The regular meeting of the Planning Board, Town of Moreau, County of Saratoga and State of New York was held at the Town Office Building, 61 Hudson Street, South Glens Falls, NY 12803 at 7 p.m. on January 28, 2008.

Planning Board members in attendance were Chairman Peter Jensen, Ronald Zimmerman, Tom Field and John Arnold.

Members absent: Gary Dickinson.

Others present: Joseph Patricke, Building Inspector and Martin Auffredou, Attorney for the Town.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at 7 p.m.

I. Sprint/Nextel

Attorney Auffredou: I received a phone call from their attorney that she would be here.

Chairman Jensen: We will delay the public hearing and see if she arrives.

II. Application Final Approval on Old Saratoga Estates,

Chairman Jensen: Are there any additional questions, comments or concerns regarding this 3 lot subdivision? We have completed the public hearing, we have done the SEQUR review, we granted preliminary approval, and we delayed on the final because of meetings between preliminaries and final approval

Mr. Patricke: And we were waiting on a response from the county and we do have that and no impact. Just to be sure to deal with DOT.

Chairman Jensen: Do we have a motion for final approval of Old Saratoga Estates?

Mr. Field: Move for final approval of Old Saratoga Estates.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made to grant final approval for Old Saratoga Estates Subdivision. Is there a second?

Mr. Zimmerman: I second.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made in the second. Any further discussions? Would you call the roll please?

Mr. Edwards: Yes

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes

Mr. Arnold: Yes.

Mr. Field: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Chairman Jensen: Motion carries. Do we have a motion for signature?

Mr. Zimmerman: Motion that the chairman and one other member sign.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made, is there a second?

Mr. Edwards: Second.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made in the second for the Chairman and a Planning Board member sign mylars for the Old Saratoga Estates Subdivision when they are presented. Any further discussion? If not, call roll please.

Mr. Edwards: Yes

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes

Mr. Arnold: Yes.

Mr. Field: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Chairman Jensen: Motion carries.

Chairman Jensen: We have been requested to provide a recommendation to the Town Board concerning the proposed zoning changes that would allow senior housing. We have all received a copy of the proposed wording, as well as a schedule of use. Regarding the proposal as it has been presented to us, are there any questions from the Board, comments from the Board, questions and/or comments from council?

Mr. Auffredou: This is your typical required referral from the Town Board to you under the Zoning Code because this represents an amendment to the R2 schedule and you may see some more of this, you may see an opportunity, some movement to bring changes about elsewhere, I'm not sure of that. The Town Board, I believe December 27 was the last time this was discussed and at that time that Town Board made a referral to you. They are looking for your recommendation back to them. The next step after your recommendation is for the Town Board to schedule a public hearing on a proposed local law which would essentially be to constitute the amendment to the zoning code. This has also gone to Mike Valentine at Saratoga County under 239N. I have had some initial discussions with him. I think he is going to be getting the town a formal position after February 1st. The Town Board is looking to you to sort of give them some guidance as you will be looking at these type of housing developments in the R2 zone and what is your feeling on them, your reaction to them, does it make sense, does it not make sense, do you have particular concerns and if so, what are they. Your recommendations should be in writing.

Mr. Field: Would you go over the reasoning again of the deed restriction?

Mr. Auffredou: The deed restriction requirement was something that has been talked about for a considerable period of time with the Mr. Cerrone and Mr. Cerrone's council. The thinking is if the Town Board is going to create these lots of this size in this particular zone that they wanted to make sure these lots were going to be used for their intended purpose which is senior housing in perpetuity. The Town Board, as a matter of policy in the Town, is very concerned about senior housing, the availability of senior housing, favors senior housing in the town, but they wanted to make sure if they are going to move in this direction and start creating senior housing and giving developers the opportunity to develop smaller lots in the R2 zone that the need for senior housing is met on a continuing basis. That is the justification for the restriction and this is language that Attorney O'Connor and I have worked on for the last couple of months. It is my understanding that as far as the Cerrone subdivision goes, they are in agreement with this proposed language.

Mr. Field: The problem I see with it, and maybe you can discuss this, is that this language meets the current need of senior housing, but 30 to 40 years from now there may be a lot fewer seniors and there may be the need for starter homes for small families, same buildings, no one wants to buy them as senior housing, they can't be sold. Most zoning, as I understand it, every few years the community takes a look at the zoning, make adjustments and change the zoning. This kind of seems to tie this in to one particular use forever.

Mr. Auffredou: A zone change would be part of it, but there is a process to change the restriction, as well. It is a cumbersome process, but it is not impossible to change the restriction. All I can tell you is that the Town Board was adamant about having restricted language to enforce this so that it was going to be available. You may very well be right that in 20 to 30 years the need changes. I think the consensus of the Town Board at that time was that this was a needed that was increasing and if anything there was going to be a higher need for this type of housing as the years go on.

Mr. Field: Is there any language that can be added to this that can anticipate addressing a problem, such as I described, down the road, if it were to occur?

Mr. Auffredou: We could certainly talk to the applicant's counsel about that and see if we could come up with something, if that's your recommendation?

Mr. Field: I just wondered if it had been discussed.

Mr. Auffredou: No it has not been discussed.

Mr. Field: I'm seeing it as a potential problem down the road and if it can be avoided or set up that it was clear that this was anticipated.

Mr. Edwards: What were you trying to prevent by adding the restriction to the deed, what is the down side of that?

Mr. Auffredou: To meet what the Town Board identified as a very big need in the town for senior housing and, again, as I understand it, the Town Board is saying we are going with a much smaller lot, much higher density in these areas. I don't think they're talking about building bigger buildings on these lots, I think they are saying we're giving you the permission to build on smaller lots that what you would otherwise be able to do with R2 zoning and as a result you are going to commit to using those as senior lots. Otherwise, just meet the normal lot requirements.

Mr. Edwards: Have we done a soil search in the R2 zone to see if we can install septic on these smaller lots?

Mr. Auffredou: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. O'Connor: I don't disagree with anything Martin has said. I do think your comment is a valid comment. We only have talked to the new Town Board a little bit, but with the previous Board, they didn't want the second generation of owners to be someone with 6 kids and someone living next door thinking it would be a senior neighborhood. We can probably come to some language that the Town Board agrees with. Something to the effect that the deed would be in place as long as the zoning was in place. Then that would leave the control with the Town Board. They would have to change the zoning as opposed to the developer having control. This would be a good solution to anticipating that maybe there will be changes 20-30 years down the road. It was the aim of the Town Board to keep it simple. If that's a recommendation to have the Town Board consider, keeping the restrictions paced with zoning would be a good suggestion. They are going to be individually owned lots, single family homes, but we will maintain the exterior as far as yard work, snow removal and irrigation.

Mr. Field: Regarding the 40% limit, that's 40% of the lots?

Mr. Auffredou: As Joe points out, if you're going to have senior housing, 40% of those lots would be senior lots. The Town Board said that 40% seems like a nice balance.

Mr. Zimmerman: Do we need to stipulate the number of lots, that there need to be some minimum number of lots?

Mr. Patricke: Good point.

Mr. Field: If they essentially use this to up the density and they're really not creating a large enough neighborhood for senior housing.

Chairman Jensen: Do you wish to state a minimum of lots regardless of percentage?

Mr. Field: Personally I don't have a feel for that and I think there has been a good deal of discussion with the Town Board.

Mr. Patricke: I don't think there's been enough; I think you have a good point.

Mr. Field: I do too, but I don’t have a particular number in mind.

Mr. Patricke: I think it would be better if you did it on acreage. We're trying to eliminate a guy with one parcel breaking it into two small lots.

Mr. Field: It's the Town Board who's making the decision.

Mr. Auffredou: You can give them a recommendation that they should come up with a number of lots and you don't have to necessarily stipulate to a number. In your recommendation to them you can indicate that this is an issue that came up and you think the Town Board should consider it as they go through this legislative process.

Mr. Arnold: I don't know that I'm comfortable with the idea of using senior housing to increase density for a whole subdivision, so might want to recommend a maximum number.

Mr. Field: From a practical standpoint, if you look at the R2 zones in the town, most of them are developed already. There aren't that many properties it will apply to.

Mr. Arnold: My concern is if you have an R2 development that has 30 lots right now, roughly there's a potential it could become 50 lots. It's great to have as much senior housing as possible, but you're changing the dynamics of the development when you double the density on it.

Chairman Jensen: Any other questions, comments or concerns Board?

Chairman Jensen: What are we going to recommend?

Mr. Zimmerman: I'll make a motion that the Chairman draft a letter on our behalf that suggests that we are generally in favor of this with one addition being that some type of sunset provision be incorporated that allows the ability to revisit the deed restriction in the future so that it keeps pace with zoning and second thing being that there also be some consideration given for the minimum number of lots that would be eligible to take advantage of this provision.

Chairman Jensen: The motion has been made to recommend to the Town Board that the Planning Board is in favor of the proposed legislation as presented with the addition of a sunset provision so that it can keep pace with future zoning and that they consider in the legislation that there should also be stated a minimum number of lots per development. Do I have a second?

Mr. Arnold: Second.

Chairman Jensen: The motion has been made in the second. Any further discussion?

Mr. Field: I think we need to identify the reason for the minimum number of lots so that the developers don't take advantage of this and that that minimum number should be suitable to sustain a neighborhood for senior housing.

Chairman Jensen: Any further discussion? Call the roll please.

Mr. Edwards: Yes

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes

Mr. Arnold: Yes

Mr. Field: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Sprint/Nextel

Jackie Phillips-Murray: I am the attorney for Sprint/Nextel. I am here tonight because we are seeking to locate 3 panel antennas on the existing 185-foot tower located at 160 Old West Road. Currently, Sprint/Nextel does have an array of antennas on that facility at 165 feet; however, those antennas only service the Nextel network. Although Sprint and Nextel are now a single entity by a merger in 2005, they still do operate two separate networks. We're proposing to install 3 panels alongside the existing 9 panels, one on each sector of the facility and 2 runs of coaxial cables from each antenna down to the existing equipment shed at the base of the facility. We have submitted, in accordance with the town codes, site plans illustrating attachment of these antennas to the facility. We also submitted a visual analysis that illustrates what these antennas will look like alongside the existing antennas. They will similar to the ones that are already up there. In addition, we provided a maximum permissible emissions report which is in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman Jensen: In keeping with public hearings, we have three ground rules. Anyone that wishes to ask a question or comment concerning this application are encouraged and invited to do so. So that we may keep an accurate record, that anyone who does wish to ask a question or comment, that you state your name. During the whole process we will maintain some sense of decorum.

Joy Clark: I am Joy Clark, the owner of 160 Old West Road. Do you have a time frame?

Ms. Phillips-Murray: It is usually in about 6-8 weeks. No concrete pad has to be installed.

Ms. Clark: Do you have a copy of the original contract?

Ms. Phillips-Murray: I would be happy to provide you with a copy.

Chairman Jensen: Board, do you have any questions or comments?

Mr. Patricke: I have a request, in the 02/22/2007 engineering report we received, there is a note that says see table 1 and 2, but I don't have a copy of that. Can I get a copy from you?

Ms. Phillips-Murray: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Just for clarification, you are not considering construction of anything on the ground, it's just antennas?

Ms. Phillips-Murray: Correct.

Chairman Jensen: Any further questions for this applicant?

Mr. Field: There was a question about the criteria for the structural analysis, was that ever straightened out?

Mr. Patricke: Yes, very completely.

Mr. Auffredou: Do we know if Tim got a copy of the entire structural analysis?

Chairman Jensen: I cannot tell you if he did or not.

Chairman Jensen: We will go directly to our short environmental assessment. Start with part I #5. Item #7, no additional. Item #8 answer is yes. Item #9, residential. Item #10, no. Item #11, yes. Board any questions on short environmental form?

(Please refer to environmental assessment form)

Mr. Auffredou: The code requires the applicant to submit a short EAF, which the applicant has done.

Chairman Jensen: Yes.

Mr. Auffredou: Then it goes on to say a complete visual EAF addendum. They have done a visual resource assessment, but I think under SEQR, to me the code makes very little sense because they usually have the visual EAF addendum as part of a long form. For completeness, I'm wondering if anyone has a copy of a long form to go through the questions on the visual EAF addendum. The code says visual EAF addendum. I think you have quite a bit in the visual resource assessment to help you with that, but if someone takes a look at this decision and says where is your visual EAF addendum and we don't have one, shame on us.

Ms. Phillips-Murray: We do have a visual EAF addendum that was prepared in relation to the original installation and I have a copy. The answers should be the same.

Mr. Auffredou: I think that's a good idea.

Chairman Jensen: Is the project visible from a parcel of land that is dedicated for the use of the public for the use of enjoyment of natural qualities?

Chairman Jensen: 3-5.

(Please refer to the Visual EAF for further information)

Chairman Jensen: Before I close the public hearing, does anyone know of any environmental concerns we have not identified with this project?

Chairman Jensen: I guess not. The public hearing is closed at 8:04 p.m. Board, do I have a motion for a file of notice be prepared for the short environmental assessment form for the Sprint/Nextel application for co-location of antennas?

Mr. Arnold: So moved.

Mr. Field: Second.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made in second for negative declaration for Sprint/Nextel project. Any further discussion?

Chairman Jensen: If not, would you call the roll please?

Mr. Edwards: Yes

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes

Mr. Arnold: Yes

Mr. Field: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Chairman Jensen: Motion carries. Having completed the public hearing, having completed the SEQR review of Sprint/Nextel, would you like to see this applicant back again?

Mr. Field: Are there any comments from counsel?

Mr. Auffredou: The only comment we have would be that if you're going to move for approval that before the building permit be issues, that the complete structural analysis go to Tim Burley for review and if Tim Burley has any significant comments, we will bring them to you. I'm not convinced he has seen the entire structural analysis, even though he sent an email to Joe who said he is fine with this. I think we better be thorough. I don't see that as a reason to hold up a decision tonight.

Chairman Jensen: Obviously we are not going to disagree with counsel. However, I caution the board that if you were to decide to make a motion for approval, that in your motion you do not reference anything about building permit, building permits are not an item that this board issues. We do not have a say in issuance of boarding permits. You could, if you decide to grant approval, make it subject to the structural recommendations from the town engineer.

Mr. Field: I move that we grant special use permit for the Sprint/Nextel antennas pending confirmation of review of the structural analysis by the town engineer.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made. Is there a second?

Mr. Zimmerman: I second that.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made in the second. Any further discussion? Please call the roll.

Mr. Edwards: Yes

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes

Mr. Arnold: Yes

Mr. Field: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Miscellaneous

Chairman Jensen: The next item I have is we have been requested to review local law #2 of 2007 for storm water management, erosion. Do you have any questions and/or comments? Obviously this is a boiler plate that was put together tailored to strictly to the Town of Moreau.

Mr. Field: I have a couple of minor comments. On page 2, item c, need to move a comma.

Mr. Auffredou: 120-2c?

Mr. Field: Yes.

Mr. Auffredou: Okay, comma after stream bank erosion?

Mr. Field: Right and none after temperature.

Mr. Auffredou: Okay.

Mr. Field: Under B, second line down….and other desirable species.

Mr. Auffredou: Okay.

Mr. Field: On page 7 there's a definition for storm water hot spots…….trace levels…..is that heavy metals? Trace metals can be anything?

Mr. Auffredou: I'm 100% certain that definition was taken from the state model.

Mr. Field: It doesn't sound like the best choice of words.

Mr. Auffredou: Do you have a suggestion?

Mr. Field: I assume they mean heavy metals.

Mr. Patricke: I'll call the state and express your concern.

Mr. Auffredou: This local law would represent a whole scale change to your storm water. Everything that is in the site plan law as it currently relates to storm water is being amended and replaced with this. These are whole scale changes to the zoning law.

Mr. Field: We can't reference the state law so when something changes?

Mr. Auffredou: That is a very good question, but I think what you find in the state law are sort of guidelines and mandates for DEC to come up with a model ordinance for municipalities to be able to comply with these requirements. Sometimes you do see, for example the variance context, sometimes you see in variance codes variances are governed by 267-B of the town law and that contains all the standards for variances. That's not the case here for storm water. We have to adopt this by local law because there isn't a state law we can look to.

Mr. Patricke: Also, not all towns are doing the same level of storm level.

Chairman Jensen: Board, what is your recommendation to the Town Board regarding local law 2 of 2007?

Mr. Auffredou: This is actually going to be retitled to local law 1 of 2008. It hasn't officially been.

Mr. Field: It looks quite thorough. I move we indicate to the Town Board we have reviewed local law #2 of 2007 which we understand from counsel will likely be local law #1 of 2008, and we have found no substantial criticism of the proposed law.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been made.

Mr. Edwards: Second.

Chairman Jensen: Any further discussion? We as a board have found no substantial criticism of the proposed law.

Mr. Edwards: Yes

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes

Mr. Arnold: Yes

Mr. Field: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes

Mr. Field motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and Mr. Arnold seconded.

The motion was passed unanimously. Next meeting February 25, 2008 at 7 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Missy Norton

Recording Secretary

cc: Zoning Board, Town Board, Town Clerk, Supt. of Highways, Building Inspector, Assessor, Saratoga County Planning Board.