Loading...
2006-07-25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2006 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands Permit Jeffrey Kilburn 1. FWW 5-2005 Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 1. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 24-2006 Boldan, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-36 Subdivision No. 2-200 6 Ridgewood Homes 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.-3-1-73 Site Plan No. 28-2006 Melissa Brennan 12. Crock-A-Gator Pre-School & Childcare Tax Map No. 288.8-1-9 Subdivision No. 14-2004 Jane Potter 16. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27 Site Plan No. 29-2006 Andrea Peek 20. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-11 Subdivision No. 6-2006 Cifone Construction 38. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 Subdivision No. 9-2003 Anthony Bruno 47. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Site Plan No. 17-2006 Jason & Kathryn Brown 53. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-4 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN TANYA BRUNO THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of things we need to take care of first. FRESHWATER WETLANDS FWW 5-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. APPLICANTS HAVE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO 2/21/06 TABLING. CROSS REF. SP 64-05, SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION CHAPTER 94 SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. FWW/ SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION 179-6-60 MR. SEGULJIC-The first item is with regards to Jeffrey Kilburn, Freshwater application and site plan application. We have not received anything yet, is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So we need to table it, correct? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And when will we table that to? thth MRS. BARDEN-You can table as early as September. I think it’s the 19 and the 26 in th September, providing the information is in by the deadline of August 15. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-I can tell you on that one, Jon Lapper for the record, the way that was left, Staff was going to interface with DEC because the Chairman wanted to make sure that DEC was in the loop, and as far as I know, we haven’t received anything back from DEC yet. That’s why we didn’t make the submission. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we table it. MR. LAPPER-September should be fine. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) th MR. SEGULJIC-September 26, which would mean information would have to be in by th August 15. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Has the Staff been able to speak to DEC? Have they gotten back to you at all? MRS. BARDEN-No, and actually the applicant is interfacing with DEC. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2005 & SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 JEFFREY KILBURN TO SEPTEMBER 26, 2006, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan SITE PLAN NO. 24-2006 SEQR TYPE: II BOLDAN, LLC OWNER(S): JABCO, INC. ZONING: CI LOCATION: 7 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES UTILIZATION OF THE EXISTING 1,884 SQ. FT. BUILDING AS A BAR/RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LIGHITNG, AND LANDSCAPING. RESTAURANTS IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 21-2006 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/06 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-36 SECTION 179-4-020 LESLIE D’ANGELO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The second item is a clean up item from last week, and it deals with the Boldan Site Plan No. 24-2006. Please come up. Does everyone need a minute to take a look at this? MR. FORD-You got rid of that culvert, not a culvert, the curbing? MS. D’ANGELO-The curbing. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like, to me, they did everything we asked them to do. Any comments? MR. FORD-This addresses the concerns that we had last week. MR. SEGULJIC-So does someone want to make a motion? MRS. BRUNO-I think I’ll leave it up to one of you three, since I wasn’t in attendance last week. MR. FORD-We do have the proposed modifications. I just want to make sure that, in fact, each of those has been addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like they have met all those. th MRS. BARDEN-Maybe you can just specify it’s the map that was received on July 20. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what we do is motion to approve in accordance with the map th provided on July 20. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2006 BOLDAN, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the Site Plan map received July 20, 2006. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. SEGULJIC-All right. You’re all set. MS. D’ANGELO-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thanks for coming back. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RIDGEWOOD HOMES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FREDA MEYER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 1548 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 7.85 ACRE PARCEL RESULTING IN LOTS SIZED APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE EACH. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE 2/28/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK YES LOT SIZE 7.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-73 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-Just a couple of things. You do have the cluster design that was th submitted, and we do have a C.T. Male signoff letter dated July 18. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. At your last meeting, as Susan just said, the Board requested an alternative cluster design to prepare, and Tom prepared that and we submitted it, and we believe, for a number of reasons, that that is a worse design than the conventional design in this particular case, partly because it’s a pretty clear field to begin with, and partly because it’s going to concentrate the development in a smaller area so it would look more dense and less compatible with the neighborhood where the one acre lots would really be a better design and Tom has some other topographic issues that also would make it better to do a conventional, but he’ll show you that on a map, but in addition to that, Tom submitted a modified map for Final that included the agreements that he made last time to satisfy the neighbors to add an additional 10 foot no cut buffer along the south side and additional plantings on the south side and street trees along Ridge Road as well. The buffer is now 40 foot plus 10. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, that Final plan we have not seen yet. MR. LAPPER-Right, because that would be on for next month, but just for the record that we did add those things to address the neighbor’s concerns. Let me ask Tom to just walk you through the cluster so we can talk about that first. MR. NACE-Both Jim Miller and I played around with this for quite a while and tried, sketched out various alternatives. Part of the problem we have is that the site has some rolling topography to it, and when we tried to condense the houses and the development into a smaller area, we end up not being able to use the space to fit the houses to the topography. We end up having to do extensive grading to make the land conform to what is needed to develop the smaller lots. We tried coming in with a road on one side and utilizing the areas in back for cluster. We tried putting a loop road in. Unfortunately, if you look at the topo, where we have the entrance drive, or entrance road proposed, we’re pretty much on grade with the existing Route 9. If you go either south or north of that any appreciable distance, you end up with a considerable drop off into the property and having to do extensive grading which would make that road take up even more area than it does where we have it located. So the only alternative we could really come up with that came close to working with the road was to condense everything up front and with that we’re left with several features which I’m not sure we can resolve. One is that some of the lots end up necessitating that the house either be located where the existing drainage way comes down through or moved back and a larger chunk of the existing trees taken to provide a building site. It also requires more extensive grading for the location of the septic systems, and it just, it’s forcing the land to try to fit the development, rather than allowing the development of each lot to conform with what’s already there. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Any questions from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-I really think the first layout was a better looking. MR. FORD-Thank you for making the effort to get into that conservation issue. MR. NACE-We tried. I would have liked to have made something work, but. MR. SIPP-It’s just not the right place. MR. NACE-It’s not the right size of property to do it with. MRS. BRUNO-I’d much rather see, as you put it, the use of the space to fit the houses in so that it works with the topography. MR. NACE-With the larger lots, I think we’re going to be able to make some interesting houses and driveways that get the house back away from the frontage and allow them to fit in. MRS. BRUNO-Make it look like the house belongs, rather than it was just put there. MR. NACE-Correct. I think it’ll fit in with the neighborhood a lot better. MRS. BRUNO-Now, just to repeat what you had said a few minutes ago, for the next level you said that there was an additional no cut buffer along the neighbors, and then what was the comment about along the road? MR. NACE-I know you haven’t received these yet because we only submitted them for Final, presuming we were able to get Preliminary tonight, but what we’ve done, along the southern property line we’ve provided a 40 foot absolute no cut zone. Beyond that an additional 10 feet where nothing of six inch caliper or greater is to be cut, and then there are two areas along that buffer where the existing tree line doesn’t cover the entire buffer area. So in those areas we’ve added some white pine, no, some Norway Spruce and Summit Ash to fill in those areas. Then up along the frontage, there is some brush and tree cover along the southern frontage and then an area of brush tree cover to the very northern property line. In between we’ve added some street trees to try to fill that out a little bit. MRS. BRUNO-Are those front houses in the same position as your first submission? They look like they might be pushed back a little bit from the road. MR. NACE-No. They are the same, and again, the actual location of those, when it comes time to build, is going to depend highly on the house, whether it’s a walk out basement or whether it’s a side entry garage, what have you. So, there’s some opportunity to fit those in, depending on the house design. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? MR. FORD-Shouldn’t pose any problem with the slope of driveways on those back three lots? MR. NACE-No. They’ll be somewhere in the realm of five to seven percent. MR. SEGULJIC-I apologize I wasn’t here the last time for the presentation, but with regards to stormwater management, what is that? MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. The soils are relatively good up in the higher levels down to the six, eight feet. So what we’ve proposed is shallow drywells. We have a pair of them here at the, just before the throat of the cul de sac, and then a series of four of them interconnected with infiltration pipes down here, and then there is, if you look at the plans, there’s an overflow, just an emergency overflow, out of the very top of the last drywell. The analysis says that even during a 100 year storm it won’t be used, but since there is the opportunity to get that in, we’d rather have belt and suspenders, just in case. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s mainly infiltration? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NACE-It is all infiltration. MR. SEGULJIC-Because one of the things I’m becoming familiar with is Part 147, stormwater. From looking at the Lake George map, it appears that you’re in the Lake George basin. MR. NACE-We are, in fact, we went into that in fairly good depth the other night. This site all drains toward this southeastern corner, and I have walked the property, the adjacent property. The drainage, if you were to follow the lay of the land, the drainage, if everything was a sheet of glass and frozen and everything was running off, the drainage would come around and eventually turn north and come up into a wetland area that sits up in here and goes on north crossing Clements Road. There is no indication, from looking at the ground cover and the slope of everything, I don’t think that any water actually follows that path, unless the ground was frozen. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is I believe you may be in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. NACE-That was debated. The map, and the definition of that Critical Environmental Area, shows it coming out into here on your Town GIS mapping, but actually, after looking at it, walking the land, and looking at the specific topography and the location of that actual wetland, if there is any area that’s within the CEA, it’s a very small corner of the property up in here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anybody else? MR. NACE-There is a C.T. Male letter that they’ve reviewed stormwater. We responded to their comments and they’ve given us a final signoff. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The public hearing is still open, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone wish to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. With regard to the CEA, I believe the CEA is defined as the distance from the wetland, not necessarily the wetland itself. The wetland is, of course, but it’s all land within 500 feet of the shoreline of the wetland. I’d like to speak particularly with regard to this project being in the Lake George School District. There’s been much talk in this Town about a build out analysis for the central part of Queensbury with regard to development impacts on the Queensbury School District. This project will have impacts on the Lake George School District. Right now, as best as we can determine in North Queensbury, number of students we have going to the Lake George School District, and the taxes that this area, school taxes that this area pays to the Lake George School District, whereas the average cost of a student going to that school is about $14,000, we are paying for the small number of students that go to that school from our area, over $100,000, more in the order of $110 to $120,000 per student. Now a development like this is obviously going to bring more school children. There’s no question that the potential buyers and builders in a subdivision like this are not going to be people who do not have children or are of the age that they don’t have children going to school, and this will require more infrastructure, more school infrastructure and will do nothing but raise our school taxes. In spite of the fact that we had a reval in Town, a year ago, the State has just published the Equalization Rate for Town of Queensbury. It’s 89%. Which means that the Assessor has under assessed us, even at the assessment rates that we faced on the reval, particularly those on the waterfront, it’s still considered to be 11% too low by the State. This means a shift in school tax burden for us in that community because the other communities that participate in the Lake George School District have not been so under-assessed, and I believe there’s a letter on the record, or at least an e- mail on the record, to this effect from someone else that you received today. One other aspect of a development like this we had a major change to the residential building code in the State of New York in the Year 2003, and some of the changes that effect us in an 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) area like this, where municipal water is not available, preclude a development like this from going forward until they can furnish an acceptable source of water, and I’ll read to you from Section 2602 of the Residential Building Code of the State of New York. It’s entitled “Individual Water Supply and Sewage Disposal”, 2602.1.1.1, Sources. Dependent on geological and soil conditions, and the amount of rainfall, individual water supplies are of the following types, drilled well, driven well, or dug well, in accordance with the applicable New York State Department of Health regulations. Each of these lots, I would presume, I don’t know what the plan is, I don’t know what the site plan shows, but should indicate a proven source of water, before this is allowed to move forward. Maybe they’re going to have a community water supply, I don’t know. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? JOHN CURRAN MR. CURRAN-I’m John Curran and I own the property to the south, and I spoke at the last public hearing we had. I’d like to thank the applicant for making the attempt to come up with a conservation easement. I do appreciate that. The only thing I’m worried about is the housing density. I do have some flooding in my southeast corner. Mr. Nace says I don’t have to worry about it. There is no large scale development on the right hand side of Ridge Road, from 149 to Cleverdale. There is on the left hand side, but those lots are bigger, and I just feel that on the right hand side we’re going to drop a small city in there, or a small village, let’s put it that way, and I know they can build seven houses, that it is zoned for that, but I’d like to see the density cut back to four or five. Thanks. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anybody else? FREDA MEYER MS. MEYER-My name is Freda Meyer, part owner of the property. MARGARET MEYER MS. MEYER-Margaret Meyer. MS. F. MEYER-To Members of the Planning Board. “At the Planning Board meeting on June 27, 2006, we can understand how Mr. and Mrs. Curran felt about the proposed changes to be made on the property at 1548 Ridge Road, Queensbury. We have lived here for many years and have seen deer, turkeys, fox and, yes, Woody the Woodchuck. We believe Mr. Wall of Ridgewood Homes will put up very nice homes on the property. We trust him to do this. We feel that at this time of our lives, it was time to make the change. This will enable us to make our future more secure. Sincerely, Freda and Margaret Meyer 1548 Ridge Road Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. MEYER-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? ROSEANN CURRAN MRS. CURRAN-My name is Roseann Curran. Again, we own the property on the south border of the Meyers property, and again I’m going to reiterate what I said at the last meeting is that they have every right to put seven houses on seven acres, but the Town of Queensbury is starting to look like Clifton Park, and I don’t want to live in Clifton Park. I want to live in Queensbury. I want to be able to, all the developers are scooping up every parcel of land and building a house on it, and I think it’s time that we start looking at preservation of some of the land in the Town of Queensbury, and not allowing builders, just because they can, not allow them to desecrate our land. We live in a beautiful area. We have a beautiful setting, and a beautiful home. I’m afraid that that’s all going to be taken away from us, and then it’s going to force me and my husband to make a decision of leaving that beautiful land and moving elsewhere to have what we have now. Yes, they can do it, but should we allow them to? Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Any other comments. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) DAVE DIMICK MR. DIMICK-My name is Dave Dimick. I live at 1570 Ridge Road. I’ve been living there approximately three years now. When the contractor was building our house, he purchased the lots or the property which was approximately three acres of land. This Planning Board told him he could not put three houses on three acres of land. So he had to put two houses on three acres of land. Now all of a sudden I see seven houses going on seven acres of land. I’m just wondering, where’s the mindset here, or the mind change? Also, it’s probably got nothing to do with you people, but Ridge Road is turning into a race track, and all I do is see more people coming into that area and I might say speed up and down Ridge Road. I’ve written letters to the Warren County Sheriff’s Department, three years in a row now, with no responses. So to me, as I stated before, I think seven houses on seven acres of land is ridiculous. Thank you very much. MRS. BRUNO-I have a question for you. I can sympathize with you about the traffic. I live on what’s considered a rural road, and we deal with the same thing. Could you describe exactly where you are in comparison to this project? Just kind of put me at a birds eye view. th MR. DIMICK-Okay. You know where Route 149 and Ridge is. We live 3/10’s of a mile north of Route 149. MRS. BRUNO-On the left hand side? MR. DIMICK-On the right hand side. MRS. BRUNO-On the right hand side. Okay, and what did the builder end up doing, building one or two houses? MR. DIMICK-Two houses on three acres. MRS. BRUNO-Two houses on three acres, and the size of those houses, approximately? MR. DIMICK-They’re exactly the same, approximately 1350 square feet. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. DIMICK-Also, with all the planning that’s going on in Queensbury at this time, what is being done with traffic control? I see houses being built. I see hotels being built, restaurants being built, but nothing is being done to alleviate the traffic situation in Queensbury. MRS. BRUNO-I believe that’s a Town Board issue. They talk about, on Monday nights the Town Board meets, whether it’s in this room or as a planning, in the conference room, which is open to the public. I know they cover issues like where to put lights and they review some of what we have reviewed, and I think in terms of, correct me if I’m wrong, in terms of specific projects, if it really impacts an intersection, then we have to look at it a little bit more, but town wide, I think that’s beyond our scope. MR. DIMICK-Right. Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Like I said, I definitely appreciate what you’re saying. Thank you. MR. DIMICK-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? Okay. Come back up. MR. LAPPER-I guess, just very briefly, and then I’ll turn it over to Tom, I think it’s 7.82 acres with seven homes. So this is a conforming subdivision in every respect. We think that one acre lots are appropriate for the character of that area. Certainly the west side of Ridge Road is more developed than the east side, and that’s because of the location of the mountain. There’s just not that much depth on the east side, but what’s intended here is the very attractive cul de sac subdivision. Seven homes is not going to change Lake George School District taxes, and we think that someone can build lovely houses on one acre lots. Obviously, it’s hard for neighbors to see change when you have a vacant parcel and that’s understandable, but we’re certainly trying to do a very responsible subdivision here. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. NACE-To answer two of John Salvador’s questions. Firstly, the Critical Environmental Area, he’s correct, it is 500 feet, and that’s what I was referring to is that that very corner of the subdivision property is the only portion that’s within 500 feet of the wetland. The second issue was the wells, the water supply. We do have to prove to the Department of Health, before they will sign the final mylars, that there’s adequate water supply available, and we do that, they have a standard regiment for doing that, which is we go out and drill one test well for every 10 lots, and if that test well is adequate, then we simply drill the wells as each lot is developed, but we have to supply the Health Department, even during construction of the houses, have to supply them with verification that the wells are adequate. MR. FORD-So you would drill one test well? MR. NACE-We would drill one test well, and probably supply data from either the existing well on the existing house or an adjacent well, as additional back up, since we’re only drilling one well. MR. FORD-What is the current source of water supply for the present house? MR. NACE-It’s a well. MR. FORD-How deep is it? MR. NACE-I will have to get the information from that. I don’t know. MR. FORD-Do you know what the flow rate is? MR. NACE-No, I do not, but we certainly before we have final approval and signoff. Before the Town signs that final mylar, it’s got to be signed by the Health Department, and they review all the technical data from the test well. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Don, did you have anything? MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-Have you spoken with your client about the possibility of reducing the number? Just throwing that out there, since it’s a topic. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I was going to ask also. MR. LAPPER-And the answer is, just because of the configuration with the cul de sac, that they feel that seven one acre lots fit really well on this property, so they’d like to build seven, but they had no problem, to try to satisfy the immediate neighbors, they had no problem making it more of a no cut buffer and to plant additional trees to buffer them. MR. SEGULJIC-One of the places I would come from is under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it says one of the goals of this part of Town is to maintain its rural nature, and by having a seven house subdivision like this, that’s not retaining the rural nature. MR. NACE-Well, the one acre zone is a rural nature in itself. I live in what I consider a suburban development, and it’s half acre or a little less than a half acre, a third acre for many of the lots, and half acre is more rural. MR. SEGULJIC-How do you guys feel about requesting five lots instead of seven? MR. FORD-I would be hard pressed the develop the rationale for it. MR. SEGULJIC-Maintaining the rural nature of the area. What I’d really like to see is that Lot One and Seven be eliminated, to make it much more of a buffer strip along the road. MRS. BRUNO-Actually what I was thinking, because of the discussion that we had had from the previous meeting, because of the sensitivity of the drainage areas in the back, maybe even removing that middle one, make, bringing the houses and those properties 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) so that they’re a little bit closer towards the middle, so that they’re not encroaching on those wetland areas, and then, like you just said, bring some of the front ones back. It sounds like what you’re saying is your client really doesn’t want to entertain this idea. MR. NACE-That’s correct. Just to correct, there are no wetland areas on the site at all. It’s simply that there’s a low area that goes through. I’ve observed it during very heavy rains this summer, and never seen any water coming out of those culverts onto Route 9. However, it is a low area that we want to preserve as a drainage way, in extreme conditions. MR. SEGULJIC-But tentatively you have agreed to the 40 foot no cuts along the? MR. NACE-That they have the 40 foot plus 10. MR. SEGULJIC-And one of my concerns would be you already have good vegetation on Lots Seven, Six, and Five on the southern side. So I would assume you’re going to maintain that as much as possible. MR. LAPPER-That’s where the no cut is. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we’re making it better. MR. SIPP-And in the corner of Lot Seven, you’re going to add more trees. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. FORD-That would be further enhanced by the contours, the slope, as it approaches that, the edge. MR. NACE-Yes, in the back that goes back up a grade there, yes, or the south side. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. A couple of other things I’d like to see the demarcation on the map. I don’t know exactly where the line is. I can understand it’s confusing, but. MR. NACE-Okay. We can do that. Like I said before, your GIS shows a CEA location that follows a contour line, which is really, as John Salvador pointed out, is not correct. It’s from the wetland buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other thing is the Chapter 147, because each of those houses, as they’re developed, will have to meet those requirements, as I understand it. So there should be some notation on the plan. MR. NACE-Any of them that are within the CEA, you mean. MR. SEGULJIC-Any of these houses will have to meet 147 because they’re all within the Lake George Park Commission, 147 stormwater. MR. NACE-Stormwater, yes, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So each house, as it’s developed, the road as it’s developed and each house would have to meet that. MR. NACE-Will have to, because you’re in the Lake George basin. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. Now my other comment would be, C.T. Male, I heard you indicate you have a signoff letter from C.T. Male. MR. NACE-Yes, we do. MR. SEGULJIC-I would be curious to see if they reviewed that in light of 147. My impression is they probably have not. MR. NACE-Well, again, at site plan review for the lot they would be looking at it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we’ve been falling asleep with regards to 147. I don’t think they reviewed it in light of that. So that’s one of the things I’m going to request is that they. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. LAPPER-But they wouldn’t do that until a site plan was submitted for the lot itself, for what the disturbance is going to be on the lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the overall development of the road itself, for example. MR. NACE-Yes, the stormwater’s been done in accordance with, actually with the new DEC standards which are more constrictive than the Town standards. MR. LAPPER-For the road. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about the MS-4? MR. NACE-It doesn’t apply. MR. SEGULJIC-Because there’s no stormwater runoff until actually surface water. MR. NACE-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but still, one of the things I would like to see is C.T. Male review it in light of 147. MR. NACE-We could certainly, before Final, have them take a look, but I think they’ve already really done that. MR. SEGULJIC-Then the other thing you’d have to do is obtain the stormwater permit from the Zoning Administrator for it, from Chapter 147. MR. NACE-For the subdivision itself? MR. SEGULJIC-I believe the whole subdivision and then each lot, as it’s developed. MR. NACE-Okay. We can certainly take a look, and if that’s required, we can do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So as far as requesting fewer lots, Don, how do you feel about that? MR. SIPP-Well, I would go along with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Tanya, would you go along with that, requesting fewer lots, like five lots? MRS. BRUNO-I think I’d be happy with six. MR. SEGULJIC-Tom, what are your thoughts? My concern is the overall density. I realize it’s not that dense, but still we’re trying to maintain a rural nature, and you know what happens is the next person comes in and says, you allowed that, and then it just goes and goes and goes. MR. FORD-But that’s the way it is zoned, in that area, and we’re not asking for exceptions to that. I’m also looking at the contour of the land, and some of that really lends itself, I believe, to maintaining a rural nature. I mean, if it were just a flat piece of property, without contours, where every structure is going to be clearly visible to anyone doing a drive by, but I don’t think that that necessarily is going to be the case here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else? So, Sue, if you could just clarify for us. This is for Preliminary? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Which means if we approve this, then they have to come back for Final. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The public hearing will remain open? MRS. BARDEN-Not necessarily, no. MR. FORD-But can we? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MRS. BARDEN-Yes, you can. SEQRA has been done on this. It was done on June th 27. MR. SEGULJIC-So there was a SEQRA done? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. They did receive a Negative Declaration. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anyone wish to make a motion? MRS. BARDEN-And you have a Preliminary resolution in your packet. You also might want to review the Preliminary resolution that didn’t pass last time, and look at those conditions of approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse us while we take a minute. MR. LAPPER-Of course. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s already been a Negative Declaration? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sue, could you clarify for us, with regards to Number Seven on the prior motion? Part I, Section A on SEQRA has been changed. MR. FORD-Number 19. MR. SEGULJIC-Has been changed from a no to a yes. I guess what happened is Bob probably noticed something. MR. FORD-Part I, Section A, Number 19. MR. NACE-I had answered, originally answered no, contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area, and the answer is changed to yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Okay. I understand. Okay. Everyone comfortable with this? Anyone want to make a motion? Let’s talk about what conditions we’re going to have. I believe we have to carry all eight conditions. In addition, one thing I would propose is that we have C.T. Male re-review or re-inspect this based on review of Chapter 147. The Chapter 147 permit be obtained from the Zoning Administrator. Place the CEA limits on the site plan, and is it appropriate to note that the site is subject to Chapter 147 on the plat so when the houses are developed and the driveways are developed, because if we don’t carry it on the plat, then it’ll be lost. MR. NACE-Yes, Tom, we can put that on the plat as a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MRS. BARDEN-And you should state those conditions as well, that you want. MR. FORD-In addition to the ones we have here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 RIDGEWOOD HOMES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a preliminary subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 7-lot residential subdivision of a 7.85 acre parcel resulting in lots sized approximately 1 acre each. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 7/25/06 and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find this Preliminary application to be: In concurrence with the motion prepared by Staff, with the following conditions: 1. An engineering stamp will appear on the final drawings 2. A Notice of Intent will be submitted for stormwater 3. Clearing limits and construction fencing will be noted 4. A no cut zone on the southern boundary line of 40 feet of absolute no cut, the next 10 feet of the 50 feet would be to cut nothing that is above six inches in caliper of a tree. The deed to property is already in the file 5. Part I Section A Number 19 of SEQRA application form Part I will be changed from no to yes 6. A road name shall be on the final drawing 7. Also the CEA limits shall be noted on the drawing 8. It shall be noted that the subdivision and subsequent site developments are subject to Chapter 147 of the Stormwater Regulations 9. C.T. Male is to re-review their approval in light of Chapter 147. The 147 Stormwater Permit from the Zoning Administrator. th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Before I run and leave you alone tonight, my client Neral Patel from Northeast Dining is here, and we were going to wait until the end of the meeting for additional business, but since there’s only four of you, we won’t wait, but I just want one sentence that just because your agenda is so booked, we’ve been with that application for the Golden Corral since September, and we’ve gone through SEQRA with this Board and then we’ve had our variances from the Zoning Board, and now we need to come back for site plan review, and we’d just ask you to consider, please, a special meeting in August, just because the backlog is so serious now we just want to get our day before you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll forward that to Bob, the Chairman. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 28-2006 SEQR TYPE: II MELISSA BRENNAN, CROCK-A-GATOR PRE-SCHOOL & CHILDCARE OWNER(S): LEONARDO LOMBARDO ZONING: HC- INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1571 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD FENCING AND PARTIALLY PAVE TWO AREAS (680 SQ. FT., 1270 SQ. FT.) OF PROPERTY CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR TWO PLAY YARD AREAS. FENCING FOR COMMERCIAL ZONES REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 3.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-9 SECTION: 179-5- 060 MELISSA & JOHN BRENNAN, PRESENT MRS. BRENNAN-Hi. I’m Melissa Brennan, and we’re here because we’re looking to put a day care center on Route 9, in an existing building, and we’re just looking for permission to put up a fence for a play yard. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MRS. BRENNAN-Nice and easy. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We’ll see what everybody else thinks. Questions from the Board? MR. SIPP-Is this fencing around the hard surface area? MRS. BRENNAN-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now is this going to be a play area? MRS. BRENNAN-Yes, they’re play areas. MR. SIPP-What is this hard surfacing going to be? MRS. BRENNAN-The hard surfacing is going to be blacktop. There’s currently stone already on the ground existing with some grass that has grown up due to the time that it’s just sat. So there already is a hard surface on the ground. MR. SIPP-Have you ever thought of that playground blacktop that is squishy? MRS. BRENNAN-I have. I’ve thought about it. It’s not something that we’re going to put in. We don’t have the funds to be able to do that. It’s a small portion of it. The rest will be pea stone or a softer, loose clay surface. MR. SIPP-And this will be sloped so that the water will run off of it, or snow melt? MRS. BRENNAN-Yes. The way the property is already graded, there is sufficient runoff already, and none of that’s being changed. MR. FORD-And where does that water go? MRS. BRENNAN-There’s a very deep basin on the edge of the property that’s existing already. MR. FORD-On the south side? MRS. BRENNAN-Correct. MR. FORD-That basically is runoff from the Northway, is it not? MRS. BRENNAN-The runoff itself from the Northway? That I don’t know. It’s deep, though. We’re not talking a one foot ditch along the edge of the property. MR. FORD-I was there, went part way down it. MR. SIPP-How many children do you expect? MRS. BRENNAN-The capacity in that building is 40. It’s a small center, it’s very small. MRS. BRUNO-Do you know if there are any future plans for the paving of the parking lot itself? MRS. BRENNAN-I don’t know. There’s crushed stone on there currently. MR. FORD-Can you address the issue of the current turnaround for boat traffic? MRS. BRENNAN-That has nothing to do with me. That would be in the back, I believe. That’s what’s being used now. MR. FORD-And your location where you’re proposing? MRS. BRENNAN-Is just behind the back portion of our space and the side portion of our space. It doesn’t have, it will not encroach on the neighboring portion of the building at all. MR. FORD-The fencing would prevent any intrusion by anyone turning boats back there? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MRS. BRENNAN-Yes, but it doesn’t encroach on their space, but it would keep them from the children’s area, of course, but the two spaces are separated. There’s room, sufficient room. JOHN BRENNAN MR. BRENNAN-I might say that he has changed the boat turnaround from the front of our property to the back of his. MRS. BRENNAN-Right. MR. FORD-Right, we’re aware of that, but that also is where the play area is designated in the rear area, correct? MRS. BRENNAN-Yes, but it’s a small area just on the back portion of our space. It doesn’t encroach on his at all. Not where he’s currently turning around. MR. SIPP-There are no gates in this fencing? MRS. BRENNAN-There are gates. There are exit gates. MR. SIPP-Does that small swimming pool which is erected? MRS. BRENNAN-It’s not near that, but that is fenced in. MR. SIPP-Well, sort of. MRS. BRENNAN-Sort of. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that your swimming pool? MRS. BRENNAN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, that’s the fishing? Okay. All right. That’s what I thought. MRS. BRENNAN-Yes. MR. FORD-Fly fishing. MRS. BRENNAN-Yes. MR. FORD-If there will be gates, can you show us where they would be, please. MRS. BRENNAN-Do you all have maps, plans? MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. BRENNAN-There’s gates out of either side of both of the play areas, near the edge of the building. MR. FORD-Okay, and as I see it, there’s a gate that would exit basically to the north out on to the crushed stone parking lot. MRS. BRENNAN-Correct. MR. FORD-Which is, in fact, a part of that boat turnaround area. MRS. BRENNAN-There has to be a rear exit, though, out of the fenced in area. MR. BRENNAN-The boat turnaround area, from that gate, is the length of his building. In other words, they come up his driveway and turn around. I don’t think it’s near that. MR. FORD-Well, that gate opens very close to the edge of his building, the northwest corner of his building, or, I’m sorry, the southwest corner of the building. MRS. BRENNAN-Well, the gate can be moved if you see fit for it to be, but it’s just an emergency exit. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. FORD-Well, children exit whether it’s an emergency or not, don’t they? MRS. BRENNAN-No, because there’s safety latches on the gates. MR. FORD-I would feel more comfortable if that were not emptying into that turnaround. They’ve got this whole area back here, that pavement. MR. SEGULJIC-We can make that a condition. MRS. BRENNAN-That would be fine. That’s fine, not a problem. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-There is a public hearing, right? MRS. BARDEN-There is. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone wish to make a motion? So, Tom, with regards to the gate, what would you like to see, the gate moved to the southwest? MR. FORD-If it’s got to be in this paved area, Tom, then I would like to see it on the west side rather than the north side of the paved area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, Sue, with regards to the motion, the one prepared by Staff, the fifth paragraph, we’ll eliminate that, correct? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Everything else seems to be okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2006 MELISSA BRENNAN CROCK-A- GATOR PRE-SCHOOL & CHILDCARE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes to add fencing and partially pave two areas (680 sq. ft., 1270 sq. ft.) of property connected to the existing building for two play yard areas. Fencing for commercial zones requires review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/25/2006 and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: In accordance with the resolution provided by Staff, with the following revision: 1.The fifth paragraph with regard to SEQRA will be eliminated, 2.And we will add the following condition: that the north gate in western playground be removed and replaced on the western side of the paved area, of the play area. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. SEGULJIC-You’re all set. MRS. BRENNAN-Thank you so much. MR. FORD-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO.14-2004 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JANE POTTER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT REQUESTS CONSIDERATION OF NEW INFORMATION ANDSUBSEQUENT REMOVALOF THE CONDITION THAT HOMES HAVE TO BE BUILT ON SLABS. CROSS REFERENCE: APPROVED 5/17/05, TABLED 1/24/06; SB 4-98, SB 8-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27 SECTION: A-183 JANE POTTER, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-And what do you have for us? MRS. POTTER-The new test pits have been done, and we would like the new numbers accepted for the subdivision between Sherman and Ferris Drive. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, you’re requesting that the Board remove the condition that all homes have to be on slabs. MRS. POTTER-That’s one, and also that the new test pit figures be accepted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is that what we need to do, Sue? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MRS. POTTER-The original test pits were in April of ’04. We found them to be incorrect. We’ve had them re-done with C.T. Male observing, and we have the new figures were rd submitted May 23. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, when you say they were incorrect, what was? MRS. POTTER-There’s a letter that went with it that explained. It was done with an auger the first time, and because it’s a very heavily treed lot, it didn’t come out correct. These new pits were done with a backhoe, deep pits, so that you could get down into it and actually see the layers. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. FORD-The previous stipulation that all homes would be on slab, and you’re asking that restriction be removed from all homes on that parcel? MRS. POTTER-All lots, because the new numbers are much deeper. There’s no reason to be on slabs, which means ground level. MR. SIPP-This property, is this to the south of Queensbury Forest development? MRS. POTTER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Queensbury Forest is off of Peggy Ann Road, and this one is to the south of it. MRS. POTTER-Yes. rd MR. SIPP-And these new test pits were done on, I’ve got a letter that says May 23. nd MRS. POTTER-Well, May 22. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) nd MR. SIPP-Done on May 22, which shows on Test Pit One mottling at 57 inches, mottling on Lot Two at 47, Lot Three at 47, and Lot Four at 63. MRS. POTTER-Correct. MR. SIPP-Mottling shows the high water mark. MRS. POTTER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now if you put a cellar into this soil at six feet, four feet, four feet, and a little over six feet, you’re not going to have water in these basements? MRS. POTTER-No, because you go from that point up. You do still have to fill, but that doesn’t, that’s not what a slab is. A slab would indicate ground level. We want to be able to go into the ground. MR. SIPP-You are going to fill, in other words, raise these houses up? MRS. POTTER-Yes. We’re only going to go in these numbers, and then fill to make our full basements, yes. MR. SIPP-Do you join on to Queensbury Forest? MRS. POTTER-Two of the lots are at the hammerhead of Ferris Drive. It’s not part of Queensbury Forest subdivision. It’s adjacent. MR. SIPP-Are you near where they did run the drainage lines? MRS. POTTER-Yes, two of the lots are, that line runs right in front of two of these lots. Correct. MR. FORD-What’s the topography of that, because I don’t have that here in front of me. MRS. POTTER-Of which? Of all or of certain lots? MR. FORD-Thanks, Sue. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. SEGULJIC-The grading on the site, will that change, the site elevations? MRS. POTTER-Will fill be brought in, you mean? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. POTTER-Fill will have to be brought in in order to get full basements. MR. SIPP-Some of these houses are going to have to be raised approximately four feet. MRS. POTTER-Two of them, yes. MRS. BRUNO-The zoning on this is? MRS. POTTER-One acre, half acre. MRS. BRUNO-Half acre. MRS. POTTER-Half acre, but we have one acres. MR. SEGULJIC-Sue, I don’t believe so, if they change the grading on the site plan to bring it up four feet, does that need a modification then? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think anything is planning to change on the subdivision plat. MRS. POTTER-No. nd MRS. BARDEN-Ms. Potter needs you to accept the test pit data dated May 22, and also to remove that note on the plat, as you see it on the subdivision plat, that says that 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) all the homes must be built on slabs, all houses to be built on slab, or if a cellar, the cellar floor to be one foot above mottling. MR. SEGULJIC-Then they would still adhere to this site plan, right? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right, subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-Subdivision plan, but then if they’re going to bring on the four feet of fill, and put a basement on it, that’s going to require a revision to this, isn’t it? Because the grading lines will be, instead of 405 will be at 409 or so. MRS. POTTER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-What’s the status on our public input? MRS. BARDEN-You can still take public comment if you’d like. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if we could open public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVE ROBINSON MR. ROBINSON-My name is Dave Robinson and I own the Lot Three of the subdivision, and I had some questions. I have a question on this note about the mottling line, and it says all houses to be built on slab or if cellars, cellars to be one foot above mottling. Mottling is 47 inches on our particular lot, and we go one foot about that, that makes it 35 inches down from original ground. Is that correct? MR. SEGULJIC-I believe that’s the way it is, yes. MR. ROBINSON-Right, and then the fill thing, we’re not arguing with the fill because that’s too, we’re willing to bring in the fill. We already did so and had a septic tank, you know, perc test, we had the ground compacted. The fill was brought in, 404 feet above, you know, so we could be next to the house. So we already expect to put the fill in, to bring it to 405, which is what you asked for. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page on this because we bought this lot eyes wide open. She was very generous. She gave us all the information we needed and did a little research about mottling and so on and so forth. I never believed the first test either. I thought something was wrong. Because mottling’s basically a geological terms used for experimentation to find out like building highways where the road was 500 years ago. It’s a nice indication that water was there once, but when was it there. MR. FORD-It’s discoloration caused by water underneath the surface. MR. ROBINSON-Exactly, and it takes years and years for that to happen, a thousand years sometimes. We know what was in the swamp there because there’s never been any, I’ve been down on that property and couldn’t find any ferns or indication of low land or anything like that. We’re not on a CEA area. So, the growth and the pines and the birches and everything that grew there were basically on nice, flat land. MR. SIPP-Yes, but we know, just to the north of that, that Queensbury Forest. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, I’m very familiar with that. I was here when it happened, and I read about it and I think everybody did the appropriate thing to correct it. MR. SIPP-From the soils map, the same soil series carries over to Sherman Avenue, so there obviously is the same soil conditions. MR. ROBINSON-It’s all flat, sandy loam soil. MR. SIPP-And everybody thought those houses were built on nice flat sandy. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MRS. POTTER-They were. MR. ROBINSON-Well, when they built, they put stumps and everything in the ground, too, which caused a whole bunch of problems. MR. SIPP-They did a lot of things. MR. ROBINSON-We didn’t do that over there. This is a very flat, loamy, sandy soil. I’ve been down there, at the end of that hammerhead, and watched storms come down there, and I watched the water go into the property, and, boom, you know, the perc test was 1.16. We had a good perc test, and I’m very, very familiar with the drainage system that was put in there. I think Mr. Brewer alluded to that at the approval hearing. I believe you had a lot of questions about a lot of things about the mottling line and so on and so forth. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else want to comment? All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SIPP-Now I see Lot Five and Six on the east side of this map, is that part of your subdivision also? MRS. POTTER-Five and Six? No, I don’t have a Five and Six. I only have four. That’s part of Evanna. MR. FORD-To your east? MRS. POTTER-To the east, yes. That’s Evanna, not me. MR. SIPP-And you have a 30 foot wide no cut zone marked out? MRS. POTTER-Yes, that’s been covered. MR. FORD-How close to the first borings were the second test pits? MRS. POTTER-As exact as we could get. C.T. Male actually measured off and tried to get it in the exact spot. MR. SEGULJIC-Any other comments? MR. SIPP-You’ve satisfied me. As long as these cellars are going to be raised above the mottling? MRS. POTTER-Definitely. We just want the new numbers accepted. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Once again, I’ll eliminate the fourth paragraph with regards to SEQRA, right, because that’s already been done, and I guess we need to accept the new test pits. nd MRS. BARDEN-They were conducted and witnessed by C.T. Male on May 22. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any test pit information on the plans that needs to get changed? MRS. POTTER-No, I believe it was left off but we were going to ask for it to be added in the corner, this next time. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’ll make that part of the conditions. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a modification to a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Modification to approved subdivision. Applicant requests consideration of new information and subsequent removal of the condition that homes have to be built on slabs. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; and 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. However, the fourth paragraph with regards to SEQRA shall be removed, and the following conditions: 1.That the note on Site Plan dated June 7, 2004, Sheet S-1, the note stating all houses to be built on slab or with cellars, cellar floor to be one foot above mottling, that to be removed. nd 2.The new test pits witnessed by C.T. Male on May 22, the new test pit data as witnessed by C.T. Male on May 22, 2006 shall be added to the plans. th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Did we want to remove that whole statement, or did we want to leave the one foot above mottling? Did we reiterate that in another part? MRS. BARDEN-You could do a partial revision. MR. SEGULJIC-I would eliminate the whole thing, you’re correct. You want to modify my, I’m okay with that. That’s a part of Code anyway, isn’t it? MRS. BARDEN-So you’ll just. MR. SEGULJIC-Actually, we don’t have to because it’s part of Code anyway. MRS. BRUNO-Right, just remove the whole thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. SEGULJIC-You’re all set. MRS. POTTER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO 29-2006 SEQR TYPE: II ANDREA PEEK AGENT(S): THOMAS FROST, JR. OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 108 ROCKHURST APPLICANT PROPOSES A 117 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING 2,800 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING . SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45-05, AV 37-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/06 ADIRONDACK PARK: YES LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-11 SECTION: 179-13-010, 179-6-060 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-And you are, for the record? MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of you record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant. With me at the table is Mr. Peek. Also Denise Platt from Frost Architecture, who is the coordinator of efforts to complete this project, Tom Jarrett, from Jarrett-Martin, who is doing the stormwater and Keith Mantz, a P.E. who has done the septic design. We, so far, have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and obtained necessary variances that we needed to complete this. This is an existing house that is going to be renovated, and I recognize, coming here tonight, that we’ve pretty much got a moving target, and I’m not sure what your package reflects or doesn’t reflect, as far as what we have accomplished to date. So I’d like to 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) have Denise walk us through the project in general, give you an idea of what we’re doing, and then we can talk maybe specifically as to what you have or don’t have. Things that you don’t have are things that we have added to the project in the way of response to comments to approve the project, and I know one thing that I was particularly probably the cause of, I read an article as to how the Lake George Association is trying to get people to install a natural buffer at the edge of their property by water, and that is something that we have incorporated into this project, and I don’t think you have that particular part of the project. As I understand it, the Area Variance application and the site plan application that you have before you were both submitted at the same time, and during the discussions of the Area Variance, we came upon some other things that we thought that we should include that would be beneficial to the Town and to the project. Denise, if you want to, do you want to try this? DENISE PLATT MS. PLATT-In front of you here on the screen we have a slideshow presentation of PowerPoint where we start off showing you the existing site plan. We have the macadam driveway that comes around to the left side here. You can see the south side of the building has a garage at that end. That driveway will be removed. I’ll show you that in the proposed plans. We have in front, which is the lakeside, down at the lower part of the screen, I have an existing upper deck. That steps down, actually, to another upper deck. So there’s two level upper decks. You see a roof that is noted on the plan, and that’s over, the roof is actually over a lower deck that you take a set of stairs down to grade. Basically you have a split level house where the roadside, Rockhurst side, the grade is up at the first floor level, and then the lakeside has a basement walkout to the basement level, and they have existing terraced type of walkways, which are made of timber frames and gravel that come around to the north side deck under the upper deck, and then there’s also walkways that are down that come from the macadam driveway down at the level where the garage is, and that gets you down to the dock. I’ll show you the proposed. MR. FORD-Is there not also an existing shed that you didn’t point out? MS. PLATT-Yes, there is. It’s very light. MR. FORD-Lower right hand corner of the property. MS. PLATT-Yes. It’s right over, yes, the northeast corner. Now this is a proposed site plan that is colored in render that this is as submitted in your package that you have received that you’re looking at, and basically what I’m trying to show you here is what the green area, the aqua type area, is actually the macadam driveway that will be removed, and then there’s a lightly shaded gray and then a darker shade of gray you see up by the Rockhurst Road. The darker shade is what would be the newly added macadam there and it’s attached to really what the existing is. So you end up with a 30 foot wide driveway just at the top instead of all the macadam coming down the garage level. So that’s all being removed. MR. FORD-What’s going to happen to that area? MS. PLATT-That will be basically like a lawn type of area, not necessarily all grass, but it will be a landscaped area. In the upper part we have the leach field, up by the roadside, septic and leachfield that we go to the Town Board for. MR. O'CONNOR-A portion of that will be used for retention, stormwater, a good portion of the front where the side load garage is. MS. PLATT-You’ll see that in the next slide, but what we have proposed to you in the beginning of this was, it’s hard to see in this slideshow, but in your packet that you do have, up by the driveway, there’s proposed stormwater basins that will take the runoff for the driveway area, and then there’s a lower basin that’s down basically in front of where the existing shed is, down at the other part of, basically there’s a slope that comes down, and in the corner of the existing residence, you see a red area, it says addition. That’s a proposed addition area which will be a dining room, and then the other added square foot that you see in red is the, it’s a new deck roof. So basically we’re removing a portion of the end of the existing roof. So we’re taking some of that square foot of the deck off and then we’re going to, the proposed roof over that coming out of the first floor master bedroom on that upper deck. The difference in this slide is showing you the retention basins that we have now proposed into the plan as Mike has said. We’ve tried to be sensitive more to the, we’re trying to take care of more of the runoff of what the 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) disturbance areas and so forth, and Tom Jarrett can speak to you more on that, but the rest of the items really remain, other than what you see as a stormwater basin area. In addition to that, we have the retaining wall, the existing retaining wall, I’ll show you on the photos later on down, but there’s a retaining wall that currently is on the south end of the driveway, on that grade there where that retention area is, and that’s a timber frame, timber retaining wall, and now we’re going to try to, you’ll see how we’re trying to address all that slope down there and try to get the retention basins to work. I’ll take you through as far as the program of the house. What we are proposing is we have an existing garage on the south end and currently this is the existing basement with a playroom and a bedroom down there area. Proposed is to take the garage and actually make that into a bedroom area. The existing bedroom area you saw on the side of the playroom will become a bathroom area, a bathroom for the bedroom and for actually the other use of that, and also adding, you see a storage on the right side of the screen, which is the north end. There currently is just, it’s a crawl space under the kitchen area and underneath the deck, and we’re going to, we’re proposing to have a full basement wall and enclose that for storage for exterior use of little things. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a storage area off to the right? MS. PLATT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And what will the clearance on that will be. MS. PLATT-The clearance of the headroom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MS. PLATT-It will be the same as the playroom, seven foot ten ceiling heights. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MS. PLATT-The existing floor, we have above the garage a bedroom, bath and closet, master bedroom. You go down like a split level and then you have the great room, the bath and the bedroom. The bathroom is on the lakeside, the bedroom is on the roadside. What we’re proposing to do, in an effort to, the basement area is very low ceilings, and they’re, I believe, under seven feet, and what we’re proposing to do is remove, tear down the portion where the great room, the bedroom and the bath is in the kitchen and raise that up by one block, and then construct new walls on top of, basically the existing foundation basement walls are to remain, and then we’re just adding a course and new construction of the walls on top of the same. MR. SEGULJIC-The existing foundation remains intact, and you’re just going to build on top of that. MS. PLATT-Yes, we’re adding one course on top to raise the headroom in the basement area to make that more of a comfortable, livable space. It doesn’t meet Code currently, and then adding the block would make it meet Code, and you see the yellow areas in the red, basically this portion of the house, that’s what we’re saying, that portion of the first floor we’re tearing down and rebuilding that, the bedroom end, this south end, over the garage, all that will stay, the roof and all that will remain the same. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a spot here where the covered porch is, and in the middle of the structure right now is a large covered porch. That’s being removed. The other covered porch is being constructed on the south end of the building. MS. PLATT-Which also, that brings out shoreline setback back to the other roof. We’re also increasing our shoreline setback from the existing roof that is there. So we’re removing that roof over that lower deck. MR. FORD-It will almost be back where it should be. MS. PLATT-Well, you’ll see the photos and understand a little bit more. What we did not have at the Zoning Board hearing was we didn’t have the proposed elevations constructed. So this is our proposed elevations of currently, and this is the roadside. The peaked areas there is the entry, and then to the right is the north garage, I’m sorry, the south garage, and this is the garage end of the building. As you can see we have an upper slope that comes down and you have the level of where the garage entry is, and the proposed deck roof is at that end of the building where the garage is coming out. This is giving you the elevation of the lakeside, and unfortunately I don’t have the laser 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) pointer to show you it. The first portion of the roof that you see at the left side here of the screen, that’s where the garage is, and then above that is that master bedroom suite. That’s to remain. That roof exists and is all exists to remain, and then coming out from that you see the gabled roof over the deck, and that’s new, and then you come down fro that point onward, the upper first floor, that’s the new construction. Underneath the basement, that’s existing to remain. We are actually removing windows and putting in some new sliding glass doors and so forth, and at the basement level, the walkout level, at the end there, that’s the storage door at the far right side of the screen, and coming around the other end of the building, you see the set of doors there, basically a side light and a door entry, which is the new dining room, that half of it, and then the other half is the area where the existing kitchen is, and again, we tore down and rebuilt of what the heights were there. This is the section basically showing you the cut through the house and the site, and the dashed line is showing you, as if we took a blanket over, took the earth and a blanket over it 28 feet up. That’s the height there, and the question that is, the section that’s cut through is the first floor roof. It’s a lower roof that you have seen on that elevation, and it’s approximately 20 feet 6 from the floor height, or the ground height, I’m sorry. The ground level to the peak of the roof is 23 foot 6. If you could go back to the lakeside elevation. The lakeside, if you see the center roof on the portion that we’re replacing, that center peaked roof there, that’s 27 feet above the grade, but then the lower roof behind it, you see the line there where the chimney’s coming up. That roof is lower and that peak is only 23 foot 6 above grade. MRS. BRUNO-So what really what you’re describing is, from the right of the porch gable, all the way over to the end of the building, the upper floor will be completely new construction. MS. PLATT-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-You’re not planning on lifting the house and adding the foundation? MS. PLATT-We’re planning on taking the first floor off of the existing foundation, installing one course of block, new floor joists, new exterior two by six stud walls with the proper insulation and everything, to meet the energy code and so forth. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MS. PLATT-As I had said, there’s a retaining area in the front that there’s a sloped retaining rock garden wall on this property at the level of the walkout. You come down and the grade slopes down, and I’ll show you photos of where that is going to be, but I’m just showing you what the material is so that you can see. This is the existing house. This is the roadside, the upper portion of the garage that’s to remain. The other part, the lower roof you see there, that’s the portion that will be removed. That’s the end of the garage with the existing deck off the back, which a portion of that deck square foot we’re not, you know, we’re removing. We will have all new decks, but we’re only going to replace a portion of that, and this is looking at the lakeside coming around again. There’s the upper deck which steps down to another upper deck, and then the stairs from those little walkways, the four foot catwalk type of thing in front of the first floor, and in front of that you see the roof where it’s actually covering a sauna, a lower deck. That’s the roof that’s going to be removed, and the whole structure on that. Here you can see, these are the walkways that come underneath the porch, and I’m just trying to show you what the grade is actually doing and what we’re looking to retain. That lower decking there, I think it’s pressure treated decking, we’re removing that, and we’re going to have a smaller area of a pervious stone patio in there, similar to another project that we have also done. This is the stair coming down. You’ll see from the upper deck to the lower, there’s a grade change between what’s under the one upper deck to the other one, and as you can see, that’s why we need to have some kind of new retaining walls installed, and this is showing how the grade is coming around currently, at the north end of the building, and as I said, underneath the kitchen area and that deck is crawl space. It’s just dirt, and so we will have a full basement wall there, concrete wall, and we will be needing to retain it as it comes back, comes around, and that’s another portion of a little retaining area that we will be showing in our plan that you don’t have of that located on your plan, that you have, and that’s, again, showing that, and this is, again, the same corner coming around. These are the terraced timber, gravel terraced walkway. This is showing you the ceiling heights of what the existing basement is. Okay. That is the, underneath, that’s the crawl space underneath that area. This is our, at the north end of the property, as we called it a rock garden slope, you know, there that we intend to try to retain that with that retaining block that I showed you that material, and so we’re coming across the property because we do have a grade change there, and so it just gives you an indication of what height we were looking at retaining. It’s not a great height. It’s only 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) a few feet, two, three feet, and it comes across the property, and you see that at the very end out here, the retaining timbers, that’s the existing. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Could you go up there and show us this two to three feet that you’re referring to? Thank you . MS. PLATT-Right here, the two to three feet wall is over here. This slope here, we have a retention pond that’s going to, that basically we need to, that’s the reason for also extending a retaining wall over here. This wall down here may be four feet or so. It kind of gives you a different angle, but go ahead to the next one. Coming across, you have the grade change is approximately three feet. Where at the other end we’re at about three foot six, maybe 42 inches down there, and this is an area from basically the lake back that we intend to have a vegetative buffer, native ground cover and landscape and shrubs and so forth. What our intent is, is to not have that be lawn. We’re trying to give a buffer zone, as Mike O’Connor has said the LGA is trying to encourage, and we’d like to also do it to meet the requirement. MR. FORD-The width of that is anticipated to be what? MS. PLATT-I think we’re back at about 24 feet to here, to that wall. MR. FORD-That’s the length of it. The width of it would be, for the buffer zone? MR. JARRETT-The buffer’s going back to the existing wall where the new wall will replace the existing. It’s about 24 feet. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. PLATT-The summary, as far as advantages of what we are trying to do for the site, what we propose is we have decreased our hard surfacing. We’ve got a permeability increase by 10%. Our septic leach field existing antiquated leach field and septic where we will be upgrading, hope to, and the installation of the stormwater basins that are not existing on site is another positive, and then increase shoreline setback. As I said, we are increasing that setback by removing roofs and so forth, and all of the setbacks that we have, either they have not been changed or we have increased the setbacks, and as I said, the area that we’re tearing down and rebuilding, the clearance right now is seven foot two, and we’re going to seven ten, where the minimum is seven foot six. MR. SIPP-Where is the present septic and leach field? MS. PLATT-If you, right behind, right in here. MR. SIPP-Underneath the present driveway? MS. PLATT-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is there a pump system? You’ve got a sink in the present lower basement, how does that water get up hill? MR. FORD-Reverse gravity. ANDREA PEEK MR. PEEK-In the present basement, there’s no sink. MR. SIPP-It shows it on the. MR. PEEK-A bedroom and a playroom. MR. SIPP-There’s a bedroom, but what is this? MR. PEEK-That’s a dry bar. MR. SIPP-That’s a dry bar. MR. PEEK-Yes, there’s a refrigerator underneath it. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SIPP-All right, on the first floor, then, where the elevation would be somewhere around 340, and you go to 342 or something where the present septic system is, that’s all. MR. O'CONNOR-I think by dry bar he means it’s not serviced by water. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I’ll give you that, if that’s what it is, but I’m talking about the first floor bathrooms that are presently there, of which you have two bathrooms and a shower. That’s above? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s at ground level, road level. MR. SIPP-Now when you put the new bathroom in the basement, is that going to be, is that still gravity? KEITH MANTZ MR. MANTZ-It’ll be pumped up to the septic system. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. MANTZ-Yes, there’s a septic tank that’ll be put outside the rear of the building, the roadside. It’ll go gravity into that, and then beyond the septic tank is a dosing chamber, a pump tank, that’ll pump it up to the disposal field up near the road, the upper left hand corner. MR. SIPP-You’re actually adding two showers and a toilet on the new? MR. MANTZ-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The house right now is a three bedroom house and what’s proposed is a three bedroom house. MR. PEEK-Right now it’s a three bedroom, two bath house. It’s proposed three bedroom, three bath. MR. O'CONNOR-There’d be an additional bath, but not an additional bedroom. MR. SIPP-But you’re adding a toilet. You’re going to end up with three toilets and two showers. MR. PEEK-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Keith, do you want to talk about the septic first? MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just ask Sue a question? Am I correct in stating that they still have to go to the Town Board and get approval for the septic? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So in a lot of ways, this is all for naught, then, because everything could change. MRS. BARDEN-No, the Town Board decided that they wanted the applicant to seek the variance and site plan approval before going back for their septic variance. MR. SEGULJIC-So they want to get site plan approval before they approve this septic variance? MR. FORD-It didn’t make sense when I read it, and it still doesn’t make sense. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t make sense. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re doing as we were told to do. We’re trying to do as we were told. MR. SIPP-The last end says, Supervisor Stec says what we are saying is we would like you to go through the Planning Board and then the Zoning Board. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I read that and it didn’t register, and then just one other quick question if I could. There’s a comment in the notes from the Town Board, from Mr. Boor, talking about there’s a subdivision plat for this development that you’re in. It’s very clear there’s a 10 foot no build zone where you’re proposing to put your leach field. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve talked about that on other applications, and the Town engineer, or the Town Attorney agrees that the no build has to do with structures and not subsurface, and they’ve allowed septic within that area, and in fact many people have built structures within that area, although that is on the record. MR. SEGULJIC-And what plat is that he’s referring to? MR. O'CONNOR-On the original subdivision map for this area. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that this one? MRS. BARDEN-For Rockhurst. MR. O'CONNOR-Rockhurst. MR. SEGULJIC-This drawing here, the Hawmack subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it’s either there. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I looked at this and didn’t see any 10 foot. MR. O'CONNOR-It may be in the restrictive covenants. I’ve heard that issue before. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I’m just going to have to get clarification on that. MR. O'CONNOR-And what’s going to be put within that is the septic system which we go to the Town Board for. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s nothing, there’s no structure that we’re asking you to approve, because you’re not going to approve this septic system, I take it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to have Tom Jarrett explain to you a little bit about the stormwater, and basically we’re having more permeable area afterwards than before, which was part of what our thought process was. MR. JARRETT-Correct. We’re actually reducing the amount of impervious area on the site. There’s quite a bit of asphalt pavement being removed, and in response to the development, we’re proposing four stormwater retention infiltration areas. The primary focus is the one adjacent to the driveway on the north side of the site. That will receive the runoff from the driveway, the existing and the proposed driveway. The one to the south end of the site where the old driveway was located outside the garage is intended to take a significant portion of the roof runoff and then we’re proposing two landscaped terraces behind these new replacement retaining walls down on the lower portion of the site to take some of the roof runoff as well as overflow from the upper basins. So we really have a belt and suspenders system for stormwater. MR. SIPP-Is that on either side of the property on the north side or the south side? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-Those two little rectangular areas? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-Because you’ve got a slope there that approaches 28%. MR. JARRETT-Well, that’s why we’re proposing to replace the existing retaining walls which are dilapidated and in need of repair and replacement. The new block retaining walls will have this retention area behind it and you’ll get a detail in your next submission package that will show how that’s going to be constructed. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SIPP-Because there is a 14 foot difference from the lakeshore elevation to the east side of the house. MR. JARRETT-You’re correct. We’re actually creating the retention areas through those retaining walls and shallow berm that you will see on your next detail sheet. MR. SEGULJIC-So just for clarification, on the north side, that slope’s greater than 15% if I calculated it correctly. MR. JARRETT-The lower slope is. The upper slope is not. MR. SEGULJIC-The entire thing, though, it’s greater than 15%, correct? MR. JARRETT-Average? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I can’t speak to that, but it may be. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because I came up with like 18% or something like that. MR. JARRETT-It may be that, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess it depends where you start measuring. MR. JARRETT-Right. Right now there’s no stormwater management on the site, as you can tell, and it is a sloping site. We’re trying to build in stormwater management using the shallow berms and the landscaped terraces behind the retaining walls. MR. SIPP-In the basement, facing to the east, there’s a stone patio going to be placed in there? MR. O'CONNOR-It’ll be something of the nature that was put on the Barrington site, where you put pea gravel, you put it in a bed of pea gravel and put enough space between the stone so that it would. MR. SIPP-It’s not an impervious surface. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. So it would drain within its own boundary. MR. SIPP-That’s an awful slope from that stone patio headed right downhill there. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s smaller than the wood deck that’s there now. If I understand this, if you look at one of the early maps, there’s an oval shaped wood deck, and that’s the area that they’re talking about putting that in, and it’s a much smaller area than that wood deck, or that, right there. MR. SIPP-Much smaller than the wood deck. Okay. Yes, all right. MR. O'CONNOR-You can see the wood deck right there, Mr. Sipp. MR. SIPP-Yes, right. Now, the planting strip is 24 feet wide across the whole right side? MR. O'CONNOR-Except for the stairs that go down to the dock. MR. SIPP-Yes, okay, and what is going to be placed in there, we don’t have any landscaping. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’re trying to work that out with the LGA, or have we worked it out? MS.PLATT-Well, basically we have a native ground cover and shrubs and that area, basically with deep roots, and like I say, native plantings. We’ll not require the fertilizing, and we won’t have the lawn there and so forth. That’s an area that the owner’s going to work out with his landscaper. MR. FORD-In consultation with the LGA? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MS. PLATT-Yes. We have been speaking with her and I’ve been conferring with her in this, with Kathy Bozony. MR. SIPP-The present trees are going to remain and mature pines that are there? MS. PLATT-Yes. MR. PEEK-The ones on the south side of the property aren’t mine. Those are the next door neighbor’s. MR. SIPP-They’re not yours? MR. PEEK-No. His lot is a non-buildable lot. So they’ll always remain there. MR. SIPP-Most lots are. There’s a tree right there that belongs. MR. MANTZ-Yes, that’ll stay, definitely. MR. SIPP-Now, those shrubs that are already there, they’re going to remain or will they be displaced by something new? MR. O'CONNOR-I presume landscaping’s going to make them, when they re-do the wall, some of that’s going to be landscaped out and replanted. We can come in with a landscape plan if you want to have that. MR. SIPP-Definitely, because I don’t want to see a lawn there. The grass is not enough to stop the water coming down there now. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that that’s something new that they’re going to try and do on a voluntary basis, and the applicant is willing to undertake that. MR. SEGULJIC-Which I’m very pleased to see. MR. PEEK-Believe me, I don’t want to mow, dual purpose. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at one of the early site plans, too, you’ll also see in that lower southerly corner there was a deck down there and what not and I think that’s already been removed. There was an extensive deck there. MR. SIPP-The existing wood deck in the southeast corner, that’s all gone. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s gone, but it was there when he purchased it. MR. FORD-I have a question. Why does this plan not include removal of that shed, or something done with that shed? That shed is certainly not going to remain there. MR. PEEK-No. I’d like to put a new one in. MR. FORD-But that’s another phase. MR. PEEK-I guess so. I didn’t want to include it in the FAR. MR. FORD-That’s a beautiful dock, by the way. MR. PEEK-Thank you. It wasn’t last year. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we include it as something to be replaced? MR. PEEK-Yes. I want to replace it anyhow, but I didn’t want it to be included in the FAR because it has a roof on it. So I just kind of backed away from doing it. It’s all rotted out anyhow. It’s probably 40 years old. MR. FORD-I know. MR. PEEK-But as of right now it’s the only place I have to store anything. MR. FORD-Well, you’re going to build a nice new storage facility, and on that same side of the house. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. PEEK-Yes. Well, if the underneath, if it works out there’s storage underneath, then I really won’t even need a shed. That’s where I’ll store the kayaks and my kids stuff. MR. FORD-You won’t need anything there at all? MR. PEEK-No, I’d be willing to take it out, if the rest goes okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Is this seasonal or year round at this point? MR. PEEK-We use it seasonally. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you’ve got to be careful. You come on weekends more frequently in the summer than you do in the winter, but sometimes you come, do you come in the winter? I got buried in something someplace else. Everything here is going to be built on a year round basis, and should be considered that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s going to be year round. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-It is year round. It’s not going to be, it is year round. MR. SEGULJIC-It is year round. Okay. All right. So what we need to do, not that we will tonight, but we need to give site plan approval and then the Town Board will make their decision on the, is it a variance, I guess? th MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. They did receive a variance June 28 for front and shoreline setback relief. MRS. BRUNO-But in terms of the septic? MR. O'CONNOR-The septic requires a variance, and correct me if I’m wrong, Keith, two variances. One because of the proximity of the absorption area to the road, and one because of the proximity of the absorption area to the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The proposed septic system is right next to the road? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How does that work with runoff from the road? Because you always want to keep your septic, your leaching fields away from the areas of absorption. I think it’s 50 feet or something. MR. MANTZ-Right. The normal is 10 foot off the property line, but in deference to the lake, we wanted to keep it as far back from the lake as possible. So we got it one foot off the rear property line, 88 feet off the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-But what about the runoff from the road, is that going to impact it? I believe the road’s crowned towards where the septic system is going to be. MR. MANTZ-Yes. We’re going to have enough slope over at the top of it, that whether we pushed it nine feet further towards the lake or not, you’re still going to have that normal runoff from the centerline of the road over that will shed over the top of the system down into the detention basin that Tom Jarrett’s designed. It’s going to be the same either way. It’s just that it’s going to travel eight feet further if we moved it back, nine feet further. So it should not go down into the system, the disposal field area, and impact the. MR. SEGULJIC-So you took that into your design concept, to have it sheet over the top? MR. MANTZ-Right, exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. You do have a new set of plans, correct? MR. MANTZ-Not on file. MR. SEGULJIC-Not on file, because these plans are confusing compared to what was presented. So MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that we have new plans on file. We probably have some verbalized responses that, I’m not sure if they’re all together yet, Susan, or not, 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) back and forth with C.T. Male, and that would be a package that I hope would be put together and given to you. MRS. BARDEN-Right. We do have a new stormwater management plan, done by Jarrett-Martin Engineers, elevation drawings from Frost Architecture, which I think are both identified on Staff notes. C.T. Male comments, and Jarrett Martin and Keith Mantz’s response to C.T. Male comments, and those will all be given to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So there’s a lot of information we don’t have. Okay. With regards to the stormwater infiltration or retention? MR. JARRETT-Both. MR. SEGULJIC-Both, okay. Did you do test pits in those areas? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You did? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We did test pits in. MR. SEGULJIC-And we don’t have that information? MR. JARRETT-No, that’s right. It’ll be on the plan that you get in your package. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. With regards to the FAR calculation, I was confused about that. Could you clean that up for us with your next submission, as to what’s what? Because I think the way you did it, you started with. MR. O'CONNOR-I think Denise can explain it, and I probably will lose it, but the existing area, if you’re on the Floor Area worksheet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The first floor of existing shows 1743 square feet. That’s made up of 1482 square feet of building and 261 square feet of overhang, which is in excess of one and a half foot, eighteen inches, and that’s how you get to the 1743. When we’re done, we’re still going to have 1482 square feet of building, plus the 74 foot of overhang to remain, and then the dining room, which is 117 feet. So we end up with the first floor being 1673 feet as oppose to 1743. MR. FORD-But that first floor also currently houses the garage? MS. PLATT-We’re talking about the upper level. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the upper level. It should say upper level instead of first floor. MR. FORD-Okay. Right. MR. O'CONNOR-In the basement area, right now we’re talking about 612, because when they did this, they separated the garage, and you’ll see down below where they’ve got attached garage 340. Add the 340 and the 612, and you come up with 952. Because they’re converting the 340 garage to living space, they changed the area of the basement level from 612 to 952, the same square footage. You could have done it differently but that’s the way they did it. The covered decks were 110, and they’re going to 142. Overall, there’s still a net decrease, and it’s within the 22%, it goes from 21.4 to 21.1, as far as Floor Area Ratio. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I always get nervous because you’re pretty close, and when I did it, I came up with 25%, but I will admit, I’m confused. MR. O'CONNOR-I differ, but apparently this is the way Frost Architecture. I’ve been told to include, and I don’t understand this, and maybe you’re going to make some clarification when you do some revisions, to include the overhang, if it’s over one and a half foot in the Floor Area Ratio, because I think it, then, is looked upon as being maybe a covered porch, maybe a covered walkway, something of that nature. To me, that’s not living space, and I thought Floor Area Ratio was living space, but that’s the big difference is they’re going from 261 feet of that to 74 square feet of it. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Did you include the storage area in the basement? MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s not living space. MR. SEGULJIC-But you included the. MR. FORD-But it’s seven plus feet high. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but it has no ventilation air. It would not qualify under the New York State Building Code as living space. MR. SEGULJIC-So that storage area is not included on the plans you submitted to us, that’s been a recent change, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s on the plans, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-I may be looking at the existing, I’m sorry. Yes, it’s there. MR. O'CONNOR-And Staff agreed with us on that, this whole thing. MR. FORD-No garage in this new structure? MR. PEEK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Not a lot of space up there. MR. PEEK-I didn’t want to build a McMansion. I can live without a garage. MR. SEGULJIC-That would be one of my overall comments. I think you’re doing way too much with the space you have. My other comment would be, I believe this is a major project, based on a couple of facts. You’re disturbing over 5,000 square feet, you’re in a CEA, and if I’m correct, your slope is over 15 feet, which would make you major, and that’s something I would like the Board to consider, if we agree to make it a major project, then, as I understand it, it would direct the Zoning Administrator to send the applicant a notice saying it’s a major project. Anyone have any thoughts on that? MRS. BRUNO-That ends up sending it to the next level. Review with me, please? MR. SEGULJIC-For more enhanced stormwater, which I think they’ve done a great job on, but. MR. JARRETT-You can certainly do that, and we understand why you’re proposing that, but it would be strictly procedural, because the calculations are still going to show that there’s less stormwater created than under the current scenario. So our management will still stay the same. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, that’s fine. I guess I’m just trying to establish the record that most projects on the lake should be major. MR. JARRETT-Classifying it as major, that would be fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Does that make sense that the Board take a vote on it and have the Zoning Administrator? MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I guess I should make a proposal as such. MOTION THAT SITE PLAN NO. 29-2006 ANDREA PEEK BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT UNDER CHAPTER 147 AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN SUCH CHAPTER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. O'CONNOR-I would respectfully reserve our rights as to that determination, because I think basically we are decreasing the stormwater and the non-pervious area, and I think those are to be read into that 147 that you’re reading. MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that, and I was pleased to see, this is the first time I ever saw an actual stormwater permit, application, I should say. I think it’s come a long ways from what we would have seen a year ago or so. The other thing is, what the Board has been doing, is making projects within CEA areas, which this is, Unlisted Actions under SEQRA. The Staff now has this listed as a Type II, I believe. So what I would like to do is make it an Unlisted Action. Any comments from the Board on that? MR. O'CONNOR-Unless you show negative impacts, I would question the Board doing that. I think you have to go through the review process first, and see whether or not you have beneficial impacts or detrimental impacts that affect the characteristics, and I’m using the terminology of the Ordinance that affect the characteristics that establish the CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, this is where I’m at a distinct disadvantage. I don’t have an attorney with me. Any thoughts on that, Sue? I mean, one of my comments would be it was just made an Unlisted Action. No thought was given to it. MR. O'CONNOR-But that’s the way our Ordinance. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s my understanding it’s up to the Board to determine what type of action it is. MR. O'CONNOR-It is, but you are given criteria to follow, in your Ordinance. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and it’s just a suggestion from the Planning Staff to us that it is a Type II. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not saying that you can’t make a determination, Tom. I’m saying that when you make the determination, you’re supposed to have a basis set forth on the criteria that’s set forth in the Ordinance, and that’s under. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s in a CEA. MR. O'CONNOR-Just being in a CEA does not mean that every project is an Unlisted project. Unless a particular project affects the characteristics that establish the CEA, you don’t cross that threshold. MR. SEGULJIC-A septic system within 100 feet of the lake, which is out of our Code. MR. O'CONNOR-The existing septic system is in failure. It is closer to the lake. This is an improvement. MR. SIPP-It’s still within. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s within 100 feet. I’m not saying that, but I’m just saying your triggering devices within the SEQRA regulations, and I don’t think you reach any of those. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s something we’ve been doing as of late, and I personally feel strongly about it. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m asking that you do it according to your regulations, and the SEQRA regulations, and I don’t have those with me or I could read to you the section that says that it has to affect, in a detrimental manner, the characteristics that establish the CEA, and I don’t know of anything on this particular project. MR. SEGULJIC-A failing septic system. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not what we’re applying for. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re also going to have a septic system within 100 feet, and the potential stormwater runoff from the site. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Take them one at a time. Septic. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, I’m going to take a vote here of the Board. You’re the applicant. I’m at a distinct disadvantage. I don’t have an attorney with me. We’ll let it come out in the wash, it’s something we’ve been doing as of late. MRS. BRUNO-I would also like clarification from what Councilman Boor had said in the no build zone. There seems to be some dispute, and I, personally, do not have that definition and I need to know that. I’m not willing to pass the site plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re not going to be. MRS. BRUNO-I know we’re not. I’m just saying that’s yet another fact. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So how does the Board feel about making this an Unlisted Action? MR. SIPP-Until we get clarification. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s something we’ve done in the past. It’s in the CEA. MR. SIPP-Until we get clarification, I think we should go ahead. MRS. BARDEN-I guess just identify what concerns you think may have a significant impact on the environment, as your justification for changing the listing from Type II to Unlisted. MR. SEGULJIC-The stormwater runoff from the site. I realize you’re making improvements, but we’re attempting to establish a process here. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask you to defer. You’re not going to do your SEQRA this evening. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask you to defer your classification until you’ve consulted with your attorney. MR. FORD-That makes sense to me. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. We’ll do that. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, and I’m hopeful that you’re going to look at it and look at the regulations and the triggering devices in the regulations, and if each of those things, whether we go through septic, stormwater, visibility, the other things that you look at, and unless you see something in the project that is a negative thing, I think you’re bound to go in one direction. You can go the other way if you find negative things. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll agree with that. I guess, any other comments from the Board? MRS. BARDEN-There is a public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador is my name. A couple of things. In Staff notes it says something here about the project description involves demolition, reconstruction and expansion. I think the site plan should show, or someplace you should make sure that a demolition permit is issued, clearly defining everything that is going to be demolished. We’re having trouble with other projects where that hasn’t been done and more is taken out than was anticipated. The reconstruction constitutes new construction if it’s more than 50% of what was there. Staff notes say the applicant has submitted additional information that the Board has not received. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Quite a bit of information we haven’t received. MR. SALVADOR-You have not received, okay. And I suspect this public hearing will remain open. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. Further in the Staff notes, it talks about the dining area is not included in the FAR. This will be uninhabitable space. I don’t understand that. MRS. BARDEN-The space underneath the dining area, the storage area. MR. SALVADOR-Is it the basement? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. With regard to permeability, we have frequently, up to this point, not considered the fact that the absorption field is impermeable. The absorption field is a type of construction that relies on expotranspiration. We even build the absorption field on a pitch, so that the water runs off and doesn’t run in. Now that water running off just adds to the surcharge of water on the rest of the site. So you can’t include the absorption field as being permeable. With regard to the subject of the subdivision plat that you refer to, and Mr. O’Connor’s comments with some deed encumbrances, you all have copies of that subdivision plat. I have them here if you don’t. I suggest that the point of departure for this site plan is that subdivision plat. That is a plan that is recorded, that is in place. That is an obligation on every one. I’d like you to take a look at that plan, and I’ll read you a couple of paragraphs from the deed, the encumbrances that Mr. O’Connor referred to. With regard to that shed that you saw, no establishment of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other buildings shall be used on any lot at any time. That is an encumbrance on that subdivision plat. All sewage disposal systems shall be installed on the rear or roadside of the premises. Which I guess the present one is installed on the rear or roadside. No building shall be nearer than 12 feet to the rear lot line, which is the nearest boundary line of the 16 foot roadway, and it is subject to all these covenants, restrictions and conditions of record affecting the premises. I would like to read the final one, and please look at the detail on that map that shows that no build zone that Mr. Boor referred to, the 10 feet. You see that detail? MR. SEGULJIC-No. I looked for it. MR. SALVADOR-It’s right here. That’s a typical lot layout. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re referring to the minimum of 10 feet from the? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Now let me read the deed encumbrance that refers to that 10 feet. The grantor in this case, the subdivider, accepted and reserved the right of egress and ingress and the necessary easements over and upon the rear or roadside of the premises hereby conveyed for the purposes of installation and maintenance of public utilities. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s the answer. MR. SALVADOR-That goes to the 10 feet no build zone, and I don’t see how an attorney can read that and read this and say it’s okay to put a private utility in there. Okay. A couple of other comments. We’re going to utilize the existing foundation. Has someone checked that it meets the Code? It’s the right depth, it has structural integrity to support this new building? That’s the subject of an engineering survey and a certification. I spoke about the permeability. The subject of the buffer zone. I think we’re losing the fact that the LGA’s position and point on the buffer zone is a view filter. They’re not worried about stormwater and all that kind of stuff. They want to filter the view of this dwelling from the lake. That’s the idea of the buffer. There was talk about the storage area not being living space. The subject of the storage area not being living space. Closets are considered living space. You can’t live in a closet. They don’t have light and heat and that sort of thing. So I can’t understand why a storage area is not living space, and I think you’ll find, as to whether or not this is an Unlisted Action, it’s covered in the SEQRA law, not the Town Code. The SEQRA law specifically addresses the issue of a residential dwelling, qualifies as Type II only if certain conditions exist, and when you have on site wastewater and drinking water, then it’s clear that it’s an Unlisted Action. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) The only other thing I’d like to mention, I mentioned on your previous application, was the issue of drinking water. This is new construction. This is post 2003. The new Building Code kicks in, and it’s incumbent upon the these people to have a well. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. I would ask, is it possible to get a copy of that deed encumbrance to Staff and then they can distribute it to us? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I have. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else to comment? With that, we’ll leave the public hearing open. If this will make you feel any better, I think that this is one of the better projects that I’ve seen, where you’ve actually come in with a buffer strip, which I’m glad to see. You actually came in with stormwater management. Does the Board have any other questions at all? I do have one other question. That is, back to the Town Board meeting, where I guess Roger Boor had indicated they’re looking into getting, for lack of a better terms, some community septics for Rockhurst. What would happen if you spent all your money on a septic system and then they put the community septic in, you’d participate in that? MR. PEEK-Yes. To me it’s just like going from septic to sewer. When they do that, even if you put a new septic system in, you would be compelled to go to the sewer system. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. He talked about it, but he didn’t give any specifics and it’s been how many years, 25, 30 years since sewers were supposed to come. MR. SEGULJIC-Sue, do you know anything about that? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t. I know that there has been some discussion on maybe a maintenance district for Rockhurst. So that would not require a septic to come through and a centralized system that they would have to. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just in discussion at this point? Okay. MR. FORD-Your water source is? MR. O’CONNOR-Lake George. MR. PEEK-The whole east side is the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-It presently is and will be afterwards. I think the only thing I agree with, with Mr. Salvador is that you will find the regulations that I spoke of in the SEQRA law, not the Town law. I didn’t mean to say that the triggering devices are in the Town law. They are in the SEQRA regulations. As to this no build zone, we would understand that if there were public utilities to be placed in that area, we would be installing our septic at risk, and we would be responsible for removing them, and hopefully someday they will put a septic in there. MR. SEGULJIC-We’d need some note like that on the plat or something. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We really have no great issue with that. Whether you count the storage in the FAR or not is a determination that Staff agreed with us. I think that that is what is applicable. We’ve not done that in the past. I’ve never, I’ve heard the argument a number of times that you can’t consider the area of the absorption area as being non- permeable, but we have a definition of non-permeable within our Ordinance, and certainly an absorption area which you do not allow traffic on, you do not allow it to become compacted, is not non-permeable, not in the sense of how we calculate permeability, and I’m not even 100% sure of the calculation, as I sit here, how close we are to the permeability or not close to the permeability. Right now, before we begin the project, I guess we are at 38% non-permeable. When we complete the project, if we complete it as we’ve said, we’ll be at 28.75, an increase of almost 10% in permeability, and I differ with my understanding of what the Lake George Association is trying to accomplish with this buffer zone. They are promoting ground cover, low plants, for the purposes of absorption, for the purposes of assisting stormwater from the site. I don’t think that’s gotten into a visibility buffer that they’re promoting, at least not in my reading of it. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I would agree with that, but if you had a visible buffer, it would be all the better, not to have the whole place buffered up, but maybe a few trees in there, but let’s see what you have planned, let’s start with that. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. O'CONNOR-And I think you’re going to run into the issue, and not the issue, I don’t think we contradict any of the restrictive covenants, that they are private restrictions to be enforced by private individuals and not by the municipality. No municipality that I am aware of has ever undertaken the enforcement of private restrictive covenants that are on a particular piece of property. It’s not a battle you want to get into. You have enough issues before you. The other things I think we can answer and have answered in what we’ve submitted. So we thank you for your patience, unless you have something else. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess we’ll have to make a motion, correct, a tabling motion? Any other comments? MR. O'CONNOR-Can you table it to a specific meeting as you have all the information, it just hasn’t been distributed to you? MR. SEGULJIC-I believe we can. MRS. BARDEN-You can, sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Any recommendations? MRS. BARDEN-9/19 or 9/26. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put them on in August? MRS. BARDEN-Is there any additional information, other than what we have? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, here’s what I had. Submission of a complete set of plans, which apparently you’ve done, it’s my understanding? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarification of the 10 foot no build zone. The only other thing that Mr. Salvador mentioned I think would be a good idea is just definition of what is planned to be demolished. That would be easy enough to do. MR. O'CONNOR-What is to be demolished is the upper portion of the northerly end of the structure. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we would just like to see that defined on the plans. That’s all. MR. O'CONNOR-But you’re going to require us to go through a submittal process to put a note on the plan? Or can you put that as a condition on your plan? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t know what you submitted yet. MRS. BRUNO-Has Frost Architecture already drawn up demolition plans? Typically you’ll have on your construction plans to be demolished. MS. PLATT-It’s noted here, this portion of the existing first floor shall be removed and new floor elevation to be raised eight inches. This is the portion of it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-There was a point that was made by Mr. Salvador that where I was going with some of my questioning, and that is, that pertains to the quality of the current wall upon which this present home exists and upon which we will place another block and build up from that. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a building permit issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Isn’t that a building permit issue with Dave Hatin? I’m sure that we can buttress the wall in some manner that it will work. We’re not talking about coming in here with an apple in this hand and coming out with an orange. We’re not going to go in and talk about total site demolition where we’ve shown you the area that we’ll do demolition. If that were the case I think, at least in another township, they said that that’s a modification of the permit and you need to come back. MR. SIPP-Going along with this, what will be removed, demolition, will the old septic system be removed, the soil beneath it? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant says he hopes so, but, yes, as I understand it, you have to do that nowadays, Mr. Sipp, that’s by Code. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think that’s the intention. MR. MANTZ-There’s two options. You can fill in the existing tank with sand depending on how it impacts the foundation. I think it’s still going to be outside of it, or it can be removed. That’s the option. Both are applicable to the current Code on how to handle it. MR. O'CONNOR-If your approval conditions it one way or another, we accept that. We don’t have a problem with that. MR. SIPP-Just so its noted that this will happen. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you put it as a condition of your approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just thinking of one thing. The original house was built when, do we have a date on that? MR. O'CONNOR-1958. MRS. BRUNO-Do you have the plans? Sometimes you get lucky and you end up with plans or the County has them. MR. PEEK-I think I’ve seen original plans when I was going for my permit for my dock. MRS. BRUNO-Do you know if the architectural firm has received those, because those would be key in terms of talking about your foundation structure. MS. PLATT-Frost Architecture has not received plans of the original building. We have done existing conditions. MR. PEEK-The original camp that was built in ’56 or ’57, the garage portion was added later. That’s why it’s higher than the, and it’s basically, it’s two foundations. It’s a garage foundation butted up against the main camp foundation. The north side that the kitchen’s in currently is on piers. So that’s the reason why we need the storage. It’s going to serve, we hope that’ll serve a dual purpose of being a foundation for the kitchen dining area and a storage unit. There’s nothing there now except piers and dirt. So it’ll be actually three foundations when it’s all complete, butted up against each other. MR. FORD-I’d like to see, while we’re addressing permeability issues, I’d like to see you address now, as part of your plan, that shed. I’d rather not address that at another subsequent time. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the applicant has said that with this approval he can remove the shed, and if that’s a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-You need it now for storage. MR. PEEK-Yes, we’ll need it for storage. MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing I’d like to see is the test pit information. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s on the plans. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess what we need to table this for is really all the information you submitted. thnd MRS. BARDEN-So the dates in August are the 15 and the 22. MR. SEGULJIC-And how does it look? Is the Chairman going to scold me? MRS. BARDEN-If you’re not requesting any additional information, I think that that’s fine. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll tell him you recommended it. MRS. BARDEN-I didn’t recommend it, but that’s fine. nd MR. SEGULJIC-August 22, then? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. What we have to do, then, is I will motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2006 ANDREA PEEK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: For submission of a complete set of site plans. Tabled to August 22, 2006. th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Susan, can I ask that you be sure that C.T. Male has, their last e-mail that I saw said that they were satisfied, but I don’t know if that’s going to be sufficient for the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, especially since now it’s a major project. I don’t know what they’re going to have to say about that. MRS. BARDEN-They’ll have all of that correspondence. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR- 1A LOCATION SMOKE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE 5 PARCELS INTO 10 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.51 ACRES TO 0.95 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 6-06, SB 7-85M, SB 11-01, AV 74-01, AV 98-01, SP 23-02 6/22/06 SKETCH REVIEW WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5, 21.6 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. O'CONNOR-The purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is John and Matt Cifone from Cifone Construction, and Tom Center, from Nace Engineering. We believe that from the last time we were here, we completed the task that you gave to us. Tom can walk you through that, the C.T. Male letter, and we did obtain a letter as to the Karner blue butterfly or lack of the Karner blue butterfly from Kathy O’Brien from DEC. She indicated that there is no habitat on the site, but asked the applicant if they would consider fencing part of the back of the project, and the applicant reluctantly is willing to do that. Acceptance of that can be part of your approval. MR. SEGULJIC-So you said you received the letter? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes, we received the letter on Friday, last week. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have copies for us, by chance? MR. CENTER-I have a copy for you. It is submitted in the application for Final, which I submitted before the July date. It’s in the packet that you don’t have yet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sue, just clarify for me, this is still Preliminary, then? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. CENTER-This is Preliminary. We have taken the chance to submit the Final application with the changes from the last meeting because we couldn’t get them to you for this meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and you had all this already. MR. CENTER-And we had all this already done. The changes were minor. We have put those on the drawings, submitted them for Final, in hopes that, knowing the timeframe and the scheduling of the meetings, that we would be all set, and I can explain the stuff that we’ve added to the drawings, based on the stuff that you have there. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, please. MR. CENTER-On S-1, we have added the no cut zone on the back of the lots, except for Lots 21B and 20A, where the grading comes up. MR. FORD-That’s the shaded area? MR. CENTER-Yes. The shaded areas, we’ll put the 25 foot no cut zone in the back of those lots, as asked for during the Sketch meeting. MR. FORD-The reason you didn’t do it on those other two lots? MR. CENTER-Is because, I’ll show you on the grading plan, where we need to work the grade in order to get an acceptable slope and re-work for the septic systems, like I explained at the Sketch plan meetings. It’s a 15% grade, and we need to match (lost word) back into the existing. So that was the only area. Now we had the letter from DEC. She’s been out there. There is no lupine. The only area that she was primarily concerned with was down here on this lower lot which has some significant open areas where ATV access has been in and out through the property. She asked that we provide some sort of fencing to keep anybody from driving through that at this property, and that fencing will go from this point here along the property line and back where it ties in, where the brush gets that thick on Lot 20B. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me for one second. I have a different set of plans. MR. CENTER-S-1. MR. SEGULJIC-My S-1 doesn’t have a no cut zone on it. MR. CENTER-Your S-1 will not have the no cut zone on it. I could not submit it in time for this meeting. I had it done. By the time I got the landscaping drawing, the whole nine yards, I wanted one submission. I had it ten days before this meeting, but it can’t go out to you folks. MR. O'CONNOR-If you remember the last meeting we came to, we thought was Preliminary, and it turned out to be just Sketch Plan, but we went through the whole process, and in order to keep things moving, Tom took all the comments and put them on a set of plans for Final. These are the plans, or the plans in front of you are the plans that were actually filed at the time we came with Sketch Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re one step ahead of us. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, we thought you were going to consider those for Preliminary, and it turned out that you considered those for. MR. CENTER-We filed for a waiver during Sketch Plan. We had engineering comments back based on Preliminary. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what do we hope to accomplish tonight? MR. O'CONNOR-Preliminary. MR. CENTER-To get approval for Preliminary. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, based on these plans that we have. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. CENTER-Based on these plans that you have in front of you, adding in the comments from your Sketch Plan meeting, and any conditions. MR. O'CONNOR-We would suggest that you do Preliminary approval, and if you have to condition Preliminary approval, condition it upon the additions that you, we’re telling you that you’re going to see in response to the comments you made, and I don’t think there was any issue, when we got all said and done. MR. SIPP-Elevations, front, side. MR. CENTER-They have been submitted in the Final, I do have them. Again, we submitted them before this meeting, but we couldn’t get them out. MR. SIPP-The floor plans also? MR. CENTER-Yes, elevations and floor plans. These are both the elevations. MR. SIPP-Landscaping. MR. CENTER-Landscaping, it is added in the Final. We have added landscaping trees along the road and in front of the house and this is a blow up. MR. FORD-Exterior lighting? MR. CENTER-That’s all on the house. MR. SIPP-And stormwater? MR. CENTER-I have signoff, not a signoff but C.T. Male has reviewed everything except comment number two, which has been submitted to him. We would ask that I believe I spoke to him on the phone when he received the packet. We would hope to have a signoff by the time we come back for Final MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I guess what we’re considering doing is giving Preliminary approval with conditions that the landscaping, no cut zone, and then you already have all the plans? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CENTER-We’ve added the comments that came in from Sketch Plan to pretty much everything that was asked for. We’ve added them on the drawings. The only thing we don’t have an answer from is for C.T. Male for the stormwater, which I can explain what we did with the stormwater, and the only additional, what we’ve done with the stormwater is there’s eaves trenches around the house, and then taking the driveways that shed towards the road, shedding towards the road to a swale along the road, and we’ve placed, we have check dams along the swale and drywells to infiltration the additional impervious driveways that are going to (lost words). MR. FORD-That’s between driveways? MR. CENTER-Yes. There’s a grass swale. The driveways come down and tie into the existing road and then there’s a swale that follows that (lost words). Due to the existing elevations of the road, and the elevations of the houses, we’re trying to limit the cut back into the hills. We can’t do culverts under the road. Like I explained at the last meeting, we have to meet that existing elevation of the subdivision road, and that sets our finished floor elevation. If we were to do that, we’d have to push the houses back further and then cut more into the ground and it would be getting into the buffer, the whole nine yards, 15% slope. So what we have is there is, this section of land grades down this way from almost the middle line of this townhouse here grades down in this direction. We have a drywell down here in between these two driveways, and check dams in the swale to hold up water, slow it down, down the existing grade that’s already there. MR. FORD-What would the depth of that swale you’re talking about there? MR. CENTER-Twelve inches. It’s just enough to meet existing grade, the water coming off the road, the water coming from the house, and give the water a grass channel. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. FORD-How about the other swales? MR. CENTER-The same thing. It matches the existing. About the same depth. It’s a foot, and it matches the existing grade of the road. It’s a little bit more defined than what is there now. The ground, the soil is very fast right now. There is no defined drainage path. Right now most of the stormwater does come off the road. As it goes down from this point down, there is an existing drainage way right here that drains off that actually comes across this swale here and then drains, and that’s the existing easement. MR. FORD-So how many drywells do you anticipate? MR. CENTER-We are adding six drywells, and we are neglecting the storage from the check dams also. On the conservative side, there’s going to be some storage that the check dams will hold up. MR. FORD-There are going to be how many check dams? MR. CENTER-There’s a few. It depends on how much slope there is. MR. FORD-That hasn’t been determined yet? MR. CENTER-Yes, we do have the check dams. We have 11 check dams. It flattens out along this part. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-On Lot Number 21A and B, finished floor on one is 115, and the finished floor on the other is 112. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Three foot difference. MR. CENTER-Yes. There’s a break in the elevation. In order to meet the elevations behind and in front, for the driveway, is one of the things we had to do was step one house down. We talked with the builders. It’s something we can do. Again, we’re grading to that existing subdivision road that’s in front of us. We’re trying to keep our driveways at the 10% slope. MR. SEGULJIC-And so on Lot 23A, if I understand this correctly, you’re going to have a 10 foot retaining wall, at the edge of the driveway or something? MR. CENTER-There is a, it’s 118 at the finished floor elevation, and it’s 110 to 111, probably an eight foot retaining wall, again, in order to meet the existing grade, tie that back in. MR. SEGULJIC-So is that going to be at the edge of the driveway, or where is that going to be? MR. CENTER-No. The driveway is actually enlarged on that house. It doesn’t come straight out. It goes outside the house. So there’s a couple of feet. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that kind of concerns me. MR. FORD-The height of that again is how much? MR. CENTER-It’ll be eight feet, in the back, down to match the grade. MR. SEGULJIC-And these are going to be sold, correct? JOHN CIFONE MR. CIFONE-Yes. These are individual homes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Looking at the notes, the minutes from the last meeting, we had asked for a 25 foot no cut buffer. MR. CENTER-Yes, that’s 25 foot. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I thought you said 20. All right, and the other thing is we asked for the Karner blue butterfly determination. You submitted that. MR. CENTER-Yes, we submitted that. MR. SEGULJIC-So I think, and then landscaping. MR. CENTER-Landscaping is in the package. MR. SEGULJIC-So what we’re going to do, we’re going to approve the Preliminary plan with the following conditions, submission of landscaping plan, DEC Endangered Species determination. MR. O'CONNOR-You wanted a response from DEC. MR. CENTER-You wanted a response from DEC so you could do SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I guess what’s the terminology I’m looking for? Is it just the Karner blue determination we’re looking for? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-I think you had requested a letter from DEC regarding the potential the possibility. MR. SEGULJIC-For Karner blue. All right. So that’s what we’re going to do, approve Preliminary with the following conditions. Right? MRS. BARDEN-Well, you’re not going to do that yet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-You still have a public hearing and a SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And we probably should read into the record the DEC letter. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-We’ll leave the public hearing open. Could you read the letter? MRS. BARDEN-I can. This is from the DEC dated July 21, 2006. This is to the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury. “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Smoke Ridge Road proposed subdivision. I have looked at the property for lupine and did not find any although it is adjacent to a National Grid power line right of way (PROW) that has lupine in many areas. While, without lupine, the development site itself is not a habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly and threatened frosted elfin butterfly, the PROW is home to these species. The damage from yard waste dumping and especially ATV activity in the PROW poses a severe threat to the continued existence of these species in this and other locations on National Grid property. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) are working with National Grid to increase security within their PROW’s and to take steps to exclude ATV’s from the PROW’s. The Smoke Ridge Road subdivision is a major entry route for ATV trespass into the PROW. I discussed the issue of continued entry of ATV’s through the subdivision. Nace Engineering has proposed to build an eight foot stockade fence along the east property line and along the back of the buffer area to the PROW to help deter ATV’s from crossing the property and to limit yard waste dumping from the landowners. This fence will help us in our efforts to protect the habitat in the PROW. I would like to see the fence added as a condition for the subdivision. I would also like to see some provision for maintenance of the fence if it is damaged by attempts to get into the PROW and as it ages over time. The PROW behind Smoke Ridge Road is very important for the continued survival of the Karner blue and frosted elfin in the Town of Queensbury. I appreciate the cooperation of the applicant for the subdivision in incorporating the fence into the project. I also appreciate, as always, the cooperation of the Town in protecting these species and as a partner in recovery efforts for them. I look 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) forward to continuing to work with the members of the Board on future reviews. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy O’Brien Biologist I, Wildlife Endangered Species Unit MR. O'CONNOR-We have one correction. We believe that was a six foot fence. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think you have eight foot stockade fences. MR. SEGULJIC-And you put that on the plans? MR. FORD-Could you show us, please, where that would be. MR. CENTER-We’re showing fencing starting just off the corner of this property line, down and across the back to meet. MR. FORD-Where the brush is. MR. CENTER-To go into the brush. There wouldn’t be any additional clearing for the fence. It would go up to the brush. MR. FORD-While I may applaud the fence, I’m a little concerned about the maintenance by several different owners. MR. CIFONE-How about a chain link fence? MR. SEGULJIC-No. Is that something you can put in the deed, that the owner will maintain the fence? MR. O'CONNOR-You can, but this is, we’re putting a fence on our property to protect somebody else’s property, but John asked a serious question. Probably a lower maintenance fence would be a four foot high chain link fence. I don’t know the difference between. MR. CIFONE-Well, if it’s to stop an ATV, I don’t see why you need six foot. You know in three years what that stockade fence is going to look like. What’s it going to look like? MR. FORD-That’s why I raised the question. MR. CIFONE-Yes, well, if you put a chain link in, at four foot, it’s going to stay neat. You’re going to get growth on it. MR. SIPP-Make sure that the deer can clear them. MR. CIFONE-Well, typically, I can’t see somebody paying $200,000 for a house and allowing ATV’s to drive through their lot anyway. So I think it’s kind of a moot point, the whole thing. MR. SIPP-I think four foot is sufficient and it would not block wildlife. Anything higher would be a hazard, I think, to deer. MR. CIFONE-And a stockade fence, in three years, is going to be half rotted and look terrible. MR. SEGULJIC-And I can see them tearing it down anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-The intent here, apparently, is to block ATV access to the Niagara Mohawk power line. MRS. BARDEN-And to eliminate yard waste dumping. MR. SEGULJIC-Yard waste dumping. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know if a chain link would do that. MR. CIFONE-But the weird part about that is you’re blocking two lots, along that side of the road, you can go through any of those lots. I don’t see how they single out this spot. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. CIFONE-That’s what doesn’t make sense. MATT CIFONE MR. M. CIFONE-There’s a lot right next to us that they can access along that end of the property. MR. J. CIFONE-The fence is really not serving anything. MR. FORD-Unless you run it the full length. MR. SEGULJIC-The full length of the power line. MR. FORD-That’ll take care of it. MR. SEGULJIC-To me it doesn’t make sense to put a fence. MRS. BRUNO-Like you mentioned, it seems to fall on the responsibility of Niagara Mohawk. MR. SEGULJIC-How do you guys feel about the fence? It’s going to become more of a nuisance later down the road, I think. MR. FORD-Definitely not stockade, and a partial. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because some buyer’s going to come in and want to take it out. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the question, from the SEQRA point of view, was is there habitat on our property. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And there isn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So I’d say let’s forget the fence. Are you guys in agreement with that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-If you’re going to get rid of it, then you’re just inviting trouble. If that’s been used before, it’s cleared so that they know where it is and they’re going to use it. MR. M. CIFONE-Well, it’s been used before because it’s vacant land and it’s a dumping ground. I mean, when you get this $200,000 house on this lot, with landscaping. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if they’re going to cut that corner, because they’ve been cutting the corner. Right? MR. M. CIFONE-They’ve actually been coming through, I believe when you come through the road, there’s a tree clearing out here. There’s a path. There’s a road right in here that runs right out back to that area. It’s actually in the middle. It’s not like they’re coming over this lot. They’re coming through the middle of this lot and then out through. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. FORD-The one thing that might make some sense would be, chain link or otherwise, something down that one side of the property. MR. J. CIFONE-But they could drive on either side of the fence. It’s still going. They’re coming from the road. MR. FORD-My assumption is, however, that that’s going to be a lawned area up to that fence. Right? MR. J. CIFONE-Yes, and it is mowed. I don’t see how people are going to drive on it. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. M. CIFONE-I mean, it’s not like they could very well access over in here, there’s some trails. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, if anything, these houses are probably reducing, right, I would think so, at least in that area. MR. J. CIFONE-I think the house is going to serve much more than the fence is. MRS. BRUNO-Susan, was that letter copied to Niagara Mohawk? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. FORD-You’re not going to sell those homes to anybody who owns an ATV are you? MR. J. CIFONE-I don’t think so. That’s not our marketing plan. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So it is time for SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-2006, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So now we have to make a motion for Preliminary, with the conditions. Right? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to a previously approved landscaping plan. Applicant proposes to further subdivide 5 parcels into 10 lots ranging in size from 0.51 acres to 0.95 acres. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 7/25/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions: 1. That 25 foot no cut buffers be provided along the southern boundary, 2. A landscaping plan be submitted, 3. Final signoff letter be provided from C.T. Male, 4. Elevations be provided, and 5. Floor plans be provided th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: MR. FORD-I’m still mulling over that fence issue. MR. SEGULJIC-I just don’t see what it’s going to do. MR. O'CONNOR-How about if we post the property line with No Trespassing. MR. J. CIFONE-It’s just silly to think that it’s going to be used. Just like up on Sunnyside where they had all the jumps and whatever, behind the old firehouse. Once it was bought and changed into something else, I mean, that stuff stops. MR. SEGULJIC-I have to agree with that. MR. J. CIFONE-It doesn’t make a lot of sense. MRS. BARDEN-You can wait and address that at Final. MR. FORD-I think there’s a natural area there where they’re going to continue to cut through. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s going to be through somebody’s yard. MR. FORD-No. You see where that point comes out. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but that’s another lot. MR. J. CIFONE-There’s already a house there. That’s what I mean. You’re just really not stopping anything. MR. FORD-There’s a house there, just off the east side? MR. J. CIFONE-It’s surrounded by houses on both ends. So you’re just filling in the middle with houses. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. FORD-Thanks. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. O'CONNOR-As we’re in the unique position of having already submitted satisfaction to the conditions that you just gave, can you give us a specific date? MR. SEGULJIC-I look to Sue for guidance. MRS. BARDEN-For Final? MR. O'CONNOR-For Final. MR. SEGULJIC-For Final. MRS. BARDEN-No. I mean, you’ve submitted for next month. So they don’t need to table anything. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying they’re on for next month? MRS. BARDEN-I’m not sure that they’re on. I know that they’ve submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-So they’ll be given due consideration for next month. MR. SEGULJIC-The wheels of government move slow. MR. O'CONNOR-We appreciate your consideration. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANTHONY BRUNO AGENT(S) ROBERT HUNTZ OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 11 ASPEN RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN. MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 40-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 SECTION A-183 BOB HUNTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-And you are, for the record? MR. HUNTZ-I am not Anthony Bruno. I am Bob Huntz. Anthony and Laura Bruno, who are the people involved here, are my daughter and son-in-law, and he had to be out of town today, and she’s home taking care of her new twins. So I volunteered. So I am here. Do you want me to go through and explain? MR. SEGULJIC-Go through what you’re proposing. MR. HUNTZ-Well, my daughter and son-in-law bought this house on 11 Aspen Ridge, which was built by The Michaels Group, and we understand that you had an issue with the property where trees were cut down that I guess were not authorized to have been cut down, and The Michaels Group was required to replant trees and hydro-seed the area that was disturbed. That was a condition in order to get a CO for the house, and my daughter and son-in-law were ready to buy it, and they did receive the CO with a condition, that the hydro-seeding and the plantings be done. So The Michaels Group went ahead and did the work and did the plantings. However, they made a couple of mistakes, and when the inspector from the Town of Queensbury went out to look at it, he said there’s five trees in the wrong places, which is true, and those are the largest trees that were part of the plan. They’re actually trees that are about four inches in diameter at the base. So they’re major replanted trees. In fact, they planted them, I think you have this drawing, don’t you? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. HUNTZ-Okay. They planted them right over the septic field. Anybody knows you don’t plant trees over a septic field. My own thinking is that they were planted there because they had a machine do it and the machine couldn’t get down the hill, and the designated spots are down the hill, and that machine couldn’t go down there, so they’d have to do it by hand if they were to do it down the hill. So they just planted them at the top of the hill, which is the wrong place. The hydro-seeding on that hill behind the house has worked well. It’s rye grass. It’s growing. There’s no, with all the rain we’ve had, there’s no erosion back there. It seems to be holding very nicely with the new trees that are in. So my daughter and son-in-law propose to you that those five trees be replanted. The Michaels Group, I think, have agreed that they will replant them. However, my daughter and son-in-law want them replanted in the position where you see them in the diagram, rather than where you originally approved them to go, which is down the slope. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. If you could just clarify for me, then, the black circles are where it was originally proposed. MR. HUNTZ-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Originally intended. MR. HUNTZ-The blue circles are where they are. MR. SEGULJIC-The blue circles are where they are. MR. HUNTZ-The red circles is where my daughter and son-in-law want them. MR. SEGULJIC-Would like them to be, and The Michaels Group has done this, this planting? MR. HUNTZ-Michaels Group did the plantings. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-What’s going to happen in that area, then, where they were supposed to be aren’t, and where they are and are going to be taken out? MR. HUNTZ-Where they are and will be taken out, there’s no need for trees there. In fact there’s going to be a retaining wall built. They’ve hired the McKernon Group to design a deck and other patio and things behind the house, and a retaining wall will eventually be built there at the edge of the slope. MR. FORD-Because I am concerned about slope and erosion and that sort of thing. MR. HUNTZ-Yes. Well, I can tell you. I don’t know if any of you went up there, after this was on your agenda, but down the slope, I don’t see any erosion. There’s plenty of erosion in the front of the house, where the lawn is in, but I don’t see any going down the hill, because the rye grass. MR. FORD-McKernon is going to design and build what? MR. HUNTZ-My daughter and son-in-law hired the McKernon Group to design an area behind this house, you know, a deck, a patio, a deck and maybe even a three-season porch or something, but that would be a whole new project. MR. FORD-Not over the septic system. MR. HUNTZ-No. MRS. BRUNO-Now, was anyone else on the Board when this was, I think a couple of you were in attendance. Do you recall why they had asked for those five trees to be placed there? Was there some issue with sight lines or anything like that? MR. SEGULJIC-To be honest with you, I can’t recall why exactly the black trees were planted there, but it was all because we had no cut zones on the site plan and they went in and they cut out this whole huge. MR. HUNTZ-And they cut down. Now that was long before they bought it. We had nothing to do with that. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Right. You had nothing to do with that. MRS. BARDEN-I think they were just, the attempt was, on the reforestation plan, to put the trees primarily where they were removed. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MRS. BARDEN-You see that squiggle line going all the way down that slope. That’s where the clearing took place. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And it seems as if trees three, four and five are the real issue because they’re on the septic system. MR. HUNTZ-Well, they’re really all an issue for them, and where they’re proposed to be planted is also was clear cut. MR. FORD-Is there any reason why they shouldn’t be put where they originally were supposed to be. MR. HUNTZ-Probably aesthetics. If you go to the back of the house and look out, you know, there are smaller trees planted down a little further, but it just seems, I mean, you wouldn’t put a tree in your best view, you know, out the back of your house. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, this goes back to the fact of what we’re attempting to do is protect our view sheds. Since they cleared this, you can see this from 149. MR. HUNTZ-You can see it from where? MR. SEGULJIC-From 149, I believe, yes, from 149, and my statement is always, I don’t care what you see. I just don’t want to see you. MR. HUNTZ-I can’t believe that. You can’t see that from 149. MR. SEGULJIC-You can see it from 149 and they violated a no cut zone. MR. HUNTZ-You can see the house from 149? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNTZ-I should be able to see 149 from the house, and I. MR. SIPP-Well, not this time of year. MR. HUNTZ-There’s no way. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess where I am on this, we had asked for those five trees there. We want the five trees there. We’re not looking at getting your daughter and son- in-law a nice landscaping plan. Our intention was to protect the view shed, and that’s why we requested them there. Now, Michaels Group apparently, I don’t know, got lazy and planted them across there. Personally I’d like to see them where the black circles are. That’s what we originally asked for. MR. FORD-And took The Michaels Group to task for it. That was a big issue. MR. HUNTZ-I know you did. You took them to task for it. MR. SIPP-You can’t move them out of what we approved before. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. We’re just asking them to follow the plan we originally requested. MR. SIPP-Are these hard woods or are these soft woods? MR. HUNTZ-Four of them are maple and number one is an oak, like a pin oak I think. I mean, if you go up and look at the property and you had five trees to plant, that’s not where you would put them. You would put them more or less where they’re proposing they go. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, our goal was to protect the view shed not to allow a beautiful view from this house. Because it was obvious to us when we were there, that’s why The Michaels Group violated our no cut zone, was to improve the view to sell the house. MR. HUNTZ-Yes, but that wasn’t my daughter and son-in-law’s doing. MR. SEGULJIC-But we’re back to, we requested The Michaels Group do this and I believe you had stated that The Michaels Group will move these trees. MR. HUNTZ-They, I think, agreed to move the trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So all we’re asking is them to put them where we originally requested. MR. HUNTZ-Yes, but we’re asking that we put them. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not comfortable with that, personally. How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. SIPP-I don’t think we can change our original plan. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we can modify the plan. MRS. BARDEN-That’s why they’re here. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s why they’re here. They’re requesting a modification. MR. HUNTZ-It seems like you’re punishing the wrong people. MR. SEGULJIC-No, you had indicated The Michaels Group would plant those trees. MR. HUNTZ-They will plant them wherever. I think they will plant them where you direct them to plant them now. MR. SEGULJIC-This was in agreement with The Michaels Group before the house was sold, I believe. MR. HUNTZ-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So your son-in-law and daughter should have been aware of that. I mean, one could look at it you’re trying to get a free ride here by getting some nice landscaping along whatever it is, Moon Hill Road. We’re only asking for the trees to be put where they agreed to put them. That’s all we’re asking. MR. HUNTZ-It’s my understanding that The Michaels Group presented this plan to you originally. That you asked them to mitigate what they had done there. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, not with the trees along Moon Hill Road, definitely not. MR. HUNTZ-No, no, no. MR. SEGULJIC-We asked them to reforest the area that was cut. Because it was a clear, clear case that they violated no cut zones that they agreed to. So they came back with a reforestation plan. MR. HUNTZ-Right. I think the Evergreens down in front you required them to plant, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUNTZ-So, you know, we’re kind of looking, I mean, they’re looking at saying, let’s improve it even more down in front, because it’s very barren in the front. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s not what we’re looking for is to improve along Moon Hill Road. That’s not our issue. MR. FORD-You’re aware of why The Michaels Group was taken to task over that, with the clear cutting and so forth in that area. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. HUNTZ-Yes. MR. FORD-And it was specified by this Board where those trees were to be planted. The fact that they weren’t planted there, we now have an opportunity to remedy that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess if I could clarify that. There was a no cut zone there. They were not to cut the trees in that area. They cut them down. Then like Mr. Ford indicated, then we said, no, you have to reforest that area. MR. HUNTZ-I understand that. MR. SEGULJIC-Apparently they didn’t follow their own, because they came to us with a plan. MR. FORD-Now we would counteract that and say we don’t care about reforesting that area. Even though it has been planted with five trees, it’s okay to take those out of that reforested area that we made a big issue about and take those trees and put them someplace else. MR. HUNTZ-No, but look at all the trees that are planted. I mean, it is reforested. We’re only talking about these five trees that they’ve put in the wrong place, and now they have to be moved. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s down slope. Well, I guess, how does the Board feel about it? MRS. BRUNO-I agree with what you’re saying. MR. SIPP-Yes. I’ll go along with that. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s no modification, we’re saying? MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MRS. BRUNO-Good luck with having them return to the house. MR. SEGULJIC-If they want to plant trees along the road, great, but that’s not what we requested. We requested the trees in this area to protect the view sheds, of a clear violation of a no cut zone. MR. HUNTZ-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re only asking for what we asked for. Okay. I’m sorry. MR. HUNTZ-I think you’re being very unreasonable with what is being asked for in this circumstance. I mean, it’s done. They cut the trees down. My daughter and son-in-law had nothing to do with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but look at our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. One of our goals is to protect our view sheds. MR. HUNTZ-I understand that. I agree with that. MR. SEGULJIC-We put no cut zones on a subdivision that The Michaels Group agreed with. They then violated that. We said you have to go back in and reforest that area where you cut down the trees. That’s all we’re asking for. Just reforest the area that they agreed to. MR. HUNTZ-Here’s the point that I would make. I would bet that if The Michaels Group, who presented this plan to you, if they presented it the way it is, we’re proposing it now, I’ll bet you would have approved it. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think so. I beg to differ. MR. HUNTZ-I’ll bet you would have. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You can always come back with another plan modification. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. HUNTZ-How can I do that? I mean, this is it. It’s over. MR. SEGULJIC-No, they can come back, correct, with a different plan. MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely. MR. HUNTZ-Why can we come back, for what? MR. SEGULJIC-You can keep on coming back. I believe you can just keep on coming back, wear us down. MRS. BRUNO-Keep trying. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a war of attrition. MR. HUNTZ-This is so simple. I can’t believe that you can’t see the reasonableness of what they’re proposing. I think what you guys wanted to do, and rightly so, was to punish The Michaels Group somewhat for the action that they took, and I understand that. They violated something, and they should have been called to task for it. MR. SEGULJIC-They violated our no cut zone, and they were. MR. HUNTZ-And they were, and the solution was that they had to spend the money to do this replanting. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUNTZ-Now they’re still going to spend the money. It’s just that the trees are going to be in a little different place, which will be better. MR. SEGULJIC-For your son-in-law and daughter. MR. HUNTZ-For my son-in-law and daughter. MR. SEGULJIC-But not for the community. MR. HUNTZ-And for the view from the road, from Moon Hill Road. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would ask your son-in-law and daughter to go out and purchase those trees and plant those. MR. HUNTZ-And if you look from 149, I can’t believe that you can see that house from 149. MR. SEGULJIC-There are certain spots you can see it from. MR. HUNTZ-And those five trees are not going to make any difference. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So how do we do this? We motion to deny the application? MRS. BARDEN-You motion to deny the modification. MOTION TO DENY MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 ANTHONY BRUNO, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a modification to a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to a previously approved landscaping plan. Modification to subdivision requires review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Sorry about that. You can always come back with another plan. Read our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. HUNTZ-It’s over. You’re ridiculous. MRS. BRUNO-It sets precedents for the next, and we have been trying to really remain consistent on what we expect from different landowners because we’re trying to look at everything as a whole, the whole community. MR. HUNTZ-Yes, but you’re punishing the wrong person here for this. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we’re not punishing anybody. We’re only asking for what we originally wanted. They should have been aware of what they were purchasing into. MR. HUNTZ-They’re going to have to go out, if they want to put trees where we’re proposing these trees, they’re going to have to go pay for them, as you said. Here’s a chance to get them. MR. FORD-For nothing. MR. HUNTZ-For nothing. Wouldn’t you do that? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNTZ-Why wouldn’t you do that? MR. SEGULJIC-Because I’m interested in protecting view sheds. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JASON & KATHRYN BROWN OWNER(S) SAME & OTHERS ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 44 RUSSELL HARRIS RD. APPLICANTS HAVE DEMOLISHED AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGER, 240 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF LAKE GEORGE. HARD SURFACING AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQIURE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 39-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-4 SECTION 179-6-060, 179-4-030 JASON & KATHRYN BROWN, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-Do you have the resolution from the Area Variance so that you know what we’re doing tonight on this? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. What exactly are we doing? I know they’re proposing a mounded system and that’s within 200 feet, I believe. MRS. BARDEN-Well, the site plan review, or site plan application is specifically for filling in, hard surfacing, within 50 feet of the shoreline for the bathhouse, the 240 square foot th accessory structure. A variance was sought on July 19. This was tabled to September, to the latest September meeting. Remanded to the Planning Board for a site plan review as a Critical Environmental assessment and then request that the Planning Board submit their recommendations to Zoning Board of Appeals. So tonight it’s just a review of the project and a recommendation to the Zoning Board on the variance request. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, all we’re doing is a recommendation to the Zoning Board with regards to the bathhouse within 50 feet? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-So the mound system is? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. FORD-The driveway and all that. MR. SIPP-Fifty feet within the shoreline. MR. BROWN-I have a variance request in for area setback and there’s a tree removal as well. MRS. BARDEN-Is that 13 feet from the lake? Is the proposal 13 feet? MR. BROWN-Thirteen feet. That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’re not going to approve or deny anything. We’re just making a recommendation. Then it goes to the Zoning Board. They get their variance, then it comes back. MRS. BARDEN-Then it’ll come back, depending on your recommendation, and what the Zoning Board does. I mean, you can’t act on it until they receive their variance. MR. SEGULJIC-The wheels of government move slow. MR. BROWN-My name is Jason Brown. I reside at 46 Park Road, Adam, Connecticut. This is my wife Kathryn. Members of the Board, On December 7, 2005 I was found ignorant of planning and zoning requirements set forth by the Town of Queensbury. This resulted in the issuance of a Stop Work Order for the work associated with the bathhouse located at 44 Russell Harris Road. Since that date, I have learned many lessons with regard to the Ordinance, and have had the pleasure of meeting a number of fine and helpful people. The total scope of the improvements made to the property have been detailed in a narrative provided with the variance application. I hope that the text and photographs were helpful. The specifics of the variance request, however, are centered on the bathhouse, but this is for, I guess we’re not talking a variance now. We’re talking site plan, which I’m not sure what the difference is. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know myself. We’re just talking, we just have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board as to whether we would agree that the bathhouse within 37 feet of the lake is a good idea. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s what we’re doing, and then you have to go back to the Zoning Board, get their variance, and then you come back here, and then is it the whole site plan, or just the bathhouse? MRS. BARDEN-Well, it is just for the hard surfacing within 50 feet. So really just for the bathhouse. Of course the bathhouse does have a septic system. MR. BROWN-It’ll all come together here. MR. SIPP-New building, right? MRS. BARDEN-It’s not, this is identified as expansion of a nonconforming structure, but it’s totally new construction. So that is really not part of your review. It’s just for the hard surfacing. MR. FORD-The placement of it. Is it for the placement of it, or what other hard surfacing are you referring to? MRS. BARDEN-The fact that it’s within that 50 foot shoreline setback. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. BROWN-The original intent of the bathhouse repair was small in scope. I was to replace a toilet and perhaps some of the floor around it as needed, but the breadth of the project blossomed quickly as the magnitude of dilapidation was discovered. Once it was known that only two walls were undamaged enough to save, the intent of the project became building a new building slightly larger around the two walls that were to be saved. The plan was proceeding until late September 2005 when the two remaining walls were blown off the new structure’s deck and destroyed. We had a significant windstorm and power was out and came up after a week of work and everything was 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) gone. From that point, it was a total replacement. With regard to what I have done and what I have not done, and hardship, I wish the Board to consider the following. I have commenced replacement of an existing dilapidated building. I have removed a small shed and its contents which were ecologically detrimental and in so doing I’ve relieved 13 feet of hard surface area and 6 feet of structural setback from the shore. I’ve removed a dump which covered 1500 square feet, all of which was within 100 feet of the shore. I retired a rotten non compliant septic system that was within 50 feet of the lake. I’ve begun planting various ribbon grasses and bushes along the shore. I have removed a large section of asphalt driveway, which directed stormwater directly into the lake. I’ve added stormwater mitigation to the new bottom edge of the driveway, and proposed additional stormwater abatement systems. I have proposed and have been issued Building Permit 2006-495 for retirement of the final existing non compliant septic system, which is for the cottage, and installation of a new septic system for the whole site. I have abided by the terms of the Stop Work Order and have done no work on the structure since the date of issue. I did not choose the location for this building. H. Russell Harris did in 1955 when he built the structure, the original structure. I did not cause the deterioration of the walls, deck or roof. Bugs, dirt, tree limbs, time and water were the causes here. I did not cause the destruction of the remaining two walls. A fierce windstorm tore them from the new structure’s deck. As the Board is aware, Section 179- 13-050, Paragraph A discusses destruction of a structure. It states that any structure which is nonconforming due to setback violation, which is destroyed wholly or in part by fire, flood, wind, hurricane, tornado or other act beyond the control of man shall be allowed to be reconstructed according to its original dimension and intends to be within 18 months of said destruction. This is the case here, although the building’s footprint is now slightly larger. The causes of the destruction are unchanged. The building was unusable by causes other than my own, and wind destroyed the building in part during its restoration. I ask that the Board recognize the intent to repair and improve the legacy structure, and recognize the events that lead to its eventual replacement. I also ask the Board affirm the improvements described, recognize the hardship, and grant me the permission to continue the bathhouse project, knowing that I have a new and lasting appreciation for the permitting process. C.T. Male and Associates provided Jarrett- Martin, the engineering firm that performed the septic engineering, with their assessment of the site plan. I don’t know if you have a copy of this. The bulk of the matter was regarding the wastewater system, all of which was discussed with, or rectified between Jarrett-Martin and the Town and resulted in the issuance of the building permit for the septic system. There were a few miscellaneous comments concerning the new driveway, as the driveway had to be moved to allow for the mound system to be put in place, and those comments are reflected on the new drawings as well, in the building permit. With regard to Staff notes, this project was identified on the agenda as requiring site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming structure. However, the total rebuild is identified by the applicant, therefore we have to talk about hard surfacing within 50 feet. I briefly described how it became a total rebuild. Next paragraph, on the site development data page, the existing and proposed shoreline setback for the bathhouse is identified as 13-feet. That’s because although the front wall of the present bathhouse is unchanged from the positioning of the old bathhouse, I placed onto the lakeside of the new bathhouse a six foot deck which allows secondary access from the building through a sliding glass door. Because it’s an accessory structure to the, we’ll call that the primary structure, even though it’s not exactly the primary structure for the building site, I included that deck in the setback calculations, even though it’s permeable. Did that make sense? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. Additionally, the site development data page identifies the existing height as 18-feet and the proposed at 16-feet. The difference there is I haven’t finished backfilling the area underneath the bathhouse as I had done some digging to replace the piers. The original piers were shall and made out of cinder block and mortar and had sunken and cracked and fallen apart. So I replaced them with 12 inch sonotube, 48 inch deep, and I haven’t been able to, well, with the Stop Work Order, haven’t finished the project. The next paragraph talks about the removal of the Paint House. The Paint House was a shed that was directly in front of the bathhouse. That was placed there, best we can figure, in the 20’s or 30’s and it lasted longer than it should have. It was filled with paint chemicals, lawn chemicals and other hideous evil things that were disposed of and the shed was subsequently removed, reducing the hard surface area, the 60 feet. The total addition to the bathhouse is 48 feet, and it’s on the back side of the structure. I have, you have the full sketches and everything in front of you, and ready to answer any questions you have. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. FORD-There’s a public hearing on this? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. All right, Tom, are there any questions? MR. FORD-Not until I hear the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Don, did you have anything? MR. SIPP-I’d like to hear what the public has to say first. MR. SEGULJIC-Tanya? Okay. Does anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT SPATH MR. SPATH-Hi. My name is Robert Spath. I reside at 58 Russell Harris Road. I would just like to say that I approve all aspects of this plan, including the reconstruction of the bathhouse. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? ANDREW SPATH MR. SPATH-Evening. My name’s Andrew Spath. I reside at 56 Russell Harris Road. I can verify all that Jason says is true, and I do agree with his site plan. I think it’s acceptable, and I see no problems with it. Thank you. HEIDI CALLIO MS. CALLIO-My name’s Heidi Callio. My brother and I co-own the camp right next door to the Brown’s at 50 Russell Harris Road, and I just wanted to emphasize the fact that they have removed a tremendous amount of detrimental waste and rubbish from the site, and what they’re doing has improved, I think, the health of the lake, and the quality of the shoreline in its entirety. So I wanted to emphasize that. Okay. LEON SPATH MR. SPATH-I wasn’t going to get up here and say anything. I’m Leon Spath, and I own both 56 and 58 Russell Harris Road, and I’ve been to these hearings for four and five years. I’ve watched Zoning/Planning Boards go through their process, and they’ve done some amazing things down there. We’ve had buildings go in that shouldn’t go in, and we’ve got two story buildings down there that’s nonconforming. We’ve got garages that are nonconforming, but I do want to say about this project, we’ve got a family that’s been there for over 40 years, and they’re still maintaining. It’s not for sale. They aren’t putting a million dollar house up. They’re just trying to improve the property so that this generation can enjoy the same enjoyment that the previous two generations have had down there, and I’m all in favor of it. Thank you. MICHAEL SHEARER MR. SHEARER-Michael Shearer, 52 Russell Harris Road. I fully support this project. Jason and Kathy have put a lot of work into the place. One other aspect. We, as a neighborhood, have contacted the Water Keeper, Warren County Soil and Water Conservation, and we’ve had them out there in the area to help us, give us clues on how we can all help with the water, and also there’s four main families that have been there since the dawn of the lake, and the Browns are one of them. I’m a newcomer. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? Should we close the public hearing? No? Okay. Since we’re bringing up more issues within 50 feet of the lake, instead of them giving an approval and we sit there and say why did they ever do that? MRS. BARDEN-They weren’t specific in their resolution what they were looking for. So I think any guidance that you can give to the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because it is an unusual request. It looks like you guys have done a lot of good things there. You guys are making improvements. Tell me more, you call it the bathhouse, and it had its own septic system. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC- So what do you intend to do with this bathhouse? MR. BROWN-The intent for the bathhouse is unchanged. It ends up primarily functioning as a second bathroom and a guest bunkhouse during peak season. MR. SEGULJIC-The obvious question is, can you move it back beyond 50 feet? MR. BROWN-With the new septic plan, it moves the driveway over and causes an “S” Shape to it, which goes right behind the back of the bathhouse, which would impede the moving of the bathhouse. That’s the one thing that comes to mind. Anything can be done. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s good enough. Now, in consideration of all that you’ve done there, compared to a lot of the other projects we’ve seen on the lake nowadays, I don’t have a problem with your continuing the bathhouse there, but I will say, when you come back, Lord knows when that will be, one of the things we want to see now is buffer strips along the lake to help out with stormwater. You’re putting in this whole new, if I’m correct, you’re putting in a new asphalt around your mound system. MR. BROWN-It’ll be a stone driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-A stone driveway. Okay, well, that’s better. MR. BROWN-I spoke to Craig Brown about that. I want to make it so that, I don’t want to have an impermeable driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because what we want to do is reduce runoff going into the lake. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-The other big thing is septic systems that are failing or even just septic systems along the lake. It looks like you’re moving them back. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess if I’m correct with the Code, you have to be 200 feet away from the lake, and you’re like 190 or something. MRS. BARDEN-It’s a replacement system. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that means it’s. MRS. BARDEN-It can be 100 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-It can be 100 feet. MR. BROWN-And the permit is compliant. I didn’t have to apply for any variances for that. MR. SEGULJIC-Now this asphalt road that goes through the back, is that like the? MR. BROWN-That’s Russell Harris Road. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BROWN-I’d like to get rid of that, too. MR. SEGULJIC-What are the plans with the boathouse? MR. BROWN-The boathouse. If I could find a governing body that wants to provide guidance on that, I’d like to talk to them, because I spoke to the Town about who I would go to for getting a permit for reconstruction or repair for the houseboat, but it doesn’t fall into any defined category that Queensbury has, because it’s not a boathouse. It’s not a wharf. It’s not on land. It’s not a dock. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s unique. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MR. BROWN-It’s what used to be a barge on piers, which has a couple of bedrooms in it. MR. SEGULJIC-And there used to be a bathroom on there, correct, but now there is not? MR. BROWN-Well, there used to be a chemical toilet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BROWN-There isn’t any chemical toilet on it anymore. There used to be a full kitchen on it, which is now removed, and used to have the hot and cold water and sink drain, which used to go into a pump station and be pumped up to a homemade drywell underneath the dump. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. My conclusion, everything considered, I don’t have any problems with it, but once again, we’d be looking for the buffer strips to protect the lake. MR. BROWN-Now, help me with the buffer strip. Any specifics? MR. SEGULJIC-I would recommend you get in touch with the LGA, Kathy Bozony. She can give you some guidance, you know, something like 20, 25 feet, because really, I forget, you have grass down there I think. MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s yard between the lake and the cottage, and on the adjacent properties there’s yard between. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, what we’re trying to do is reduce runoff into the lake which carries pollutants, and the other thing is, secondarily, what maybe in the future will become more and more, is, you know, the old story, you know, you can look at the lake, but it doesn’t mean I have to see you, and I think you’ve done a good job of maintaining the old tree. Not like a lot of people nowadays who come and cut down every tree. MR. BROWN-There was one tree that we did take down which ended up, that’s a piece of what I guess we’ll be talking to you about later, which had damaged, well, the bathhouse and that shed. MR. FORD-I’ve got to fly in the face of what everyone has said tonight. Because I believe, first of all, let me compliment you on, over the years, the improvements you have made there, but I see this as an opportunity to come into compliance and be an appropriate amount, a distance back from the lake, and we’re not seizing that opportunity, and you still could have the same structure but be in compliance, and that’s a concern to me. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. I’m not sure how to address that. MR. SIPP-I agree with Mr. Ford that if we allow this cabin within 50 feet of the lake, then the next guy that wants to build a cabin within 25 feet of the lake says you let him do it, why can’t I do it, and if we’re going to make something out of trying to protect this lake and stick by the rules, I just feel that you’ve gone this far, let’s go a little further and move it back in compliance. MR. BROWN-Are you saying that you don’t agree with the destruction clauses in the Ordinance or my interpretation of said clause? I thought I spelled out pretty clearly that there was an existing building, it was dilapidated. MR. FORD-And you were replacing it and it was the replacement structure that was not in compliance and was destroyed. Correct? MR. BROWN-No. The original walls, I had the new deck up. MR. FORD-You expanded upon a noncompliant structure. MR. BROWN-That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-What are your thoughts, Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-I’m leaning towards what Mr. Ford and Mr. Sipp are saying. It certainly seems like an opportunity where we can continue to improve. You’ve put in so much of an effort, you know, I can applaud that, too. Again, it comes up like the previous 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) applicant. We’re trying to set things in motion in a proper guideline so that everyone knows just what to do so that we can continue to protect our lake, but, you know, I can see your frustration. I’ve lived in a house that we’ve been renovating for ten years, while living in it, and it’s very difficult, and you do find things that are, you know, it always becomes more and more extensive. I’m a little confused, I wish I had seen the meeting minutes, in terms of what the ZBA had gone through. I feel a little at a loss. I might be able to understand things more if I had seen that. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. They haven’t been transcribed yet. MR. SEGULJIC-So do we have to take a vote on this, or just discussion is enough? MRS. BARDEN-No. The Zoning Board will get the minutes from this meeting. You can summarize what your feelings are on this for them, and then I would table to an October meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What would we table, the site plan review? th MRS. BARDEN-Because they’re back at the Zoning Board on September 27. So you thth could table to October 17 or October 24. MR. BROWN-Neither of those I can make. I work at a nuclear power plant down in Connecticut and we’re in refuel outage for the month of October and half of November. So November, later in November I should be able to make. MR. FORD-So the second meeting in November. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m coming from, the scale of the building isn’t that big. In light of the improvements they’ve done, if they ever come back, knock everything down and build up something big, that’s a whole other story. How big is this? MRS. BARDEN-Two hundred and forty. MR. SEGULJIC-Two hundred and forty square feet. It’s been there. They seem to be wanting to do the right thing. MRS. BROWN-I asked him to fix the toilet, so it’s my fault. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, when you come back, I’ll be asking for the buffer strip, talk to the LGA about that, and I think they’ll want to do all those things. MRS. BARDEN-Anything else that you want them to come back with for the site plan? State that now as well. MR. FORD-A plan that is in compliance with the setbacks. MRS. BRUNO-I will try to attend the next ZBA meeting when you folks come in front of them. I’d like to hear it first hand, just so that there’s no lapse in time. I feel that we should give them due diligence, because they certainly have tried, and I don’t want to jump the gun. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand what we’re doing here? We’re not going to take any action, other than tabling this, and these minutes will go to the Zoning Board, and they have to make the determination as to whether that bathhouse can be there. MRS. BARDEN-They would be seeking the shoreline setback of 37 feet. MR. BROWN-And then I have to come back and get an area setback, Area Variance, hard surface Area Variance from this Board? MRS. BARDEN-Site plan review for the hard surfacing, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So they would either approve or deny your variance. If they approve it, then you’ll come back to us. MR. BROWN-If they deny it? MR. SEGULJIC-Then it’s done. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/25/06) MRS. BARDEN-Done. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, thanks for your time. MR. SEGULJIC-So no further comments, then I’ll make a motion to table this application. Okay. MR. FORD-To November, the second meeting in November. MRS. BARDEN-The second meeting in November is fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2006 JASON & KATHRYN BROWN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicants have demolished an existing accessory structure and commenced construction of a larger, 240 sq. ft. accessory structure within 50 feet of the shoreline of Lake George. Hard surfacing and expansion of a nonconforming structure require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/25/2006; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: Tabled to the second meeting in November 2006. th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro MR. SEGULJIC-And we’ll leave the public hearing open. MRS. BROWN-What does leaving the public hearing open do? MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t have to be re-advertised, I believe. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right, and because you haven’t made an action. It’s a tabling. It’s just in case there’s new information that comes before the Board and the public wants to look at that and comment at another time. MR. SEGULJIC-Good luck. MR. BROWN-Thanks. MR. FORD-Good luck. MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry to make you wait so long. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman 60