Loading...
08-16-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 153-2016 Rasheed Bhatti 1. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-11.2 Subdivision PZ 163-2016 Joseph Leuci 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.15-1-6 PZ 206-2016 FINAL STAGE Site Plan PZ 203-2016 Chris Boyd 26. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.6-1-17 Site Plan PZ 202-2016 Kevin &Annie Dineen 28. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 Subdivision PZ 207-2016 Michael Dorman 30. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.11-1-5 Subdivision PZ 197-2016 Meghan Cesari, Cleverdale Ventures, LLC 32. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240.9-1-8 PZ 198-2016 FINAL STAGE Site Plan PZ 192-2016 Curtis Dybas 33. Tax Map No. 227.18-17 Site Plan PZ 201-2016 Dale Baldwin 37. Tax Map No. 279.-1-50 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN ENGINEER-CHAZEN ENGINEERING—SEAN DOTY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, August 16, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the table in the back and there are also handouts for the public hearing procedures. We have, I believe, three or four public hearings scheduled this evening and we'll go through the details when we get to the first public hearing. The first item of business is approval of minutes from June 21 st and 23 d 2016. Would anyone like to make that motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21, 2016 June 23, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21ST & JUNE 23RD, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White MR. HUNSINGER-We have two tabled items this evening. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN PZ 153-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RASHEED BHATTI OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 1602 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL FOUR NEW CABINS AND A STORAGE SHED. EACH CABIN IS TO BE 30' X 30' WITH A DECK OF 6' X 30'. IN ADDITION, A 30' X 20' SHED IS PROPOSED AND SITE WORK FOR INSTALLATION OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED. APPLICANT HAS ALSO COMPLETED FILLING AND CLEARING PRIOR TO APPROVALS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2015-446 SEPTIC ALT.; 2013-582 THRU 588 CABIN ALTS.; 2012-545 COMM. ALT. PORCHES/BALCONIES WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 3.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-11.2 SECTION 179-3-040 HAROLD NICHOLSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RASHEED BHATTI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-I'm just going to read the summary of my Staff Notes. The application was tabled at the June 21St meeting for the applicant to submit revised plan and to obtain an 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) engineering sign off. On the table tonight for you is the engineering signoff, and the applicant has shown the parking spaces, the proposed and existing cabins and the shed has been re- located to an area behind the pump house. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. NICHOLSON-Attorney Harold Nicholson for the applicant. MR. BHATTI-Rasheed Bhatti. MR. NICHOLSON-Last time I came in we were unaware that there were some issues that needed to be fixed. I believe that Mr. Dickinson and Associates have taken care of those issues. Has everybody received a copy of the new map? MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because there was one on the table for us this evening. How has that changed from the one that was provided before? MR. NICHOLSON-This is not the biggest map in the world. The last maps, this is our new ones. The last map had weird X's that kind of made it hard for everybody to see where the parking spaces as opposed to what is it, and it's an access. So this one is cleaner so you can see where the actual cabins are, and you just note that the parking spaces are right next to them. So this is the new map here, which you have, and it shows no parking spaces, but it does show the cabins. So it's much cleaner with the flow of traffic arrows showing. Then the shed was moved behind the pump house, which is right behind that cabin. Behind the asphalt and the pump house you'll see we moved the shed a little on the plans. Is that clear enough? MS. WHITE-Is there any difference between the map that was provided in our packet and the one that was provided tonight? MRS. MOORE-The one that was provided tonight in reference to the stormwater. So there's, other than that, that's the only change that I'm aware of. MS. WHITE-Because the changes you were discussing are the changes from the last meeting until tonight. MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, until today, and there was an additional comment by the Chazen company that they requested a stormwater change for the Section C, very particular, and amounts of stormwater, and that's what the new map is. It shows that stormwater change. The new, new that you have. MR. HUNSINGER-We have our engineer with us this evening, Sean Doty, and we did get a letter that's dated August 15th signing off. MR. NICHOLSON-And I believe that this map is a little bit cleaner than the last one, not quite as confusing than the first one with all the X's and odd numbers. Were there any questions at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, overall I think the whole place looks so nice. You've really done a lot of work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no questions or comments from the Board. Did you have anything to add, Sean? MR. DOTY-I do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Were there any written comments, Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted SEAR. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. I will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 153-2016 RASHEED BHATTI The applicant proposes to install four new cabins and a storage shed. Each cabin is to be 30' x 30' with a deck of 6' x 30'. In addition, a 30' x 20' shed is proposed and site work for installation of buildings proposed. Applicant has also completed filling and clearing prior to approvals. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 153-2016 RASHEED BHATTI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions or comments from Board members? Hearing none, would you like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 153-2016 RASHEED BHATTI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to install four new cabins and a storage shed. Each cabin is to be 30' x 30' with a deck of 6' x 30'. In addition, a 30' x 20' shed is proposed and site work for installation of buildings proposed. Applicant has also completed filling and clearing prior to approvals. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/21/2016 and 8/16/2016; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 8/16/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 153-2016 RASHEED BHATTI; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) 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; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) 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. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. NICHOLSON-Thank you very much. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 206-2016 FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE I JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) EXCESS LANDS ZONING MDR LOCATION JOHN CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 66 ACRE PARCEL AS CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REVISED WITH 20 LOTS - 19 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING FROM 1.9 +/- ACRES TO 0.80 ACRES WITH ONE LOT OF 41.6 ACRES TO BE USED AS OPEN SPACE PARCEL ACCESS THROUGH EASEMENTS WITH RUSH POND. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING, CLEARING, ON-SITE SEPTIC, MUNICIPAL WATER AND STORMWATER MEASURES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 11-1992; SUB PZ 117- 2016 SKETCH PLAN WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-6 SECTION 183 ARTICLE X CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION TOM CENTER & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This application has been tabled from the previous month. This is a subdivision of a 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision. It's been revised with 20 lots, 19 single family residential lots ranging in size from 1.9 plus or minus acres to .8 acres. The remaining lot will be 41.6 acres, and this is to be conveyed to the Town. The applicant has supplied an updated Long SEQR form revised to the 20 lot proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Joe Leuci and Tom Center. I want to make some general comments and then Tom will go over the changes since the last meeting. So in general as a conservation subdivision the density that would be allowed for this project is 29 homes, but joe came in here trying to design this the right way with 24, and then after a couple of meetings listening to the Board, we're now at 19, which is the smallest number that he can live with in terms of being able to do the infrastructure and make this a nice project. With that said, we think there are some real benefits to the Town. Of course with over 40 acres being dedicated to the Town, you know, sometimes people create little parks or dedicate lands that aren't that important. This is something, because it's being added to Rush Pond, because there'll be a parking area, this is something that's really good for the community, for the people right over there. In addition to that, this provides a turnaround for the Highway Department, for the plows and the Highway Superintendent supports it for that reason, and when you compare it to the density in the immediate neighborhood, these lots are the minimum, the smallest house lot here is about twice the size of the existing lots nearby. So in terms of the character, there'll be larger lots than what's there. We realize, in terms of the design, that is required some detailed stormwater design, and that's what we're here with. We have the Town Engineer's review letter and there's nothing we have an issue with. We're just trying to get more comfortable with the 19 lots so we can get this done. We really are here to assure the neighbors that the stormwater is being properly designed and this isn't going to be an inconvenience or any impact on them. We think it's just going to be a continuation of their neighborhood with the nice homes. We hope that this Board is going to approve it. I want to just turn it over to Tom to just go into more detail about what's been changed. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering. After our last meeting we went back to the drawing board and eliminated a couple of lots to the total of 20 lots with 19 houses. What we did was the houses, the lots that we eliminated we made central of the three lots here larger lots, which are around 1.5 acres each or greater. So we reduced the density of houses on those slopes. We increased the step slopes coming down to the one on five slope and re-worked the grading along with the stormwater management to some of the questions that the Town Engineer had. We also changed the grates on the drywells at the top and bottom of the slope, and the middle on the slope section the road to vein grates as opposed to the open flat grates, to ensure that we capture the runoff coming down that wing swale. In our meeting last week with the Town Engineer with this new design before him, we agreed that if we can come to an agreement on these 19 lots that we would provide a detailed Phase One disturbance drawing, and what the means is Phase One disturbance is from the road and for this area where those three lots along that grading. That area of those terraced lots needs to be graded during construction of the road. So what we're going to try to do there is get those lots graded, get the slopes established, provide a detailed plan for that, that the Town Engineer will review, which will show, you know, sediment and erosion control which will show in detail the rock check dams and the sediment basins and everything that we need to do to protect during construction of the road. It's a little bit beyond what we normally do but we have no 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) problem providing it. It seems that there's been a lot of questions from the Board and the neighborhood regarding, you know, protecting of that stream. So we have no problem providing that level of detail for that Phase One disturbance. So that will be a completely separate drawing which we would review with the Town Engineer and provide erosion and sediment control for those areas. We'll also get into some of the minutia regarding the stormwater management and the vein rate and we can take that into calculations to ensure that as the water comes down that wing swale on that slope that it is captured by the drywells and that any overflow that goes by the drywells down to the other series of drywells is captured before it gets anywhere near the bottom of the cul de sac, and with that we will also take a look at the flow coming off the lots in between the septic systems and those areas to make sure everything is graded away from the septic systems, and with the septic systems, those septic systems are going to be reviewed by New York State Department of Health. This is a realty subdivision. They have jurisdiction regarding the design construction of those lots, those lots' septic systems, and prior to anything being constructed, we have to meet Appendix 75A with each lot modified soils. That usually includes, especially on a site like this, will be individual test pits, especially on those lots where we are cutting the grade and perc tests for each lot to ensure that we either have greater than a minute or if we have to modify the soils, and those are all standard notes. They're already on the drawings, but we could go into further detail if the Department of Health feels that we need further detail of those septic systems. We'd also, with some of the questions that regarded the Highway Superintendent, after our meeting I went over and spoke with Tom Vanness and his deputy regarding some of the other issues that the Town Engineer had, and he feels that everything we've done, including the vein grates, the wing swales as typically done in the Town of Queensbury are to his standards. Regarding the road crossings and whether or not we do equalization pipes with trenches underneath the road, we're going to address that at pre-construction when he has a chance to look at that a little further, but he doesn't have a problem with that in this case. He wants to see them, but we didn't design our HydroCad with those equalization pipes and the infiltration as part of it. That's extra. Again, this is well overdone in terms of stormwater. Our stormwater management, we used 10 inches per hour for an exfiltration rate, and we've got 700 plus inches per hour actual at the bottom of the test pit that we did in the area where the drywells are going to be. So we've well overdesigned the exfiltration of the system. So we feel that we're pretty confident that we're going to capture this, get it into the ground, use the soils, try to get the stormwater where it hits the hard surface as close to possible back into the ground where it should go, and if there's any particular questions regarding the engineering comments, anything particular about any of the changes that we're going to add. MR. HUNSINGER-We went out and looked at the site a week ago Saturday. Not everyone was there, but as a Board, and a lot of the questions related to erosion and the cutting plan, and I wonder if you could just comment on that. I'm looking at Drawing S-6 that has the construction disturbance limits for the Phase One road construction, and if you could comment maybe on the cutting plan that would relate to that. MR. CENTER-Well, the Phase One disturbance comes along here, comes in, and along that area and then back along the road and around and back in. So on the south side it's predominantly right along the road, and then it goes, comes back into this lot and back up into those areas and back in. This area right would be where we would bring in the detailed erosion and sediment control showing, you know, what we propose for the slope protection for intermediate silt fence. It will have the houses taken off of it. It will have the grading that we proposed on here shown, and then it will propose those slope protections to the detail. When the contractor goes out to build those we will have the controls necessary to protect those slopes. To try to give you a perspective, looking at the drawing is very difficult. The County requires us to do a 24 by 36 drawing, and trying to not put it on two sheets and spread everything out and have to go back and forth between sheets, working with the Staff, we kept it to one sheet at 50 scale. So things are a little condensed. When you take it, this drawing is 50 scale on a 24 by 36. When you take it and you put it on a larger sheet, a 30 by 40, at 40 scale, you can kind of see there is more room between the contours in those areas. There's a one in five slope. This drawing, you know, something like this, we can break up into two drawings and have one drawing that will specifically talk about this area, and then one drawing that will take care of the road and the sediment and erosion control for that to alleviate any of those concerns. Because those are really the two big areas where I believe the Board's concern is that we get our erosion and sediment control protection right. We don't think there's going to be a problem. This is deep, well-drained sands. Once they're graded, slope protection, get topsoil, erosion control mats, get grass growing, you know, prior to any construction, this is going to be done while the road's being constructed. So these areas will have a chance to grow. Those slopes will have a chance to go back to brush. I'm sure that nobody's going to have a lawn on those slopes so that it will go back to brush. Trees will be allowed to grow back, re-seed along the forest and you'll get a wooded lot on the back side of those slopes in the future. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to look at, say Lot Four, which is the first one that's inside that road disturbance, you show a finished floor of 495, and it looks like the foot of the driveway is 490. So you'd have a five foot elevation change. What would the slope be? MR. CENTER-That's just a little less than 10% I believe. I tried to get a gradual slope up from the road to the house. Again, some of these houses are going to be split level where the garage, or the house is actually over the garage so we can get the house down a little lower. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the average price of those homes? MR. LEUCI-$250,000 to $275,000. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 didn't hear that. MR. LAPPER-$250,000 to $275,000. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else that you wanted to present? Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SHAFER-On the wastewater septic systems, I notice there are a couple of places, for example, there's a 10 foot elevation difference from one terrace to the next, and over between 16 and 17 there's about a 13 foot difference between the terrace for 16 and 17. The laterals for the septics will be down, as I recall, about 24 inches. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-So in the case of the 13 foot, you've still got 11 feet of elevation difference between the new terraces and that means 11 foot that comes between the lower terrace and the bottom of the trench to the laterals. Would you consider either a vertical cut off wall of impervious material or put on impervious material on the side of the bank to prevent any leaching? MR. CENTER-The slope on the slope side will be greater than one on three. If you go to the Appendix 75A, you go five feet outside the trench and then you start a slope of one on three. These slopes are all greater than one on three going down. That would be the normal design next to a slope. So they require a one on three slope. If you were doing say a raised system or a shallow trench system, before you start your slope you'd go out five feet and then you start sloping the, with a side slope of, at a maximum pitch of one on three. These are one foot on five. MR. SHAFER-So you're saying that on a 13% elevation that one on three will not? MR. CENTER-And these are one on five. Again, the soils are one minute soils. They're highly permeable soils. Everything's going down through the soil. I wouldn't expect anything to go laterally, and I hesitate to start putting permeable layers and things because you have issues when you start messing with the existing soil. The existing soils are very well drained sands. It's not likely to go lateral and come out the side slope, as long as you keep that one on three. You can design a raised system with new material and go out five foot and then go a one on three slope, and you can do that 20 feet. It's similar to the one that I did at your house up at the lake where we did the Elgin system and we brought it down along the road. So it's no different than that where we only have a few feet to the outside and we're sloping down to the grade, and this one is even better slopes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Saturday on our walk I kind of ventured off, you know, on the pass, obviously the old runoff, you have them in with the contours here. What happens to those when you start bundling them out, chopping them off and putting a house right, you know, on something that's been running downhill for years? MR. CENTER-They'll be re-graded and then those areas will get re-planted, will not be traveled by other four wheelers or anything. Four wheelers have a tendency to not stay on the trail. Once a house is located on there, the homeowner will work with that, but once we get the grades cut and stabilized, those trails will be re-directed and re-graded. Certainly if there's anything that we see out in the field we can, you know, put a berm, re-direct. I'm not expecting a lot of stormwater runoff from those trails. There's not a lot of, other than what you saw, you 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) know, further into the parcel during the Irene, out where the stream goes, where the stream flows. There isn't a lot of runoff on the site. There's a lot of trails. There's a lot of places where, you know, four wheeler's have dug in and done things like that, but the general slope of the land takes more of the water that's coming from the parcel to the north, it takes it all from that flat area around and it kind of diverts it in two directions, one being towards that, closest to the parcel and one being around, there's actually two. That's way in the back. That was pretty much, you know, water tries to straighten out. I believe that one was during Irene that came through and brought the water in a different path than the original. MR. MAGOWAN-But like the lands coming down from. MR. CENTER-By where that high point is? MR. MAGOWAN-Sorger and Shovah. I mean, that, I'm going to call it a trench. It's almost like this is a valley, you know what I'm saying, and all these lines come down, and then if you go on Pinewood and Moorwood and that, it's all big hill. MR. CENTER-And slopes down in this direction. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, it's pretty, so this is, you know. MR. CENTER-And it does pretty much channel and come along this area down in here. I walked, there's an outlet from the drywells or catch basin system up in this subdivision here. There's an outlet that comes out here, and it runs pretty much right down these parcels and it doesn't come out of this parcel. You can see that Finch Pruyn had it very well marked, posted, so you can follow that edge of the property line very clearly which was great. When I did walk that edge of the property line, where that dumps out and dumps into here and comes right down here, that's beyond in this area where it ponds is actually off of the parcel. You can see where the, actually I think maybe in this corner. MR. MAGOWAN-Test Pit Number Seven, that ponds in there, too. MR. CENTER-That's a low point, but that's not the same pond. There's actually a trap there that water gets trapped, and not that area. When you look at it on the GIS there's two different parcels. This is fairly wooded. This one over here is very open. It's not the same. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that's the clearing that we walked through. MR. CENTER-Yes, that's actually off, that clearing is actually off the parcel. MR. MAGOWAN-It's off of Eleven, right on the corner. MR. CENTER-Yes, it would be somewhere near the lands of Daly I believe, but not on this parcel. MR. MAGOWAN-But I saw it from the wolfen, the lot. MR. CENTER-Yes, you can see, you know, where the wolfen parcel, that's somewhere in there is where that stormwater outlet is, and then it turns, it takes a right hook it comes straight down the property line. I took a few photos of it. It's actually not on our parcel. It's clearly marked. You can see the posted signs. You can see everything is back on the other lands adjacent. It comes straight down and it goes to that wolfen down in here. That's open and clear, which is off of that parcel. This area was one of the areas we were looking at, you know, we wanted to ensure that we didn't have any seasonal high groundwater that was our lowest point adjacent to the stream, which we found, again, you know, the same set of soils all the way down to 93 inches with no mottling or groundwater, and that was, you know, with Mr. Shaw from the Department of Health, and we left it open for a period of time, also, and we didn't have any groundwater collect or sign of mottling. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other items that we had talked about during the site visit was the types of trees that are there now and the concern that if you start to take some of those tall thin pines out the ability of the remaining trees to withstand any kind of extreme winds or. MR. CENTER-And that's why we've shown the limits of clearing so that we can get a lawn area and a septic system for the homeowner, and in talking with Mr. Leuci, there's an opportunity here, in certain areas, to save certain trees. I mean this is a large parcel, but very difficult to go out and mark every tree that you're going to save, but this is different than Peggy Ann because Peggy Ann was, you couldn't leave a clump of those trees in Peggy Ann because of that fact. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) This one, there might be an opportunity to save, you know, to save a maple or an elm that's out there, and that's the plan is to try to build the house, once somebody decides on a house, decides on a location, to try to save a tree and leave it there. That was one of the difficult things in Peggy Ann, some of the homeowners wanted a tree in their backyard, wanted to try to save them, but they were all the tall, skinny trees. Here there's a little bit more of a mixture. There's still a lot of those say scrub pines, but there are some trees than can be saved, and if there's a tree that can be saved and we can re-locate a house when we go to do it, that's the plan to try to do it. We spoke about that as we walked the site several times when we went out there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just can't believe that it will happen, the land will be treed the way you say it's going to be. If you go in there and strip all the trees out, as you probably will, you'll have to. It's all scrub pine. MR. CENTER-In the Phase One disturbance, yes. I'm talking about the individual lots. Where there's an opportunity to try to keep some of those trees where we don't have to do a lot of grading, where we can avoid, and not disturbing those trees that's what we'll try to do. We'll try to fit the septic system in, similar to what we've done on Burnt Ridge. We've tried to save some of those. We have that same sort of situation. We have undulating land. We have some mostly scrub pine but we have some good trees. We try to locate the septic systems, and that's what the builders have worked with the homeowners and the excavation contractors. I'm not saying that for Phase One. I'd say that for Phase Two, there's certain areas that we can do that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I just don't believe that a person comes in and pays $200,000, $225,000 for a lot and is going to have the extra incentive and the cash to, if that lot's stripped, to start putting in hardwoods and so forth, which is what should be in there. I don't, it doesn't make sense to me, or I guess I don't believe that that's the way it'll happen, and there's no incent to do that. If we were taking this lot by lot, okay, and let's say we put in, I don't know, 15, 12 homes, whatever it is, on bigger lots, the people that own those lots are going to pay a lot more money for it, and we can require that so much of it be treed in different ways, and then we'll do it, and they can afford it, but if you do it this way, I don't think it'll ever get done. MR. LAPPER-Paul, if you're talking about making sure that there's sufficient plantings, that could be done as a condition that hardwoods are re-planted on the site. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, I agree with that, and I think that that is one thing that could be done, but it's got to be a bigger lot costing more money or people won't do it. MR. LAPPER-Well, no, because if the developer agrees to it as a condition of approval, then the developer's responsible for it, and in terms of the lot size, I mean, some of these are pretty good sized lots. So we don't have any issues, if you required hardwoods to be re-planted, we can go through that and agree to that. MR. CENTER-And in fairness going through the conservation subdivision, we can't ignore the fact that 41 acres is going to be conserved. As a conservation subdivision, you are clustering your houses closer together, which is going to require additional cuttings to allow the 41 acres to be conserved. So we've got to remember that part of this design is coming closer together. So yes trees will be disturbed, but the end game is we're saving 41 acres and we're not touching, the most environmentally critical part of the lot is going into the Town's recreation and it's never going to be disturbed. It's going to be saved, and we're trying to condense, you know, that use on a smaller area. So, yes, there's a give and take in there, and some of those trees will be taken down. What I'm saying is, you know, we have the opportunity, around the edges, to try to save those trees, to try to not get in there and take them all down. Phase One, yes. Phase One where you're doing the massive amount of grading, those trees are going to be going. I suppose if we look at it maybe along the property lines in that Phase One disturbance we plant a couple of hardwoods along the property line that will re-seed and go in those areas and eventually, you know, re-seed themselves and whether we could go along with something like that as a condition, but as far as, you know, trying to make the lots bigger, again, these are larger lots than the other ones. We have some contouring that we're working around so everything, we're trying to keep the house close to the road. We're trying to keep the septic system as close to the house as possible. So we're keeping that disturbance in that smaller box. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you have a less expensive house? MR. CENTER-So you have a less expensive house, but you're also conserving the back parts of the lots, including the south end where we're saying the no cut buffer, plus, you know, you 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) have your disturbance. If we disturb more than the areas that we've shown, then we get a visit from Bruce and company that, you know, we've cleared more than we were allowed to, but I tried to show an area that's going to be, as much as for the homeowner and also not the entire lot. So we've left a lot of the rear portion, especially to the south where we do have neighbors. To the north it's open land and forest, but we tried to do that, but we're also trying to condense this into a smaller area, and when you do that you lose some trees, and you're able to do those affordable houses. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not qualified with the engineering part of it, but I think you've got an economic and an environmental problem. I don't like to see the land stripped, and it's going to be, from the top down. Right? MR. LAPPER-As an analogy, the subdivision right behind us on Hiland Estates, that was another case where. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a golf course. MR. LAPPER-No, but on this side of the golf course where it had to be stripped. In order to make the contours work that had to be blasted. That really had to get re-vegetated. So that was the same kind of thing where it all got disturbed. There was a lot of blasting, changed, sculpted it to get it in, so during construction, you know, everything was taken down and now it's all being re-vegetated. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where you are people could vegetate beyond where they needed to. MR. LAPPER-But Joe will do what he's got to do, you know, if we agree to a condition, he's going to plant what the condition is. So we can cover that with a condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's, you know, I fell for that line at Kitchen's and I regret it to this day that the guy came in and stripped the lot. MR. LAPPER-For the record, not the Kitchen's, that was the neighbor. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know, but he got away with it because Kitchen's came in and spent some money. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And so, and that's what I'm worried about here. If the people don't come in and spend some money, it isn't going to be done. MR. LAPPER-Well, but it's Joe who's going to spend the money because he's. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I don't want Joe to go broke. MR. LAPPER-But we can agree to put in some hardwoods to address that issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know, I just don't like to see it, I don't like to see it developed that way. MR. LAPPER-Tom's point is that, the conservation subdivision, the Town's getting something really valuable that'll add to Rush Pond and add to the whole neighborhood's enjoyment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but I don't want to give the Town something and hurt something else. MR. LAPPER-Remember, we could have done 29 lots here, and now we're taking 19. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we could have done none, too. MR. SHAFER-When you did your economic study, did you look at twice, half the number of lots and a twice as expensive house? MR. LAPPER-Because the market's not there for twice an expensive house. Joe said the market's not there for twice as expensive a house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if you look at the houses built around it and the neighborhood, he's right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. CENTER-The bigger houses? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, well, it's not an area where there's a lot of big expensive homes, and so if you build in there you've got to stay close to what's there. MR. CENTER-We're matching the neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-With $250,000 to $275,000, this makes sense. MR. LEUCI-Yes, it fits the neighborhood. MR. DEEB-I don't believe it's our position to tell a developer what he has to do with his property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not telling him what he has to do. I'm just making a comparison. MR. DEEB-We're here to just assess the situation. I think we have to keep that in mind. MR. LAPPER-Joe's trying to do it right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not questioning that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I've said it once and I've said it, doing a thorough walk through and really getting a feel of the neighborhood, it's really, it's a valley down to a very high environmental area that should be, you know, protected, and you've done a great job of designing it with all the Codes and everything else, and I call them the vines, you know, the trails, the ATV's, what do you want to call them, but, you know, you walk up them and there is growth on them. I've walked through, into the woods and you feel the softness and the decaying underneath, and you go and clear that and open it, and put it all back in there. Like I said, I just get concerned is that it's going to flow over, you know, With the conservation that's a great move, but for this particular project, it still doesn't sit right with me. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess we'd ask you to rely on your engineer, because we think that Tom has designed it right and you've got Sean to look over his shoulder and make sure that the stormwater is designed right. MR. HUNSINGER-And we do have a new letter from the engineer dated yesterday. I don't know if this would be a good time to get your thoughts and comments. MR. DOTY-Sure. I can summarize them. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume the applicant has received the letter? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. DOTY-And I can summarize them rather than go line by line, which I think would be helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. DOTY-There's a couple sort of administrative items. Those are the first couple of comments. I think they have a letter in hand from OPRHP, if I recall correctly, that says there's no cultural impact, and so that just needs to be added to the project SWPPP, and I also believe that they have a letter from DEC that says there's no threatened or endangered species on the site, too, which also has to be added to the SWPPP. As Mr. Center alluded to, we've asked for more detailed plans on erosion sediment control per phase, and instead of sort of generically designing sediment and erosion traps and some of the erosion control features provide a full analysis and design of those within the plan. So we're looking for that to be submitted so we can review it. We had a few comments in here that related to meeting with the Highway Superintendent to consider sort of an alternate stormwater design that may include open ditches and depressed areas along the road right of way rather than drywells in order to help in ensuring that water ends up into the stormwater management devices. It's our understanding from Mr. Center today that he has met with Mr. Vanness and he prefers this orientation which is fine. It's more of a Highway decision because he's, they're the Department that's going to maintain it. That being said, we are looking for a more finite analysis of the stormwater management system, particularly, Mr. Center had indicated that he's designed vein type grates. Those are high flow grates that help get the water in the structure faster. However, one of the limiting factors in stormwater design is often just that, how fast can the water get in the structure? It may be able to absorb it quickly with high infiltration rates, but it can't get into the soil if it doesn't get into the grate in the first place. Right? And so we've asked for analysis that 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) shows that both the wing edge that's proposed can convey the water in the larger storm events and further that the water will actually get in the structures through the grates. So that's part of the more detailed HydroCad and stormwater mottling analysis that they're going to run. We had a few more comments. The grading plan is somewhat generic at this point and as was alluded to, we're looking for a more detailed grading plan that demonstrates how water's not going to be directed towards homes and septic fields, and there's a little bit of conflict with the grading along the road that has to be massaged as well, and I think that's sort of the high level comments that we've had so far. So the moral of the story is more detailed analysis in the stormwater management design and more detailed design for temporary erosion sediment controls during construction. MR. LAPPER-Tom has no problem with any of those comments as he said. MR. FERONE-And this is engineered for a 100 year storm. Is that the standard? MR. DOTY-That's the State standard, yes. MR. FERONE-Okay. How many inches of rain per hour would a system the way it's designed now be able to handle? MR. DOTY-Well, we won't know that for sure until we do the more, until we review the more detailed analysis with the grates going into the drywells, because I believe that to be the limiting factor. There's ways that can be mitigated. They may have to add more drywells or grates, and so that remains to be seen, but certainly something that could be designed. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. DOTY-Yes. The detailed analysis and design on erosion and sediment control for this development is the biggest piece, I think, because that's when your highest exposure is, is during construction. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it might be worth a little discussion on one of your comments, Comment 14. The Town should consider requiring individual site plan review for some or all of the lots, and I guess it's really more a conversation for the Board and the applicant can respond to, to see how the Board felt about that, and it's specific to stormwater controls and septic system design in the Town. MR. FERONE-1 think that was mentioned earlier. I mean, considering the discussion and what's involved with stormwater management and these lots, it might be in our best interest if we did do that lot by lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have a problem with that. I think it's solvable, the problem. MR. CENTER-1 wouldn't disagree if we were looking at three or five acre sized lots where the entire location of the house and the stormwater may change and get further or closer to an environmental area. I think the Phase One disturbance drawing is going to handle most of those issues, if not all of them. The individual lots that we're doing some cutting and grading on are relatively minor grading issues. Most of the major grading, I would say all of the major grading, is going to occur in that Phase One disturbance for the road and those step lots. So if we weren't providing that type of level of detail I would say, yes, maybe those three lots, we should come back for any design after we build the road, but we're going to provide that level of detail for the Phase One disturbance because my concern is I want those lots graded, terraced and started to re-vegetate prior to starting the construction on them, so that the homeowner can actually see what they have for a lot, what they have for an area to build on. The house location shouldn't change much along those leveled terraced lots. So I really don't see, there's not much to gain by doing that, and on the applicant's side you're talking a two to three month process to submit and then wait a month and then get in. You very easily could lose somebody who's looking to build a house in a short period of time, and you're gaining more by having us do that in that Phase One, that is done, that is over. The typical lots and the grading that we're doing on the other lots is confined to very small areas. We can go into a little more detail on the typical lot stormwater detail design, maybe make that a little larger and address it on those lots, but those are, you're cutting in, you're lifting up, you're doing minor grading as you would on most of these lots where we're giving blanket covers, like Burnt Ridge, for instance. You're doing a lot of that cutting in, changing of grades, building above, building below, and we didn't get to that level of detail over there. I think the major concern is we need to protect, as Mr. Magowan was looking at, protect our stormwater devices from the stream. We need to protect that stream and protect those areas, and that's what that Phase One drawing and going into that erosion and sediment control during construction is going to give. That's going to set up 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) the stormwater for that Phase One for that major cutting operation that everybody is concerned about that's sees on the drawing. We're going to put the level of detail on there that I can go out and tell the contractor, hey, this is what's got to be done in this area. He will have that level of detail. The Town will have something that they can come out and enforce during construction. Bruce and I can address it during pre-construction. So that kind of will be done already in this process here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anymore comments from the Board? Any other questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening on this project. I know in the prior three hearings we did have extensive comment from the public and we do have that on record and we all have notes and to take into consideration many of the concerns that have been issued by the neighbors. I would ask for anyone wishing to comment this evening, to the extent possible if they could focus on either new items or maybe new options that are specific to the new drawing. That would be very helpful. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to convey their thoughts and comments to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to address the Board to state their name clearly for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We use the microphone to tape the meeting. The tape is then made available on the Town website and it's also used to transcribe the minutes. I would ask you to direct any of your comments and questions to the Board and not to the applicant or other members of the public. With that, who would like to be first? Yes, sir. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN GERARD KAISER MR. KAISER-Good evening. My name's Gerard Kaiser. I reside at 3 John Clendon Road. I'm a little late in the game. I apologize for some ignorance, but could I just ask a couple of questions before I make a comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KAISER-The first question has to do with the proposed entrance to what will be turned over, property that could be turned over to the Town and connected to the present bike path, walkway. I'm picturing in my mind something similar to Fox Hollow, or is it going to be an area where there's going to be a lot of parking like at the other end by the Gurney Lane area? MR. HUNSINGER-Right now there's nothing specific proposed. MR. KAISER-Okay. So will there be a chance for us to, down the road, say, wait a minute, we don't want 25 parking spots at the end of our street, to be able to access that? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be up to the Town Board. MR. KAISER-The Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Recreation Department. Yes, that's not part of our review this evening. MR. KAISER-Okay. My next question is a simple one. Is there anything that this Board knows of that's going to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals in regard to the setback variances or use variances, all that? You guys are like the last kind tango? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KAISER-Okay. One other question, and I don't know if this falls under your jurisdiction either. Crownwood Lane presently has all their utilities underground. With this project, from what I've read in the paper, all the utilities will be underground. Does this Board have any ability to recommend or require or request the utilities, while all this is going on at the far end of John Clendon, to have our utilities put underground? Obviously it would put us in, you know, an equal playing field with the folks on Crownwood and the new development. It would definitely enhance the value of everybody's houses. It would increase eye appeal for the developer as the people come down Crownwood going into the new development and it may mitigate some of the inconveniences which I would think we would have, particularly during the construction area. MR. HUNSINGER-That's outside our authority. MR. KAISER-That would be another Town Board issue? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-No, that's more utilities. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KAISER-Utilities. MR. MAGOWAN-The utilities, and that would be the cost of the homeowners. MR. KAISER-So nothing could be incorporated. MR. MAGOWAN-That would have gone in, in a development, like Joe is coming in and he's putting everything underground. That was all in the design phase. MR. KAISER-I understand I'm late in the game, but it does give us folks at the other end, you know, you feel like the red-headed stepchild living down the way. So I just figured I'd like to ask. MR. MAGOWAN-It's funny, I drove down there and I didn't see any utilities. MR. KAISER-They're in back. My statement, or comments are pretty quick. I bought my property in 1985, built my house in 1987. My kids, we moved in there so my son could start kindergarten. When we first moved in it was not uncommon to see hunters walk down the street, guys on bicycles, runners. In the wintertime on a snowy night you could see the snowmobiles going down the road. My kids loved it because they knew that they could go tobogganing because the snow would be crushed at the end of the road. A few years later, times being what they were, the paper company posted it, put a gate up and basically legally you can't go on that property. I talked to another neighbor who also was a logger and he, I asked him why they don't log it anymore. He basically didn't know, but did know that several years ago that Finch Pruyn just stopped logging it for whatever reason, and he thought it just wasn't a big enough Ioggable area to make it profitable. So the reality is that there's 66 acres of property sitting at the end of my street that somebody's paying taxes on, and the reality also is I would be foolhardy to believe that somebody is not going to do something with that property. I would love to be able to keep it forever wild and beautiful and stuff like that, but what scares me is not the devil that we know. It's the devil that we don't know that might come along if this project isn't approved. By that I mean it could be something very similar to what's at the end of Gurney Lane, or Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, which I think would have a much, much larger impact on all of us down there, and I did give this some thought, and I know it's not going to be popular with a lot of my neighbors, but I would request, as a resident of John Clendon Road, that you approve this project, with all the strict rules you could possibly put on it, but again, like I say, I find it, no disrespect to these gentlemen. It's the lesser of all the possible evils that could come down the road. Again, thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Who would like to be next? JOHN DAVIS MR. DAVIS-John Davis, 10 Crownwood Lane. Thank you for your time and effort to go out and visit the property. It means a lot. The surrounding neighborhood, as the developer says, are similar houses. He's a little off base, because I would recommend from Fox Farm Road to West Mountain Road, all the development and all houses in there is not more than a one or two percent grade. It's a nice flat perfect percolating. That's why Schermerhorn built on the sands at the end of Rush Pond Road, but this is a four to an eight to a ten percent grade running downhill to a sensitive area. This sensitive area produces fish for the osprey. So while there's no protected species around Rush Pond, there are protective species around Glen Lake which is the jewel of Queensbury. The resulting road on my street, Crownwood, would result in at least a 1,000 foot drag strip through a residential diverse area. I have a school, a firehouse, a plus 30 trailer park in this diverse, rich neighborhood. Traffic control coming from John Clendon and all the way down the 1,000 foot turnaround, which is essentially a cul de sac, would be a 2,000 foot speedway in two directions. The house pricing is okay. I think Lehland Estates should be your model. One way in, one way out. Big lots that people can develop their lawn and still have the swale go back to Rush Pond. They're going to face the same agreement when they sell that 77 and a half unit beyond Bonner Drive. The realtor's advertising it as access to Rush Pond. This is your chance to make Rush Pond protected, save Glen Lake and be of benefit to Queensbury and the people who live there. The 40 acres now moved to conservancy will not pay taxes. Somebody's paying taxes now. 19.6, 12 houses in there will not equal that tax revenue. If it does, I wish somebody would show me. As far as Mr. Vanness and the engineering department is concerned, I would like to know with a 20 foot road if you have veined water collectors on the downhill side, when that guy drops his wing to clear 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) the last five feet to clear for the stormwater, does that ding the expensive wing, or does that mean the veins have to be replaced because the plow goes 15 to 20 miles an hour with 15 tons rolling on its behind. Thank you for listening. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Does anyone else want to comment? Yes, sir. SCOTT SORGER MR. SORGER-My name is Scott Sorger. I live at 18 John Clendon Road. I'm more or less at Ground Zero for this project. Looking at the new plan with the larger lots, those larger lots really do nothing to help me out. I mean, that first lot right next to mine, even with a 25 foot buffer, the house would be 50 feet, now just let me, is he still looking for a 15 foot setback on these houses? That was in the original plan. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's the standard setback. MR> SORGER-Standard 25. Okay. So you have a 25 foot buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll let the applicant answer that question. MR. SORGER-Okay. Twenty-five foot buffer that the homeowner, once he moves in, could take that down if he wanted. So there I have a house 50 feet from mine. So anyway, on from that. All this talk about the drainage. I believe they had said they're going to amend the soil for the septic because the perc test failed miserably. So they're going to have to amend the soil so it doesn't perc so fast. Okay. Now they're going to amend the soil for the drainage on the streets, which are going to be nothing more than drywells. Because you're going to have salt from the roads going down there. You're going to have fertilizer from the lawns, all of this stuff, and it peres, if it peres that fast into the drainage, that's all going to wind up in Rush Pond, if you have nothing to filter it out. So you have a double-edged sword there. In your storm drainage you want it to drain fast so you don't have any flooding, but now you're going to be hurting the environment. So I don't see how that could be solved. Let's see here. Now also the issue of the length of the dead end. With the new plan, do you know how long this project would be, how long the road would be? MR. HUNSINGER-We'll ask. MR. SORGER-Okay. I know from the original plan it was almost 1800 feet when you add in the current data. With a 1,000 foot maximum set by Queensbury that is way, way, it's almost double, and when you have a 20 foot wide road there, you know, that's, my driveway's almost 20 feet wide, you know, so it gives you an idea how narrow that road is with all this extra traffic that would be going in there, and talking about with the clearing of the trees, you know, every tree that comes down in there is something that absorbs thousands and thousands of gallons of water. If you take that away, those trees away, and all that water keeps on going into the sand and it's going to go into Rush Pond. So like I said, you have all of that lawn fertilizer, salt from the roads in the winter. You're taking away the filter system that keeps it out of Rush Pond. Let's see, what else. The lawns. I know we've discussed some of the other issues before. So I just, you know, want to say, too, like if there's, they haven't changed the lots next to my house, so that's not going to help me, you know, and if they do have, going 15 foot setbacks, I mean, that's what they do in the city. They even let them go closer than that in the city. So I think that should be an issue, and I don't want to re-visit other issues we've spoken about. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SORGER-So I'm not happy with this. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else wish to comment? Yes, sir. Good evening. KEN MINGUS MR. MINGUS-My name is Ken Mingus and I am here to attend in the interest of the Glen Lake Protective Association. I have served as environmental chair for the past 10 years, and we have been very careful to make sure that we keep abreast of what's going on. The previous speaker came and spoke to our Association last Monday when we had a meeting, and after that presentation or information session we decided to make a motion and then take a vote to support any vigilance that needs to be taken with regard to the quality of the lake, you know, and John Davis stated it very well. It's a gem. We'd like to keep it that way. The Town has already taken many steps with us to assure that, and we just want to make sure that that's 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) brought to your attention. It is my understanding, and I've seen a copy of the letter. I don't have it with me, I saw it on the Internet. Paul Derby sent this Board a copy of a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll be read into the record. MR. MINGUS-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that, and that states information that you already know anyhow about the conditions around the lake. So I just would ask that all of this be taken into consideration. MR. MAGOWAN-Ken, along with your being in the Glen Lake Protective Association, the effect of Rush Pond, how does that affect Glen Lake? MR. MINGUS-Well, we keep an eye on it, and John Strough attends some of our meetings and he also has been very vigilant, as you know, about the quality and life at Rush Pond. It comes under the Northway and of course passes through the Great Escape complex and then into the Fen that is along Route 9 between The Great Escape and the Blue Moose Tavern up on Glen Lake Road. So we pay a lot of attention to that and anything that is disturbed around that as well. So it is, it's a concern. We know that there's a lot of filtration that takes place between here and there, but I know that Tom, also Tom Center has attended a number of the meetings that I have of the Lake George Water Quality group. They do workshops. They were very instrumental in getting the new project up in Lake George developed to a point where permeable roads and other kinds of things were mainly used, stormwater runoff and salt has all been discussed. So I know Tom and his group are very aware of that sort of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MINGUS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. GEORGE WINTERS MR. WINTERS-George Winters, 4 John Clendon Road. I've been on John Clendon Road for 54 years and I think the place has been developed, it's been good so far. I haven't had any problems with it, and the only thing I see is people come up from the city and they buy a two acre lot and they think they can control 60 acres, and it doesn't work that way. You're not in the city. You're up here in Queensbury, and if you don't want that land developed, I suggest you buy it. I'm in favor of the development. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-I'm Roman Jarosh. I live at 8 Crownwood Lane. I've lived on Crownwood Lane, I've been living there for the last 28 years. This is the fourth meeting I've attended. We've come to you before. We've presented you with a petition of 126 signatures of neighbors that are against this development. We've watched the proceedings. You know, besides making sure the applicant has all his I's dotted and T's crossed and meets with all the regulations, you also have a responsibility not just to the landowners and developers and the business people, you have a responsibility to the neighbors, to yourselves, to protect what these neighborhoods look like. It's about quality of life, it's about traffic, it's about noise degradation, it's about the environment, things that don't show up on these plans. You're not going to see them. You're going to see clear cutting, then you're going to worry about it afterwards, then you're going to plant trees that are this small that replace trees that are 50 feet tall. That doesn't make sense. Look, it's about kids leaving for the school bus at the end of the road, cars that are speeding up and down. It's about neighbors walking their dogs. It's about families riding their bikes, playing in their yards. It's about your vote. That's what it gets down to. It's about your civic responsibility to say no to this project and protect the woodlands from future development. There's going to be a great push and it's all barren land. You're going to have more and more projects coming in front of you to develop that land, once this gets approved. Well, you did it here, why can't we do it here. You're, you know, just think, your vote to preserve the quality of life to allow all of us to live in Queensbury. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma'am. CLAUDIA BRAYMER 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MS. BRAYMER-Thank you very much. I'm Claudia Braymer. I'm an attorney with Caffry and Flower and I'm representing Scott Sorger. As he mentioned before, his property is located adjacent to the proposed subdivision, and the bottom line here is that this is an intense development that is adjacent to a very sensitive and environmental area, and while we appreciate that the applicant has made some changes, it needs to be reduced more. The lots need to be consolidated more because as that is consolidated, as those lots are consolidated, there are less lots and less environmental impacts from this proposed subdivision. As you've heard tonight there are many legitimate concerns coming out of this relating to the stormwater, the septic that'll be on the individual lots, the traffic, noise and it goes on, and the one thing that I want to stress to you tonight is that you still have your obligation to do SEAR. I've not attended all the meetings so I went back through and checked to see if you have done your determination of significance, and that has not yet been done, and we are asking that you take a very close look at this, as you always do, but here determine that there is the potential of at least one significant environmental impact and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to review these in more detail and tonight or at a future meeting do a Positive Declaration for this project. Some of these things have already been addressed so I'm going to skip over that, but one of them, which was talked about between the applicant's engineer and the Town's engineer, is the need for a closer look at the stormwater design, especially for the road where a lot of the grading will be done and those particular lots where the extensive cutting and filling will be done. I do urge you to take a close look at that before you get any further in the approval process, because if it turns out that those cannot be designed in a way that is environmentally sensitive enough, sufficient enough, you can't allow that to go through, and you don't want to approve this and then have the engineer say later, whoops, we made a mistake, and I also want to mention something about the Glen Lake Association. Even with the stormwater management, the runoff will eventually find its way to Rush Pond and then cause impacts to that waterway as well as Glen Lake, and another thing that I noticed that I want to raise to you tonight is that they identified in their environmental assessment form that there is a principle aquifer on this site. So I haven't seen any other discussion about that and that should be something that we take into consideration. Also the applicant has requested the conservation subdivision. This is MDR so it's two acres, but under conservation subdivision it can go less than that, less than the two acres per lot, and I've heard the applicant assert that they could do 29 lots, but I haven't seen anything documenting that. I haven't seen any maps or calculations, and it is a quite detailed calculation that I had to do, subtracting out all of the unbuildable lots, and if we were to assume, let's say, that the 41.6 acres that they're donating to the Town is all unbuildable, I'm not sure that it is or it isn't, it probably is, because they've said that they could cross the stream and build more, but in any case, that would get them down to only 12 lots that would be allowed under the conservation subdivision and they would have to donate more open land to the Town. So I would like to see the Planning Board make sure that that calculation has really been done thoroughly and is available to the public to review. Also, as far as the Town accepting that land, the Town Board has not, to my knowledge, indicated whether or not they really will accept that land. We haven't seen a draft deed showing what the language will be and that it complies with all of the requirements of the Code 183-38D(4). That should be available to the Planning Board before you make any decision on this. A couple of other, three other items I want to address, traffic, the dead end issue of the street and landscaping the trees. This is going to cause a significant increase in traffic on both John Clendon Road and Crownwood Lane, and if you do the Positive Declaration you'll be able to have a traffic study look at this, assess the impacts and determine what traffic mitigation measures can be implemented. Maybe it's signage, maybe it's a stop light, maybe it's speed bumps. None of that has been addressed and those are significant concerns, especially if you've got children walking around waiting for the school bus and people walking up and down that road that has no sidewalk. Additionally, Mr. Sorger also mentioned this, the road is already longer, not already, but it would be almost twice as long as the allowed limit for a dead end road and the applicant is asking for a waiver for that and we are urging the Planning Board not to grant a waiver of double the requirement. Either don't allow them to do this or significant decrease the length of the dead end road. The Code was created for a reason, and it should not be waived merely because the cul de sac would make it easier for plowing. That would completely ignore the safety and traffic concerns of having only one means of ingress and egress for dead end streets, and finally the Zoning Code does require the Planning Board to ensure that all of the existing trees are protected to the maximum extent possible and here the proposed no cut buffer zone is a good first step, but we're asking that you make that double the size, especially on the western side where Mr. Sorger is, and no cut areas at least identifying some areas along the street where they will require street trees to be maintained. That's part of your Zoning Code, and I would like to bring your attention to the Glen at Hiland Meadows example where you allowed the developer to say they would clear cut everything and then put the landscaping in and sidewalks in after it, and they left the scene and never did that stuff. So requiring existing trees to stay would make sure that you don't have to go back and put in those little tiny trees in place of 50 foot tall trees, and I guess the other thing that I would ask tonight is that the applicant be required to install the parking lot and any recreation trails, but I think that 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) might be an issue for the Town Board. So I'll leave it at that and just ask you to take a closer look at reducing the number of lots and giving this a Positive Declaration. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did anyone else wish to address the Board? You had written comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I do have a written comment. This is from The Glen Lake Protective Association. It's addressed to the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury. "This letter expresses concerns from the Glen Lake community about environmental damages into Rush Pond, and thus into the Glen Lake watershed, resulting from the proposed development by Joseph Leuci of John Clendon Road, Subdivision PZ 163-2016 Preliminary Stage, PZ 206-2016 Final Stage. This letter is directed from an August 9, 2016 motion from the membership of the Glen Lake Protective Association, and the membership requests that this letter be read into the record at the August 16 public hearing. The Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan was adopted as a guidance document by the Town of Queensbury. The section Recommendations for New Development from that document reads: "in planning for proposed development in the watershed [it is incumbent] to determine the contribution to the pollutant loading from proposed developments within the watershed and what pollution reduction techniques are appropriate to reduce that loading" (page 34, 1998). The document recommends several measures to neutralize nutrient loading. These include (1) minimizing lawn sizes and reducing fertilizer use, (2) maximizing the use of natural vegetation and retaining existing tree cover to retain pervious areas, (3) engineering of a comprehensive stormwater management program to eliminate nutrient loading and maintain sediment control, (4) providing for long-term inspections and maintenance of stormwater and sediment control systems, (5) requiring pervious surfaces for driveways and parking areas, and (6) of particular concern to the Glen Lake community are the many proposed septic systems that would be added to the already stressed Glen Lake watershed. When any new or renovation construction takes place at Glen Lake, this Planning Board has required homeowners to install the highest standard of engineered septic systems to ensure the elimination of sewage leaching and nutrient loading into our watershed. The Glen Lake community endorses these stringent measures, even though costs generally exceed $25,000 per single household septic system. The Glen Lake Protective Association is requesting that this Board require the same high standards for septic systems in this proposed development that borders our watershed. If such standards for septic system or any of the other recommendations are not required, the Association asks for written reasoning as to why. Glen Lake is a precious community resource, but it will only remain so if the ecological health of the lake is maintained. The Glen Lake Protective Association appreciates this Board's efforts in maintaining the health of Glen Lake, and we ask that you carefully and conscientiously review this application with the recommendations set out in the Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan in mind. Respectfully, Paul Derby, President, Glen Lake Protective Association" MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-I only have the information from SHPO, the DEC and information from our Superintendent for Water and Wastewater, which you all have in your packets as well. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-With that we will conclude the public hearing for this evening. Did you have any comments based on some of the concerns raised? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Some of those comments were contradictory in terms of you want the infiltration to happen away from any impacts, you know, which is a good thing. To talk about the soils being a problem is a good thing in terms of the stormwater infiltration and obviously they'll be modified as needed, but the one comment that I want to comment on is that the calculation that got to the 29 lots is included right, we submitted this, right on the site plan. We took off all of the development, typical development slopes and everything and that's how we got to the 29 lots. Of course we're not asking for that. That's the big number that would be done under the conservation subdivision, and in terms of the length of the cul de sac, obviously it's very much in favor of this project. Do you want to talk about the setbacks? MR. CENTER-Yes. Regarding the setbacks, we do request 15 foot setbacks for Lots Two through Nineteen. Lots One and Twenty, which are the ones right at the end of John Clendon, the existing end of John Clendon, maintain the 25 foot setback. So we did not ask for any relief on those lots next to the neighbors on John Clendon. There was more on the internal which allows us to try to limit the amount of disturbance, and, you know, we did take a look. We received a letter today from the Glen Lake Association and took a look at the flow line to look at the direction of where water goes. Starting at this point where the stream comes across, it's almost 8,000 feet, goes out and around until you get to the mouth of Rush Pond, going along the flow of water path, following those channels all the way to Rush Pond. So we're more than 8,000 feet from Rush Pond on the flow line, if you would go through, it goes through the channel 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) if you were to look. Rush Pond is quite a ways away, and this isn't a year round stream. If you look at the drawing starting from this corner here, water flows down along the back, the back side of the cul de sac around into this small wet area and then flows into this small wetland before it goes underneath the wetland and back down where it ventures into Rush Pond here. So that distance is almost 8,000 feet. So we're quite a distance away from Rush Pond along the flow. Plus all of our stormwater management devices, our septic systems, those areas are all greater than the 100 foot, which is the requirement to be, for separation. So these septic systems are greater than 100 feet from the stream. The stormwater devices here are greater than the 100 feet from the stream. So all of our infiltration, everything is outside the required. If you were building right next to Rush Pond or anywhere else, you need to maintain that 100 foot. We are maintaining that 100 foot there. We're asking for no relief for stormwater management or septic systems, and we've tried to keep our development on the two lots that are closest to the stream closer to the property line up in this area, which normally that's how a house is going to be built. The land slopes down. We kept the driveway on the high sides. These would probably be walkout basements. Kept the septic systems up on the high side and left the buffer in between the stream and those areas. So this is almost, I believe, 200 feet, and this is another 200 plus feet actually from this point over to here to where it would be developed. So we've left about 200 feet on the two developed lots away from the stream, and it's a seasonal stream. It doesn't run year round. MR. SHAFER-Tom, on the west side of the map where you've got the 25 foot no cut area, at the beginning of those houses, it looks like that could even be wider. MR. CENTER-Well, I think that when you go to a larger no cut, on the long skinny lot it's going to be very difficult to get a house in there. On Lot One, Lot One's a very large, long deep lot. So that's, we put the no cut right up to the limit of the buildable area, to try to maintain, you know, some of that, so that's just limited by the size there. I was trying to, again, looking at the lots, make the larger, after the last meeting, try to keep the lots, when we're doing the grading, to the least amount of density for houses on those larger lots on there. So I didn't get into trying to move those lots, make larger. Lot 20, I suppose, yes, you could increase it another five foot. You're getting into the buildable area for that person, but I think it's very difficult on that other lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other responses to any of the comments? What's the feeling of the Board? Do we have any outstanding questions that we feel need to be addressed? I'm not hearing any comments. MR. DEEB-No, as long as the engineer is comfortable working with the stormwater that we can make sure that we can get to where we have to be on this. I see that there was a little bit of difference in there and I wanted to make sure that, the mitigation is there as long as it's done properly. MR. DOTY-Yes. I would say that we're certainly able to review additional analysis that's submitted, and I suspect the applicant will, the applicant can speak to this, continue to revise their design until it meets the State standard to demonstrate the same. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Any of the comments that we discussed last Friday sitting down with Mr. Nace in the letter, everything in the letter we feel that we can find common ground with the Town Engineer and actually get a better product for the erosion and sediment control, especially during that Phase One. It's going to give everybody much more control, from the Town aspect, from my aspect as the design engineer who has to go out and ensure that it's being built to the plans and the contractor who's going to build it, he's going to have it in much more detail that we normally do and rightfully so. There's been a lot of comments. There's a lot of concerns. We want to protect this area. In talking with Mr. Leuci, he understands that when we went into this that we were going to have to go to another level of detail and I think we're there. I think we've found common ground on that and provide the level of detail that everyone will feel comfortable with and we'll meet the State design standard and all the setbacks and everything else. MR. FERONE-Well, that's where I have a concern, where we keep saying that we're going to meet the State standards, which is great, but considering some of the conversation that's been not only tonight but previous meetings, should we not meet or beat the State standards. MR. CENTER-Well, I think we will. A lot of the stuff I've already, you know, with the exfiltration rate I've used, you know, a factor of safety of 72 compared with the existing so anything that you see that's close I've got a factor of 72 built on top of that. The erosion and sediment control details, those are details. Those are going to be provided there for the protection of the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) Town. There's a concern and they want to see them on there. Those will be on there. We'll be able to meet and exceed those, now that we know exactly, you know, where the lots are, the number of lots, the number of houses, where we're going. We understand his exact concerns. Having that face to face meeting was very good. I know exactly what he's looking for and we can provide those details and answer the comments and concerns that are here. I think they do exceed most normal design, especially with the vein grates. I went out and looked at several of our projects. West Mountain, Mr. Cerrone's project on West Mountain, which is, I believe it's like an eight percent slope, 300 feet, that there are no vein grates there, and in a rain storm they're standard grates. He has a series of double catch basins, side by side, on both sides of the cul de sac and it looks like it's controlling runoff fine there, and there's a large cut there. If you remember that subdivision as you go in there there's a very deep cut and then you go in along West Mountain right on Corinth Road. Nothing's running off into Corinth Road. So we're actually going to exceed that by providing the vein grates. There was a concern about the eight percent slope so we went to an additional level of detail. Do I think that we need it? I thought we controlled it the way that we had it, but we're going to provide the vein grates and the calculations for those. Plus we're going to look at those vein grates, as he said in his letter, to 25% included. So only 75% getting into there, and then anything that would go over goes to the next one and then that's why we had the series of drywells. That's why I overdesigned the number of drywells that we put in there. We put four at the top slope and four at the bottom. On Cerrone's there's not four at the top and four at the bottom, you know, there's just four at the bottom and there's the one intermediate. We went a step beyond to try to capture what's coming down John Clendon before there and try to get those in. Those vein grates will allow that to come in, and we did talk to the Highway Superintendent and he was comfortable with that. So I think we're there. I just need to provide him the level of detail that he feels comfortable with, but we see his comments loud and clear. We'll be able to come to a conclusion there and answer those. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that hasn't been asked about, the stormwater, we talked a lot about infiltration rates and perc tests and things like that. What about in winter months when the ground is frozen and you have runoff? I just want to know if that has been taken into consideration. MR. CENTER-Well, I don't think, the stormwater design is not necessarily for everything being impervious. That would mean almost any project couldn't be built for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-But certainly by keeping the houses closer to the road we're limiting that area that's running off into that road by keeping in that compact area and actually by doubling up, by having that additional exfiltration available in those, by having a cross connection that isn't in the design between the drywells, on those four drywells there's equalization pipes that go across the road and in between the ones that are next to each other, and that's not in the calculation. That's not included in our hydrocad calculation. So we've built in a lot of fat into that design, that tries to protect from that type of thing. Can I say that it's going to protect from all frozen conditions? No, I can't say that, but I think we've put enough in there to feel comfortable that we're protecting that. Plus you see on the profile of the road we've tipped that cul de sac back up and back into itself. I think there's six drywells at the bottom of the cul de sacs that those catch basins are running into. So anything coming down the slope is going to be caught in that valley and directed to that catch basin system and drywells. If we have to, if there's a concern there, we could always run an infiltration trench from the drywells down here at the bottom of the throat into the ones that are at the basin to try to protect from that. We could add that. It would be fairly easy to add. We've done that a couple of other places where we have some issues. If that's a concern or if the engineer feels that that additional level of detail is needed we could do that, but I think that we've already over designed to a certain degree, just with the exfiltration rate alone and the design of the drywells. MR. DEEB-The more you do it the better we are. I mean, be over protective if our engineer feels that way. MR. CENTER-We could connect the two at the very bottom of the throat to the ones that are in the center of the cul de sac as a protection from that. MR. DOTY-Are you talking about perforated pipe? MR. CENTER-Yes, perforated pipe. I mean, it's well deep, well drained sands. We don't have any issues. We're still, you know, more than 100 feet away from the stream. MR. DEEB-And that adds an extra layer. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. DOTY-It does. Our concern that Mr. Center brought up in conversation with the Highway Department or the Highway Superintendent was that in some cases perforated pipe that runs directly under the lanes can lead to, if it's not constructed or designed correctly, what they call differential settlement of the road. You can feel a little bump. It's not always the case. It's not that it's going to happen. So it's just something that I wanted to raise so that Superintendent Vanness was aware of it, whether or not he wanted it, and so if Mr. Vanness is okay with that, that's certainly another layer of protection that could be added into the design. MR. CENTER-1 would propose that we run, from that last set of drywells at the bottom of the throat around the outside of the cul de sac, they'll be deeper than the utilities that'll be run there, but it'll be outside the road. It'll be pipe and stone, you know, two by two pipe and stone, just to allow additional capacity for those cases. So that we're keeping any of that additional runoff during winter conditions down into that cul de sac area and it's just another level of protection beyond what we already have. MR. DOTY-Yes. I think that probably would be better than in the lanes themselves. MR. CENTER-And that's what I did ask for the project. MR. SHAFER-Will that help on hydrocarbons, salt and pesticides? MR. CENTER-Well, I think you have distance. You have, I believe when they did Indian Ridge, they had more than 60 feet until they got to groundwater. I think we have the same issue in this area. I couldn't say for sure whether it's 60 feet, but I know it's greater than 20 feet. They only require two feet of separation, or three feet in certain instances. We have more than that. So we're already exceeding the standard. We're using an infiltration device. We're not near the minimum at all. We have well over the minimum and we have, the deeper you go the better the sands are and the more porous they become, allowing those things to perc through the soil, but also, you know, that distance from any potential soil. MR. MAGOWAN-Chris, the dead end, I know we've had other projects, you know, that came up that have been longer, but is it 1,000 feet that we allow or 1200? MR. HUNSINGER-Code says that no dead end road shall exceed 1,000 feet, but it's within the purview of the Planning Board to allow projects that have longer dead end streets. One of the questions I had was the length of the dead end, because it was raised by the public. You gave us numbers at the last meeting. I don't know if they've changed from the design. MR. CENTER-The length of the road stayed the same. MR. MAGOWAN-So that's 1800 feet. MR. DEEB-And you discussed that with the Highway Superintendent for the Town? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And it was brought up a principle aquifer. MR. CENTER-That's basic EAF mapper automatically pulls those things up. I believe that has to do with something with the proximity of the Glens Falls watershed being in those areas. It's not immediately adjacent, but I believe that's what, this is not a, it's a DEC classified stream that's stayed on there since before Butler Pond was installed, but it is, the elevation is controlled. There's no DEC wetlands on this project, but I believe it has something to do with the Glens Falls watershed being in the area as a, hey, just take a look at it, I'm here. It's like when we did Peggy Ann you had to refer to the City of Glens Falls. I don't think we're anywhere near the impact, and we have, we've gone down 15 feet in relation to seasonal high groundwater, and one of the comments was that we ensure that when we do our drywells that we confirm. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel we have enough information to move forward with the SEQR review? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, is he going to do a better cut sheet, you know, on the grading and that? Because, you know, from what I have and what I've seen, you know, I'm not comfortable with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. FERONE-1 agree with Brad. I mean, I'd like to see the detail that they say they're going to do. I'd like to see. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'd asked earlier if there was any additional detail or questions that we had, or additional information and I didn't hear any. So I thought we were ready to move forward with SEAR. So we'd be looking for a tabling motion. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, in reference to the development of the project as it is, this applicant has revised the plans to now show those 20 lots. Is there any, the Board didn't discuss the number of lots. Do you want to include that in your discussion, or if you're satisfied then you're asking for additional information to address the proposal as it is now. MR. HUNSINGER-That's a good question. MR. LAPPER-The issue is that if Tom's going to go spend 100 hours to do all the detail design, we need to know that the lot configuration is right. So it's 19 building lots plus the extra lot for the Town. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd still like to see less lots. MR. DEEB-Well, I'm comfortable with the number of lots. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. FERONE-If there's room to reduce, I'd like to see less lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-1 walked down through there today and there were two things that struck me. One was the eight percent grade on the drawing looks worse than it actually is. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my feeling. MR. SHAFER-So that's positive. The other thing that struck me is it's a beautiful piece of property with all of those pines and trees and trails. I also like the idea of less lots. That's why I asked the question before whether or not the economics could support 10 lots with higher cost houses. This is isolated enough where I think the market on John Clendon, the other streets have nothing to do with it. This is pretty remote and separate and isolated. I just think it begs for a higher quality house. MR. LAPPER-The 40 acres is pristine and will stay there forever. Joe is convinced that he can't build more expensive houses than $275,000 price point here. That's what he feels the market dictates. Even if he did 10 lots he'd still have to clear the trees, change the grade to put the road in. MR. CENTER-When you start to shorten up the road, now you're shortening up the development area and you're compacting, you're coming closer to the slope on the north side. So that's why we tried to keep the same length of the road and tried to develop less density on the lots. That's what I was hearing from the Board. There were too many houses on too steep a slope. One of the things I tried to change with this revision was to spread out the number of houses on that steep slope, soften the grade, re-work it. Like Mr. Shafer said, the eight percent is intimidating, looking on a smaller scale. When you actually walk it, it's not that bad, and then, you know, try to make those lots so that they can be constructed the way that we want them to, to match what the concerns of the Board are, and that's why I think we've come to with the Town Engineer and myself, looking over that set of plans, that set of details, that number of lots. All we're providing is additional detail. We're not changing the grade. We're showing more detail for the erosion and sediment control. We're showing the slopes that are going to be graded. You'll see more hatching. You take the houses off, you show that Phase One disturbance. That's what you're going to see on those final drawings. That's what we're trying to get to from that point. I have to move the stormwater design criteria for the grates to make sure the inlets aren't being overflowed and going down and don't compact down at the bottom. We're really providing engineering minutia that is just, between the two engineers it gets pretty technical in what we need to do, and knowing the number of lots and that we can dial in. It's a lot of work to do that level of detail and that level of design, and if we don't have the number of lots to go with, that's another 100 hours. That's another 100 hours of design. I feel that we've protected that stream, we've done a lot of work here. We've changed this plan a couple of 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) times, reduced the number of lots and taken those thoughts into consideration. I think what you're going to see Mr. Ferone is, yes, we're going to meet those. MR. LAPPER-1 think the bottom line is that the lots that we're expanding in size, we've reduced the houses from the area, the sensitive area because of the slope, and so Tom's point is that if we had made the lots smaller, or the road smaller, that it would have been the same intense development on the site, and that's what's changed. So where they were moved is the most important area, and that was to be responsive to the Board. So I think that if you could accept the 19 building lots, we can go home and, you know, do 100 hours of work and come back with all the engineering. MR. CENTER-And if there's a concern with regard to the trees, maybe on those three lots we can show the level of trees, hardwoods along the property, come back with something in that area, along those property lines. Not necessarily to be retained, to be replaced in that Phase One area, to try to get trees re-established in that area. I would show it on the Phase One disturbance because that's really when you're going to plant them, let them mature, let them grow so that people are actually going to see that when they see the terraced lots. MR. HUNSINGER-That seems reasonable to me. I mean, just for the record I think the number of lots he's proposed, I don't see a need to further reduce them. MR. DEEB-You've worked within the parameters of what you've been asked to work with, and reduced it from 29 down to 19. MR. HUNSINGER-So you literally have about half the Board that would like to see less lots and literally half the Board that doesn't really see the need to reduce it any further. So we'll leave it to your discretion. If you're confident in the design. MR. LAPPER-We have to get 19 to make this work. MR. CENTER-It's a substantial amount, and we're doing additional stormwater management here. This isn't the typical work that we're putting in, and then we're going beyond that by bringing in those infiltration trenches. MS. WHITE-To me the majority of the lots are larger than any of the lots in the surrounding neighborhoods. MR. HUNSINGER-So just in terms of when we will table this until, we have a very unique opportunity. As of, well, as of today which is already past the deadline, we only have one project for September. So we can hear this again in September, provided you can turn it around. You'd have our full attention because it's the only project we have on our agenda. AUDIENCE MEMBER-What would be the meeting date in September? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we're not sure which, we have one project that we tabled until September and we're not sure if it was the 20th or the 27th. MRS. MOORE-We actually, we did table it to the 20th, which is the first Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, it's up to the engineers if you guys can get together and complete that work within that time. I can't answer that question for you. Otherwise we'd table it until October. MR. CENTER-Sean, when would you need it by in order to? MR. DOTY-Typically we like two weeks, but we could do a week. So a week in advance of a, if we can furnish the letter the day of the meeting, a week before that, or back up, if you want the letter two days before the meeting, a week before that, basically, is when we'd need to receive it. MR. CENTER-If I could have it. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not trying to put pressure on you. MR. CENTER-No, no. I understand. MR. LAPPER-It's Friday the 9th 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. CENTER-If we can get you the drawings by Friday the 9th. MR. LAPPER-That's more than a week. MR. DOTY-Yes, that's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-So I guess my question, if we're split halfway, all right, people are happy, the Board members, and the other side isn't, and he does all this extra work and puts all this extra time in and spends all this more money, and it comes down to either or, I mean, it's a gamble for them, and, you know, like I said, I don't think that's fair. MR. LAPPER-Well, we think we're going to get Sean comfortable, I mean, which we have to to get back here, that this is properly designed for stormwater, which is the main issue, and we'll show the re-vegetation of those lots. MR. DEEB-Are you talking about the number of lots, Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. DEEB-If you want to take a chance on a vote. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we could take a vote now, take a formal vote now, if you would like us to. MRS. MOORE-Or a straw poll vote, but I mean the opportunity still exists that you could end up reducing the number of lots. I just want to be able, if there's some comfort level to give direction to the applicant for this tabling, that he move forward with this development as is, or if you're all adamantly saying reduce lots, at this point, but I think one of your critical questions is this grading issue and how that's going to work. No matter what the number of lots is, and so I think that question. MR. MAGOWAN-It would be easier with less lots. MR. LAPPER-The grading has to happen. MRS. MOORE-No matter what. MR. MAGOWAN-They'd be able to stretch it out a little bit more and it wouldn't be such a, you know. MR. CENTER-Stretch it out, I mean, that's what I've done by reducing the number of houses along that steep slope. No matter what you do, you still have to build those terraced areas into that steep slope to get those houses. MR. MAGOWAN-You'd be able to leave some more natural vegetation. MR. LAPPER-We wouldn't. MR. CENTER-No, because it's not like it's at the very end or the very beginning. It's in the center of the lot, in the center of the lot. The road follows, when you walk the road, the road needs to go where that path is. If you look at it it makes most sense. It flows with the lots. It puts it right about in the middle. So no matter whether you reduce the number of lots, unless you're talking about leaving that area completely, you know, with no house on it and then allowing smaller lots somewhere else and go back down to doing .8 lots somewhere else, which again is a whole other different set of, you know, do we like it, do we not like it. It becomes a battle back and forth if we went to something like that. That's kind of where, you know, our concerns is, is 19 lots, if you're comfortable with that, and just reducing it, it still leaves that in the middle. It still leaves that grading needing to be done because the center of the road where that road goes with the land. If you look at the profile, you know, we're not cutting in too deep. We're not filling up too high, but that's just a matter of grade that we're working with alongside there, and by spreading out the number of houses that we did, we had to soften the grade back up to that existing, and make those terraced lots in that section, and I think the erosion and sediment control detail is going to be good for everybody involved for the construction part of that area. We don't gain anything by trying to reduce the length of the road, because now you're compacting things into the middle. That's why I tried not to do that. This is a bowling alley lot so to speak, in a way. It's a large lot, but it goes more long this way and shorter this way. So you're not allowed a lot of latitude to move that road one way or the other to avoid it. If I slid the road to the south, the neighbors to the south would be upset because we'd be disturbing more towards their property line. If I move it more to the north, you guys would have 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) an issue because now I'm cutting more into the slope. So I tried to balance those two things out when we put the road in where we put it in. So it's just getting difficult. That's why we're trying to say 19 lots works economically. I believe it works environmentally. We keep all our separation distances. We can provide the level of detail for erosion and sediment control, which is the concern. The concern here is we don't want anything during construction eroding, going into the stream, and then we want to have a post-construction stormwater system that the Town could main that also doesn't fail and protects the stream. MR. LAPPER-And it's bigger than the neighbors. MR. CENTER-And it's bigger than the neighbors' lots and it does better than most of the systems. MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm also worried about after it's all done and everybody's gone, and someone's living there. MR. CENTER-Correct, and the Town's maintaining it, and that's why we went the further step to take those two drywells at the throat and tie them in to the roads at the cul de sac. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, well that did sound, you know, like you said, when you said put wings out to it to disperse it more. I'm just worried about, because like I said, I saw what happened this winter, which, you know, and we have major weather changes coming across the world, and like I said, I don't want to say I wish we did it. We shouldn't have done that. We should have done this. MR. CENTER-And that's why I added the additional drywells at the top and bottom of the slope. Originally I had two, one at the top and the bottom. Tom and I looked at it and exactly what happened this winter and we said, hey, there were some intersections that we could have done better, that we could have put, maybe we need four in certain places, and we made a note of it this winter and when this project came up we said, hey, we think this is the one, good soils, we can do deep drywells. We can connect them. We can put them at the top and try to catch stuff that's coming down John Clendon, and then catch it before it gets to the slope. My whole deal was to catch that water before it got down the slope. So now we're only collecting the stuff that's coming off the sides to the road, and then along that road, and then, what the Town Engineer said, hey, we want you to take a closer look at the grates themselves. No problem, that's what we're going to do and that's what we're going to provide in this next set, but to start doing that and then come back and say I still don't like the number of lots, that's a lot of work that's just flushed down the toilet that we've got to go back to the drawing board because each time we do that, that hydrocad is very difficult. You're changing those areas. You're changing what's going there. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like I said, I look at the natural, if you want to call them ATV trails or whatever, but they're still wedged and water's been running down them for a long time. They've been there a long time, probably before ATV's. ATV's haven't helped it. The snowmobiling probably hasn't helped it or whatever, parties, cars. MR. CENTER-They're just compacted areas, but, I mean. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're all natural. MR. CENTER-But it's not coming off the slopes. It's not like it's coming out of the woods on those trails. It may be, the water may gather on those trails and melts. MR. LAPPER-We're going to change it. MR. CENTER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I did talk to Tom Nace and he told me that we can agree to disagree. MR. HUNSINGER-So we're going to table this for two issues. If there's more let me know. One is to address the engineering comment letter and the second is to provide additional landscaping, street trees as were mentioned. Were there any other items that we're tabling it for? MR. DEEB-To address the number of lots. I think Laura said we need to clarify that. MRS. MOORE-No, what I'm saying is that at the, if you ultimately in September's meeting or a future meeting decide that you agree that you need to reduce them, then that's fine, but to get 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) this, if this project's being tabled, I don't see that you're adamantly against 19 lots. I see there's issues that Chris just identified that the grading and the landscaping are your critical issues, versus. MR. DEEB-I think to the developer the number of lots is critical also. MR. LAPPER-We're going to design it at 19 and try and get back here with Sean satisfied and convince you that this is the right way to go, 19 houses. MR. HUNSINGER-So we're going to table this to the September 20th meeting so they can address the engineering comment letter and the landscaping plan. If anyone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PZ 163-2016 PRELIM & PZ 206-2016 FINAL JOSEPH LEUCI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 66 acre parcel as a conservation subdivision revised with 20 lots — 19 single family residential lots ranging from 1.9 +/- acres to 0.80 acres with one lot of 41.6 acres to be used as open space parcel access through easements with Rush Pond. Project includes grading, clearing, on-site septic, municipal water and stormwater measures. Pursuant to Chapter 183 Article X Conservation Subdivision of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PZ 163-2016 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption Tabled to the September 20th Planning Board meeting, so the applicant can address the engineering comment letter and the landscaping plan. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the public, the public hearing has been left open. We will take additional comments at the September 20th meeting. You can also submit comments to the Town Planning office. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, would you like the Town Engineer to stay for some of the other applications that were referred to Town Engineering? MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, we only wanted him for this. You're free to go. MR. DOTY-Okay. No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for coming. MR. DOTY-No problem. Glad to be here. Good luck. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN PZ 203-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II CHRIS BOYD AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 25 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,325 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 506 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK AND A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 2,989 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040(5) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08045 DOCK REPAIR 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA, CEA, LGPC LOT SIZE .31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040(5) DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SHAFER-I will recuse myself from this application. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes construction of a 1,325 square foot, and this is the footprint, single family home with a 506 square foot open deck and a 576 square foot attached garage. The total floor area ends up being 2,989 square feet. This is before the Zoning Board for a variance for setback relief and before the Planning Board for a project within 50 feet of 15% slopes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership, here with Chris Boyd, the owner and applicant of this property at 25 Hanneford Road. We're here for a recommendation to the ZBA requiring setbacks for a newly proposed single family residence. Chris purchased this property earlier this year, in January, and originally had the intent of modifications to the existing structure, it was an older structure but he had first thought modifications would suffice, but once he got into realizing what was there it turned out to be better to tear down and re-build. So this proposal locates a new structure on the site. That existing structure was pre-existing, nonconforming setback, side yard setbacks as well. This is the same with both setbacks on both the north boundary and the south boundary. So that's, there is a new newly constructed wastewater system for this property that was already constructed. The first thing that Chris undertook once he became owner of the property. So that's all in good standing. There's an existing well which is on the property and it had some influence on where this house could be located because, again, it is an existing well. It does provide adequate but not great quantity. Didn't want to take the risk of having to record the expense of re-drilling a new well. So that had some influence on the positioning of this structure, the design of this structure. We have had conversations with the neighborhood, and I know that there are letters in support of the project that have been turned in to the Town, including both immediate neighbors. So I think we're in good shape there. It's just a question that this is a lot that's approximately 79 feet wide and just the nature of it, we can't meet the two 20 foot setbacks. So that's what we're seeking relief from that standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-1 think I like what you're doing there. I think it's going to look very nice when you're done. I love when I get engineering comments and it says your plan is considered an improvement in regards to stormwater management. So that's a great plus. Also on the engineering comments, though, can you talk a little bit about Number Four where it talks about the permeable pavers and they're possibly being compacted. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Well, typically when a construction site, or a project site's under construction there'll be heavy equipment that comes in and out. I think Sean's just making a point that that should be addressed prior to placement of the permeable pavers because the whole purpose of that is to receive runoff, rain water actually that falls from the sky and has a place to go. If it's so compacted then it defeats the purpose. So he's just reminding us to scarify that. That's a point that we could, you know, typically might add to the plans, the final plan that gets submitted to Craig for his final signature, but, yes, that's standard and we don't have any issue with that. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. DEEB-How would you, you'd have to loosen up the soil again? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it's just a matter of scarifying with a bucket. MR. DEEB-Because he's worried about the heavy construction vehicles packing it down. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, so you'd do that prior to, after the heavy work is done and before you place the, permeable pavers require a section of the soil, granular soil, stone whatever before the pavers are placed on top. MR. DEEB-Thank you. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-So are you commenting on the pavers because Tom's not here? That's always Tom's item. MR. FERONE-1 didn't realize that. MR. DEEB-In honor of Tom, we appreciate you using permeable pavers. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But they won't last. MR. DEEB-But they won't last. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any concerns relative to the relief that's being requested from the Zoning Board? MR. FERONE-No, I think it's consistent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION: RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV PZ 205-2016 CHRIS BOYD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,325 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home with a 506 sq. ft. open deck and a 576 sq. ft. attached garage. Total floor area is 2,989 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040(5) of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested from minimum setback requirements for WR zoning district. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 205-2016 CHRIS BOYD: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. HUNSINGER-It's a nice design. I like the plans. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Hope to see you next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN PZ 202-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 68 SQ. FT. MUDROOM AND A 106 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,011 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME INCLUDING INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. IN ADDITION TWO DORMERS, TOTAL 63 SQ. FT., ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SECOND STORY OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE/LOFT. THE TWO DORMERS INCLUDE BATHROOM EXPANSION AND SITTING ROOM; EXISTING FAR 336 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 399 SQ. FT. (LOFT AREA ONLY). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDITIONS IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING SHALL BE 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 26-12 & AV 24-12 96 SQ. FT. ADDITION; SP 11-07, SITE WORK AND VEGETATION REMOVAL; AV 60-92, AV 27-97, SP 37-92, BP 97154 PORCH, BP 95295 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 92709 DEMO & REBUILD RESIDENCE; BP92545 ADDITIONAL ALTERATIONS TO DWELLING WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE .62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179- 3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. These are two different additions to two different buildings on the site. The first one is a 68 square foot mudroom and a 106 square foot open porch addition to an existing 2,011 square foot home, that's the footprint only. In addition there's two dormers that are proposed to the existing garage loft building, and the total is 63 square feet. What I did ask was the dormer area, I asked for the FAR calculation and the existing was 336 and the proposed will be 399 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Kevin and Annie Dineen. Kevin and Annie use this as their seasonal summer residence when he's not coaching. They stay here pretty much from the end of hockey season through until the kids go back to school in the Fall. The current house, the current residence, as you come down the hill, we did a master bedroom addition for them a number of years ago. The next part to this equation is when you enter the house you enter right into the kitchen and they want a little separation, be able to come in and let the kids take their swim suits and stuff and, you know, not enter directly into the kitchen. So they want a little mud room. So we're going to expand the existing deck, put a roof over it so you can come down and be out of the elements before you walk into the mudroom and into the rest of the house. That's the first part of the project. The second part of the project is that you have a little loft area above the existing garage. Kevin used to use that as workout space when he was playing professional hockey. Now he's not needing that anymore so they do have a bed up there. There's a small, it's an existing small three-quarter bath. It has very low headroom. So the dormers are going in just to allow them to utilize that space a little better. When he started playing hockey it wasn't a big deal, but, you know, it's a little tight. So they want to be able to do that, open it up and have a sitting room area up there as well. So that's really the expansion of it. It's a very small expansion of the footprint, but the existing footprint is already in violation. So any expansion is going to require that Area Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-It looks rather, yes pretty generic. MR. DEEB-Straightforward. MR. FERONE-I did see Mr. Dineen the day I did my site visit. So he gave me a five second of what he's trying to do there and that, but, I mean, between the dormers on that one building and the other, it looks fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns specific to the zoning request, the minimum setback? It's a nonconforming use really. Okay. Hearing no comments, would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION: RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV PZ 208-2016 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 68 sq. ft. mudroom and 106 sq. ft. open porch addition to an existing 2,011 sq. ft. (footprint) home including interior alterations. In addition two dormers, total 63 sq. ft., are proposed to be constructed on the second story of an existing detached garage/loft. The two dormers include bathroom expansion and sitting room; existing FAR 336 sq. ft. and proposed 399 sq. ft. (loft area only). Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, additions in a CEA and hard surfacing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested from minimum setback requirements for WR zoning district. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 208-2016 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Continuing with recommendation to the Zoning Board. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 207-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL DORMAN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION BONNER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.54 ACRE PARCEL FOR 4 LOTS TO 0.50, 0.49, 0.60 & 0.59 ACRES. PROJECT FOR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. LOTS 2 & 3 TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAMMERHEAD AND WATERLINE INSTALLATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 SUBDIVISION SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF SOUGHT FOR CREATING LOTS LESS THAN 2 ACRES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 2.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.11-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL DORMAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.54 acre parcel into four lots. The applicant has provided square footages. I converted that to acres. I have .50, .49, .60, and .59. Three of the lots, two of them are proposed to be sold to their relatives. One is to be sold to a friend, and the project site is in an MDR zone which requires two acres per lot when you are not connected to sewer and water. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center from Nace Engineering with Mr. Dorman. As Laura said, this is a request for a recommendation for a variance from the two acre minimum lots. We're proposing a four lot subdivision. Four lots range in size from .5 acres to .6 acres. As Laura said, two lots are proposed to be sold to the Dorman's sons, one to a family friend, and the fourth for sale. Lots in the neighborhood are all around half acre lots. The area is relatively flat. It has well drained soils. There are no boundary conditions in regards to the soils or wetlands or streams in the area of the project. This is not a realty subdivision. We've shown the hammerhead design. We've talked with the Highway Superintendent regarding this, as opposed to a cul de sac. His concerns were that, you know, that we address location of the hydrant, location of the driveways. We've kind of placed those with regard to where he wanted the hammerhead and the driveways in relation to how they would plow snow when they have to maintain this. This would become a Town road, Town right of way, and Town stormwater facilities for the extension of the road. So once we met those issues he did not have a problem with taking this dead end road and turning it into a hammerhead dead end section. Currently 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) now they plow snow onto the Dorman parcel. So every year they come and get permission to plow snow down Bonner Drive, push it all the way in, turn around and then plow back out. So this will somewhat alleviate that issue. His concern was let the neighbors know and since the people that want to buy these lots are the Dorman's family that, you know, they'll be plowing this area at the end of the hammerhead that they'll be getting piled up snow there that they'll have to deal with that. That's one of the reasons why we didn't locate the hydrant to the other side. It allows them to plow straight forward into the end of the hammerhead. If we do get our recommendation this evening in regards to the engineer's comments, I haven't seen anything there that we can't address, after we get to the Zoning Board. The biggest question with this is will the Zoning Board allow these smaller lots in this subdivision. This is a gentleman who owns the two lots with the neighborhood across the street. The closing for the parcels will be next Friday. MR. DORMAN-There's also a letter in the packet from my co-owner stating that he's okay with the application. MR. CENTER-There should be a letter from Mr. Calvert in the file, and we'd just entertain any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-So you said you don't have any problems with the engineers comments? MR. CENTER-The engineers comments, no, we can address all those with additional details, additional survey and additional submissions. We can handle the stormwater management. I view it as a minor project to show that we can handle it, you know, the hard surface all can get into the ground and the two drywells were enough to handle. Anything that we provide is going to be above and beyond that. MR. FERONE-I know it's pretty flat where your property is, but that road does kind of come down in the middle. I noticed that there were some stormwater grates. MR. DORMAN-It actually crowns, I don't know if this is the east, but before you get to my property and Mr. Calvert's across the street, the road actually crowns a little bit, and then it starts to dip. So when you put the road in there's no water going back down Bonner Drive, nor is there any water coming from Bonner Drive into it. It's all kind of pooled there. If you've been down there you'll see where the mud comes and it's in the center from where they plowed, or I let them come in and move the snow around, and everything settles right there. it doesn't go anywhere else. MR. CENTER-And the grading for the hammerhead and the road itself will actually raise it up so that we're capturing everything here. This will be raised up and everything will come back to the drywell. So it will actually sit a little bit higher than that existing grade. The house will sit above that. MR. FERONE-Is the property behind yours part of this property? MR. DORMAN-No. It's actually a piece that runs between us and Lehland, that little strip, and then I believe it's owned by the Friebergers and then it goes on the Rush Pond side of it. MR. FERONE-So that wouldn't be developed at any point? MR. DORMAN-That can't be. I believe the Town of Queensbury has mandated that only one house can be put back there, and they would have to access it by putting a driveway between Bonner Drive and Lehland all the way out, and by us putting the hammerhead in, we've ensured that they can't tie into Bonner Drive to get in there. MR. CENTER-It finishes the Bonner Drive subdivision. MR. DORMAN-It was called Franklyn Manor One and Franklyn Manor Two. If you go back to '67, Franklyn Manor Two has an unfinished first two lots that we're proposing and then one larger one that would have been what we wanted to buy and two more. So they had planned on putting that in there, and all we did was change the cul de sac to a hammerhead and ask to buy the last one. I think that's 1967. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, your cover pretty much says it all. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. CENTER-Yes, it's the end lot, subdividing those, and putting a hammerhead at the end and basically having the Town right of way end right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that what you're proposing is consistent with the neighborhood. MR. CENTER-Consistent with the neighborhood. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is what the variance request is all about. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Were there any concerns specific, I mean, it sounds like a significant variance request to go from two acres lots, from a one 2 acre lot to four lots. MR. CENTER-Yes, from a two acre lot to four lots, yes, it would be considered significant, but if you look at the design of the existing subdivision, it matches the neighborhood. The Code changed, and I think that's where we probably lost the perspective during the PORC design and everything to not just blanket everything in the two acres, and I think we tried to bring it up a few times, that maybe to look at certain areas that less than two acres would be more appropriate, especially these little areas, that you have some leverage, at least to the Planning Board level, that you didn't have to go through all the zoning and the variance and everything, and we probably should have looked at it a little differently, especially with neighborhoods. Two acre lots has a lot of land. MR. HUNSINGER-That is a lot of land. MR. CENTER-And I know what they were trying to do, that's what the zoning process is, the ZBA's about. So this may be one of them that we feel could fit it and finish off the subdivision, take another dead end road and finish it off with a hammerhead turnaround, and not at the Town's expense either. I mean, the applicant will be constructing the Town road and the stormwater infrastructure, and the tradeoff for that is to get the four lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Ready? RESOLUTION: RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV PZ 209-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.54 acre parcel for 4 lots to 0.50, 0.49, 0.60 & 0.59 acres. Project for four single family homes. Lots 2 & 3 to be constructed with hammerhead and waterline installation. Pursuant to Chapter 183 subdivision section of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief sought for creating lots less than 2 acres. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 207-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Motion seconded by George Ferone. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. DORMAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PZ 197-2016 & FINAL PZ 198-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MEGHAN CESARL, CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NC LOCATION 2660 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.148 ACRE PARCEL INTO 1.004 ACRES AND 3.144 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR NEW LOT LINE WHERE EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL NOT MEET SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-95, BP 2009-319 SIGN COPY CHANGE, BP 983-293 SIGN, BP095682 320 SQ. FT. ADDITION WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 4.148 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-8 SECTION CHAPTER 183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.148 acre parcel into 1.004 and 3.144. The smaller lot, 1.004, will contain the real estate office, and the 3.144 will have the cabins and the store on it, and the variance is where the new lot line is, the setback does not meet the required setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing the applicant and Cleverdale Ventures. Real simple, straightforward. I think everybody knows where this property is. Cleverdale Store has been a landmark up here for a long time, and Dan Davies, here at the table with me, his real estate office. They've occupied that since, I believe, 1980, and now the opportunity has come along to subdivide off and actually own the building they've been occupying for 36 years, and so there's no physical change to the site whatsoever with this application. Simple two lot subdivision, but as Laura has stated, no matter where you put a property line, to break off the usage that has been in existence for 36 years, it really has been two separate and distinct businesses for 36 years, once you put the line on the map you need a variance. It's straightforward. MR. MAGOWAN-So you really want to become a landowner up there? After all these years selling you want to finally buy. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns specific to the relief requested? MR. FERONE-It's pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Staff concerns? MRS. MOORE-1 did not have any. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a motion? RESOLUTION: RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV PZ 199-2016 CLEVERDALE VENTURES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes two lot subdivision of a 4.148 acre parcel into 1.004 acres and 3.144 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for new lot line where existing buildings will not meet setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) 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. PZ 199-2016 CLEVERDALE VENTURES, LLC; MEGHAN CESARI: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. We have two items under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 192-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S) THOMAS UNCHER & JANE DALEY ZONING WR LOCATION 14 HICKOK PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES 376 SQ. FT. ADDITIONS WITH FLOOR AREA PROPOSED OF 580 SQ. FT. TO BE ON SOUTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE HOME — TOTAL FLOOR REA TO BE 2,556 SQ. FT. LOWER LEVEL RENOVATION 264" X 384" WITH A BEDROOM. UPPER LEVEL RENOVATION 264" X 384" WITH A DINING ROOM AREA AND NEW KITCHEN AREA. SITE WORK TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF HARD SURFACING AND INSTALLATION OF A 4 BEDROOM SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2007-546 BOATHOUSE REPAIRS, BP 389-2016 SEPTIC WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA, CEA, LGPC LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-17 SECTION 179-13-010 CURT DYBAS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing a 376 square foot addition with floor area proposed for 580 square feet to be on the south and east side of the home. The total new floor area is 2,556. I've given you the dimensions of the lower and the upper is approximately 26 feet 4 inches by 38 feet 4 inches. The lower level includes an addition of a bedroom and the upper level consists of adding a new entryway and sort of re-arranging the upper level with a new kitchen area and dining room area. The stuff obviously already exists in the home. So it's not a significant renovation but things are being rearranged in the house for both the upper and the lower level. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Curt Dybas representing Thomas Uncher and Jane Daley. They have owned this property for a few years now and wish to make it a little bit larger and it's basically a camp renovation that's grown over the years. That was before they purchased it. They're fixing it up, but they're idea is to stay here from spring until fall and go back to Saratoga, but part of it is bare kitchen, no dining space, and of course they both have families and wish to put a 19, 8 by 13 foot addition to the south and a six by twenty addition to the east. The east addition would be the entry and the kitchen expansion. The other is a dining room on the upper floor. This home was part of the prior owner. I guess there was a mother-in-law apartment in the lower level and there's a kitchen. The kitchen will be removed entirely. Right now to get downstairs you have to go outside. So part of the renovation will be a stair connecting the two floors. A 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) new wastewater system has been permitted. That would be installed in the first part of this project. We're not asking for any variances. The addition meets all the setbacks, but they have an existing nonconforming structure. Permeability is made a little bit better. We're at 71.4%, and our FAR is around 13%, and it's a severely narrow deep lot. So there's a lot of open space. Those who have visited, up on the east end there's basically treed, there are some standard trees up on the east side of the property, but that's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's a very simple, straightforward modest addition. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Outside of the fact that I almost lost my car going in there to look at the property. That's quite a road going in there. MR. DYBAS-Unless you specifically know the area, the first time I went out, you kind of drive forever. You don't expect where you're going. MR. FERONE-Right. MR. DYBAS-Well we've been at this actual final design since last fall, and the wastewater, of course because of the timing with winter we had to wait until the spring. So that was basically the hold up for coming back before you. Because we wanted to get that permitted before we approached the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. MAGOWAN-It's a long trip home for the winter. MR. DYBAS-Saratoga? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. DYBAS-She works in Albany. So she's there every day. MR. MAGOWAN-She commutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any concerns with the waivers requested? Which are pretty extensive. No? Okay. How about landscaping buffer around the lake? Did you have any comments about landscaping and the buffer requirements? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just trying to get a better look here. MR. DYBAS-Basically the front of the entire structure is lawn right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DYBAS-I never thought of asking them about some type of a buffer along the shore. Anything is possible, but I'll leave it to the Board for a recommendation. I'm' sure we could accommodate something. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Code is pretty specific about the type of buffer along shorelines, including large trees, brush and groundcover. MR. DYBAS-We have a couple of areas for large trees, no question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DYBAS-Possibly some groundcover. It's quite restricted. You've got the boathouse and the dock and there's approximately probably 25 feet of exposure right there along that wall. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm bringing it up for discussion. MR. MAGOWAN-You're putting in concrete and slate. Is the red, or is that? MR. DYBAS-The red's coming out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's going to be removed. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. DYBAS-We have removed it to increase the permeability. Took out the gravel parking in the back that they don't use. Took up the slate and some concrete down underneath the front which was meaningless. It served no purpose. It was left over from the previous owner. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're really just coming out the side of the building with the addition. MR. DYBAS-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And you've got your 15 foot setback from your neighbor. So you've actually increased the permeability in the front? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm all right with it. MR. DEEB-Do you think we need some, Chris? Are you worried about the vegetation? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it is a, you know, it's a requirement. I mean, we'd be remiss if we didn't bring it up for discussion. MR. DEEB-You have to go with the Code. Mr. Dybas said he'd be amenable to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I don't think it adds a lot of cost. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DYBAS-I don't think it's a matter of cost. I think it's going to create a barrier across that front for them. That aerial shows. MR. MAGOWAN-The way I look at it, they're taking non-permeable stuff out. So they're actually increasing the permeability in the front. So by adding more vegetation, you know, the addition's only coming out the side, and it's further, it's far enough back on the setback of the front. So, you know, I see no need of adding more vegetation. It's quite an established lawn, too. So it doesn't allow too much rain to run down. It looks pretty flat. MR. DYBAS-It is. The slope is right at the east end of that south addition, and that's why the rear addition is on a slab, because there's a rock ledge right there. it goes right through the back of the house, and that's where the major slope occurs, and we know it's there. MR. MAGOWAN-You actually can envision that rock ledge underneath the blue there. You can just see it rolling right down. MR. DYBAS-And it just keeps going. The wastewater is way up in back. I know it's 200 feet from the lake. MR. SHAFER-Does the concrete wall along the lake stick up above the elevation of the grass, of the lawn, or does it sheet flow across the lawn into the lake? MR. DYBAS-I don't recall. I don't recall. MR. SHAFER-I know there's a recent project in the Town of Bolton where DEC wanted to see a rain garden right behind the wall, not for the whole length, but for a portion of it, the width of the wall. MR. DYBAS-You don't have natural shoreline or grade into the lake if you do have a stone wall like this, it's definitely going to act as a barrier for any runoff that shouldn't come through that lawn. MR. SHAFER-As long as it sticks up above the lawn. MR. DYBAS-Even if it doesn't, it pretty much acts as a barrier. I don't know that this sticks up above. I don't recall. MR. MAGOWAN-From the picture there, it looks up and down, but there's got to be sort of a lip. MR. DYBAS-I took the picture, but I don't recall. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here that wishes to address the Board on this project? Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 196-2016 CURTIS DYBAS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes 376 sq. ft. additions with floor area proposed of 580 sq. ft. to be on south and east side of the home —total floor area to be 2,556 sq. ft. Lower level renovation 264" x 384" with a bedroom. Upper level renovation 264" x 384" with a dining room area and new kitchen area. Site work to include removal of hard surfacing and installation of a 4 bedroom septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8/16/2016, and continued the public hearing to 8/16/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 8/16/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 192-2016 CURTIS DYBAS (UNCHER/DALEY); Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. FERONE-Good luck. SITE PLAN PZ 201-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DALE BALDWIN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NC & MDR LOCATION 1447 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FOOD SERVICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 6,050 SQ. FT. ONE BUILDING TO BE ICE CREAM AND RESTAURANT AND THE OTHER A PRODUCE/FARM STAND. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, SEPTIC INSTALLATION, STORMWATER MEASURES AND ACCESS ON STATE RT. 149 & STATE RT. 9L. RESTAURANT TO HAVE CAR HOP SERVICE WITH SOME OUTDOOR SEATING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOOD SERVICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-2005 & UV 15-2005 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER; SP 17- 94 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 24.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.1-50 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE & MATT STEVES, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT; DALE BALDWIN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct two food service buildings totaling 6,050 square feet. One building to be used for the restaurant is 2,800 and the building for a vegetable stand is to be 2,500, and there were no waivers requested at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, for the record, and with me is Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves, and Mr. Baldwin's with us as well. They can speak to the grander operation better than I can because they've been planning this, I believe back in the winter. We didn't start work on the project really until about June, but they've done a quite extensive plan, and I can say as a resident of North Queensbury, I'm excited about the project. There's a beautiful corner lot. It's been, as I recall, Mr. Baldwin's owned it for about 20 years and it used to be a, it was probably a borrow pit once upon a time, and it's been filled with material from the southerly part of the property, which you can see in the aerial photo, and graded to a level field area, in anticipation of having a nice project one day, and here we are. We've got two buildings totaling about 6,000 square feet in footprint. The easterly building is the car hop style restaurant, and the west is a real nice looking farm and produce style building, and we're proposing a nice, or a curb cut onto 149, with a right out only because I'm sure DOT would never approve a left out. So let's go with a right out only so that we're not trying to cross two lanes there, and then an egress and an ingress onto Route 9L. We feel like we've situated these curb cuts appropriately. I drove by again today from the west coming towards the project, and there's quite significant sight distance, looking at the project, before the driving range, and I could still see the fence line of the project site. I feel comfortable that we have quantified the sight distance, which we'll do as part of our DOT application. I have submitted a preliminary application to DOT in Warrensburg, and spoke with the resident engineer today. He didn't offer any reassurances obviously, but he didn't see any objections at this point, and the application will have to go to Albany to the regional office. I guess that's the executive office in Albany, and I felt a little uncomfortable with the number of parking. We're sharing parking between the uses, for when you quantify the farm building, parking seemed quite high. So we kept the parking down a little bit there and added more near the restaurant, and they're close enough together that the shared parking should function quite well in my opinion, and other approvals. We'll have to work with the Health Department, obviously, for a food service. There would be a public water supply or like a chlorination system, extensive water testing, and we meet all our required setbacks for that. Signage we'll have to meet the APA Q3 standards, which is somewhat restrictive, but that's what the Town specifies in our Sign Code, and how we envision that is one monument sign on the 149 curb cut and then the standard, you're allowed one wall sign at each of the stores, up to 30 square feet, which we feel will be adequate for the businesses, and if you may see in the back of the room Mr. Baldwin spent significant time planning this project and built scale models, his architectural with the buildings, which is really beautiful in my opinion, and is going to be a real nice project here and I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, could you bring those up front? MR. STEVES-Again, for the record, Matt Steves, if you look at the entrances, specifically the one on 149, the way we have located that, with great detail for stacking room, again right turn 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) only out, and this is a business that will be operational from the spring to the late fall months and not in the winter. It is not a winter operation. Summertime, obviously, and harvest time for the farm stand and the restaurant. So this will not be open during the winter. MR. MAGOWAN-When did you have time to do all that? MR. BALDWIN-In the winter. It only took two days. MR. FERONE-One of the questions I was going to have, you know, and the renderings and the drawings are very good. This is even better, 3-D. MR. BALDWIN-And they're right to scale, 24 scale. MR. FERONE-Colors. What will the colors be in the two buildings? MR. BALDWIN-Brownish color. I had a color picture. Do you have that, Laura? It was laminated. It was pretty good sized. It was about this long. MRS. MOORE-I brought it with me. MR. BALDWIN-Nothing bright. MR. FERONE-Wood kind of siding? MR. BALDWIN-Yes. It's all wood. Everything is wood. MR. STEVES-If you remember like the old service stations that had restaurants, you know, and they had like a portico sharing outside. They had some tin. That type of. It's a restaurant with some of the like antique style gas pumps and a couple of antique cars out there. Like Lucas was stating as far as signage, the location is ideal for traffic. You have visibility. You don't have to worry about having any sign variances. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MR. SHAFER-Did you mention municipal water? MR. BALDWIN-No. It's on site. MR. STEVES-He's got to meet the standards for the DOH for using a proposed MR. DEEB-Was it a fueling station before? MR. BALDWIN-There was nothing there. There was a house there a long, long time ago, and a little barn. MR. MAGOWAN-You've been mowing that property a long time. MR. BALDWIN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You've been thinking about this for a long time. MR. BALDWIN-I've had the property for 20 years. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's what I thought, when you bought the property that's what I thought you were doing. MR. SHAFER-You may need some internal signs so that the people don't get caught up there on that internal. MR. STEVES-Yes, we plan on directional signage on the inside stating right turn only. MR. HUNSINGER-So the proposed fruit and vegetable stand building, you won't have any heat in it or anything? MR. BALDWIN-No, it's just going to be seasonal. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. BALDWIN-There's just going to be, where the porch is on the site, it's in both, there's a kitchen there to make pies and cider donuts. MR. STEVES-But just spring, summer, and early fall use. Nothing when you get into the extreme cold temperatures. It's not heated. It's an open type of farm stand. Just a little bit more upper scale than you typically see. MR. SHAFER-No alcohol? MR. BALDWIN-No. MR. SHAFER-Are you aware there's a Canadian franchise called Shake Rattle & Roll? MR. BALDWIN-No. MR. SHAFER-1 thought maybe that's where you got that. MR. BALDWIN-No, just the song, Shake, Rattle & Roll, and old cars shake, rattle and roll. MR. MAGOWAN-Well you better Google it and make sure you don't copyright anything. MR. STEVES-Like Lucas has stated, they've been in conversations with DOT and if they come up with any suggestions obviously we'll follow them. In looking at it from the survey perspective the sight distances, I've worked with a lot of these over the years, there isn't an issue here whatsoever, the sight distance requirements with the DOT, but, you know, again, once they define or refine the location, if they haven't moved that ever so slightly, which I don't think they will, we will provide the sight distance to the DOT requirements, but I can assure you that it will meet the DOT requirements. MR. FERONE-Do you think the two curb cuts long 149 and one on Route 9L are adequate for the activity you believe will be there? MR. STEVES-Yes. I think if you try to get too many, and you also have the activity across the street to the north side, with the Stewarts and stuff, you don't want to get it too congested. I think it's more than adequate. Most of the traffic, obviously, is on 149. There's going to be a lot of local people that use it as well that are coming up Ridge Road. It won't take too long to figure out the scheme. Sometimes we have two and three entrances on places. The problem, internally, once you get the cars into the entrances, is that you do with the two entrances, and I think it's going to work much better with traffic flow. MR. SHAFER-Chazen had a number of stormwater comments. Are you comfortable that those all can be met? MR. Yes, Mr. Shafer. There were a couple of errors on my part in building the model, and then our standard. There's a SHPO inquiry, endangered species, but I'm confident with SHPO that the lot's been clearly disturbed that usually satisfies them and then a little further soil testing an DOT, of course. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Did anyone want to address the Board? If you could state your name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TRISTAN L. VERRA MR. VERRA-Good evening. My name is Tristan L. Verra. I reside at 950 State Route 149. My property borders the east side of Mr. Baldwin's. I just had a few questions, concerns. Unfortunately for me, one of the things for me, unfortunately I work shift work. I work 12 hour rotating shifts. So a lot of my days are spent sleeping. So noise, construction might possibly be an issue, and then ultimately once the construction is complete, you know, the traffic coming in and out, etc. Obviously it is a busy road. So I deal with traffic sound all the time. I'm glad I came and was able to see, you know, and hear what they had to say about the vegetable stand only being seasonal. The lighting also was a thought of mine. There's a pretty decent canopy that goes between the border of our properties, you know, this time of the year, but in the fall when the leaves drop and everything, I'm going to have a clear shot of the vegetable stand and the restaurant. So, you know, I'm hoping I'm not getting blinded by flood lights or anything like that. That was a concern. Other than that, that's about all I've got. That's about it. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has submitted a lighting plan. All of the lighting is downcast and there is no spillage off of the property. MR. VERRA-Excel lent. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But you could review either with the Town or with the applicant of those specific details. MR. MAGOWAN-You said to the east or to the west? MR. VERRA-My property borders his, I'm trying to think east/west. The west side of his property borders the east side of mine. MR. SHAFER-You're between the driving range and this property? MR. VERRA-Absolutely, yes. I purchased the property about four years ago. I bought it from the estate of my grandparents, Edith and John Bowman. They built the home in the early 50's. It's been in the family for a long time, and my plan is to, you know, finish my days out there, and, you know, pass it on to the family down the road and 1, like a lot of people, enjoy my privacy, and, you know, live a quiet life and just keep to myself and, you know, that was a concern with, you know, there's going to be a lot more people coming in and out there now and I'm going to be able to see what's going on, but it's Mr. Baldwin's property and it is what it is. So I've expressed my concerns, and that's about all I've got. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. VERRA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEAR. Are there any environmental concerns that the Board has identified that could be potentially significant? MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a motion? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEG. SEQR DECLARATION SP PZ 201-2016 DALE BALDWIN The applicant proposes to construct two food service buildings totaling 6,050 sq. ft. One building to be ice cream and restaurant and the other a produce/farm stand. Project includes site work, septic installation, stormwater measures and access on State Rt. 149 & State Rt. 9L. Restaurant to have car hop service with some outdoor seating. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SP PZ 201-2016 DALE BALDWIN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, prior to you making a motion, I did receive comments from the Warren County Planning Department. They did stipulate with a stipulation that they consult with the Warren County DPW for the Ridge Road curb cut, and I did send them a whole set of plans today, and that was directed to Kevin Hajoes at the County DPW. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you for bringing that up. Any other questions or comments from the Board? I thought it was a very thorough application. You had a good landscaping plan, good traffic flow, nice design. MR. STEVES-In regard to the neighbor's concern, we appreciate his comments. With that row of trees, we're not cutting anything there, and then the landscaping plan, we're adding some good sized trees along that entrance, and again, downcast lighting, but that is not the use side of the building or west side of the building. We're trying to keep it away from them. We were conscious of that fact when we. MR. BALDWIN-And plus I'd be closed when the leaves are off the trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So both are seasonal? MR. BALDWIN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions or comments. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 201-2016 DALE BALDWIN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes to construct two food service buildings totaling 6,050 sq. ft. One building to be ice cream and restaurant and the other a produce/farm stand. Project includes site work, septic installation, stormwater measures and access on State Rt. 149 & State Rt. 9L. Restaurant to have car hop service with some outdoor seating. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 8/16/2016, and continued the public hearing to 8/16/2016 when it was closed, 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 8/16/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 201-2016 DALE BALDWIN; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1. Waivers requested granted/denied; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) 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; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) 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. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I do have a comment. There are no waivers requested for this application. So we're going to remove that from the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I was looking. I didn't see any, either. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-I don't have anything else, just that you realize that September's meeting is light. MR. HUNSINGER-Two items. One meeting in September and there's only two items. MR. DEEB-And what date? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-September 20tH MRS. MOORE-September 20tH MR. HUNSINGER-So there's no meeting on the 27tH MR. DEEB-That worked out for Leuci. MRS. MOORE-It did. It's a very unusual month. I can't think of when that happened last for the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-This is by far the lightest month since I've been on the Board. I mean, there's been months where we've only had one meeting, but we always had at least four or five applications. MR. FERONE-Are we adjourned? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we do. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 45