similar objections to the Board to why the project could not be moved somewhere else, and we say this with our earlier point close in mind that there are valid technical reasons why this project has to be at this location to provide proper coverage to the community. If there are any questions on that, please ask. We're happy to answer them. We're not suggesting in any way the site could actually be moved somewhere else and still work. We think it's in a proper location. We think it's sited properly. We've tried very hard to address everyone's concerns in a manner that's respectful of the process that's going on. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-1 was looking through my notes, trying to prepare rather extensive notes after all the presentations that you've made, preparing for tonight, and making up a list of issues that we've addressed, looking for, in a way, what remains. We've talked about the project as a source of RF. We know it's not the most powerful source in the area. There are pre-existing sources that are stronger. The geology's been reviewed. We see the Fire Marshal comments about the risk of fire. Apparently there's never been a case of a cell tower catching on fire in New York State? I wasn't aware of that. MR. CUSACK-Not in the way that's been suggested. If somebody comes up and intentionally does something, I'm sure they could make it combust, but, yes, they do not combust on their own. MR. TRAVER-Right. The reserve area for the water tower at some point in the future has been addressed. The one area that we haven't talked about a whole lot that I was thinking about, particularly last weekend as I was driving around in the Adirondacks, is the visual impact. I have seen some of what are called, I guess, Frankenpines for cell towers. I've seen some good ones. There was one, I neglected to write down the mile marker, but I was heading north, actually heading up to Lake Placid last Saturday, and there's one, it's got to be up maybe in the 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) Chestertown area or something, and if you really didn't know what to look for, you wouldn't even see it really. On the other hand, I've seen others, I travel to Maine with my wife in the Fall and there's a, I guess I Frankenpine on the way to Maine that really I think stands out more than if it were just a tower. It almost draws attention to it. Can you comment on your, first, on your willingness to attempt to camouflage the antenna by making it a Frankenpine, or some similar thing, and can you give us a good one and not a bad one? MR. CUSACK-Certainly. Verizon Wireless's position is that it will agree to use camouflage or stealth technology in settings where it's appropriate, and I would submit to you that this is not an entirely appropriate setting for that type of technology, because you're looking at a 120 foot structure in an area where the tree height is, as has been pointed out by the neighbors, is in typically the 80 foot range. So you're typically building a structure, to go back to your examples from Maine and other locations, you're building a structure that might, from certain vantage points, be viewed as significantly above the tree line and therefore more obvious. As a secondary consideration to this particular project, we were asked very early on, and it's included as a condition in our lease, to build a facility that would also be capable of supporting public safety use at the Town and County level, and what that usually entails is the use of PD220 antennas which are 22 foot whip antennas. You'll see them on the sides of towers, pointing up and pointing down. They do not work within the context of a camouflage tree structure because invariably what you have is a tree structure with white or other color protrusions sticking out of it that are obviously antennas, and therefore undermining the purpose of making the site invisible or substantially invisible as the Adirondack Park Agency likes to say when we're building in the areas that you're referencing. If you were to compare heights, you would be looking at things that are in the neighborhood of 20 feet or so above the tree line for the sites that are able to accomplish that visual affect. Here we're looking at a somewhat different facility. We have our need, as Verizon Wireless, to be 100 to 120 feet above ground level so that this can function properly, and we also have the Town's requirements to build for multiple users, in addition to the Town's other requirement in our lease with the Town Board to provide for public safety use. So you're looking at two different things here. You're looking at apples and oranges. I would, however, suggest, if you're interested in doing something to soften the appearance of the tower itself as constructed, consider, you know, asking us to paint it a color of brown that seems to work or an earth tone type color. What that does is seasonally it gives you a better overall integration, if you will, into the overall environment, particularly where there's deciduous trees, which when the leaves are down the bark of the trees is typically brown or a dark gray color. That's something we would be agreeable to. I suggest brown because that seems to have worked for a number of other municipalities who have raised this concern, but there's also a color called Thunder Gray that the APA likes in some settings, but again, here you're looking at trying to balance needs, really hard technical facility needs, against visual needs. We think there's enough separation here. We do think that the mountains provide, Luzerne Mountains, provide a certain amount of backdrop for the facility and that, you know, with time this will become part of the view and be assimilated. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then if you were to, because of the height of the tower, in context, if you were to make this a traditional, quote unquote Frankenpine, it would actually draw attention to the tower. That's what I was fearful of, and I have seen that. MR. CUSACK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But you're indicating that there are other techniques, such as paint schemes and so on, that can be used to camouflage it to some degree, and also the public safety requirements prohibits the use of the Frankenpine type camouflage that you mentioned. MR. CUSACK-That is correct. If you were to put those public safety installations on this facility, it would totally defeat the purpose of the camouflage. You would have a tree with 20 foot protrusions out the top of it. MR. TRAVER-But you can use the paint with the public safety facility. MR. CUSACK-Yes, that's proven. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's non-reflective paint, right? MR. CUSACK-That's correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What is the height of the public safety antennas? MR. CUSACK-It's to be determined, based upon needs at the time of application. There's a lot going on in the public safety arena right now at the Federal, State and Local level. They're trying to build a nationwide public safety broadband network. It's part of the Taxpayer Reform 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) Act that was passed on February 22nd at the Federal level. So depending on, you know, where their need is, the way the contract is set up is they come to us with the need. We review it, and if the location they're asking for can be used without interference to Verizon Wireless or other users, then they can have the space, I think it's either free of charge or a dollar or something. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But your commitment is to the County or to the Town? MR. CUSACK-It's to the Town, but the Town can include the County. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because the County does public service. MR. CUSACK-That is correct, and that's why Supervisor Stec wanted it that way. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why we can't use the, you know, they built the one on Pilot Knob Road. Are you familiar with that one? MR. CUSACK-Yes, I am. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Made it a Frankenpine. You can't see the tower anyhow, but now because all those branches are sticking out, it's not very good for public service. MR. CUSACK-No, and that tower is a perfect example of one that's close to the tree line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. MR. CUSACK-So close to the tree line that Verizon Wireless can't co-locate on it. There's no space left, so we're looking for another spot in that area right now. It might be in Fort Ann. It might be in Queensbury. We don't know where it's going to end up, but we've examined that, and that's what happens. When you cut the height, to go back to Mr. Traver's question, when you cut the height to address the aesthetics, you create a need down the road for future users. You have a lot of Verizon customers on that east side of the lake that can't get service. MR. HUNSINGER-When we first started siting cell towers in the Town of Queensbury, we had very lengthy discussions with almost every applicant about just those specific issues, and there were a couple of projects, one in particular, the flagpole at the Ramada at Exit 19, where it's incapable of handling an additional user because of the design. MR. CUSACK-It's fully loaded, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ANDRUS-If I could just add a little bit more to what Mike said, as far as the visibility. The antennas stick out from the tower to some extent. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ANDRUS-So in order to hide the antennas, and then have the tree have a natural taper, you have to go at least 15 feet above the height of the tower. So instead of a 120 foot structure, now you're looking for 135, 140 structure, again, with the whip antenna sticking out of the top. So it does add a lot of, you know, bulk to what could just be a pole, you know, standing up. MR. CUSACK-We call that an ornamental cap. So if you have a triangular shape of a tree, the way the tower is now, it ends at a flat point. You have to build a triangular shape above that, and it is typically 10 to 15 additional feet that I forgot to mention in my earlier summary. MR. DEEB-Can I ask you to expand a little bit on the antenna? You said it was a PD220 antenna. It's like a whip antenna? MR. CUSACK-Yes, it is. MR. DEEB-And so the visibility from a distance would make it difficult to see? MR. CUSACK-It would be similar to the whip antennas that you see behind the County Clerk's Office right now, a little bit further up on Route 9. So you have the tower structure and you have the multiple whip antennas. They typically have two going up and two pointing down. So they take up a lot of vertical space. Depending on where you're standing from and looking and where you're looking, it can be more visible and less visible, depending on the angle of view. Here you're talking about it protruding outside the camouflage of the tree structure itself. So clearly from your foreground view and your middle ground view, you've defeated the purpose of the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) camouflage. It's visible from that point definitely, but as, you know, take it back to five miles or so, you know, you can have some blending at a distance there. MR. DEEB-That's why it's not compatible with the camouflage. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. MR. MAGOWAN-How wide are these whips, the diameter? MR. CUSACK-1 wish I brought one. I would say it's about four inches wide to six inches. They're fairly chunky, depending on the model that you use. MR. MAGOWAN-So they're tapered? MR. CUSACK-And they are tapered as you get closer to the top, yes. They're fairly wide for the first half. MR. MAGOWAN-They really don't whip. MR. CUSACK-They're not flexible in the sense of a whip antenna on the back of a car for a CB radio. Clearly not the same type. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm thinking the whips that you hold your boat out, you know, from the dock, those kind of whips. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. Not like that at all. They're solid fiberglass, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Do you have examples of the Thunder Gray or the brown paint colors that you mentioned with you? MR. CUSACK-No, I would say that the brown is a darker color, and the Thunder Gray is actually a light brown. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CUSACK-And to put it in simple terms, it's just on the order chart, when you're ordering the color, it comes out Thunder Gray. So you can have a light brown or a dark brown. MR. DEEB-Which one would you recommend for this one? MR. CUSACK-I'm very partial to the dark brown. I've seen it in several cases it comes out very good. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We did have extensive comments from the public at prior meetings. We will open the public hearing. The public hearing was tabled until this evening. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to try to keep their comments to three minutes. There is a timer that will go off during your comments. You'll hear the buzzer when your three minutes is up, and I would ask that you conclude your comments at that time, and I would ask anyone wishing to address the Board to state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting. The tape is actually available on the Town's Internet site and is available for the public to review. We also use the tape to transcribe the minutes, which are part of the official record of every meeting. Anyone wishing to make comments, you should make your comments to the Board, and address the Board with your comments. Having said all that, who would like to address the Board first? Mr. Ball? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RON BALL MR. BALL-Ronald Ball, Queensbury, right next to the cell tower. I want to talk about these cell towers. This is a cell tower fire, okay. Luckily we haven't had any in New York yet, but so everybody can see that, and notice the upper part of it, okay. Now this is a cell tower, notice the upper part of it. It's not the same photo. So everybody can see it, okay. Notice this cell tower fire, notice the upper part of it, this is a different cell tower fire, you see it? Not in New York though, no, not in New York. How about this one? Look at this. I'm not sure which way it goes, it goes this way. You notice the upper part of it? Does it look like the rest of them? This is another cell tower fire. You don't hear about them. You know why? Because like the Post Star, they're not going to print anything negative about it, okay? Look at this one, this is different than that one, okay? But I've only got three minutes. I'd need an hour. Okay. Here's another one. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) This is completely different, not in New York, though, okay. This one is owned by Verizon. This is Verizon's cell tower, in Massachusetts, not too long ago, caught on fire. Okay. Fire's start two ways, accidental or arson. These are accidental, okay. This particular one right here, this is different than the rest of them. Okay. That particular one, the ground fault didn't go. The fire chief said I don't know why, but that breaker should have went that caught on fire. When they catch on fire they collapse. They catch right on fire, they collapse. This one here, see it starting to collapse? It's going over. Once they start going over, it's going to that forest up there behind it, or it's going to go to the neighbor's house next side, or either side of the property, and then you've got a real major problem, a real major problem, because you can't get a piece of fire equipment up that hill, and the Town of Queensbury said in their lease they will not remove the snow in the winter, and that grade is 30 to 40%. What's acceptable in our Town is 10%. Tell me, how are you going to allow this to go through? How are you going to permit this to go through? You know, a boy down in Fort Edward got shot about a week and a half ago. They only found one bullet. One bullet. They couldn't find any more rounds. That's all it's going to take it one fire, and one fire up there and it's going to wipe out a lot of houses and property and it's going to burn all the way to Luzerne probably, because you can't get a piece of fire equipment up the road, and it can't be plowed, and guess what, the Highway Department doesn't plow, and because it's in a water district, the Water Department's got to plow it. They're not in the business to plow. This has to be stopped. This has to be stopped, and I also want to know why, you mentioned the last time we were here that people couldn't bring up property value going down if a cell tower that's on your fire is in your neighborhood, that's not going to bring your property value down? You mentioned that the very last thing at the meeting. I want you to explain that to everybody in here, if you would. MR. HUNSINGER-I will when you're finished. MR. BALL-Okay. Here's one, too. This one blew over. It blew over. The wind blew it over. Just like the one they want to build. Okay. Just like the one they want to build. Forty feet deep they bolted this down, or they anchored it down, forty feet deep. MR. DEEB-Could you tell me where that is? Do you know the location of that? MR. BALL-Do I know the location of this one? No, I don't. MR. DEEB-Do you know how most of the fires started? MR. BALL-Do I know how they started? Accidental. MR. DEEB-Lightening? I'm asking. I think that has to be investigated. MR. BALL-No. A fire chief in, I believe it was Atlanta, I think in Atlanta, he said it was the breaker that's supposed to stop the electricity from flowing in there, and it did not work like it was supposed to, and he was at a loss as to why it didn't work. MR. DEEB-That was an electrical malfunction. MR. BALL-That's electrical. MR. SIPP-What set it off? MR. BALL-I don't know. Poorly constructed, you know, an electrician made an error, he didn't tighten down a bolt. A lot of different reasons. A squirrel could get in there. A squirrel caught one on fire. A squirrel got in one, ate on the wire, and he got electrocuted, caught on fire, went outside and started the forest on fire. You cannot allow that thing up there. There's no way a fire truck can get up there. A fire truck can't get around on the street where the fence is. You can't even get around that, let alone go up that steep grade, that's going to put our fireman at risk. You should be looking out for our volunteer firemen. You really should. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BALL-Now if you'll answer the question about the property, I'd appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-I will. I will. I'm under no obligation to answer any question that you have, but I will. MR. BALL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-When we're finished with the public hearing. Anyone else that wants to comment? Yes, sir? Good evening. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) GEORGELANGFORD MR. LANGFORD-George Langford, 40 Lehland Drive in Queensbury. I was here at the last meeting listening, and I'm listening tonight, and the comments that I've heard are very troubling to me. First of all, instead of having the tower up on Prospect Mountain where it doesn't bother anybody, we have to move these into the neighborhood because of improved technology. That just blows my mind. Does that mean we're going to have these things sprouting up all over Town? I heard the gentleman tonight talk about looking for other sites for these things in other places. Apparently the normal planning restrictions don't seem to apply. It sounds like you're only concerned about aesthetics, and even so, I mean, whether or not a Frankenpine is applicable to this site, you're going to have something sticking 60 feet up above everything else in the neighborhood. Everybody is going to be able to see it from their house. That just seems like the wrong thing to be putting up there. It's going to be an eyesore, and safety apparently doesn't seem to be a problem. I mean, they're talking about fires on these towers here tonight, but also it sounded like the grade requirements that you normally apply would be such that the safety and rescue people wouldn't be able to get up there. It just so happens that shortly after the last meeting, I turned on the t.v. set and to and behold there was a documentary about all the accidents from fire towers, people working on the fire towers having accidents, and now we're talking about you're not even going to be able to get an ambulance up there to take care of these things. I mean, I don't know if this thing poses a health hazard or not. I mean, the Verizon rep says it's certainly not a health hazard, and I expect that he really believes that, but you know I've been around for a lot of times, and I can tell you a lot of things that we thought were okay turn out to be not so good for you. For example, you know, DDT killed all the birds, asbestos was in everything, x-rays. We used to look at our feet in an x-ray machine. Lo and behold, people were getting zapped. The dentists started killing themselves by giving all the x- rays. Smoking. Radiation for the soldiers who were watching the atomic bomb tests. I mean, all these things are now found to be a problem. Saying that this is no problem reminds me of the tobacco executives getting up and saying, you know, tobacco's not addictive. It's not harmful. It's really amazing to me. So, you know, in summary, you know, I would say I hope that this Board does the right thing and doesn't allow an eyesore which could be a potential hazard to the children in the neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. There's a distinguishing feature about this project like none others that are in the Town of Queensbury, and that is that this project is to be located on municipal property. I'd like to read into your record a letter I delivered to the Town Board last night at their meeting. This communication is further to the comments I directed to the Town Board at your June 4, 2012 regular Town Board meeting. Those comments were confirmed in my letter to you and your Board members at that very same meeting stressing the fact that leasing of Town water district property such as land is a Town Board affair, and only a Town Board affair which affair cannot be cascaded to any of its subordinate boards such as the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. I now continue to illustrate my concerns for the failure of our Town Board to adhere to the proper procedures pursuant to Town Law in order to legally implement its desire to complete a land lease agreement with Verizon-Wireless. The said land lease agreement is intended to form the basis for Verizon-Wireless to lease from the Town an area of land for purposes of siting a 124ft "Monopole" type telecommunications tower. The plan is for the Town to lease what is presently a portion of a 4.81 ac. lot of land previously acquired by the Town Board for the municipal purpose of siting a water district storage tank. Providing this lease arrangement involving the Town making its water district property available to a private corporation for a non-public or purpose is not considered to be in violation of Article VIII, Section 1 of the NYState Constitution, which I believe it is, then the provisions of Town Law Article 4, Section 64, Subsection 64(2) (Acquisition and Conveyance of Real Property) dictates that `district lands may be leased in the manner provided by law and according to Subdivision 12 of Article 12 of Section 198 of Town Law'. Subdivision 12 of Town Law allows `real property owned by any improvement district to be leased by the Town Board providing, however, that if the property leased has a value in excess of $1000. a public hearing shall be held'. Further that, `The receipts from the lease of such property shall be paid to the supervisor of the Town and credited to the entire district for purposes which would properly be charged against the entire district'. An example of costs which would be properly charged against the entire district are those being incurred by the Town in bringing this land lease agreement to fruition. All the time and cost of these Boards, and the staff on this is a charge to the water district. With respect to a land lease such as the one the State Supreme Court has ruled in Bevelander v. Islip that - `If property leased by a Town to a Corporation where not part of a public improvement, the property could be leased by the Town subject only to a permissive referendum'. Assuming the land value of the 4.81 ac. Lot of land bordering West Mountain Road is at least $1000., the town Board failed to conduct a public hearing before the August 11, 2011 date of the Land Lease Agreement. And because a public 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) telecommunications Tower cannot be considered a water district improvement, there was a requirement for a permissive referendum to be held before the Land Lease Agreement was consummated. There are no precedent actions for procedures our Town Board has elected to follow in bringing this water district land lease agreement and the subject telecommunications tower to fruition - least of all pursuant to Town Law Article 4, Section 64(2) and Section 198(12). You are respectfully requested to hold the proposed water district land lease proposal involving a non-public purpose use in abeyance until the Town Board can organize and complete the required public notice, public hearing and referendum including a complete Environmental Quality Review as lead agent. As I said, this is a Town Board affair. They have to conduct the environmental review as lead agent. There are several housekeeping items that should gain the Town Board's attention. There is the issue of a need to address what variance is indeed required in order to site a non-coloration telecommunications tower on a site, regardless of its zoning district classification, where the existing structure is less than 50ft. The Town Code says that you can do this, site it if there's another structure on the property at least 50 ft. in height. The water tower is only 40 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you about finished, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-1 have a couple or more points, and then I'll be finished. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Another is the non-exclusive right of ingress and egress which the Town proposes to grant to Verizon for a 30ft access right-of-way including underground utilities. Will the Town be responsible to maintain access if it is deemed necessary for emergency vehicles? We understand that the Town is reserving on the future need for an additional water storage tank. If so, the likely location of the second tank should be designated on the Site Plan. In addition to designating the location of the future tank, the tank's height, diameter and volume should be noted. Finally, the existing water storage tank, the future storage tank as well as the proposed site of the telecommunications tower are all expected to be outside the boundaries of the current water district as the district boundaries have been mapped by the Warren County Real Property Tax Service Agency. This can be easily corrected and therefore should be. I'd like to show you where that boundary is. The Water District boundary runs approximately in this location across here. The current water storage tank, the future water storage tank and the location of the cell tower will be outside of the water district boundary. MR. HUNSINGER-1 would remind you your three minutes has expired. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I would just like to say that, as I said, the distinguishing feature of this project, as compared to all others that you have considered and all other aspects of other projects is that this is on municipal property and there is a procedure in the law to be followed for what the Town wants to do and they haven't followed it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. RUTH SIMKOWITZ MRS. SIMKOWITZ-Hi. My name's Ruth Simkowitz. I live in Queensbury. I had some, I won't go over what other people have said. They made their points very well. I just have a few concerns. Mr. Cusack, at the last meeting, had stated that, trying to put everyone's mind at ease, that the level of RF waves put out by the cell phone tower would be equivalent to a fluorescent light bulb, and if you go anywhere on the Internet, you will certainly find that that is misleading information that he's giving. It's erroneous. Let's just put it that way. It's per channel, and each antenna can accommodate dozens of channels. So that's something to consider. What he was saying was just incorrect, and also, as Mr. Traver was saying, but he had operated ham radios and he was very impressed that the amount of power from a ham radio is much more actually than would be put out by this cell phone tower, but your neighbor did not operate a ham radio, I'm assuming, you did not operate a ham radio 24/7. Your neighbors didn't and everyone in your neighborhood didn't. This is 24/7, 365 days a year. So I understand you're not allowed to address health concerns, which is ridiculous. Also on Verizon's website I believe one of the stipulations to putting up a cell tower is that you have to show need. On their website it is a field of red for coverage, very small amounts of white where there is not coverage. Mr. Cusack stated that the cell phone tower, approximately 25% of it, will be for Verizon customers, the balance will be for other carriers. How does that show need for Verizon? That sounds more like greed to me. He's paying Queensbury, or they're paying 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) Queensbury $1300 a month, I've heard. What are they getting in return? I'm thinking it's a little more than $1300 a month, and we, the citizens, the taxpayers, are basically getting a view of a brown, gray, blue, camouflage color, whatever color you want to paint it, it's going to be sticking up 120 feet plus, I'm sure, and the trees surrounding it are deciduous. The pines that were there are basically gone. I don't think that's an accurate picture. If you drive by the neighborhood you'll see downed trees. Eight months out of the year, that's what our view will be coming out of the neighborhood and driving down the road. The other statement I'd like to make it more directed toward the Board. I've listened to other people go on about how big their bathroom can be and how big their parking lot can be, and they get time galore, and we have 180 seconds to state, I feel like defending our position. I don't think that's right. I think it kind of infringes on our right to free speech. Thank you for letting me speak and hopefully for hearing me. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? No other takers? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I don't believe so, but let me check. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Ball's comment, his question, the comment that I had made at the last meeting, and again, I'll stand by that comment, and the comment was simply this, that there is no provision in the Town Code for property values for consideration of any project. There's no provision in the State Code for property values for the provision of any site plan review. It's not something that is recognized as a site plan review criteria. Therefore we cannot deny or prejudice a project because of perceived or real factors that would influence property values. It's just not something that we are allowed by law to take into consideration. In a minute, Mr. Salvador. I also want to address Mr. Salvador's comment. As a result of your letter to the Town Board last evening, there was a memo that was prepared by Town Counsel that addresses the concerns that you raised, and in this memo the Town Attorney provides the opinion that the Town acted properly in the review of the lease and that the relevant section of Town Law requires the Town Board to hold a public hearing, which was held, and the resolution was prepared and drafted in accordance with required laws. MR. SALVADOR-Is the date given for the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-February 28, 2011. MR. CUSACK-That's correct, and SEQRA was done that night as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have a comment? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Your lease is with the Town, right? MR. CUSACK-The lease is with the Town of Queensbury, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and you're familiar with the fact, though, that other towns, other places, cell companies lease from fire districts. They lease from school districts, they can lease from towns, they can lease from anybody, any town entity they want. Mostly it's with, not with school districts but with other people. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. It's common practice for towns and villages in the State of New York to lease their property to Verizon Wireless or other commercial wireless service providers, and in fact many regulations, local laws require that we look at municipal property before private property. This Town doesn't happen to have that in its Code, but it's a very common practice and we do have any number of municipal sites in the capital district. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And one other thing I just want to assure you, as somebody that's been a fireman for 50 years, I'm going to tell you, if your tower burns, there's no Queensbury firemen that are going to put any water on it. That isn't what we do, not unless we want to get electrocuted, okay, and I agree with the Fire Marshal. In 50 years I've never seen a communication tower, a t.v. tower, a radio tower or a cell tower on fire. Maybe there have been some. I know there's been bird's nests up there. I know antennas have burned up, but we don't, we go to your little shack and turn the power off and call you up and say fix it. MR. CUSACK-That's correct, and you control, I presume, what else is around there from catching on fire. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if it's forest, yes, if it goes into a forest fire, we have a plan here, and we have forest fires around here. We've had some right out here. We have a few every year. That's not a problem. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-You don't happen to have a number of how many cell towers are across the nation as whole? MR. SCHONEWOLF-He knows how many he's got. MR. CUSACK-Yes. I want to say above 25,000. MR. BALL-Two million. MR. MAGOWAN-So there's two million. MR. CUSACK-Your question was on towers. Some of the other counts that are out there are how many facilities. So if a tower has five users on it, that might count as five. So you get to a higher number if you count the number of users on a tower nationally, it's a much higher number. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I looked at six pictures over two million towers, you know. I'm just trying to put the numbers together. MR. BALL-I only had three minutes, too. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand that. MR. TRAVER-Is there a, and again, I know the issue. I also, too, read the Fire Marshal's extensive remarks and response, but I really didn't think there was much combustible material in a cell tower. There's some wiring and. MR. CUSACK-Metal, plastic, rubber. If someone takes an ignition source to the tower, it could be started on fire just like anything else, you know, on the plan, it could be. What we're talking about, in our experience, is that these things just don't start on fire by themselves. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CUSACK-If somebody's there doing something at the site and there's an accident, okay, I accept what Mr. Ball says. If there's an accident, there's an accident, but there's someone there. They know about the fire right away, the call goes out right away, and local authorities react. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-I have a comment that, let's look at the Colorado wildfires. All these fires throughout the nation, we can't control the number of fires that are going to happen. We could try and mitigate them somewhat, but if it's going to happen, it's going to happen, and I can't believe that we can say building a cell tower is going to start another fire. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not. MR. DEEB-And I'm trying to be objective about this and look at it from all angles. I mean, we have no control over lightening, when lightening hits, and if it does cause a fire, then that is a problem, but do we get a lot of lightening in the winter up here? I don't think so, and most of the time it's during volatile heat and cold fronts that we get in the summer, and I think that would be the most exposure at any point. MR. CUSACK-And to follow up on your comment, Verizon Wireless does maintain the ingress and egress to that site during winter months. The Town can't do it. They can't be obligated to do it. So it's incumbent upon us to maintain the access that we require to get in and out of there during the winter months. It's not always plowed down to the surface of the driveway but you can get in and out of there if you need to. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to ask how you define access, because I know sometimes access is just snowmobile or some other, you know, vehicle. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. If you have a snow storm of several feet, it's not always possible to get a truck in there and clean that out right away, and you go for periods of time with different types of access, and our network operations crews are trained to get to the sites. If you think about these facilities, think about the broader context of wireless facilities. We have any number of facilities that are in remote mountaintop locations, that do not have paved 50 foot rights of way going up to the top. None of them have started on fire in our area, fortunately, while there have been some accidents in other communities as Mr. Ball's pointed out. We've not had the 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) experience that's being described. I think the characterization of this is as a minimal risk is appropriate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you secure all your facilities, like the ones here are secured with fencing, barbed wire and it goes all around the shack and quite a ways around the perimeter of the tower. MR. CUSACK-That is correct. It's a secure facility in the sense that it does have a fence and some barbed wire on top of it as described in our site plan. In addition, the shelter and electronic components are equipped with intrusion alarm systems that are wired to our central office. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because we've had some incidents in this Town of people trying to steal copper and so forth. MR. SIPP-We've heard a lot about what may cause accidents, deaths, so forth. If this were true that cell towers were the only thing that caused fires which would harm people and the land, we would be probably willing to eliminate you people from the face of the earth, but we've got a lot of things that we use every day, such as electric power, that when those lines go down in the winter time under ice or snow cause fires, we don't say, well, let's rip out all the power lines we've got and go back to kerosene lamps. Somebody mentioned the fact that DDT, we thought that was a great thing, but what it did, it has not killed a human. DDT has never killed anybody on two legs. So when we say these things, we're attempting to mask our real feelings about this with no faith in the ability of people to manage their inventions. I feel that we're being subject to a barrage of half-truths and I think enough is enough. MR. HUNSINGER-I did want to make one other comment, in response to one of the questions posed by the public, and that is about health factors, and we do consider public health and safety as part of our review for any project, and there is extensive information provided by the applicant regarding the health concerns of cell towers, and for those of us that are on the Planning Board, this is not a new issue. It's something that we have addressed extensively with the siting of every cell tower that's in the Town of Queensbury. So I didn't want that to go, that public misperception to be spread. Because it is an issue. It was addressed by the applicant, by the applicant's engineers, and it is part of the review that our engineer did as well. So I just want to make sure that that's on the record in its correct form. Are there any other comments or concerns from anyone on the Board? SEQRA review was done in February. Correct? So no further SEQRA review is necessary unless there's a new issue that has come up since SEQRA review was completed. MR. OBORNE-Yes, if the Board feels that there are extenuating issues or new issues that would require you or move you to re-open SEQRA, then so be it. At this point SEQRA has been accomplished and a Negative Declaration has been issued. MR. HUNSINGER-And we did have a signoff from the Town Engineer in March. MR. OBORNE-We do have a signoff from the Town Engineer, yes, from March. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I believe the one issue had to do with lining the swale with (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-So are there any outstanding environmental concerns that anyone on the Board has? We talked a little bit about the earth tone color and the use of non-reflective paint. What's the Board's position on that? MR. TRAVER-Well, the applicant has offered to use that camouflage technique. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I would take them up on that. I've seen it, and I like it better than the blue. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a preference to the dark brown or the lighter brown? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I like the darker because it's harder to see. MR. TRAVER-Dark brown. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What did you recommend, the dark or the light? MR. CUSACK-We've had better experience with the dark. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I've seen. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other outstanding issues from members of the Board? Yes, we do have the condition that was outlined in your letter. MR. CUSACK-That's correct, and Keith has incorporated that into his notes as well. So I think it's in the draft notes that you have, but if we want to talk about it again, I can pull the letter out and read it. MR. OBORNE-It's on my memorandum. MR. HUNSINGER-We have it right here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's in what he sent us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's on Staff Notes as well. MR. KREBS-So we basically have two conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-If there are no other questions or comments from members of the Board I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Is it new information, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-With regard to your (lost words), yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will allow it. MR. SALVADOR-You stated that it would be improper to consider property values. We have something called the welfare clause, and zoning is instituted for purposes of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public, and I would say that consideration for property values and the diminuition thereof is a welfare concern and should not be overlooked. It is very, very significant. Okay. The other thing I'd like to mention is that on May 23rd it was reported in the Post Star, when I commented about the fact that the site did not meet the Zoning Code with regard to the height of the existing structure, and the Post Star reports that the water tank is 40 feet tall I said. Third Ward Councilman John Strough said zoning does not apply to public land. Strough said he will discuss Salvador's question with zoning officials. Mr. Strough is exactly right. Zoning does not apply to public land. Zoning Code addresses private property. There's absolutely no criteria in there for regulating public land. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. MR. CUSACK-Do we have it clear in the record from last month, I just want to check, that I believe I said this, even if you were to consider property values, there's no substantial evidence of a property value impact to consider here, I have nothing to respond to. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CUSACK-1 just want to make sure that's clear in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 also believe we had public comment that the property value would be higher because people prefer that there be cellular service. MR. KREBS-If you go up into the Adirondacks, in communities that do not have cellular service, they're dying because there's no way to operate a business any longer if you do not have cellular service. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. At this point I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And if there's no further comments or discussion from the Board, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a new 120' monopole Telecommunications Tower. Telecommunication Towers in a RR zone require Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board issued a recommendation to the ZBA on 2/28/2012; the ZBA approved the Use Variance 4-2012 on 2/29/2012; A SEAR Negative Declaration was adopted on 2/28/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/28/2012, 3/27/2012, 5/15/2012 tabled to 6/19/2012; On 5/15/2012 an extension of the 150 day period was granted to 6/30/2012 to allow Verizon to complete soil boring and testing for the proposed tower and allow time for the Board's engineer to evaluate tests and report to the Board; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) There are two conditions: a) The tower will be painted a dark brown color, to make it less obvious visually. b) Verizon will accept a condition of approval that the northeastern corner of the leased area, as identified June 14, 2012 report reviewed Geotechnical Investigation by C.T. Male Associates, be classified as a no build area, reserved for future grading and other use in connection with the potential construction and/or maintenance of an additional Town of Queensbury water tank on the premises. 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) 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; 5) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: MR. KREBS-Waiver granted for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting plans. MR. OBORNE-No. They're not granted. They're part of the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They're all in there. It's on the draft resolution, just in case we need it. MR. KREBS-Okay. Strike that from my motion. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) NOES: NONE MR. CUSACK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BALL-Thank you. You did an outstanding job. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ball, you're out of order. MR. BALL-I know I'm out of order. You guys are out of order. You better hope there's never a fire up there. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2012 FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE NEGATIVE DECLARATION -4/19/12 JOYCE SHOVAH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OFF JOHN CLENDON ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.81 AND 2.0 ACRES WITH REMAINING 0.25 ACRES TO BE MERGED WITH LANDS TO THE WEST OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19- 12, ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION 6-1994 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-2-36 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 BILL NIKAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 2-2012 for Joyce Shovah. Requested action is Final Stage subdivision. Location is John Clendon Road. MDR is the existing zoning. SEQRA is Unlisted. A Negative Declaration was issued on 4/19/2012. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1.81 and 2.0 acres with remaining 0.25 acres to be merged with lands to the west owned by the applicant. Staff Comments: The applicant was granted waivers from grading, stormwater, E&S, and topography at preliminary stage. At the April 18, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the applicant agreed to reconfigure the lots in order to create one (1) compliant lot in regards to size and reduce the amount of land to be merged with the parcel to the west, which is also owned by the applicant. What follows is the additional comments that have been following this application since the initial stages. The only thing that I'm really looking for at this point in time, and it's not huge because I was given information on property with, I would like for Mr. Steves to corroborate that on the Final plan, what the lot widths are and they do meet the Zoning Code, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NIKAS-Good evening. Bill Nikas for the applicant, without Matt Steves. He's thrown me to the wolves. The only open issue was the resolution of the litigation. There's a little landscaped area in the area towards John Clendon Road that is the subject of an adverse possession claim with Mrs. Dickenson. We're in the process of resolving that, and I understand that the Final plan would not be signed until both attorneys for the parties submit a letter indicating that the action has been resolved, and that should be within the next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. NIKAS-That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? Pretty straightforward at this point. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only issue you had, Keith, I'm sorry, Staff Notes suggested something different than what you verbalized. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The only issue that I have is that the lot width variance, which we thought was required at first, information was presented to me that showed that it was not required, but I have not had any official surveyor stating that. It was somebody in his office, it was a draft person in his office. I would like Matt to verify that on the Final plat if at all possible, or under separate cover. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, or just to verify property widths on the Final plat. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. OBORNE-He can verify it under separate cover. It doesn't necessarily need to be on the mylar. That's my only issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it stems from the flag part of access. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Because you have to count all that in. It depends on how you start your lines. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We already did SEQRA and public hearing and everything else. So all we need is a motion, if we're so inclined. MR. KREBS-Section F really covers that, I believe, in the draft motion. It says as built plans to certified the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. So they will have to provide. MR. OBORNE-They have not provided me proof that lot widths have been met. They have provided me with calculations that it has been, but I would like Matt to verify that. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That's all. I'm satisfied, to be honest with you. I'm just dotting my I's and crossing my T's. MR. KREBS-Sure. I was just (lost words) that last statement covered that. MR. OBORNE-Not really. Especially if it busts the zoning. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so it would be a new condition. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL SUBDIVISION #2-2012 JOYCE SHOVAH Tax Map ID 295.14-2-36 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1.81 and 2.0 acres with remaining 0.25 acres to be merged with lands to the west owned by the applicant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/17/12 and 4/19/12; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2012 JOYCE SHOVAH, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per resolution prepared by Staff a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 4/19/12; c) Waivers granted on 4/19/12: stormwater mgmt., grading, erosion control & topography; d) 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 e) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) f) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. g) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; h) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; i) Surveyor to verify that lots meet the required width. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We're all set. Good luck. MR. NIKAS-I do wish they all were like this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so do we. MR. NIKAS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Salvador had asked if he could address the Board for five minutes following the conclusion of the meeting, as long as you don't talk about the cell tower, Mr. Salvador. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-With regard to Mr. Krebs' earlier question concerning Judge Krogmann's decision, the Town Board of the Town of Lake George resolved a week ago yesterday to authorize the filing of a Notice of Appeal on that case. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Whether or not they perfected it, I can't tell you, but that's where they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do they know who the judge is? The Supervisor's father-in-law, isn't it? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, well he's already decided. It goes now to the higher court, to the appellate, okay. Last night the Town Board also addressed the issue of the Class A Marina permit on Dunham Bay that was fostered by Diane Matthews. You recall that Site Plan approval that you granted? The following has happened. Your approval went to the Park Commission and they addressed this issue of the restroom two miles down the road, and they issued their approval for the project on the following condition, and I'll read it. It says a portable toilet visually screened from the neighbors and the lake must be provided on the site between May 1 and October 31St for customers of the marina. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SALVADOR-Now you know that a portable toilet as a permanent facility is a violation of Town Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. So what happened was the applicant went ahead and put the portable toilet in, built the dock, opened the Class A Marina, and then was cited by the Town for a violation. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-So they came before the Town Board last night to get a variance from the fact that they wanted to make a temporary toilet a permanent port-a-john, okay, and I'd like to read to you my comments on that particular application because I think the Town Board heard what I was saying and in effect they have tabled this whole thing, and I'll explain. As I understand matters, this application represents an after the fact permission to let stand an installation of an 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) illegal use already in place. So it's an after the fact thing, as per usual. The permanent use of a port-a-john is not only not permitted pursuant to the Town's Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136, but in addition, is as defined in a related Town Code, Chapter 179, it represents an accessory use and in this particular case, on a substandard lot in a waterfront residential zone where the principal or primary use is understood far and wide to be single family residential dwelling. A single family residential dwelling does not exist on this lot at this time and none is planned. This after the fact ongoing porta-john use does not qualify as principal use and therefore must be considered an accessory use. Which cannot be permitted until a principal use is in place. Quoting from the pertinent parts of a previous Town Attorneys opinion in a similar matter he framed the question. The issue as I see it is whether a permitted accessory use may be authorized where the permitted principal use does not exist. Now was a case where the accessory use was permitted and they wanted to do it in the absence of a permitted, of the existence of a principle use. His conclusion; quote in a residential zone where there is no residence on the property it would be my opinion that there is no authority under the definition of an accessory use to authorize such use when no residence exists on the lot. Particularly in view of the fact that Chapter 179 the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, states that the accessory use must be subordinate to the principal use or a building on the same lot. Because a principal use does not exist on this Matthew's lot an accessory use such as any form of sanitary waste handling including a porta-john cannot be permitted by this Board, that is the Town Board. Chapter 179 Section 179-2-010C is unambiguous, is unambiguous in defining an accessory use as any use other than a principal use. In this case a Class A Marina with a porta- john. Now remember that Class A Marina is also an accessory use, and there was no principle use. The Town Code says shall in no case dominate in area extent or purpose the principal use or building. This issue of an accessory use being allowed to precede a principal use on the same property was brought before the Planning Board while addressing Special Use Permit 6- 2012. Regardless the Planning Board approved the said Site Plan for the operation of a Class A Marina pursuant to Town Code Chapter 179 Article 10 Section 179-5-060 which regulates Docks Boathouses and Moorings, instead of 179-10-070A Specific Standards For Special Use Permits-Marina's. Section 179-10-070A requires that all marina's both Class A and Class B shall comply with the standards adopted by the Lake George Park Commission 6NYCRR Part 646. Pertinent to this application for the handling of sanitary waste are both the commissions and the towns specific requirements that pursuant to the Commission's regulations and the Town Code, quote, restrooms including toilet facilities for use by customers which shall be available at all times from May 1St to October 31St each year. The term customers is included in this regulation. Customers implies a commercial activity. Commercial activity is for the sale or the rental of marine services or products. It says restrooms. Plural. It means his and hers, okay. Facilities. It means hot water for cleansing, okay. A port-a-john doesn't have this. And then we have the issue of commercial activity requires handicap accessibility, okay, parking, toilets. You know the rules, and none of this is addressed. In any case, a Special Use Permit application was approved by the Planning Board earlier this year without even a nod to the Town Code Chapter 179 relating to accessory use structures, and it says, quote, no accessory structure may be erected without a principal structure and or use. Restrooms, the Matthews' proposal to make restrooms available at their Cast-A-Way Marina for use by their customers docking at their Dunham's Bay location, SUP 6-2012 was approved based on the Dunham's Bay customers having to travel about two miles to the Cast-A-Way Marina in order to relieve themselves. Not a very practical approach. The Planning Board's approval of SUP 6-2012 on January 24, 2012 was specifically confirmed to the Commission by our Zoning Administrator. I've never seen anything like it. I have never seen a letter directed directly to the Commission outlining the basis of your approval, but it's on the record. The Commission probably couldn't believe what had transpired. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can you get a copy of it? Didn't you get a copy of it? MR. SALVADOR-1 had to ask for it. I found out. I mean, I had to FOIL it. MR. HUNSINGER-So is this going to come back to us, Keith? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's coming back next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. SALVADOR-At the Commissions March 22nd meeting Miss Matthews Class A Marina application was basically denied in the form which was approved by our Planning Board. What was approved by the Commission is this accessory use porta-john before you tonight. That's the Town Board last night. This use is not allowed in our Town not because a permanent porta- john is not allowed but because an accessory use is not allowed until a primary use exists, and this goes for the Class A Marina. As recommended previously by the Town Attorney, this application to site an accessory use before a primary use exists on the site will require a variance. Now, in this discussion we had on this, Mr. Montesi, a member of the Town Board, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) mentioned the fact, he said, gee, it's unfortunate that the lot is so small that you can't site a primary use on it, okay. Now, our Zoning Ordinance used to address this issue of small lots, and what you are allowed to do on them, and we had, in the Zoning Ordinance, the provision to allow, as an allowable use in a residential zone, a 300 square foot hunting and fishing cabin. Some of these lots, that's all they'll support is a camp. Okay. We later expanded that 300 square feet to 500 square feet, okay, and then finally, in the last 10 years I'd say, we dropped it out of the Ordinance entirely. It's not there anymore. So they don't have this privilege of utilizing the lot as it's sized in its location. It's a tough lot. I understand. Okay, but I think they could design something like a 500 square foot hunting and fishing cabin that could come close to meeting the requirements. Maybe they'd need some side yard setbacks, but with a reasonable design, they could qualify for them, and then we wouldn't be violating our Code. They could put, they'd have a primary use on the site. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have port-a-johns at your Marina? MR. SALVADOR-No. Not allowed. Not allowed. MR. TRAVER-So they're in a bit of a catch 22. Setting aside your issue of the primary use with regard to the port-a-potty, the Park Commission is saying you can operate if you can use a Aort- a-potty, but they can't do that because it's against Town Code. So they're kind of in a catch 22. No matter which way they go, unless they develop this primary use that you speak of, according to your presentation, they're unable to operate. MR. SALVADOR-Look you have to understand, Mr. Matthews is in the business. Mr. Matthews has worked as a contractor in North Queensbury for years before he operated the Castaway Marina. Mr. Matthews has installed septic systems. He knows the Town Code, okay. He could have done this from the get go. He knew he couldn't do it, and that's why they proposed this. I mean. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who's complaining about it? MR. SALVADOR-Me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Anybody else? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, there are some neighbors letters in. Their neighbors are concerned about it, yes. MR. KREBS-John, in your Marina, where is the primary? MR. SALVADOR-Primary what? MR. KREBS-Use. MR. SALVADOR-1 don't have one. It's residential zoning. Okay. I'm a pre-existing. Our Marina pre-exists zoning. MR. KREBS-Right. So you would be in the same situation that they are if it hadn't been for your being a pre-existing use. MR. SALVADOR-I'm in the same situation they're in if I go to expand. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-1 can't expand. Okay. The same thing, okay, but anyway, we've got to come to grips with this Class A, Class B how it's used and everything, just have to come to grips with it. MR. HUNSINGER-It's been a headache since the beginning. It's been a headache for the Planning Board since the beginning on how to deal with it and how to interact with the other agencies. MR. SALVADOR-How many times did I bring this to the PORC Committee's attention? MR. HUNSINGER-1 know. You're the expert. We struggle with it every time an application comes before us. MR. SALVADOR-But we've got to do something about the Zoning Ordinance and make it so that somebody like this, who has this problem, okay, can meet the Code, that's all. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. SALVADOR-What a precedent this would set if the Town would have granted that permit for an accessory use port-a-john on a small lot without the primary use there. Can you imagine what that would have opened? Likewise the Park Commission. MR. HUNSINGER-So what did the Town Board do with it last night, they tabled it? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they tabled it. I think they've given him some period of time to come up. MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like we're going to need the Town Attorney involved with this one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who was the attorney that wrote the original opinion, the previous opinion that you were referring to? MR. SALVADOR-You can access that in the Town record. You'll find it, okay. MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that it was given a timeframe until October 31St or something along those lines. MR. SALVADOR-Something. MR. OBORNE-I've been too busy preparing for tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I realize it just came up last night. MR. OBORNE-Yes, so I mean, we'll get that information to you. MR. SALVADOR-Likewise, the Commission could not have approved using an offsite toilet facility two miles down the road. Remember, they regulate the lake, all the, so anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, John, yes. MR. KREBS-Yes, thank you for informing us. MR. SALVADOR-By the way, did the Town Attorney mention a referendum in that letter? MR. HUNSINGER-He did, yes, but he said that that doesn't, it's a different section, it falls under a different section of the law. I just put it away, I'm sorry. MR. SALVADOR-Don't throw it away. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't throw it away, no, I have a digital copy, anyway. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for your time. MR. KREBS-You're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to come before the Board this evening? MR. OBORNE-No business from here. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-See everyone Thursday. Thank you. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/2012) On motion meeting was adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 40