Loading...
2006-08-22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETIING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 18-2006 Michael Stevens 1. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-29 Subdivision No. 7-2006 Rick Cobello 1. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46 Site Plan No. 32-2006 Steven Cardona 2. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-34 Site Plan No. 33-2006 Steven & Debbie Seaboyer 5. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Site Plan No. 49-2005 Stark Group, Inc. 27. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 288.8-1-5.2 Special Use Permit No. 8-2006 Vance Cohen 31. Tax Map No. 288.-1-58 Site Plan No. 29-2006 Andrea Peek 33. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-11 Site Plan No. 34-2006 Alice Genthner 46. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-22 Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes Construction Grp. 49. REVISED SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No.308.6-1-86 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 08/22/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO DONALD SIPP MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD CHRIS HUNSINGER SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-We have some administrative things to take care of before we get going this evening, and I’ll start them off now. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL STEVENS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 1112 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRING FILL OF APPROXIMATELY 0.25 ACRES OF FILL WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50’ OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 34-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 4.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-29 SECTION 179-6-060 MR. VOLLARO-One is a resolution for Michael Stevens. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 MICHAEL STEVENS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, on July 26, 2006 a letter was sent by Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator stating that information submitted is not responsive to Planning Board resolution of 5/16/06 [letter attached], and WHEREAS, this item was specifically tabled to 8/22/06; and WHEREAS, information was received by the Planning Office on August 16, 2006; once this information is determined to be responsive the application will be placed in the next available agenda cycle, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Tabled until October 24, 2006. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford SUBDIVISION [SKETCH] SUB 7-2006 SEQR TYPE N/A RICK COBELLO AGENT(S) KEVIN HASTINGS, P.E. OWNER(S) ANTHONY & FRANCINE POIRER ZONING WR-1A LOCATION RIVERSIDE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 18.91 ACRE PARCEL INTO 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.2 TO 3.8 ACRES, WITH 1,150 LINEAR FEET OF ROAD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 18.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION A-183 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-The second item is for Rick Cobello. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2006 RICK COBELLO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, on August 2, 2006 a letter was sent by Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator stating that due to lack of authorization from the owners of the property that this application cannot go forward [letter attached], and WHEREAS, to date we have received no response from the applicant or agent, and NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBDIVISION 7-2006 RICK COBELLO. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford SITE PLAN 32-2006 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN CARDONA AGENT(S) SHAWN CALLAHAN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL WR-1A LOCATION 175 ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 75 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BOATHOUSE. EXPANSION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE 62-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: NCI ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-34 SECTION 179-9-020 SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. Would you state your name for the record, both of you, please. MR. CARDONA-Yes, I’m Steve Cardona. MR. CALLAHAN-Shawn Callahan. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to tell us a little bit about your modification of your boathouse? MR. CARDONA-What we had originally approved was for a boathouse of, it’s actually sundeck of 16 feet by 36 foot, and we just wanted to wanted to round it to a 40, because that’s what the dock underneath is a standard 40, and just so it would be uniform, and then therefore also shortening the bridge that goes out to it from the roadway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would just like to throw this open to the Board and have the Board ask whatever questions they would like to ask on this. This is a modification, basically, to an existing boathouse. I see where you’re going to move it five feet closer to the shore. MR. CARDONA-That’s correct, it would be five feet closer to the shore. It’s an existing contract of an earlier contract that we’ve been working. So during the construction we were just requesting to go an additional five foot. So, as far as existing, the whole boathouse is brand new. MRS. BRUNO-Could you please just explain to me, I have a feeling that one of these pages is extraneous at this point. It actually has to do with the lower level that has already been built. You’ve got existing dock, and perhaps this was from the first stage that you went through, one side is 38 feet long, the other is 28. Then on another page you’ve got revised, which seems to be more the actual existing, and then your final drawing actually talks more about the upstairs and your five foot addition. MR. CARDONA-See, that was an existing that was removed. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. CARDONA-So that is all completely gone, and that was under an earlier demolition permit, which I have that here tonight. MRS. BRUNO-Okay, and that is kind of irrelevant, then, to current? MR. CARDONA-That’s correct. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. CARDONA-But it was added to the request, or the application. We just put it in there as the application. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any comments on this application? MRS. STEFFAN-Not me. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Sipp, have you got anything? MR. SIPP-I’m still confused. You’re adding another land bridge, and you have steps down from that going to the lower dock. MR. CARDONA-That is correct. MR. SIPP-But the sundeck itself is actually on the level with the roadway. MR. CARDONA-That is correct. MR. SIPP-So you’re adding to the dock five feet from both sides? MR. CARDONA-Only the sundeck. The dock is existing under the original approval. It’s just that, it was a near sight on our own part. We just, after we got done building we had the boathouse listed as 36 foot when in reality it should have been 40 foot to match the dock underneath it, so both are uniform, both stop and start in the same location, and by going by the plan we feel five foot short from hitting the end of the dock and it made that bridge going to the road longer. So by just extending the boathouse, or the sundeck just an additional five foot, it shortens that bridge. MR. SIPP-And those pieces that were already there, that had been, those five foot square pieces that were there, that’s going to be the addition? MR. CARDONA-Five foot square pieces? MR. SIPP-There were two of them, three of them, two of them, I think, stocked up at the end of the dock. MR. CARDONA-At the lower level? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. CARDONA-Those are gone. Yes. They were part of some temporary stuff we had done earlier. We were kind of playing with that idea, but the Park Commission says no, no. It resembles too much of a deck. It has to have, that’s where the stairs came down and turned. It has to be elevated like a platform, just like that plan shows in front of you, like a little table top. MR. SIPP-I think that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one quick question. How wide is the sundeck, 16 feet? MR. CARDONA-Sixteen foot, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-I would like to ask the fellow Board members for a little bit of clarification, since I’m not as well versed with the regulations. I’m relatively new to the Board. I understand that they’re, we try to steer away from the land bridges. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. MRS. BRUNO-And I had difficulty finding an exact notation to the effect in any of the Code books. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, correct me if I’m wrong, but there is nothing. That’s a County recommendation they make occasionally. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t believe there was any recommendation from the County on this. MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m looking at the County’s now, Tanya. I can tell you, the County has always told us that they don’t care for land bridges, and we’ve kind of taken on that a little bit and tried to cooperate with the County’s requirement. I read the County’s response to this application and it says applicant is proposing to add an additional five foot to on shore of sundeck to reduce the length of the land bridge. It looks to me, when they wrote this, of course they say there’s No County Impact. When they wrote this, I guess the land bridge has always been there, and they see this as a chance to shorten the bridge, but to answer your question directly, there is no Code that I know of in 179 that talks to land bridges at all. It’s really a County requirement that’s sort of been with us for, I’ve been on the Board eight years, and I think it’s been that long that I’ve always thought that a land bridge was something that the County did not like, and yet I see they have no comments on it here. MRS. BRUNO-And they never usually offered the logic behind that? Does it have to do with the potential of the dock floating away in the winter? MR. VOLLARO-No. I’ve never gotten anything from them that made an awful lot of, made a lot of impact in my mind as to why they didn’t like a land bridge. It looks to me that it was something they just didn’t like, and we picked up on it and have been sort of applying that to brand new docks, but this is a dock that’s been in existence for how long? MR. CARDONA-That was in its location since the 1950’s. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it had a bridge on it similar to this at that time, it was pre- existing? MR. CARDONA-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s part of it. It’s a pre-existing situation. So I don’t have any comments on this. You’re going to maintain the 14 foot height. MR. CARDONA-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-You know how to get the mean high water mark through the Lake George Roger’s Rock scale, and all of that. MR. CARDONA-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve built docks before. MR. CALLAHAN-I have. MR. VOLLARO-You have. So you understand. Okay. Good. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one other clarification. You had indicated that the existing sundeck is 36 feet, and you’re going to add five feet? MR. CARDONA-Correct. Thirty-five feet. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Thirty-five feet. I just want to be clear on that. So you’re at 35 feet, you’re adding five to make it 40. MR. CARDONA-To make it 40, yes. I was incorrect, yes, 35. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-I kind of marked that on the drawing. That’s the five foot that they want, right there. Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion on this application? MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think you had a public hearing on this. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. Does anybody here want to talk to this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2006 STEVEN CARDONA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; : Applicant proposes a 75 sq. ft. addition to a previously approved boathouse. Expansions to previously approved Site Plan Review uses require review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 8/22/06; 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: According to the resolution provided by Staff. In Paragraph Four, complies. In Paragraph Five that this is a Type II action so we do not need to do a SEQRA. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. CARDONA-Okay. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN & DEBBIE SEABOYER AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL WR-1A LOCATION 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND REBUILD OF APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD SURFACING [CONTINUATION] WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 81-05, BOH 1, 05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: NCI ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES: LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION 179-6-060, 179- 13-010 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MICHAEL O’CONNOR & DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Before we get started, I’d like to ask Staff a question. Do we have a response from C.T. Male on the stormwater application on Steven & Debbie Seaboyer? th MR. BAKER-Yes, we do. A letter dated August 10 from C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that was after our date of receipt of information. That’s why we didn’t get it in our packets. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, is that an extensive letter from C.T. Male? MR. BAKER-It’s a little over a page. MR. VOLLARO-Is it a signoff, or is it just a comment letter? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe there’s an e-mail signoff. Is there not, Stu? MR. VOLLARO-They wouldn’t have sent it to me, but we don’t have anything here, at this table, to be able to review that report from C.T. Male. MR. BAKER-There’s a subsequent letter from C.T. Male to Craig Brown dated August th 18. Neither of these letters is a signoff. There’s lingering questions from the engineers. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Is there a signoff as to stormwater? I think he says that all submittals were satisfactory? MR. VOLLARO-Presumably he reviewed the stormwater and anything else, I don’t think it was limited to the stormwater report. MR. O'CONNOR-No. There is an issue to septic that we’ll address, but as I understand it, that signoff was as to the stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-While Stu is looking for that, why don’t you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Seaboyer. Mrs. Seaboyer is here with me, and the builder also, Dean Howland, is here with me. We looked at the Staff’s comments and would probably address those first. This application was filed in time for the May meeting and pushed back because of your agenda to July. I think at the July meeting there was new information that was in your packets that you had not had an th opportunity to review, so you put it to the August 15 meeting, and then at the August th 15 meeting, due to the lateness of your earlier discussions, you told us to come back tonight. So we never have addressed these Staff comments, if you will. This does have an approved variance by the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health, for the replacement septic system, and our indication is that we will build it as it was approved by the Town, and as I understand it in the latest submittal, and there have been like three different submittals that have been made, for some reason Nace Engineering changed the septic, to some degree, without our input to it, and I think they thought that they were making it less expensive for the owner to build it than what the Town Board had approved, and we would ask for your approval simply that we’d be required to build it as approved by the Town Board, and that is our intention. When I found out about this on Thursday or Friday, Tom Center, who is the associate in Nace Engineering, was going on vacation. He was talking to, I think, Jim Houston, and he would have to resubmit the original drawings to him and didn’t have time to do that. So there was a question in his mind whether we would even appear tonight, or get off another month, and I thought that perhaps with the stipulation that we will build it as required by the Town Board, which has been approved by C.T. Male, I think at that time Jim Edwards did the approval. We might be able to get past that issue, but let me talk a little bit about the rest of what we have here. th MRS. BRUNO-Before you go on. So, in the revisions, it would be January 20 of ’05 that would be the most accurate according to what you’re asking for? MR. O’CONNOR-The septic, yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-Right. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-What was submitted, the full set of plans was submitted to the Town Board and they approved it. They approved it on 1/11/06. MR. VOLLARO-They approved it to what drawing? Do we have a reference to that approval, because I have a question on the septic itself, on the gravity flow. I need to know, because I’m looking at the detail and I’m looking at. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, Mr. Vollaro, and I don’t like playing engineer. I have enough trouble playing attorney sometimes. This is not a gravity flow system. This is a pump pressure system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. See, if you look at the drawing itself, on the detail where they talk about this multi-flow aerobic treatment system, they talk about a slope of an eighth of an inch per foot to the Distribution Box. That’s in the detail, and it looks to me like that’s a gravity feed, and not a pump. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the latest set that Center put together, and that’s the modification that had not been approved by C.T. Male, which we told them is not necessary. The problem with that system, as I understood it, and again I do this in lay terms, is that this is an aerobic system. It was a plus. It’s one of the first aerobic systems that the Town Board approved. They applauded us for going the extra mile to put this system in. It was approved on the basis that the outflow would be pumped to the leach area, and this drawing that you have in front of you changes that so that the inflow was pumped to the septic area, and as I understand Jim Houston’s questions, they were would the surge from the pumping interfere with the aerobic operation within the septic tank? So initially what Tom Center was trying to do on Thursday or Friday was to put a surge tank in front of the septic system so that it would be a gravity flow from the surge tank into the septic system, and when we got involved in it and found out he was going on vacation, we said, Tom, why are we changing this at all? We got an approval from the Town Board, approved by C.T. Male. We’ll build it the way it is, even if it’s more complicated. So we actually have a permit from the Town for the septic system. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know what you’re trying to say, and I know what we have to approve to the print, and I’m having a problem trying to understand it. The septic system design on March 5, 2004. MR. O'CONNOR-Is not what we’re going to build. MR. VOLLARO-Is not what you’re going to build. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to build what was approved by the Town Board on January 11, 2006. MR. VOLLARO-Did you submit to the Town Board at that time a drawing that depicted that design? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, the whole engineering. They went through the engineering and they had it reviewed by C.T. Male and C.T. Male approved it and signed off on it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m surprised it’s not here, that we have some reference to it. MR. O'CONNOR-It was probably with the earlier. th MR. SIPP-Well, the minutes show that this was approved the 24 of January 2005. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The meeting minutes in our packet, and it explains. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m sorry. The permit was issued January 11, 2006. I’m reading from the Staff notes. MR. SIPP-And I don’t know who Mr. Center is. Who’s Mr. Center? MR. O'CONNOR-He works with Tom Nace. MR. SIPP-Okay. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-See, I have a note in my notes, please explain how we got from elevation 334 to 337, and I had to assume that there had to be a pump to bring it up to the D Box, when I looked at that. Because when I look at this drawing, now this drawing is out, but when I look at where this Distribution Box is, at 337, and where the pump is, not the pump, but the, this aerobic treatment system is right here. It’s several feet below the Distribution Box. So somehow or other it’s got to get up there. The drawings don’t jive. Something’s not right with the whole design drawing here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I probably have with me a set of drawings. I don’t intend to try and submit them to you to look at, that were put in when the Town Board approved it with engineering advice. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we would need. If you’re going to fall back on that and not on this, we’d need to be able to at least in the motion or whatever we do to refer to something that’s in existence. MR. O'CONNOR-I can give you that for that purpose. I can give you that, or just basically condition your approval upon us building what was approved by the Town Board acting as the Board of Health. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we can move on from this issue. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, as long as we can have a date of that. Just let me ask the Board how they feel about that. If we get a date that that was approved by the Town Board, and we put that date in the motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I’ve got that, because right in the Parcel History in the Staff notes it said that on January 11, 2006 the septic alteration was granted. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t doubt that. I just wanted to know what print. MR. O'CONNOR-I can dig the print out between now and the end of the evening for you. MR. VOLLARO-No problem. Let’s let that one go. If you can supply the information, we’ll go along with it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. A comment by the Staff was that a permeability calculation is not provided on the Site Development Data. However, using the non permeability figure given by the applicant, the site permeability is 67.9. There is a site data sheet. I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-I have it. MR. O'CONNOR-And actually the permeability on the site is 67.1. The next comment that they had was the applicant should be asked to provide the areas of all surfaces that make up the total proposed 909 square feet of paved gravel or other hard surfaced area that is to be removed, or that is to be left, I guess. Later they talk about what is to be removed, and the calculations are, this is to scale, the areas that are being removed are the sidewalk that is on the north end of the house. Maybe you’ve got to be looking at the site plan. I’m looking at Sheet Three of Three. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The sidewalk concrete area and that little concrete piece in the front of the house is 270 feet. The asphalt drive that is next to it is 566 feet. The stairs that are in the front of the house, between the house and the road, are 33 feet, and the concrete that is at the south end of the property, that small pad, is 57 feet. The total that is being removed from the site is 926 feet. Actually in the application, and I’m not sure how, they said that only 870 feet was being removed, but actually 926 feet. I had Matt Steves, today, go through his worksheet calculations and give me the figures that he gave me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re saying that the permeability will actually, it’s 9 something against the 870 stated? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, which would probably increase permeability? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Somewhat. MR. O'CONNOR-Some, fractionally. What remains is the concrete that’s out in front of the deck area. There is no concrete underneath that deck, and the concrete walk down to the lake, and a little bit of concrete that’s at the end of that walkway, a little bit of concrete at the head of the other dock and the seawalls, and the asphalt drive in the southeast corner. Those remain. They’re there now. There’s no construction proposed for them or no addition to them. What is there will remain. MR. SEGULJIC-So the asphalt drive to the southeast side of the site, that’s new, isn’t it? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s an existing condition. That’s shown. MR. HOWLAND-It has to be removed to remove an existing tank, and it’s sloped to the south side, to the new drainage field. MR. O'CONNOR-Tom, this, on the road right here. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, that’ll be removed and sloped, and replaced. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then beyond that toward the lake is where your grass is? Okay. I understand. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-There is no concrete patio underneath the floor, the first floor deck to the south, and I’m not sure what was meant when they say the overall permeability of the site is reduced by the removal of the asphalt drive. MRS. BRUNO-I had to read that twice. I think that meant. MR. O'CONNOR-Is increased, I think. MRS. BRUNO-Or actually it reads better if you say the overall impermeability of the site is reduced. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I think that was a typo. I had to go over that a couple of times. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the impermeability goes from 42.8% to 32.9%, which increases the permeability. Something is reversed in that sentence. I don’t think it’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So, let me ask a question on something. When you say, I’m looking at the elevation drawings here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Underneath this deck there is no concrete. MR. HOWLAND-Underneath that deck there is none. The one to the south, okay, just to the very left of that page, what you’re looking at, the very left of the page, there’s a deck. Right there, there is a concrete slab there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s a slab to come out onto. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, that will remain. MR. VOLLARO-That will remain, and that’s in the calculation of permeability? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What’s the size of it? I think you just read them off, Mike, and that’s what I’m trying to, when you were reading them off, I was trying to take a look at where this piece of concrete was. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. HOWLAND-I think it’s 22 by 8, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-two by eight. Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I think Mrs. Steffan and I are having the same issues, that we were trying to keep up each piece that you were calling off, because this Sheet Three is one that’s not, I don’t want to belabor the point because I understand that it got confusing because we’ve had to put you off so many times, but I think for most of us the permeability issue is probably the most important, and I think the client feels, your client feels the same way, just from a brief discussion that she had. MR. O'CONNOR-The point I would make is that we’ve shown you on Sheet Three the areas that are going to be removed. All of those are an improvement for the site for permeability. I’ve had discussions with my client, and there’s another note which I’m going to refer to here. It says that consideration should be given to the removal of concrete walks and replacing with flagstone or wooden walkway. If there was a concern that you wanted to go further, you tell us what areas that we have to make permeable, and we can do something like we did on the Devine application where we’d do some spacing of flagstone or spacing of some type of stone that still allows people to be able to traverse those safely but still make them a little bit more permeable. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you know my feeling. Reduce runoff and infiltrate it. If you’re saying this concrete walk, you take out the concrete walk and make a flagstone and have a half inch? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we can. MR. SEGULJIC-That would be a step in the right direction. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Be sure that I’m talking about the right one. You’re talking about the concrete that goes from the deck area down to the dock? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s that concrete walk? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s, yes, we can do that, and we would stipulate to that. MRS. BRUNO-And I guess I was just leading up to perhaps, so as not to, once again, belabor this, if we go forward with a motion tonight that the updated drawing have those numbers on the plan, merely for crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s, since this is something that we are keeping track of. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no objection to that. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing. Some place there was a comment by Staff that the lawn appears to run right to the lake. That’s not actually the case. The retaining wall, which the seawall is actually higher than the lawn, and all but 13 feet of that frontage already has shrubbery or native plantings back five to ten feet from the wall, and that’s in place now. If you’ve been up to the site, you probably have seen that. So they’ve tried to make this as compliant, and as environmentally friendly as they can. MR. SIPP-I would like to see that buffer strip wider, between the two berms that you’re using for stormwater. There is nothing but grass. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you looking at Sheet One of Three? MR. SIPP-I’m looking at One of Three. MR. VOLLARO-Showing the berms on either side of the walkway. MR. SIPP-Where the two berms are that collect the stormwater coming down from your green flexible shaft. Now between those two berms, there’s nothing but grass, and this concrete walk. You remove the walk that leaves nothing in that whole area from there to the lake, where the walk is, and the walk does not go up, or reaches the seawall. The 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) seawall is at the level of the grass, that point, and it’s also on the other side of the, on the north side of the dock. Both of those areas are level with the grass. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, all those areas are recessed three to four inches below the top of the seawall. DEBBIE SEABOYER MRS. SEABOYER-This along here? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. SEABOYER-Well, this isn’t grass. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but the seawall sticks up above the ground level. MRS. SEABOYER-Yes, I think so. It’s underneath the shrubs. The only place it doesn’t is where this grass is which we’re perfectly willing to take out. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I agree with Mr. Sipp. We should have at least a 20 foot buffer along there. That’s what we’re looking for these days. I mean, our whole area’s economy is based on tourism, which is built around the lake. We need to protect the lake. MRS. BRUNO-Mrs. Seaboyer, I believe when we were visiting she had just stated that you were interested in widening that area. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to doing that, and if you want to condition your motion on that, that’s fine. MR. SIPP-Let’s make sure these are native species, and reduce, eliminate the fertilizer use on the lawn. No fertilizer, no chemical or natural fertilizer used on the lawn. MR. O'CONNOR-On the balance of the lawn? MR. SIPP-On the balance of what’s left, yes. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I can make a recommendation to your client, if I could, is that having spent a whole day with our Lake George Association with Kathy Bozony, she has a whole list of, I don’t know if have them here, but she also has a place where you can buy native species, and I think I might have it, and I don’t know if you can, you want to take the time to contact her or not. MR. O'CONNOR-We have, Mr. Vollaro, on another file trying to get the cooperation or get some understanding of what they’re looking for. I read the articles in the paper. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s newspaper. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it says they’ve got a program that they’re going to start looking at around the lake, which we’re amenable to. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I have it with me. If you would call her at the Lake George Association, she has a location in Schroon Lake that raises indigenous type flowers and plantings that are indigenous to lakes, that will really grab on to runoff and pull it down. Give her a call. I don’t have her number with me, the LGA. MR. O'CONNOR-Stuart, do you have that e-mail today from C.T. Male? Do you have that e-mail? MR. BAKER-Today? th MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, yesterday or today, or the 18 maybe. th MR. BAKER-Yes, we’ve got a faxed letter, it’s to Craig Brown from C.T. Male on the 18. MR. O'CONNOR-And that says they’ve satisfied all the engineering cutoffs and what not? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. BAKER-It doesn’t say that per se. In fact, there’s some lingering questions. Apparently there’s stormwater concerns. The questions seem to remain with the wastewater system, but the stormwater concerns seem to be addressed at this point. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Could you read that for the Board’s record, so that they have it? th MR. BAKER-Well, it’s what it doesn’t state. I the, I think it was August 10 letter, from C.T. Male, they had lingering concerns with stormwater. Those were responded to by the applicant’s engineer, and in a follow up letter from C.T. Male there were no additional questions or comments regarding stormwater. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand what we’ve said is that we would specify on the map the square footages that we’ve spoken of, so that for enforcement purposes. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, and as well as correct the Site Development sheet. MR. VOLLARO-I think what has to happen is, this sheet is now incorrect. I mean, we can’t get from A to B on this sheet, at least I can’t. So I think this sheet needs to be corrected. It doesn’t have the correct, particularly in the area where it says paved gravel and other hard surfaces, and remove 870 feet. You have a different number for that, and so in order to get down to the bottom lines on these things, so that they go into the record correctly, I think this sheet’s got to address what. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You want us to specify on the map the square footages as I’ve orally given them to you, which indicates that there is a removal of 926 square feet of hard surfacing, as opposed to 870. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And to amend the site data sheet to properly reflect that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so your permeability number has to be calculated correctly. Right now it’s incorrect. I get 67.9 when I do, with respect to this, I get 67.9. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-At 65 we’re on the margin here. Whenever I get close to 65, I start really looking at how many square feet of permeable surface you really have. I don’t like to get that close to the spec. MR. O'CONNOR-Your buffer area along shore will be full width 20 feet deep, except for the walkway. MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to the east of the wall. MR. O'CONNOR-Plantings will be native species. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I have some good photographs home of the kind of lawns and stuff that have been developed that way, and very, very pretty native species flowers, nicer looking than grass sometimes. MR. O'CONNOR-Walkway. MR. VOLLARO-Concrete walkway would be replaced. MR. O'CONNOR-Will be removed with, what did you say, Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-Flagstone. MR. O'CONNOR-Flagstone or equivalent? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Flagstone or the equivalent, so that it satisfies permeability, and I think the last time we did it we had eight inch spacing, and everybody seemed to be satisfied with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, right. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Was that a previous application? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, at least eight inch. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. If I may, could you explain to me what exactly is occurring here with regards to the house? I mean, what renovation is occurring to the house? MR. HOWLAND-What we’re going to do with the house is, if you’ve been up there, you’ll notice the north end of the house is quite, much lower than the road. We’re going to extend the back foundation wall up approximately four feet, so it would be up, just the foundation wall, so it would be up equivalent in height to the garage foundation wall. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, excuse me, you said up four feet, you mean in height? MR. HOWLAND-In height, yes, in height, and then what we’re going to do is we’re going to have an entry platform at that elevation and you’re going to walk in and you’re going to walk down two feet. We’re going to elevate the main north end of the house, main floor, two feet in height. Okay. So we’ve got a wall behind it that’s going to keep the dirt, we’re going to make the lawn in the rear level to the street, a little bit higher, a little pitch to the street. MR. SEGULJIC-So that explains why you’re removing the shrubs, then. MR. HOWLAND-In the rear, correct, and the walk. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, when you say, along Rockhurst Road. MR. HOWLAND-Right. There’s hardly any shrubs at all back there, but we’re going to raise them up. They’ll be replanted, and then as you come around to the north end, the foundation wall will wrap around at the higher height and then you will re-slope the new elevated lawn area to the existing retaining wall that’s on the north side, which if you were up there you saw, which is on the end of the blacktop driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So all of the shrubbery is around Rockhurst. It looks like you’re removing like10 shrubs along Rockhurst, between Rockhurst and the house MR. HOWLAND-We can remove them and replant them, if they could be replanted. If not, they’ll be replaced. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to raise that up? MR. HOWLAND-We’re going to raise that up. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you also have this other detail, with regard to some of basement, you’re going to build a wall inside the basement to build it up? MR. HOWLAND-That was for the Zoning Board of Appeals. We wanted to put a walkway from the north basement, which is now four feet lower than the basement that’s underneath the garage. There’s a master bedroom that’s underneath the garage. That floor is, as it exists, is four feet higher than the basement, walkout basement, which is off your kitchen, which is on the north side. We’re going to elevate that floor 20 inches. MRS. BRUNO-Elevate the floor 20 inches? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, 20 inches in the basement. MRS. BRUNO-That’s the area where the kitchen is right now? MR. HOWLAND-Right, and we’re going to elevate the floor up above it two feet. Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Do you have the existing plans? I know we’ve run into some. MR. HOWLAND-They were all included in your packet at one time, as far as. We have them. I don’t have them with me tonight because I had to go to an emergency, but we have them. MRS. BRUNO-Which existing packet? Would have been back before the ZBA and all that? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. HOWLAND-It’s been the same. MRS. BRUNO-But you said something, you’ve had something that you’ve been able to review the structural integrity of the existing foundation wall, so that when you start raising, lifting the house to put the blocks on, to increase the height downstairs. MR. HOWLAND-That’s no problem. The Zoning Board of Appeals required us to put a, we wanted to put a walkway from the south foundation over to the master bedroom to eliminate a set of stairs. That added about 75 feet, I don’t have it right here. So therefore they requested that we take away that amount of living space in the basement. So the basement, the wall closest to the road, is going to have two feet of block/concrete inside of the existing wall. That’s also going to add for structure. MRS. BRUNO-But that’s only on that one wall. You’re still adding block MR. HOWLAND-You’re going to add some block, we’ll just add a wood wall on top of the existing wall as we go around. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So you’re going to crib it. Okay. MR. HOWLAND-Just to raise it up. So we’re not, structurally that’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, you’re not rebuilding the house at all. You’re just raising it up. MR. HOWLAND-Well, we’re going to rebuild the house because, or rebuild the second, the upper floor we’re rebuilding, and we’re raising the lowest level walls approximately two feet. MR. SEGULJIC-So all of the roof area is going to be new, then. MR. HOWLAND-Correct, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want to go back to your shrubbery on the front and equal or better shrubbery will be replaced. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now one of my concerns is going to be Chapter 147, runoff, and I’m sure that C.T. Male, when they did their signoff, did not look at that. I haven’t seen the letter, but I assume that. I’m just concerned. MR. O'CONNOR-We applied as a major project. MR. SEGULJIC-You applied as a major project? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and designed to meet those requirements. MR. SEGULJIC-Then there should be infiltration from all your concrete areas. There should be infiltration from all your impervious areas, then. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they’re collected, again, this is Tom Nace’s area of expertise, but both, there is a drainage plan, there is a stormwater plan, that shows, that’s why we’re replacing the driveway in the front, to tilt it so that we can collect it, to go to the retention areas that we’re constructing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it really should be infiltration, not retention. As well as you have the concrete areas. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. They thought that the retention areas were sufficient to hold the stormwater that would be collected in those areas. That’s about the best I can tell you. There is a stormwater management report that was filed. MR. VOLLARO-I looked through the stormwater management report for references to 147 and couldn’t find them. I still can’t. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing they say here is this is designed to a one to two year storm design. The other thing is in the plan they say that temporary seeding, land that is stripped of vegetation will be seeded and planted and planted as soon as possible. Any 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) area that will remain clear but not under construction for 10 days or more will be seeded. What 147 says is that within 10 days all areas will be seeded, not areas that will remain open for more than 10 days. So looking at this, this does not tell me that this was done to 147, and I’m not even sure if C.T. Male is aware of 147, to be quite honest with you. I mean, our full goal here is to protect the lake and reduce the runoff. MR. VOLLARO-In the calculations and so on, there’s no mention that this is done to Chapter 147. I looked for that myself in this document, and didn’t find it. So I don’t know. If you say it was done to 147, and it was done to a major project, I’m surprised the stormwater management report that was done here by Tom Center didn’t mention that, because it doesn’t say a word about Chapter 147 at all, and normally when we get a stormwater management report like this, particularly when we’re invoking 147, it states it, and it doesn’t state anything in here at all. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have not concentrated on the report because your C.T. Male has signed off on it. I can’t tell you what C.T. Male did for review. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s another problem. I haven’t seen any of the C.T. Male stuff yet. So I don’t know. This is very difficult to do a review when you don’t have everything in front of you. It’s hard to do this. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s very difficult to do an application where you get your comments at the last minute and you can’t submit or get them within the last week. It’s a tough system to work, from both sides of the table. I mean, we get, everything is a moving target from your side and from our side. MR. VOLLARO-It tends to look that way. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’m not necessarily, I think we submitted for May, and this is now August. MR. VOLLARO-Almost into the Fall. MR. SEGULJIC-In addition, if this has been designed to 147, we should have a permit in our package, signed off by the Zoning Administrator. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they will sign a permit until you do your approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there should be at least an application, let me put it that way. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if there is a, there’s also no determination. MR. SEGULJIC-And please understand also, I think it’s great you’re going with the aerobic septic system, which is great, but we also have to look at runoff. I live by a lake. The weeds are just growing. Every year it gets worse and worse. You’re living right on the lake. You’re having very big impacts on the lake. You have a grass lawn. A year from now you’re going to be complaining because of the geese coming up on your lawn, because you have a grassed area. The geese population is increasing on Lake George, because everyone has these big lawns. What we’re attempting to do is get a buffer strip along the lake that will minimize runoff as well as reduce the geese population. MRS. SEABOYER-I’d be glad to do it. MR. SEGULJIC-And our Code says projects like this should follow 147, but we’re not seeing that here. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if you are seeing that or not, to be honest with you, Tom, but you have a significant improvement over what’s there now. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would sit here and say, compared to it being forested, it’s not. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you’re not going to have it forested. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, at least a 20 foot buffer there. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re not going to have that unless you have an approval of an application. We’ve indicated that we have no problem with the 20 foot. We have no problem with changing the concrete walks. We continue to eliminate as much of the non pervious area that we can eliminate. I don’t know, you know, what else they can do. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) Right now you’ve got an area that has no stormwater or any formal stormwater, but what direction are we going in, I guess, so as to not belabor the point. MR. SEGULJIC-To have a 20 foot buffer installed. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I said we will do that. MR. VOLLARO-He’s already agreed to that. MR. SEGULJIC-As you said it’s been designed to major projects under 147. I would like an engineer to review it in light of a major project under 147. I don’t think they did. MR. O'CONNOR-How did you direct the engineer to review it? MR. SEGULJIC-We didn’t. MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t direct the engineer how to review it. MR. O'CONNOR-How do we get to that point? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s something Staff needs to communicate with C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-There seems to be a disconnect here. If Tom Nace or Mr. Center had done this stormwater report through 147, it seems that this system should provide that the engineer would contact our engineer and say, look, this has been designed to147, the stormwater management report is designed to the same chapter, and there seems to be a space here that somebody doesn’t know exactly what’s going on with the other person. I’m having a real problem trying to put this together in my mind. We always have this problem when we’re dealing with square footages under a quarter acre here. There’s a lot of house here for that much acreage, and it’s difficult to put a house on an acreage like that or on a piece of land like that and meet all the requirements. It tends to get very, it just about got kind of squeezed in, and it’s very hard to determine when we’ve made it and when we haven’t, and I think that’s what Mr. Seguljic is working on here himself. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve actually decreased the size. MR. VOLLARO-You have. I see that. Okay. I think what we’re going to do here is we’re going to, given that you’ve been in front of us so much, and that you’ve tried pretty hard to do what you’re going to do, we’re going to let this 147 thing kind of slide tonight. 147 is something that’s just coming into focus on this Board as well. I’m getting to understand it and study it and know what it means. What we’re going to do is go with the 20 foot buffer. You’ve got that down already. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The concrete’s going to be removed out front, concrete walk. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom would like to talk about the shrubs in the front. MR. SEGULJIC-The shrubs in the front. MR. VOLLARO-Being replaced if possible. MR. SEGULJIC-Being replaced. MR. VOLLARO-Along Rockhurst. MR. SEGULJIC-There aren’t a lot of trees left on Rockhurst. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And they’re just going to come down. MR. O'CONNOR-The intention was to do that. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-So, just to clarify my view, in light of the fact that you’re willing to put a 20 foot buffer, you’re going with an aerobic digester, which is a great thing, and although I disagree, but you’ve stated that you’ve done it to a major project, we’ll let that slide for now, and those are the three conditions we’d have, is the buffer, the concrete along the lake be made pervious. MR. O'CONNOR-And you want us to specify on the map the square footage of the areas being removed? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What you need to do is to produce a Site Development Data sheet that squares with your figures. MR. O'CONNOR-And modify the site data sheet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, particularly getting rid of your 870 and putting the right number in there and coming up with a permeable, so that the record shows exactly what’s going on here. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could also ask that maybe in front of the house along Rockhurst you actually plant some trees instead of shrubs. Because, once again, there’s not a lot of trees there. They’re all going to be cut down from storm damage. Soon we’re not going to have any trees. MRS. SEABOYER-Well, our intention is to plant some trees as long as they don’t interfere with the septic and the leach field. MR. SEGULJIC-The trees along the lake, too. Trees are good. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Last topic. Two drawings that I’ve wrestled with, both of these, you recognize both of those drawings. Okay. In this drawing, on the first floor, I can’t find, on the first floor drawing that corresponds with this east elevation on the top. Where is the garage located? There’s a den. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s on the other side of that drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Is this it? MR. HOWLAND-That’s the garage. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the garage? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-Your finger is east. MRS. BRUNO-Turn it over, turn it right over. You’re looking at the front of the house. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-That’s the roadside, excuse me, the back of the house, that’s the roadside, which is the shorter elevation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is the den, these are the three den windows here? See I see on the other side we’ve got a den facing the front. Is that correct? MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and there should be, and I see the drawing showing two windows, one in the bathroom and one in the den, and yet the drawing itself, the new east elevation, shows three companion windows. That’s what was throwing me off. MRS. BRUNO-You’re right. Yes. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-And I couldn’t match up these elevations with these drawings, no matter what I did, I couldn’t get a match. MR. HOWLAND-See the one with the circle there, on the upper one, the circle with the arrow, that’s in the garage. The upper window, that’s in the garage. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the back of the garage toward the lake. MR. HOWLAND-That’s the back of the garage towards the lake, the one that you have circled there with the arrow. MR. VOLLARO-Right here? MR. O'CONNOR-Above it. MR. HOWLAND-No, above it. The master bedroom is below the garage. The existing master bedroom is below the garage. MR. O'CONNOR-That circle right next to your finger right now, that’s the back of the garage. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then what are these windows here? MR. HOWLAND-They’re in the garage. MR. VOLLARO-They’re in the garage. Up high. MR. HOWLAND-Up high. The master bedroom is below the garage now. It’s still going to be below the garage. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing is really not, in my mind, the drawing isn’t very clear. Is the house built? MR. O’CONNOR-No. There’s an existing house there, and the existing garage is pretty much in the configuration it will stay in. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Your elevations include your four foot increase in height in the basement, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-Again, it’s only a two foot increase. We’re just taking the foundation of the wall up. MRS. BRUNO-By four feet. MR. HOWLAND-By four feet, the wall’s going to be thicker on that part. MRS. BRUNO-Right, but that’s going to affect your peak, and I’m just curious, we’ve got a 27 foot 9 inch peak that you’re showing here. MR. HOWLAND-That’s from the very lowest part. MRS. BRUNO-That’s from the lower side, right. MR. HOWLAND-But that’s not how they calculate. You’d have to go around to the side. I gave them from the lowest part of the house to the highest part of the house. It’s under 28 feet, but that still doesn’t come into play as far as your 28 foot. MR. SIPP-Are you going to change the color of the house? MRS. SEABOYER-You mean from what it is right now? MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. SEABOYER-I guess we haven’t decided for sure. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SIPP-It’s gray right now, isn’t it? MRS. SEABOYER-I think we’re thinking a little more taupe-y than gray, but we haven’t decided for sure. Do you like the gray? MR. SIPP-Keep an eye on wood tones. MRS. SEABOYER-Yes, right. That’s why we’re thinking a little darker MR. SIPP-So it blends in. MRS. SEABOYER-A little bit darker than it is now. MR. VOLLARO-The motion’s got to describe, I guess, we need a description in the motion of the design that was approved by the Town Board of Health when they approved the design. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And you said you would have something that we could use as a date for that? MR. O’CONNOR-It was approved, as I understand it from your Staff notes, on 1/24/05, with a building permit being issued for it on 1/11/06. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So when you met with the Town Board it was 1/24/05 that they approved a set of drawings that depicted the septic system? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That would have to go into the motion, and there’s no drawing number that we can refer to? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have the septic here. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, if you refer to the date, Staff will use that to go to the Board of Health records and make sure that septic design is the one used. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, the 1/24/05 date. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the building permit dated 1/11/06. MRS. STEFFAN-But that was for a septic alteration. What’s the difference, Stu? It was approved. MR. O'CONNOR-That was for that septic that was approved by the Town. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Why did they call it a septic alteration, though? MR. O'CONNOR-Staff did. I don’t know why. It’s for a new septic system. MR. VOLLARO-This is a new septic system. Apparently there was an initial design brought to the Town Board. The Town Board thought it was good, made an approval. For some reason or other Mr. Center decided that that wasn’t good enough, and changed that design, and that’s the design that we now have on our drawings. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but we’re not dealing with that because we don’t want to change it, the applicant doesn’t want to change it. We just want to go with what the Town Board approved. MR. VOLLARO-Right, 1/24/05 is their approval date. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think maybe we can get a motion together. Do you want to give us a few minutes here to try to put a motion together on this? It’s not easy to do a motion when it’s this fragmented, believe me, up here. MR. O'CONNOR-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-While we’re doing this, we’re going to have a couple of people look at this, but there’s a public hearing tonight. So I would like to see if anybody here would like to speak to this application. Is there anybody that wants to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. One comment I’d like to make. Saturday morning coming, at 9:30 at the North Queensbury Firehouse the residents of North Queensbury, and the particularly the property owners on Rockhurst peninsula, have been invited to an information meeting. My understanding is the information meeting deals with the organization of a wastewater management district in North Queensbury, particularly on Rockhurst. It’s something that’s needed, as you can see as you go through these projects and review them. I trust that it will be well attended. It’s being sponsored by Mr. David Decker, who operates the watershed conference. I understand the Town Board is participating in this. MR. VOLLARO-What was the date of that, John? MR. SALVADOR-It’s Saturday, this coming Saturday, 9:30, North Queensbury Firehouse. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to address the Staff comments here and particularly Parcel History. The Parcel History is a bit truncated. As I understand it when this applicant came forth to replace the septic system, the dwelling was operating on a holding tank. I believe it still is, unless they’ve started construction. I don’t know. They certainly didn’t go on a holding tank because whatever was there before was operating, and operating properly, but nobody seems to know when, how, why they got onto this holding tank, although a permit was necessary. MR. VOLLARO-That’s usually because there’s a failure of the system. MR. SALVADOR-That’s as I would understand it, yes, and of course the location of that old system has never been identified, and you can be sure that subterranean we have soils that are plugged up, clogged up, just are not going to function. In any case, as you read here, it says the separation distances for the replacement septic system. So what they were doing was they were replacing the holding tank with a brand new system. Every single component of it is new. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. I think we understand it that way. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. We go on here, it says subsequently the ZBA granted variances for the new construction. This is new construction, all the way, by every definition you can think of, and therefore it requires that the septic system meet the setbacks of Chapter 136 for new construction. Now that was missed by the Town Board in their approval because the applicant’s intention to go through this knock down and build this new construction was not apparent, was not on the table, and that’s how they got that permit. Now, with regard to permeability, I insist that you cannot consider the area over the infiltration system, the absorption field, as a permeable surface. You cannot, particularly on a slope, so that you don’t have water percolating into the ground and so what you do is you run it off someplace else and surcharge that area. It should be considered impermeable, the surface of the infiltration field. You mentioned a retaining wall, the wall up front, was the expression. MR. VOLLARO-There is a retaining wall on the property now, currently, and we’re asking that a buffer setback 20 feet away from that be planted with indigenous plants, to get rid of some of the grass. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The plan you have before you, Mr. Vollaro, in the upper right hand corner. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, John, that’s the end of the session. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I’ll take just another minute. MR. VOLLARO-Since he’s the only one speaking, we’ll give him a minute. MR. SALVADOR-Good. You have a plan there submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. SALVADOR-In the upper right hand corner there’s a drawing reference. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Right there. This is the project location. MR. SALVADOR-No, I’m sorry, left hand, upper. You see that drawing? MR. VOLLARO-John, I don’t know where you are. MR. SALVADOR-This drawing reference, Rockhurst Lake George development, that drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The layout on that drawing, as well as on the septic, and even the variances that were put before the ZBA did not accurately reflect what’s on that drawing, the referenced drawing. That plan before you and the referenced drawing don’t go together. They’re just inconsistent. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got that drawing home. I know what that is. MR. SALVADOR-And that’s the one I’m referring to. Now, the important thing is here that this drawing has a no build zone 10 feet from the roadway. MR. VOLLARO-From the roadway, I see that. I would assume that when these things were granted by the Town Board of Health that somebody took a look at that. MR. SALVADOR-No, I can assure you they did not. I can assure you they did not. Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, John. Anyone else? I don’t think there’s anybody else to talk to this application. So we’ll be closing the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-If we’re going to table it, do we want to close the hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know whether we want to go to tabling or not on this. How does the Board feel about it? I thought maybe we could condition this, it’s been around a while. I’d like to get this off the docket. It’s been, I don’t know how long we’ve been running this, May of this year. MR. O'CONNOR-We filed for the May agenda. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t know how much more we can ring this out. This is a tough site. It’s small. It’s got a lot going against it, in my mind. So I’m not sure what we’d get out of tabling. I think the best thing we can do is to put a motion together with a set of fairly well conditioned motion. MRS. BRUNO-I can say that, for myself, this is going to be a momentary decision made in the moment, because I understand the difficulty and that we’d like to put this through for the homeowner. Just flipping through the information from C.T. Male, though, it’s very difficult to assimilate this and make sure that we’ve hit all the points. So I’m still vacillating. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-The problem is we’ve got some outstanding information that we haven’t reviewed, I haven’t seen, really, the C.T. Male letters in order to, you know, get them in, but as long as those letters are in, I think I’m willing to go the extra mile here and try to put a motion together, if that’s possible. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, why don’t we go through what the outstanding issues are. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s do that. MR. VOLLARO-Because, you know, we’re an hour and twenty minutes on this. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The items that we have are to remove the concrete walk from the house to the lake, and replace it with flagstone to increase permeability of the site. MR. VOLLARO-With eight inch between the flagstone. Do we want to put that in? MRS. STEFFAN-Does it need to be that specific? MR. VOLLARO-That’s something that the applicant put up is the eight inches. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would also say the concrete in front of the deck. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, let me go through the issues. We’re going to have to make this more specific if you want to do the motion, if we’re going to approve this with these items. We wanted a new drawing to reflect the septic as approved by the th Queensbury Town Board on January 24. We wanted to update the Site Development Data Sheet to reflect the changes including permeability. We wanted to specify on the site plan impermeable areas, the location and size to be removed. We wanted to include a 20 foot buffer, a 20 foot deep buffer strip along the lakefront, and that should be planted with native species. No chemical fertilizers to be used on the lawns, and a C.T. Male signoff. Those were the items that I recorded during conversations. MR. VOLLARO-The one item that you mentioned on the drawing, I think that what Staff had suggested, it might be a good idea that if we specify the date that the Town Board of Health approved being 1/24/05. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got that. I said that. MR. VOLLARO-That the Staff would then check that 1/24/05 date and check the drawing against that date. MRS. STEFFAN-But, you know, one of my concerns with this, and this is based on discussions, that instead of coming back with finalized plans that we can just approve and go with it, then we know that the Community Development Department and the Code Enforcement Officer has all of the data that he needs for them to start the project, get their building permit, and then the accountabilities are there. If we have all these conditions, then it becomes a Community Development. MR. SEGULJIC-Can I just ask the applicant a question? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-When do you plan on starting? MR. O'CONNOR-When do you plan on starting? MR. HOWLAND-As soon as we can. MR. O'CONNOR-How about if we have a condition that the Chairman sign off on a mylar reflecting what you’ve shown as conditions being satisfied from the Board’s point of view, before we submit it, kind of like a subdivision, before we submit it to Staff? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand where Mrs. Steffan is coming from, though, because I know I’ve talked to Bruce Frank several times about this when he goes to review a project, and he’s got disjointed information, it makes it extremely difficult. I think that Staff would concur with that. Bruce goes in the field and he doesn’t have a good, solid capability in front of him. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-The first thing we get from him is a copy of the resolution of approval saying that we have to submit drawings reflecting all the terms and conditions of the approval, and Staff, at that point, then dots the I’s and crosses the T’s before we begin construction. MR. BAKER-That is correct. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not something that we go get a building permit and then he tries to figure out whether or not the building permit plans coincide with your approval. There is already a check and balance in the system. MRS. STEFFAN-My only other concern is that the Community Development Department is understaffed right now, and so I’m also concerned about just everything being done in the order, and I sympathize. I know that you guys have been jumping through hoops and we’ve seen other folks in the same situation, but I don’t want anything else to fall between the cracks, and I don’t know the right answer. MR. VOLLARO-What you’re saying is you’d like to see a revised submission that’s complete? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s got everything that’s supposed to be there, because there’s just been an awful lot of back and forth, and I did get a copy of the package from C.T. Male, and there’s one outstanding issue that needs to be addressed, and I know we can condition the approval. MR. SEGULJIC-What is that? MR. VOLLARO-What is that condition? MRS. STEFFAN-A profile of the wastewater system from the building foundation through the absorption system is warranted. There are locations along the sewer line that appear to have little or no cover. The inverts at strategic locations should be added to th the plan. According to the second response, Nace Engineering, there’s an August 10 letter from C.T. Male. There is a response on the same day from Nace Engineering, dealing with all of those issues. There’s a second letter from C.T. Male, and issue one was not addressed satisfactorily. MR. O'CONNOR-But you’re not going to see that in our final submittal because that is for the amended septic design. The septic design that we’re going to build is one that was approved by C.T. Male, signed off by C.T. Male, before the Town Board. We were before the Town Board I think twice if not, well, a number of times. I don’t remember exactly how many times, and until we came up with the aerobic addition to the standard type system, we had difficulty, and they did sign off, and those plans were submitted in detail and the Town has them and we’ll build according to that. We will not be answering that comment, even on a follow up submittal here. What we will do is we will get a set of the plans that were stamped approved by the Town Board and submit those as part of this project. MRS. STEFFAN-And so that will end up being part of C.T. Male’s sign off? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and there is already an existing sign off on those plans. MR. VOLLARO-And C.T. Male signed off on the original set of plans? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there is. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have that, the original sign off from C.T. Male that reflected the plan? MR. BAKER-That will be part of the Board of Health record, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the 1/24/05 submission. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BAKER-The 1/24/05 approval. MR. SIPP-Approval. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I have a couple of concerns, and I guess I have to go along with Gretchen in that we have a set of plans here. There’s another set out there. We need to get them all correct. The other thing is this buffer strip. I mean, in theory you could just plant three native species there and call it a day. I think we’d have to look at that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me poll the Board. Gretchen, are you in favor of tabling this with a set of conditions? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and the other thing that I would like to do, I know that the agenda is already set for September, but, you know, I would be inclined to say, you know, if they th could turn this around in a week, we could get them on the September 26 agenda, add it as an extra item. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sorry but I can’t, because the engineer is on vacation this week. That’s my problem. That’s why I’m sitting here trying to explain to you what the engineering is. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we extend that out? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, then it would be October. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if we gave them two weeks instead. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, Stu, is that doable? Is that doable if Staff got the documents essentially two weeks before the Planning Board meeting, is that? MR. BAKER-Before which meeting? th MRS. STEFFAN-The last meeting of the month, the September 26 meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-Most of it’s landscaping. MR. BAKER-If that’s what the Board would like to do, we could make that work. MR. O'CONNOR-What would be the submittal date? thth MR. BAKER-Submittal date would be September 12, Tuesday September 12. Say 4:00 p.m.? MR. SEGULJIC-Works for me. MR. VOLLARO-To what meeting would that be? th MR. BAKER-Well, you’ve already said you would want it for September 26. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they need to be in by September, to get to the 26 meeting, they have to submit by what date? MR. BAKER-That’s what the Board is suggesting, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just one person, so you need to ask other people. MR. VOLLARO-Tanya, how do you feel about this, do you want to go with a table for specifics, get them to come back with a final package? MRS. BRUNO-I hate to say it, but, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Don, how do you feel about that? MR. SIPP-I hate to throw a monkey wrench in this, but I’d like an answer to Mr. Salvador’s question. Where is the present septic system and will it be removed? MR. O'CONNOR-I think on the map it shows it will be removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. MR. SIPP-Where is it? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-We believe that the holding tank’s underneath the driveway. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think he’s referring to the holding tank. MR. VOLLARO-No, he’s not referring to the holding tank. He’s talking about the original system that was there before the holding tank was put in. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we, how long has the property been on a holding tank? Ever since the present owner has owned the property it’s been on a holding tank. MR. SEGULJIC-And how long has that been? MRS. SEABOYER-We’ve owned it for six years. MR. SEGULJIC-And you didn’t install the holding tank? MRS. SEABOYER-We haven’t touched it. MR. O'CONNOR-If we discover, I think if we discover it in any excavation, we have to remove it and dispose of it in an appropriate way. MR. SIPP-I would like to see it removed. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if it’s part of our excavation, that’s something that we would do. I think that’s part of the septic rules. MR. VOLLARO-Once you go down, if you find it, you’ve got to get it out. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think in the test pits they didn’t find it. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the test pits are not under the driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-Per se, no. MR. VOLLARO-The test pits were located very, very close where you’re going to put your Eljen system. MR. O'CONNOR-But it hasn’t been used for six years, or better than six years. I don’t know what leachate that you would have in it that would not be already naturally digested at that point. MR. SIPP-My thought is that what was there before the holding tank may have been in the same spot, may have been a septic system. MR. O'CONNOR-But in all reality, what would be in the ground if it hasn’t been activated or used in any manner in six years? I don’t know if that would be something that would have to be removed, to be honest with you, from an environmental point of view, if it hasn’t dissipated by that point. I’ll stipulate, if we run into it in excavation, we would remove it. MR. SIPP-It would have to have been on a pump. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, these folks have taken no short cuts, and they’ve been more than compliant, willing to be compliant, as they’ve come through this process. MR. SIPP-To your question, Bob, I think we should table this until. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s the consensus of the Board is tabling with a set of conditions to come back with a final plan that we can digest quickly, get it on the table as fast as we can. One of the things that Mr. Salvador brought up, when I was up at the site, looking at where the Eljen system was going to go, it’s right up against Rockhurst, and I know that that area up there has got quite a slope to it, and I don’t know whether that slope’s going to be maintained in the final design or not, but I think that counting that as permeable area might not be correct. I think we’re going to have to take a look at that area and when you come back with this new design, or a new map, new drawing, you want to take a look at whether that qualifies as permeable area. MR. O'CONNOR-Sloped areas are permeable. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about the area, well, there’s going to be an Eljen system in that area. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And whatever that Eljen system occupies probably can’t be considered the ability to percolate. MR. O'CONNOR-I disagree with that. MR. VOLLARO-You do? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s covered by natural earth, soil, it’s six inch covered or better. I haven’t got the plans right in front of me. It percolates through that, and then if it goes sideways, it goes sideways. I don’t think there’s anything in any definition that we have that says you do not include that area. I’ve heard this argument before the Board of Health, by Mr. Salvador, before the Zoning Board with Mr. Salvador, and I’ve heard it a number of times before this Board. There is nothing in our regulations, the State Health Department regulations, that says that you do not include that as permeable area, and I’m not going to agree to that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When you submit your final plan, though, just state, as far as that is concerned, that this is considered a permeable area. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So that it’s on there. Do we have the basis for a motion down there, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 STEVEN & DEBBIE SEABOYER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: To the second Planning Board meeting in September, which is September 26, 2006. th With a submission deadline for the revised materials on September 12 at 4 p.m. with the following conditions: 1. New drawings to reflect septic alteration as approved by the Town Board on January 24, 2005. 2. To update the Site Development Data Sheet to reflect changes, including permeability calculations. 3. To specify on site plan impermeable areas, location and size to be removed. 4. Remove concrete walk from house to lake, and replace with flagstone with eight inch spacing to increase permeability of site. 5. Include a 20 foot deep buffer strip along the lakefront planted with a mixture of native woody and herbaceous plants. 6. A notation no chemical fertilizers on the lawn. 7. We also need to have a C.T. Male signoff. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. One question, if we replace that front sidewalk with flagstone with the spacing that you required, I would treat that as being permeable for my calculation purposes? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-For this particular case, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right, and did you also specify that you wanted the deck area above the sidewalk? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. We thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that tomorrow morning, if you are able to attend the review meeting, that a discussion come up about Chapter 147 and maybe that something formal can be set up for training. I know that the office is really swamped right now, but I think we do need to all get on the same page and understand this and perhaps put together a format for how we approach each project. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll do that tomorrow morning. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-For the benefit of everybody here, I guess you’ve all witnessed and hour and a half, well, an hour and thirty five minutes of wrestling with a very, very small site, 8,000 square foot, large building, up next to the lake, problems with septic and it goes on and on, and the Board is pushing very hard against this now, and we’re trying to understand Chapter 147, which now applies to this area, which is a Critical Environmental Area established by Lake George, and shifting over to this 147 stormwater has been laborious for the Board and also for the applicants. It’s a difficult time when you see the struggle that goes on back and forth to try to get an installation that meets the requirement. Very, very difficult, and it’s going to get more difficult as it goes on. It’s not an easy drill, as you have all seen. So I’m glad you’re bearing with us. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STARK GROUP, INC. AGENT(S) JOHN H. RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S) GEORGE & MARILYN STARK ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1533 NYS RT. 9 APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED THE REQUESTED HISTORICAL REPORT FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 62-05, SP 49-05 APPROVED 10/28/05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 LOT SIZE 4.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-5.2 SECTION 179-6-020 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; G. STARK, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-This has been classified as an Unlisted application. I don’t know why. We’ve been through SEQRA, I believe, on this application. This is really a determination concerning two comprehensive reports from, I guess it’s the Hartgen group. MR. RICHARDS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the interest of the time, I’d like to just take a few minutes to read my own personal notes on this, and I’m going to let the Board take over. There were two comprehensive reports done on this. One was September 20, 2005, and the other was July 13, 2006. Both done by the Hartgen group. Now the September 20, 2005 report covered the architectural assessment having to do with the construction details, and I read that, stating that substantial alterations were undertaken in the later half of the th 19 century, circa about 1931. The 2006 report now examines National Register criteria, A through C, and in Mr. Walter Wheeler’s opinion does not meet at least one of these three criteria, as I read the report. Question, my question to me, when I wrote this, where is the DEC request that this parcel, not the house, be examined by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Personally, I don’t see it. I think what’s been done by the Starks is, I think they’ve gone the extra mile. They’ve got two separate reports on this. I don’t see where OPRHP has to get into this and examine both of the Hartgen archeological association letters. Hartgen’s a professional organization. They’ve said it twice, in two separate letters, and for one Board member, I’m satisfied with that. With that, I’m going to open it up to the Board, to the rest of the Board members. MR. SEGULJIC-Does the applicant have anything to add, initially? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. RICHARDS-My name is John Richards. I’m the attorney for the applicant. On my right is George Stark, and obviously we couldn’t agree with more with the Chairman. I would just add that I did talk to Mr. Wheeler this afternoon. He’s had 20 years experience in this, submitting both positive and negative recommendations for inclusion in the Register to SHPO. He said he’s probably submitted thousands of them, and I said have you ever had a negative assessment like you’ve done here overturned where they thought it should be included, and he thought for a while and said as far as I can recall, I’ve never had one overturned. So we’re very comfortable that we’ve thoroughly investigated and done everything that the Board’s asked us to do. MR. VOLLARO-I think that the Stark Group has done what this Board has asked it to do, in the past, that’s all I’m saying, and I don’t think we ought to stretch this past what’s already been done. This is one Board member’s opinion. There are other members up here that wish to speak, and I’ll start it off with Tanya. How do you feel about it? MRS. BRUNO-Well, I have one question. Actually maybe for Staff. Marilyn VanDyke referred to Mary Dodan, Architectural Historian. Do you know if she is a licensed architect or is? MR. BAKER-No, I don’t. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing is, I don’t want to interrupt you on this, Tanya, but just a quick input. I don’t see Marilyn VanDyke. Is she here? Is she in the lobby? Is she at all around, or is this architectural lady that Tanya just referred to, is she here any place in the audience? Okay. Thank you. I don’t see anybody that’s come to even discuss this. MR. SIPP-John Strough. John’s part of the historical. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand, John, that you are a part of the Historical Society? Okay. You understand what’s happened here. I think there’s two reports rather voluminous, both of which I’ve read, and I’m assuming that the Hartgen archeological, I guess it’s Mr. Lucier, is that correct? MR. RICHARDS-Walter Wheeler is the Architectural Historian from Hartgen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, Walter Wheeler. We’ve got two reports here by professionals who really have looked at this and the reports themselves are quite voluminous. They’re long, well written, I thought, and both of them don’t see that this rises to the occasion of going very much further, in fact of going to SHPO with this for any reason. After reading this, that’s my opinion. I’d have to see what the Board’s going to say, but I don’t see us going to SHPO with this, frankly. Don, what’s your opinion on this? MR. SIPP-Well, in reading the report, I feel that, and having Mr. Stark give us the condition of the building, I think that we’re in a position where there is probably no saving this building. MR. VOLLARO-I, personally, have been at the building. I’ve seen the building, and, you know, I just don’t, I’ve done a fair share of that kind of work myself in the past, you know, just as a young man dealing with houses and building, and I don’t see that that has any substantial capability at all. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just very confused about all this. With the Town Board th minutes, correct me if I’m wrong, but you said on June 12, and these minutes are just paraphrased, they’re really not minutes, I guess, the way I read this it indicates that you stated that you should have a SHPO report within 30 to 40 days? MR. RICHARDS-I wasn’t at the meeting, but he probably meant, what we’re talking about here a report that we would be in a position to submit to SHPO, should you so desire. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-We do the report. MR. SEGULJIC-That would go to SHPO. Okay. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MRS. BRUNO-Has the County shown any interest in the building? I know there was some discussions about them perhaps taking it for? MR. VOLLARO-I really haven’t seen any. MR. RICHARDS-I haven’t been contacted by anybody. MR. VOLLARO-I looked for County input in the information that I got from Staff, and I don’t see any County input on this at all. MR. RICHARDS-George just said, and maybe Mr. Strough could comment, if he knows, but as far as George Stark knows, the County’s not interested, based on conversations. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we haven’t received input from them. In other words, there’s nothing in the record that shows County comment, at least that I have. Staff, is there anything in the record at all on this for a County input? MR. BAKER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen any. Thank you. Mrs. Steffan? MRS. STEFFAN-Is there any public comment on this? You alluded to Mr. Strough, but you didn’t ask whether he had comment on this issue. MR. VOLLARO-I will open the public hearing, however. There is a public hearing this evening on this, and I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who’d like to talk to this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Marilyn’s probably not here because I don’t think she knew it was on schedule for tonight. She was here last week when it was scheduled to be, and I didn’t know it was going to be on tonight, either. So I didn’t come here tonight to speak, but in trying to be objective about this, I think Bob has a good assessment. I mean, you know, to be fair, it would have been nice to have saved this house. It would have been nice to have had the County take this house and move it over near the Municipal Center where they wanted to put a visitor’s center anyway, and use this as a visitor’s center. It’s an exceptionally extravagant house. It’s a rather plain, Adirondack looking house. That doesn’t take away in mind from its value, but again, I think if it was an extravagant house we would have been more likely to preserve it. It was very nice of Mr. Stark, he has worked with us. I think Bob pointed that out and I have to agree, Mr. Stark has done all that he can. I mean, he’s offered the house for free, take it, move it. Marilyn VanDyke, the Town Historian, did look into moving it for $112,000. She had somebody who would have moved the house to the Municipal Center, put on a foundation and put on a coat of paint to preserve it until the County was ready to make it into a visitor’s center, which, you know, at these prices, I didn’t think that was too bad, maintaining the Howe Van Dusen house, which, you know, part of it once was a blacksmith’s shop. It’s got some history, and it’s the only remaining surviving structure of that French Mountain Hamlet. So it had some sentimental value to it, but, you know, looking at the whole picture, Mr. Stark has gone out of his way to accommodate us, and to make absolutely sure that, you know, it does have a value to the community, he didn’t wreck it, he worked around it. I’ve got to give him a pat on the back. I’ve got to give him credit, and I’m sure his development is going to be very nice. That’s the way Mr. Stark does things, okay. So, you know, you asked me up here to give you an assessment, and after everything was said and done, we tried to do what we could, and, yes, Dan Stec did bring it to the County. The County, Dan reported back to me. He said, look, I couldn’t find any interest in it. It’s unfortunate. I think their judgment was too quick. I think if they thought about it, but, you know, that didn’t happen, and how long can we fairly hold up Mr. Stark, right, over something that doesn’t come right out and have a fantastic historic value. I mean, it doesn’t come and punch you on the side of the head type of thing, I mean, otherwise we’d all be emotional about it and we’d have the save the Howe Van Dusen house effort, but you don’t see that either. So, when all is said and done, you people have to move on, I think. I think we all have to move on. I just want to thank Mr. Stark for trying to accommodate the community and the Planning Board for trying to do something for us, but just nothing clicked. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, John, thanks very much for your input. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SIPP-John, would it be feasible, with the Town working with Mr. Stark, place a plaque somewhere in this area stating what this house was? MR. STROUGH-And I think Mr. Stark said that he’d be agreeable to do that, and that’s not a bad suggestion. MR. SIPP-At least it would be recognized as having been there, the history could be summarized, I think, in a small plaque. MR. STROUGH-Well, and the plaque would have to say this was the last resting place for this house, because Mr. Stark was right, it’s been moved three times, but not far. I mean, with the plank road it was moved, and then when they re-routed Route 9 it was moved, okay, and so, you know, it’s not the original spot, but it’s not far from where it was. It’s only a couple of 100 feet from where it originally was, and I suppose we could, and I think Mr. Stark said he’d be amenable to that, and that really is not Mr. Stark’s burden. That would be Marilyn Van Dyke’s burden if she wants to put up a plaque, I think he’d be willing to put up one. It wouldn’t be too far from where the Military Road went through there as well, and there’s a plaque for that. MR. SIPP-That area has historic value with the French and Indian War monuments not too far from there, Colonel Williams and so forth. So it could be part of a historic walk through that particular area. MR. STROUGH-Yes. The Military Road likely went right through this territory, but then again, what are you going to preserve. We’re going to preserve the memory of it, and that plaque is there for that, and most of your activity, as far as your skirmishes during the French and Indian War, they were held near there, but more in the valley a little bit more, and there might be a project coming before you soon that gets into that sensitive area and I’ll be back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, John. Thanks very much. MR. STROUGH-Yes, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think the only thing we’ve got here is that, Mr. Stark, would you agree to have Marilyn Van Dyke put a plaque somewhere on the property commemorating the location of this house? MR. STARK-We had already agreed to this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STARK-Marilyn, I was going to have her write the verbiage and you know the Colonel Williams monument up the road? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STARK-We were going to get it so it looks like that one, so there’s continuity. You go look at that one, then you walk down the road or drive down the road and then you look at this one. I have no idea what to say, but she can figure out what to put on the plaque. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. That’s fine. So with that, I don’t know, there is a motion here. There’s supposed to be an Unlisted. We’ve already done the SEQRA on this some time ago. So if somebody wants to make a motion in accordance with the resolution by Staff, I’d entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-But the motion that’s in the package is the motion that we approved back in May, at least that’s the one I have. I don’t have any motion. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This the date of May 22? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s the motion that we approved. MR. VOLLARO-And that was approved. So I don’t think there’s anything to do any further on this. MR. BAKER-No, there’s no action required from the Board at this point. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. Thank you. MR. RICHARDS-We can proceed and remove the building. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much. MR. STARK-Thank you. SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 8-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE COHEN AGENT(S): SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): DR. MITCHELL COHEN/VANCE COHEN ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN APPROXIMATELY 2,934 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING RETAIL USE ON THE SITE AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,710 SQ. FT. ROOF STRUCTURE, INSTALLATION OF A GO-KART TRACK AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. AMUSEMENT CENTER USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 34-04; SP 43-02 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 LOT SIZE 1.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-58 SECTION 179-4-020 RON MOGREN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; V. COHEN, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to make any comments on this, because I’ve looked it over pretty carefully. I think it’s pretty complete. I think they’ve done just about everything we’ve asked them to do. The drawings do reflect what comments we made in the past. I think they’re in compliance, but I’ll entertain some information from the Board. I do have a rather long prepared resolution, however, that goes along with this. So if the Board would like to discuss this application, go right ahead. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted the applicant to talk about the Staff comments on the landscaping plan. MR. VOLLARO-I thought that, the applicant speak to that, but it looked to me like they complied with what we asked them up front along Route 9, the trees. I counted the number that was up there and the distance between them is per the Code, I think, pretty well, pretty close. MR. MOGREN-The landscape plan is complete, as shown on L-4. Just referring to the Staff comment about that buffer, I believe that, on the south of the track, that we have a natural buffer that’s probably, well I know it’s at least 25 feet, but I believe the buffer that was mentioned in there is in place, and that we’ve discussed other buffers. I know that buffering from the Adirondack Northway, we’ve put up some evergreen trees along the track to address that one. So I believe this plan is in conformance with everything you’ve asked of us regarding planting and buffering. MR. VOLLARO-I did have a comment that Drawing L-2, which is dated 7/17/06 entitled Layout and Materials, that plan should be modified to show a 20 foot buffer along the 335.27 line, and not continue on, because that would interfere with the parking. What I wanted to do is bring the buffer right up to here, because if we put the buffer in here, it’s going to clean out some of those parking spaces, but bring the buffer right up to this line. MR. SEGULJIC-What do you mean the buffer? MR. VOLLARO-The 20 foot buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-He already has that. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s a setback. MR. SEGULJIC-No, this no cut zone. MR. VOLLARO-Well that’s what he’s saying. There’s a no cut zone there. That’s exactly what the applicant is saying, but I think we want to specify that that would be a buffer, a no cut zone buffer, so that somebody, in the future, doesn’t cut that down. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I’m saying. MR. MOGREN-You’re referencing the 20 foot permanent buffer on the west side, on the Northway? MR. VOLLARO-No, the Northway’s fine. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. I’m talking about, take a look at your drawing on the south side, take a look at the line entitled 335.27 feet. You’ve got that? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I want a 20 foot, at least I’m offering that as a possibility for the Board, a 20 foot buffer along that line, stopping at that point and not continuing any further. Because if we go further with it, with that, then it’s getting into your parking area, which has already been approved. MR. MOGREN-I understand. We’d have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Does the rest of the Board understand where I’m going with that? Okay. So any other comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Just one quick question. I wasn’t here at the last meeting, but I recall you’re going to have a fence out front, so you eliminated the fence and you used those curb, the traffic stops. MR. MOGREN-I believe originally we had shown, the wheel stops had always been there. We had originally shown a four foot high chain link fence that we had put there mostly because we were a little bit concerned about the security and safety of the display area, and when it became evident that you didn’t want to see this chain link fence, we just decided not to put it up, and I believe you did make the suggestion about a split rail fence or something. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s been eliminated. MR. MOGREN-So it’s been eliminated, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Any other comments from the Board before I put a motion before this Board? MRS. STEFFAN-And we did the SEQRA last time, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we did a SEQRA last time. We did it on the Short Form. So I’m going to go ahead with the motion, if the Board agrees. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you need to open the public hearing, I think. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll do that. I’m going to open the public hearing. Does anybody want to talk to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 8-2006 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Co-applicant Dr. Mitchell Cohen. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes an approximately 2,934 sq. ft. expansion of the existing retail use on the site as well as the construction of a 1,710 sq. ft. roof structure, installation of a go-kart track and associated site work. Amusement Center uses in the HC-Int zone require review as a Special Use Permit by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/25/06, tabled to 6/27/06 and a public hearing was opened tonight on August 22, 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, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration in the past. As a result of this review, a permanent permit shall be issued, per 179-10-030K(1); 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: MOTION TO APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 8-2006 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1.Drawing L-2, dated 7/17/06, entitled Layout and Materials, shall be modified to show a 20 foot buffer along the line labeled 335.27 feet on the southern property line. The remaining 147 feet will not require the 20 foot buffer due to the interference with the approved parking. 2.Professional Engineer George E. Ursbalm, License No. 864008, or his assigned replacement, shall certify that this project, reference Special Use Permit No. 8-2006, has been constructed to approved Drawing C-1 and L-1 thru L-6 dated 7/17/06, and Lighting Plan dated May 9, 2006, Drawing No. 28000906A-4. Certification shall be supported by a set of as built drawings supplied to the Town of Queensbury Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy. 3.The applicant, Dr. Mitchell Cohen and Vance Cohen, shall supply to the Town of Queensbury Planning Department a letter of credit in the amount of $500,000 prior to the issuance of a building permit. This requirement is authorized by Chapter 179-10-030J, which is the zoning law. The $500,000 is established as a result of the applicant’s input of financial information. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s it. You’re approved. MR. MOGREN-Thank you. 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 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) 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. VOLLARO-I understand, Staff, my understanding is that new application material has been submitted for Andrea Peek, in support of this application. Is that correct? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. We have a letter from Jarrett-Martin Engineers dated 8/16, which was received by our office on 8/17 and we also have correspondence from C.T. Male dated 8/18. MR. VOLLARO-Does the new application consist of new drawings as well? MR. BAKER-Yes, there are two new drawings on letter size that were submitted via e- mail. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do those drawings contain information such as new test pits and new percolation data? MR. BAKER-Yes, and in fact when these drawings were forwarded to Staff, these are drawings that were done by Jarrett-Martin Engineer, they were forwarded to Staff by C.T. Male, Jim Houston of C.T. Male, and with the forwarding e-mail, he indicates that they are signing off on the project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So in effect, all of this material that was submitted, C.T. Male has looked at and said they’ve signed off on it? Is that correct? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can you read to me from that data the percolation, the percolation data? I think in C.T. Male’s original letter, he questioned the difference between two percolation rates, one was I believe in the area of one minute, twenty-five, and the other was 24 minutes, and I think he questioned the separation of those two, and then presumably in front of you you have the answers to that with new percolation data. We’re going by the fact that I don’t have any of that data that you have in front of you. I think there’s been new data submitted, is what we’re saying, and I’m trying to assimilate that again. MR. O’CONNOR-For the purpose, again, we’ve got a moving target. I apologize for our part of it, but we’re trying to be responsive to questions that have been asked. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. The substance of what was submitted was not submitted on the thrd 17. It was submitted on August 3, and a point by point discussion of the letters and th the issues that were raised by C.T. Male was made and that’s the letter of August 16 that I think Staff was referring to. What I have before me, and I think for the purpose of the record I would read the e-mail that from Jim Houston dated Friday, August 18, 2006 at 5:03 p.m. to Craig Brown, copy to Tom Frost, Jim Edwards, and Susan Barden. th “Craig, I received the e-mail below in response to my letter of earlier today, August 18. The attachment shows the detail cut outs have been corrected. Therefore all our prior comments have been addressed and this e-mail serves as a sign off from C.T. Male on this project. Please let me know if any additional information or clarification is needed.” And I can go through those comments one by one or have Tom Jarrett go through those if you wish. MR. VOLLARO-What I do need, Tom, if you will, is there is some new perc test information that’s been submitted. MR. O'CONNOR-It wasn’t new information. It was an explanation of the difference, I believe. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I think Mike is correct. Originally Keith did a perc test toward the northern end of the property. MR. VOLLARO-The northern end of the property is, let me just orient myself here. How close to the septic system did you do the perc test? I guess that’s my question. By the way, just so everybody’s on the same page here, I’m looking at a. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) KEITH MANTZ MR. MANTZ-Approximately 20 feet from the proposed tile field. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, about 20 feet, and you got a test there of? MRS. STEFFAN-Identify yourself for the record? MR. MANTZ-I’m sorry. Keith Mantz, P.E., designed the septic system for the site. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. By the way, you were the only one that stamped your drawing. Of all the drawings I have here, I don’t have a professional stamp on any of them, except yours. MR. MANTZ-Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any stamps on any of these. The only one that I’ve got a stamp on is Keith’s. Other than that, I don’t have a stamp. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you looking at the drawings that are revised 8/16/04 at 4:00 p.m.? MR. VOLLARO-Four p.m.? No, I’m looking at a drawing here dated May 18, 2005 that was supplied with my, that’s part of it. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the survey. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the survey. MR. O'CONNOR-All these drawings were dated July 2006, there’s three sets or versions that I have. One is 7/10, one is 8/2 and the latest is 8/16, which C.T. Male has signed off on. MR. VOLLARO-This is what I have. I have drawings of S-1.1, proposed site plan. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, you’re looking at the architectural plans, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-No, this is done by Frost Architecture. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re the architectural plans. MR. JARRETT-There are also a set of engineering plans for stormwater that are numbered C-1 and C-2 and D-1. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think I have those. Hang on a second. I do not have those. I’ve got floor plans, again done by Frost. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, last time you were here, last month, you had indicated there was a new set of drawings, and you had indicated there was going to be a 20 foot buffer strip along the lake. I haven’t seen those drawings. I don’t think anyone has. rd MR. JARRETT-They were submitted on August 3. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we have the drawings that were submitted last month. rd MR. JARRETT-You don’t have the August 3 drawings? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. O'CONNOR-They were submitted prior to your meeting. MR. VOLLARO-As a matter of fact, what I had to do is get my loop out, okay, to find out what drawing date this was, and all of these are 5/15/06. MRS. STEFFAN-These are the old ones, Bob. MR. O'CONNOR-If I recall the last meeting, we had submitted, that day or a couple of days prior to the meeting, the set of drawings that Tom referred to. They weren’t in the packets, so you weren’t going to be able to consider them. We adjourned it so that those drawings would be distributed to you by Staff, so that you could consider them. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have them. MR. SIPP-We don’t have them. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not here. There wasn’t any way to consider those at all. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they’re not that complicated, well, I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have any drawings here to put up? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JARRETT-One of the keys, I think, is the landscape buffer and the stormwater report that supports the drawings that we had done. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. When was the stormwater report done? MR. JARRETT-The stormwater report was done, well, it’s dated August 2006. It was rd submitted on August 3. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I don’t have that either. MR. VOLLARO-See, there isn’t anything up here that you’ve given us. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, if you can indulge me for a second, I’ll show you what we submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-Because to be honest with you, I was very excited to see the 20 foot buffer. MR. JARRETT-This is our file copy. It’s small format. MR. VOLLARO-See, we don’t have that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if C.T. Male signed off on it. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s talk about one thing. You say that you did a perc test. MR. JARRETT-We can clarify that, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I need to know what that number is. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Mantz did a test 20 feet to the south of the north line. MR. MANTZ-Yes, about 20 feet north of the proposed disposal field, and my result, at 30 inches below grade, was about 23 minutes per inch, highest stabilized rate, in the perc test that I did. MR. JARRETT-What we did, subsequently, since the septic system was moved. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Where is Test Pit Number Two? We need Perc Test Two. I’m trying to relate now. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Mantz did one right here. This is where the original septic system was proposed. That’s not our test. We did Perc Test Three, right here in the area of the (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-And this is the one minute ten seconds? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s right where the septic is? MR. JARRETT-Yes, and on the record, I will clarify what that means. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, let’s freeze that frame a second. One minute and ten seconds is in the area of the septic system. Am I right? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. MANTZ-That’s the way I see it, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now let me just stop there for a second and get something that I want to talk about real quick. I’m going to go to Chapter 136, which is the waster chapter, and I’m going to go to Appendix A, which happens to be on Page 20. Now, this has to do with Lake George and tributaries, and I believe this property is on Lake George. Is that correct? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It talks about the absorption field being 100 feet from the lake. However, there’s a D here. It says if the percolation rate is 0 to 3 minutes per inch, this distance then becomes 200 linear feet, and that’s what I was looking at when I talked about the one minute ten seconds. So that’s a spot in 136 that we have to look at. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. Just to go backward and clarify, since the septic system, during the evolution of this design, was moved slightly to the south, we did a later perc test, in my office, my office did a perc test in the area of the footprint of the proposed septic system now, and we found a perc rate of just over a minute as you see on those plans. It’s a different material. Jim Houston questioned the different perc tests and it’s a different material than what Keith ran his test in, and we believe it probably is old fill from the road, many, many years ago, and you’re right that it is a faster percolation rate than is required by Town Code, and that will be reviewed by the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I think we have to put that on the record for the Town Board when they go to review this for a septic variance, and I think that’s what you’re asking for. So they’re going to have to deal with this section of 136. MR. O'CONNOR-This application has been treated differently than many of the ones that you see where the applicant goes to the Town Board, gets a variance for the septic, and then goes through the Zoning Board and Planning Board. I this instance, when they went to the Town Board, they were told to come to the Planning Board and resolve any issues with the Planning Board and resolve any issues with the Zoning Board before the Town would entertain the application. MR. VOLLARO-Which I thought was a good move on the Town Board’s part, by the way. Because I’ve sat in a lot of Town Board meetings, and I don’t know that this level of scrutiny gets done at the Town Board level. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d give an offhand response to that simply that this site has only so many possibilities and there are going to have to be some tweaking in order to improve the site for what’s there existing, and that probably would be the presentation that we make to the Town Board, that we’re improving. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want to make sure that being that a Town Board member is in attendance at this meeting, that we will be notifying the Town Board of this discrepancy within 136 to let them know that there’s a percolation rate here that’s less than allowed, and that if, the lot, you can’t do anything with the lot, it’s not 200 feet deep. MR. MANTZ-Yes, just one comment on that, and the Board may choose to issue a variance on that aspect as well as the two we’re requesting, but in reality the perc test that I did, which is for the septic design, was at 30 inches. Tom’s was at 20 inches, where he thought it was possibly some fill from when the road was constructed. So, the base of the disposal field, the invert of it, bottom of the trench, if you will, is at 29 inches for an Eljen system. So my 30 inch deep perc test is probably more, I mean, that’s what it was designed based on. So really, I don’t see any variance needed there, but that’s the Town Board’s decision. Because I’m not designing it based on his shallower perc test. I’m designing it based on my perc test at the depth. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m just telling you what one of the governing codes of the Town say, that if the perc test in Lake George is less than three minutes the distance from the lake has to be 200 feet. MR. MANTZ-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s something that the Town Board will have to deal with when they get to look at this septic variance. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-The plan that you have before you does show 20 foot vegetation along the shore. It does show removal of the shed. MR. VOLLARO-Am I looking at the right plan now? See the problem is here, I’m standing here looking at, I guess, the correct plan, and the rest of the Board members are kind of dithering around trying to figure out what they’re doing. I guess my question is, to Staff, how come we don’t have these when they were submitted in lots of time? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve asked that question. Staff has no explanation. Stu has not been involved with this project. MR. BAKER-I wasn’t aware of those sets of plans discussed this evening until this evening. MR. VOLLARO-Until this evening. Okay. MR. JARRETT-I think the major plan that you don’t have in front of you right now is the landscaping plan, C-2, which shows the buffer along the shoreline that we discussed last meeting and promised to develop for you. MR. O'CONNOR-C-2 is not there. MR. VOLLARO-See, I don’t have C-2. MR. JARRETT-As I say, you don’t have C-2, which shows the landscaping plan that we developed. rd MR. O'CONNOR-Which was submitted on August 3. rd MR. JARRETT-Submitted on August 3. rd MR. BAKER-Submitted August 3. What’s the revision date on it? ndrd MR. VOLLARO-August 2? August 2, which was submitted on August 3. MR. BAKER-Okay. I do have a set of these plans in the file, well, one set. I can’t speak to the others that were given for distribution to the Board. I do have one set in the file. MR. JARRETT-Why don’t I show you the full size here that Staff has in their file. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we take a recess and take 15 minutes to look at this? But I guess if we do it as a group, then we’re violating. MR. VOLLARO-No. We’re not violating anything. There’s a set of plans, if you want to, we can do it that way. You realize what we’re up against I suspect. I mean, this is bedlam, to me. For a guy like myself who likes to look at details, I’m totally afloat. Totally afloat. MR. O'CONNOR-Truthfully, I spoke before, in the last application, of having in hand a C.T. Male signoff. That was the letter I was referring to. I couldn’t find it in the prior file. MR. SIPP-For this one. MR. O'CONNOR-C.T. Male did sign off for this, they signed off on the stormwater requirements, but they didn’t sign off on the septic. MR. VOLLARO-See, that’s another thing. We don’t have a copy of your stormwater report. I think you showed it to us a little bit ago, but. MR. SEGULJIC-I think what we want to do is take a look at these. Maybe we can approve it, but at a minimum give an idea of what we need. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s 9:30. Let’s take 15 minutes, all of us, to try to understand what we’re looking at here, okay. I think the consensus is to accept what we have here. You’ve done what we’ve asked you to do. MR. SEGULJIC-I must say it’s very nice. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think it meets 147. It meets the climate of a major project, from what I see these designs being done. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the only comment would be, and, Don, if you could speak to it, the plantings that have been selected. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, we’ve discussed that. MR. VOLLARO-You have to get something on the record. If you want them to change the plantings, we have to tell them what it is, what we want, because we can’t just send them away with, okay, this is what you’ve got to do. MR. SIPP-The list that is produced by the Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we can’t do that. I guess, why don’t you, since you’re an expert, why don’t you give them a selection of plantings. MR. SIPP-I showed you, so, selecting from this list, substituting, get rid of some of that Spirea and. MR. JARRETT-For the record, we agreed, during our informal discussion, to replace rd some of the shrubs that we had shown on our plan C-2, submitted on August 3, with some of the winterberry holly and the red twig dogwood, which I think would work well in our landscaping plan and would give us some deep rooted shrubs, as Mr. Sipp is recommending. I think that gives us a balance of aesthetics and stormwater management and buffer strip along the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Here’s the drawing that they supplied. If you want to change some of these. MR. SIPP-What’s in between this, bark mulch? MR. JARRETT-Typically a bark mulch or a ground cover like an ajuga or something of that nature. MR. SIPP-All right. That would be good. I’d rather see the ground cover. MR. JARRETT-You don’t have any objection to the ground cover, right? MR. MANTZ-As long as it’s not pachysandra. MR. JARRETT-There’s a note on the far left corner of, actually there’s probably a couple of notes here that call for either the bark mulch or the ground cover, and ajuga is a good one for the sun exposure that you’re going to have here. MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got viburnum. MR. JARRETT-On the corners, yes. MR. SIPP-Yes, that’s good. Blue spruce, I mean, it’s a nice looking tree, but it’s not native and it’s not a grower. MR. JARRETT-We didn’t want anything that was going to grow very rapid and tall to be a hazard there. We’ve got a wide open area. We wanted something that was going to look like a specimen tree that would be attractive and not be a rapid grower, and it is rated for this zone. So we felt it would be a good choice. MR. SIPP-One and a half inch caliper. MR. JARRETT-What would you recommend, Don, a red maple? MR. SIPP-I would say a red maple in place of a, some of this can be retained, but I think you need deep rooted, off of that list, some deep rooted, hemlock would be good. MR. JARRETT-He’s rather see something of an evergreen nature. MR. MANTZ-Rather than deciduous trees, because they make a mess with the boats and everything and on the deck. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SIPP-Hemlock would be a substitute. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SIPP-I know the daylilies look good, but. MR. JARRETT-Those are interspersed amongst the shrubs to give it some attractiveness. You feel that’s not appropriate? MR. SIPP-Well, the bulb is that big around. It’s three inches below the ground. The daylily blooms one week of the year, and then the rest of it is. MR. JARRETT-Well, those are Stella Doras that are specified. So they should bloom most of the summer. MR. SIPP-But I would intersperse these with some low ground cover that’s got some deep roots. How about some Bird’s Foot, nice yellow flower, deep root. I don’t know what the acidity is of this soil. Is this soil acid? MR. JARRETT-I’m presuming it’s at least slightly acid. I have not done any tests on it. Bird’s Foot will grow in slightly acid. There were plenty of pines there before. So it’s got to be somewhat. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Have we got that down now? MR. SIPP-If you pick off this list some of the. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they don’t have that list. MR. SEGULJIC-We can give them that. MR. SIPP-You can go to this website and pick it up on the website. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, why not just give them that list. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SIPP-There’s a website and her name is on the, telephone. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to look at, these are the new drawings. C.T. Male signoff dated 8/18/06. Is that, am I correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. We’re going to make an approval on this. MR. SEGULJIC-My only other comment would be, what do you think about using an aerobic septic system, considering the 200 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-I think I’d ask you to leave that to the Town Board and let them make the determination. MRS. STEFFAN-They probably will, but they’ll be looking to us for direction, apparently. MR. VOLLARO-They’re asking for a recommendation. That’s why we’re doing this. So we would recommend to them to consider, in lieu of the three minute percolation, because the lot isn’t deep enough, that’s for sure, to look into an aerobic type system. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if we agree that the three minute percolation is applicable at the depth of the absorption bed that we’re talking about, but without argument of it, we understand that if you make that recommendation, we will consider it. I’m not saying that the applicant won’t do it. MR. VOLLARO-I checked with Mr. Strough before he left. He understands the less than three minutes. He doesn’t have a problem with understanding where it comes from in the 136 Code. I’ll leave that to the Town Board when they get to look at it. MRS. BRUNO-I have one other question I’d like to ask, that I asked at the previous meeting. Are you Mr. Frost? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) TOM FROST MR. FROST-I am, Tom Frost. MRS. BRUNO-You may have heard me ask a similar question to the earlier applicant who has a house in the same era. In terms of the foundation, have the earlier drawings, the existing house, the original drawings been found and are they being used, or what sort of certification of the structural integrity of the existing foundation is there? MR. FROST-We don’t have a set of the original drawings, the drawings of the existing house, I guess is the best way to put it. So the only thing when we get to the working drawing stage design the footings and foundations is to excavate and see what’s there, which is what we would normally do. MRS. STEFFAN-What happens if they’re not secure enough to put the new house on top? MR. FROST-Well, we have to design something that’ll work. So if we found out that they’re not adequate, we’ll excavate down and hold the building up. MRS. BRUNO-I just wanted to bring this to the forefront. MR. FROST-It’s a good point, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Well, and I’m sure you’ve thought of it, obviously you have because you’re designing to it. The only thing, what I’m alluding to, and I really don’t think this is the case right now, we have to be careful of those who go forward knowing that their foundation’s going to give in and then, oops, we have to take it all out and here’s another house, and, you know, the whole thing, which, you already have your full plans. MR. FROST-Yes, but they’re schematic plans, and, you know, we haven’t started working drawings, and we won’t until we’re through all of the Boards, and when we get to that point, we’ll investigate what’s there, how deep the footings are. It’s already come in discussions. The back of the building, for instance, is below grade. The back of the basement is below grade, and so those footings, assuming that they’re wide enough to support what’s there, and part of that would be the current wall’s cracking and bulging. If that’s not the case, or probably more of a concern than that, if there’s no indication of any kind of failure, would be how deep are the footings down on the walkout side of the basement? Are they down four feet? Do they meet Code? MRS. BRUNO-At this point, though, you haven’t done a visual survey of the interior of the foundation or anything? MR. FROST-Well, we’ve done, we have not dug around the building to look at where the foundations, what they look like, how deep the footings are, how big the footings are. We have not done that. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-The Chairman was just asking for any elevation drawings. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have elevation drawings? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there have been. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe the last time you did, but we never received them. MR. BAKER-I have the elevation drawings, from the PowerPoint. MR. O'CONNOR-The elevation drawings that we had are dated 7/10/06. MR. SEGULJIC-As I recall, you have a garage, for argument’s sake in your basement, and you’re turning it in to storage area, if I recall. MR. O'CONNOR-The garage is going to be a bedroom. MR. SEGULJIC-The garage is going to be a bedroom. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-This is a two bedroom house? MR. O'CONNOR-Three bedroom. MR. FROST-And it will stay a three bedroom house. There’s two upstairs, one downstairs. MR. SEGULJIC-You had a nice PowerPoint presentation last time? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m glad they don’t build airplanes this way. Just a side comment. That used to be what I was in at one time in my life. You wouldn’t want to do it like this, guaranteed. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You had agreed that this was a major project, correct? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Because your drawing says it’s a minor project. C-1 you have to change that from minor to major. MR. JARRETT-Originally we submitted it as a minor, and technically by area it would qualify as a minor, but I guess we missed one spot of changing it to a major. MR. SEGULJIC-So the drawing should be changed to a major, and the only other thing I would note is that then, in your stormwater details in the back, under stormwater and erosion and sediment you say restoration of the disturbed area shall be completed within seven days of completion of temporary stoppage of work. Under major project, under 147-10-3 it says any area of land from which native vegetation cover has been either partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activity shall be vegetated within 10 days. So we just have to see that note. MR. VOLLARO-Who prepared the Floor Area worksheet, Floor Area Ratio? MR. O'CONNOR-The architectural firm, and a re-draft of it was submitted per your request. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can I see the re-draft of that, because I think I’ve got the old one. This is the Site Development Data. I’m talking about the Floor Area Ratio. Was that a variance granted by the ZBA for the Floor Area Ratio, I believe? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because I can see that the allowance is 2882. You’re 2767. So you’ve got 115 feet to go, but I think that, why was there a variance granted where this shows you’re okay? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think there was a variance on Floor Area Ratio. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, your Floor Area Ratio meets it or doesn’t meet it? I’ve got it. MR. O'CONNOR-The relief requested, the applicant requests one foot of front setback on the road where 30 feet is the minimum and 11.1 foot of shoreline setback relief. Those were the two variances that we obtained. I don’t think we needed a variance for Floor Area Ratio. MR. VOLLARO-You’re okay by 115 square feet, is what it looks like to me. MR. SEGULJIC-So, are we motioning to approve these plans, then? Then they go to the Town Board for their review of the septic system? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s what’s going to happen. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that they’ve done what they said they were going to do. We didn’t get the plans, but they said it looks to me like they’ve complied with what we’ve 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) asked them to do to begin. They’ve got a C.T. Male signoff, and that signoff is dated 8/18/06. I think we can go forward with this. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, you do need to open a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I will open the public hearing. Does anybody want to speak to this application? In the midst of all this, I commend you for putting me on track, because I am a little bit confused tonight. Go ahead, John. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. You’ve made a determination that this should be a major project, with regard to 147. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, and I think they’ve complied with that, as far as we can see by the drawings. MR. SALVADOR-The design complies, okay. There’s another part to that requiring, I believe, a filing of this plan. MR. VOLLARO-They filed for a permit. MR. SALVADOR-There’s a provision in that 147 for recording the stormwater management plan. There has to be assurance that this is going to be maintained by the applicant. It’s one thing to get approval and put it in. We don’t know what’s going to happen in three years, but there has to be, this plan has to be recorded. That’s part of the major aspect. That’s the primary differentiation between a minor and a major project, as Mr. Tom Jarrett frequently mentions. The design basis is the same. The design criteria is the same. The difference is the major plan has to be assured. We want to make sure that thing is working five years from now, and that everything is in place, and that’s only done if it’s recorded. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think it’s covered in the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, under 147-11. MR. SALVADOR-I’m not sure of the chapter. MR. VOLLARO-Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk or its terms shall be incorporated into covenants appearing in the deed, declaration of covenants and restrictions or other documents to ensure the record notice of its terms is provided to future owners of the site. It shall also be included in the offering plan if one if any for the project. Is that the one you’re talking about? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. The other thing, with regard to this foundation, there are many, many non-destructive methods of determining the integrity of an existing structure. I am very fearful that once the heavy equipment hits this site there’ll be nothing left of that foundation. You start vibrating, jack hammering, whatever you do around the site to take down that existing structure, they don’t go in there with tinker toys. I think you’re really going to have a problem with the stability during that phase, and probably the most cost effective way to do this is to just hog it out. I mean, that’s the way I would do it. MR. VOLLARO-That may be what they’re going to do, too, John. I don’t know. I don’t have that kind of visibility far out. I would assume that our Building Department, Building and Codes, would look very closely at something like this before issuing the permit for this structure. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, what we’re getting to, Mr. Vollaro, is the differentiation between a renovation and new construction. They’re leaving this foundation there, just to mask the fact that this is an add on, a renovation, a something like that, but this is new construction, and the criteria for new construction applies across the board, including the septic system. That’s it. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-We’re aware of the requirement to record this with the County Clerk, and I’m not sure if the Town has done this before. So I will try and work out something that’s satisfactory to the Town Attorney. I would like very much to, and typically sometimes we can record a memorandum that the property is subject to a stormwater plan, define the stormwater plan, and where the stormwater plan is located, so that that then goes into the chain of title and everybody who buys the property is aware of it, but I really don’t want to, and I’m not sure if the intent is that somebody record this document. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think if you look at 147, it really talks to it. The stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk. MR. O'CONNOR-The agreement. The agreement, not the plan. So I will abide by whatever the Town Attorney directs us to do. There may be some unneeded expense in recording this document, and I’m not necessarily trying to cut corners, but. MR. SEGULJIC-You could just refer to it. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what I’m doing. Typically, that’s how you do that. MR. VOLLARO-If I was a buyer, and I read that, how would I get to look at that? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s going to be on file with the Town. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’m going to try to craft a motion here, slowly. I’m going to take five minutes to do this motion and I’ll be back with you. To say the least, this has been an interesting experience. Okay. I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2006 ANDREA PEEK, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/25/06 tabled to 8/22/06; 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, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered. We are leaving this as a Type II Action and therefore, the environmental considerations were not required for SEQRA; 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: This application is hereby APPROVED, with the following conditions: 1. Approval of Drawings C-1 and D-1 of 8/18, and C-2 dated 8/2/06, and an unstamped, unsigned drawing by W.J. Roth and a drawing dated May 18, 2005, which is unstamped by a licensed professional. 2. A C.T. Male letter was received on 8/18/06. 3. Drawing C-2, buffer strip shall contain plantings per list supplied to Staff. Replace the Blue Spruce with Hemlock, as they appear on Drawing C-2. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) 4. Per 147-11, Item C, the stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Clerk or its term shall be incorporated into the covenants appearing in the deed, declaration of covenants and restrictions, or other such documents to ensure that record of notice of its term is provided to future owners of the site. It shall be included in the Offering Plan, if any, for the project. 5. Drawing C-1 shall state that this is a Major Stormwater project in accordance with Chapter 147, and that notation appears on C-1. 6. You shall follow Chapter 147-10 for the erosion control methods. 7. Due to the limitations within Chapter 136, regarding perc rate less than three minutes shall result in a separation distance from Lake George of 200 feet. As a mitigation, it is recommended that the applicant consider the installation of an aerobic septic system, or an advanced system. 8. No fertilizer shall be used on this site. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, 2006, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-A C.T. Male signoff letter was received on 8/18/06, drawing C-2, buffer strip, shall contain plantings per Drew Monthie. Her phone number would be (518) 792- 9557. In accordance with that replace the Blue Spruce with hemlock wherever it appears on Drawing. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Vollaro, how can we put someone’s name in there as a reference? MR. VOLLARO-That’s all we have. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we give Staff the list? MR. VOLLARO-We could use it, a list supplied by, this is the indigenous plantings that we have. We can supply that to Staff, or we can give the applicant a reference to that. It’s a document they have. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s supplied by, but not, the plantings are not supplied by. The list is supplied by. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Shall contain plantings per the list supplied by Monthie, Drew Monthie, and a phone number for him in case they want to call. I mean, how else can they get back to him? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, why don’t we just, we gave, Stu has the list now. MR. JARRETT-He’s going to provide a copy of the list to us, and we’ll use it. MR. O'CONNOR-To you, and, Mr. Sipp, you were talking about some substitution, weren’t you? So, are you talking 50%? MR. SIPP-At least, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-At least 50% substitution from our planting with what’s shown on his list. MR. SIPP-What’s shown on his list. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I think you should just strike the name from the record, just from the list that we have. MR. SEGULJIC-List supplied by Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. C-2 buffer strip shall contain plantings per the list supplied to Staff. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you for your patience in waiting. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2006 SEQR TYPE II ALICE GENTHNER AGENT(S): WILLIAM HERLIHY; MICHAEL O’CONNOR OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 35 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 253 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING 1327 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CEA REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 21-91, AV 21-91, AV 40-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES; GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-22 SECTION 179-13-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Is Mr. O’Connor your attorney? ALICE GENTHNER MRS. GENTHNER-He is, and I believe he has pictures of the cottage without the blue tarp. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to identify yourself for the record. MRS. GENTHNER-My name is Alice Genthner. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. BILL HERLIHY MR. HERILHY-Bill Herlihy. I’m the contractor. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and Mr. O’Connor is your attorney. Is that correct? MRS. GENTHNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor representing the applicant, and both Mr. and Mrs. Genthner are here, and Bill Herlihy, who is the builder, is here. This is maybe an entirely different application than what you normally get, okay. Let me show you some pictures. These are pictures as to why we’re here. Late last year in February of this year, I guess, and a large pine tree came down and knocked down one section of this house, and I’ve got to give you a little background, too. The applicant’s family has been part of this property for the last 58 years. This is a summer house. This is not a year round house. The portion that we’re talking about building is not year round. It’s going to be summer operations, the same as the present house. The applicants, two years ago, without any plans of coming to any Board for any approval process or expansion, obtained approval and installed a brand new septic system for a three bedroom house. So the septic system I think is up to speed and up to order without any real issue, and basically what they are trying to do is simply re-build what the tree knocked down. They actually got a building permit to do that and were told by the Town that they couldn’t build it as it was structured because as it was structured would not be in compliance with Code because of the heights of the ceilings and what not. So then they tried to modify it and say, okay, we will build that wing as is, but in compliance with Code, and, Bill correct me if I’m wrong, they were told no because then you’re talking about a vertical expansion. MR. HERLIHY-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-So basically we’re here for that purpose. All Mrs. Genthner wants to do is re-build the structure and in re-building the structure, she has a very small expansion of it, and it’s the two areas, the area above the screen porch on the front, and 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) the area above what was the kitchen shed, kitchen building in the back. We’re talking, I think, 257 feet, 253 in total. So, it should be a very. MR. VOLLARO-On the height of the building, I’ve got three heights. The blueprint shows 24 3. The black and white by Northern shows 23 feet four inches. MR. HERLIHY-What it shows on the plan is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Which plan, there are three plans here. MR. HERLIHY-Well, one is the original house. That is a building basically as it was before. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is your drawing, Mr. Herlihy? MR. HERLIHY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Forty-three four is the correct height. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because what I did is took and added up all your heights, and I came up with 24 feet 3 inches. So then this 23, 4 you’re saying is the real height? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s not correct on this drawing? MR. HERLIHY-That was incorrect. MR. O'CONNOR-And that was noted when we were before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we’ve modified the application before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. VOLLARO-One other thing I’m just going to comment on, and I know that the Chairman of the ZBA is pretty much in tune with this. What we’re going to be requiring, you might tell me my drawing is stamped. You may say that, but I get drawings that are, have no stamps on them whatsoever. There was no professional, this is done by Northern Design and Building Associates. MR. HERLIHY-No, there’s an engineer stamped plan. MR. VOLLARO-There is it. MR. O'CONNOR-That one is not. MR. VOLLARO-The one that you have, Mr. Herlihy, is not stamped in any way, except it’s got your name on it. MRS. STEFFAN-Just the survey has a stamp on it. MR. VOLLARO-Now the survey is, I believe, is stamped by a land surveyor, and that’s the survey map that shows the survey, but other than that, I don’t have anything. MR. HERLIHY-Here’s the stamped plans here. MR. VOLLARO-And where is the stamp? See, we don’t have that, I don’t have it. I’ve got the same drawing you do without that. Don’t ask me why. MR. O'CONNOR-I think when we submit for the building plan, we will, building permit, we will have to have the stamped plans. MR. VOLLARO-See what I like to know is when the plan is stamped that I’m looking at the final drawing. Without that, it doesn’t mean a thing. Okay. MR. HERLIHY-Do you want this one here? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s yours. You keep that. That’s fine. There’s no way for me to sit down tonight and try to review something like that. So the building height is 23, 4 is what you’re claiming the height of the building is? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HERLIHY-That’s on the stamped plans, right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. The second floor, I have two small little drawings here. MR. HERLIHY-One shows the expansion. MR. VOLLARO-These were probably taken from another drawing somewhere, I would think. MR. O'CONNOR-That was part of the application for the septic. Those drawings that you have in front of you, that’s the septic system that’s on the site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The 1250 required for four bedroom. It’s an existing three bedroom, but I think they asked for a 1250 because of the grinder. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not sure why. MR. VOLLARO-The tank is a 1250 gallon tank as opposed to a typical 1,000. MR. HERLIHY-That’s what they engineered. MR. VOLLARO-But I think it’s there because there was a grinder. There’s a wastewater grinder pump here. MR. HERLIHY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s why you’d need 1250. If you’ve got a grinder, you go from 1,000 to 1250. That’s just Code. MR. HERLIHY-They required a highway usage tank. So I don’t know if they make them 1,000 versus 1250, because they wanted a highway tank because it’s up near driveway area. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a note here that says that the 1250 is required because of the grinder pump. Yes, right on the drawing it says septic tank, minimum 1,000 gallon septic tank for three bedroom use, but due to grinder pump use provide a 1250 gallon septic tank. MR. O'CONNOR-What’s proposed, when we’re all said and done with this 200 and some odd foot addition, is three bedrooms. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s more than adequate. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t have any comments on this. MR. SEGULJIC-Any excavation on site? MR. HERLIHY-No. MR. VOLLARO-They’re just going to rebuild what’s there. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just going to rebuild what’s there. MR. HERLIHY-It will be hand dug, whatever. There’s no way they can get equipment down there to do anything. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I’m looking from the angle of siltation and erosion. MR. HERILHY-I asked the building inspectors and I asked Craig Brown when he was up at the site if they wanted a silt fence or anything else, and they said one wasn’t required, but I’ve told them we’d be glad to put one up if they want it, whatever they want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you’re not doing any excavating or anything like that, you’re just in the building mode, then you wouldn’t need one. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. HERILHY-No. MR. VOLLARO-Silt fences are required if you get some equipment down in there, then that’s a different story. MR. HERILHY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions on this application. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, did you open a public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody here for the public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2006 ALICE GENTHNER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 253 sq. ft. second story addition to existing 1327 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Expansions of nonconforming structures in a CEA require review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 8/22/06; 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 prepared by Staff. On Paragraph Four, complies. Paragraph Five does not apply. This is a Type II SEQRA. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of August, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your rebuild. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 REVISED SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE N/A HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) NOEL LABONTE II ZONING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL SR-1A LOCATION 516 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION [PARTIAL CLUSTER], RESULTING IN LOTS RANGING FROM 0.34 ACRES TO 9.5 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SKETCH 7/27/05 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-86 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICKIE HAYES, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For the record, you are? MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Mickie Hayes. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask a question. Did anybody come in on a pre-ap on this at all? MR. LAPPER-Yes, with Craig. Yes, we sat down. MR. VOLLARO-Stu, I understand that there was a pre-application on this, but I’ve got a pre-application blank. Is there one in the file that was done by Craig Brown? MR. BAKER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, there wasn’t anything done by Craig Brown? MR. HAYES-I did. I was there myself with Craig. Yes. MR. BAKER-There isn’t a pre-ap form filled. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I have a pre-ap blank. So there’s no pre-ap form filled. Maybe because it’s Sketch he didn’t think it was necessary. MR. BAKER-That’s likely. MR. LAPPER-There was definitely a meeting. He might not have filled out a form. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just was wondering if there was one there. Okay. I’m going to open this up to the Board. Does anybody have any recommendations? This is our chance, on Sketch Plan, before they come in with a Preliminary to tell them what we think or what we’re going to need, what we want to see in the Preliminary. So if anybody’s got any questions or recommendations. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that certainly the Staff comments raise a couple of questions. You’ve got two parcels. You’ve got the subdivision, I’ll call it, where the cluster is occurring, and then you’ve got the 3.9 acre and the 9.5 acres, and they’re sectioned out into two pieces, and apparently they can’t be built on. MR. LAPPER-No, they would just be big lots, one house each. MR. HAYES-There’d be a shared drive there in the middle. MR. VOLLARO-So there are plans, this is the lot line now. MR. HAYES-The whole parcel is one parcel now, and that would be two lots, two separate larger lots to the right. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to subdivide into 3.9 and 9.5? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then you plan to develop those as? MR. HAYES-Single family house, but they’d be more of estate, larger lots will be theoretically more valuable than the other lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and this is going to be used as a shared driveway? MR. HAYES-Shared drive. MR. LAPPER-But there’ll be a driveway on each lot, so they’ll have access and frontage. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-There’s 40 foot on either of those lots? MR. HAYES-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, the question came from, what is the value of having the remaining undeveloped acreage in more than one lot, and so that’s where the question was coming from. So they’ll be more like estate houses. Now we have a map from the Town GIS, and it identifies some wetlands on the nine and a half acres, but it’s not on your plan. MR. HAYES-I believe the DEC wetlands is off the, what Van Dusen and Steves has shown on the depiction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. These are ACOE she’s talking about, these are Army Corps wetlands that drop down into your 9.5 acre. I made just a representation of what the GIS looked like. MR. HAYES-Okay. We had it field surveyed by a soil scientist. We didn’t find any, but that doesn’t mean they’re not, you know, we did a field survey and they did not find any wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HAYES-But he was aware of the DEC. There is a setback that comes onto our property. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a 100 foot setback, but that’s minor compared to, see, the Army Corps says if you disturb more than a tenth of an acre, you could design to .095. MR. LAPPER-As we’ve seen. Maybe this time it’ll be .094. We’ll be more careful. MR. VOLLARO-But anyway, if you disturb more than a tenth of an acre, there is a preconstruction notification requirement. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-To the Army Corps. I don’t know whether you’re going to disturb more of a tenth of an acre or not. MR. HAYES-No, we’re not going to go anywhere near that area anyway. It’s all in the front. MR. VOLLARO-If your housing is over here to the east, you won’t have to worry about that. Okay. The approximate length of the cul de sac road I mapped out at about 700 feet. MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s like 710 or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, typically what we’re going to want to see in the Preliminary at least is placement, the approximate placement of houses and the septic locations as well. MR. HAYES-We’ve already had the Department of Health on the site, and we did like 16 test pits with the Department of Health and the soil scientists on present. There was no issues of soil. MR. LAPPER-In May. MR. HAYES-In May. MR. VOLLARO-In the Preliminary that would show. MR. HAYES-Yes. We just did it for our own informational thing. MR. VOLLARO-But you’ve got to put it in the Preliminary plan. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. HAYES-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming you haven’t bought the property yet. MR. HAYES-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That makes sense. MR. VOLLARO-That’s one thing I’ve learned from sitting on this side of the fence. Never buy a piece of property until you get, like the informata from the Pope. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. HAYES-The Department of Health area is really one of the big issues. When you get them there and how they’re reaction, and the test pits are a big part of the worry, but it’s typical sandy. MR. VOLLARO-It’s up in that area, I know where you are. MR. SEGULJIC-Any of our friends there, the butterfly? MR. HAYES-I already had, Deb Roberts is doing a full report on the whole property for me. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the answer was no. MR. HAYES-The answer was no, and the Frosted Elfin. MR. SEGULJIC-Any water on the site? MR. HAYES-As in? MR. SEGULJIC-Streams or anything like that? MR. HAYES-No. Down in this area, down in here, back of that lower part, you can see the deterioration of the, you can actually see, when you get to the property line, you can see the areas there where that’s wet over there. MR. LAPPER-On the adjacent property. MR. HAYES-On the adjacent property. MR. SEGULJIC-But other than that, there’s no streams across this site? MR. HAYES-No, there’s nothing. This part is very high, but then it gets low down at this point. In the past people tried to develop this whole property, but it doesn’t really make sense. MR. SEGULJIC-This came in with a loop road, I think. MR. HAYES-Yes. They tried to come in here and put it here, I believe Cerrone tried to get it rezoned because it didn’t make sense or, that was like three years ago. MR. VOLLARO-That was Cifone that did that. MR. HAYES-Yes, okay, and they were going to try to get a variance MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HAYES-Or a rezone. MR. LAPPER-Mickie’s just going with a standard per zoning. MR. HAYES-Cluster. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just to clarify for me, with regards to clustering, the purpose of it is to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open space, to encourage compatibility. So doing something like this is fine. MR. VOLLARO-I think, in a sense, until a Comprehensive Land Use Plan really describes for us what is a conservation subdivision, all we can do from this end is we need green space, we’d like green space, we love green space. Hopefully somebody like you can say, and I think you have. What you’re saying is you’re going to build a house on nine and a half acres. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And no further subdivision. MR. LAPPER-Right, no further subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-No further subdivision of that. That would be stated in the Prelim, I would think, and you’re going to build another house on 3.9. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re conserving a good deal of green space in there with respect to this cluster. MR. HAYES-Two houses on thirteen acres. MR. VOLLARO-That’s how I looked at it. MR. HAYES-Yes. It’s an odd piece of property. The shape is obviously very unique. MR. VOLLARO-I might ask, is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan going to describe a conservation type subdivision of some kind? MRS. STEFFAN-There’s diagrams right in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, there is. So that when we recommend that from this end of the Board, we’ll know what we’re talking about, as opposed to using. MR. BAKER-More importantly, it will be very well defined in the revised regulations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is this Queensbury School District? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-It’s Town water. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have nothing else to add for these folks to do. MRS. STEFFAN-There is a question in the Staff notes about the 1700 square feet. We don’t usually see that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Down where your split driveway is, there’s a note down, right there, that says 17,000 square feet. MR. HAYES-I don’t know what that means. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what that means. MR. HAYES-I think that’s a transition thing. That doesn’t make any sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HAYES-I don’t know if that 17 5 is that little parcel there, that the computer maybe put a natural line across. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-I don’t know what that means. MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t belong on this. It won’t come in the Preliminary either. MR. HAYES-No. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s good. I was figuring it was something that I didn’t know. MR. HAYES-Basically in this area here the lots are not that large of lots. I mean, the area is a very mixed use area for, there’s a trailer. There’s this kind of an area in transition right now. So it’s definitely going to be more moderately priced housing. MR. LAPPER-Look at the size, I think if you drew the line right there, that’s what it would be. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s going to be somewhat in conflict with the houses on the big acre. That’s going to look. MR. HAYES-If they get in the back there they’d just be kind of secluded there, but definitely the neighborhood is definitely going to be more moderately based housing. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the scale of this drawing, you’ll never get to anything like 1,000 foot type? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, you won’t even get there, even if you stick them in the back off Luzerne Road. MR. SEGULJIC-1,000 foot type what? MR. VOLLARO-Over a 1,000 foot cul de sac. MR. LAPPER-The road. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. My only other comment would be I’d just like to see you maintain as many trees as possible there. MR. HAYES-This right here right now is, did you go to the property? MR. SEGULJIC-I have to admit, I did not. MR. HAYES-Okay. The front portion was an old horse pasture. This part where the clustering is pretty much a field now, except for the far left. This down here is a pine stand forest down in the lower part, and there’s horse trails that strewn throughout there. So down here is basically woodland and up here is basically fields now. MR. LAPPER-And the woods will just have the two houses. So that won’t require a lot of clearing, but we can do a clearing plan. MR. HAYES-Yes, we have no problem taking this whole section down here and making it a no cut zone. MR. LAPPER-Write down clearing plan on those two lots. MR. SEGULJIC-Other than that, I don’t have anything else. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think you just said the clearing plan would be on the 3.9 and the 9.5? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we’d like to see. Now you mentioned something, Mr. Hayes, about a no cut zone. Where are you talking about that? MR. HAYES-Well, down here where the house, the plan on these larger lots would be still, even though the depth here would be, they’d be positioned toward the front, we have no problem having this section here, there’s no intention to do anything down there. If they wanted to make a no cut zone in a huge swath of that. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about the 3.9 and the 9.5? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HAYES-So I mean I think by deed restriction we could guarantee that probably of the treed portion, say it’s 22 acres, say there’s a 15 acre treed portion, probably with deed restriction we probably could make sure that at least 13 acres of that there’s no possibility to be cut at all, because it wouldn’t make any difference that much. MR. VOLLARO-We’d like to have that buffer, no cut zone put on the drawing since deed restrictions are not enforceable. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it will be a subdivision condition. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-As well as some buffering around where you have the cul de sac with the other residential property. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-On the north side, you mean, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is there anything else we can tell this applicant to help him here, or? MRS. STEFFAN-I think moderately priced houses, sidewalks would be really nice. MR. HAYES-Sidewalks along? MRS. STEFFAN-Along the cul de sac, or at least on either side. MR. HAYES-The question is, a good question while you guys are going through all this stuff is, is it going to be allowed to be put on the Town right of way, or has it got to be on their property? All those things have to be, like, worked out. That’s an issue. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, do we have recommendations in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? I know we talked about sidewalks, but we have recommendations about how to deal with that issue. MR. BAKER-We do. The Comprehensive Plan, the current draft, is essentially recommending that in the Neighborhood Residential land use ring around the City, that sidewalks be prevalent through there. I think it does recommend them in the next ring out, as well, which this probably falls within. The idea being developers put sidewalks in and the Town catches up with linkages elsewhere through, presumably, a Capital Improvement Plan. MR. HAYES-It’s going to be tough to link up out there, but where would those sidewalks go? Would they go on the right of way or do they go on the lot? That’s the question. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HAYES-Because these are still going to be somewhat suburban like lots. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-See, there’s a whole bunch of things involved here. The Highway Department demands that these roads be built with wings. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s one thing, and the cul de sac I live on, you know where that is, I measured that, and to the center of that to about a foot into my property, gives me a three rod road. So part of what I have there doesn’t belong to me. One foot of that still belongs to the Town. What Mr. Hayes is saying, where does this sidewalk go? Do we encroach that sidewalk on Town property, on their right of way, or do we put it even further in to the lots? Like if you look at that 16 square foot lot, 1600 square foot lot, any of these, the first lot down, where does the sidewalk go with respect to that three rod road, part of which the Town owns? MR. HAYES-And part of the consideration is, too, one side of the road has a tendency to be loaded up with utilities and stuff, and then that would have to be worked out with Niagara Mohawk about covering up their thing with a hard surface. I mean, it’s a very complicated thing in a suburban environment. If you could work out those details, it’s going to be very hard to do, because they have, they want to be X amount of feet off, and if you’re covered by the sidewalk and they have to tear it up, they like to have access. I mean, there’s a lot to it. MR. LAPPER-Because utilities have to be underground now in subdivisions. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HAYES-So that’s all underground, so it changes everything. MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t talk about that, Stu. MR. BAKER-You could certainly do sidewalks on one side of the road. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BAKER-And put the underground utilities on the other. MR. HAYES-I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just wondering if it’s an issue. MR. BAKER-As to where the sidewalk goes, they typically go within what will eventually become the public right of way. MR. HAYES-And then the issue with wing curbs, which some towns don’t have, is then you’ve got to design to have the water spill over, and the road is supposed to become a trough way to handle the stormwater, then you have, with the sidewalk it would create a break there that wouldn’t allow the water to go over the top, but it has to really be in conjunction with a grading plan, because you don’t want something breaking that water flow because it’s designed to flow onto the road. It gets complicated when you take all the pieces and go backwards, which, do I think if I spent the money in sidewalks, would it enhance the property, the cost, the sidewalks you’d probably get back in the salability because it would be something that would be, I’m not about, spending the money, I think as an investment thing it would definitely get your money back because it is an enticement for people to buy, but it’s definitely going to be a very complicated thing to come up with a way to do it in a suburban format. Wing curbs are going to be a big problem with this, with sidewalks. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know, and if somebody said to me, well, and Stu just said, put it on the other side of the road, I always look at the practicality of the sidewalk. I have a thing with sidewalks. I love them. I always love sidewalks, but I want sidewalks to be doing something that makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-But that’s what, in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan meetings that we have, the public comment, I mean, folks want sidewalks. They want to be able to walk on them. They want little kids to be able to ride their bikes on them, but obviously these logistics have to be worked out. MR. HAYES-It’s complicated, you have to talk to Rick Missita how he feels about it, then you have to figure about maybe how the sidewalks are designed, because if the lots in Queensbury are designed to flow into the road, the erosion control with the sidewalk, 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) with the base you’d have to put underneath because you’d be undermining. I mean, it’s, the wing curbs change the way things are done. MR. VOLLARO-Big time. MR. HAYES-So I know it’s a hard process. MR. VOLLARO-See if it was a straight curb, the road came to a typical curb, no problem. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-As soon as you put those wings in there, big problem. Because like Mr. Hayes said, the road is now designed as a pipe. MR. HAYES-Yes, good luck trying to figure it out. MR. LAPPER-We’ll keep talking about it, though. MR. HAYES-I don’t know if you’d want to, in some of these environments, encourage more trail systems instead of sidewalks. I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-We just did all the work on the Plan. MR. HAYES-Well, you can’t have them partially in the right of way and partially on somebody’s piece of land. That would be a mess, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because who’s responsible for maintaining them. MR. HAYES-Some people would actually, my experience with some people, they would actually just shovel one part of the sidewalk. MRS. STEFFAN-Of what’s on their land. MR. HAYES-Exactly. So it’s something, another wrench in the machine. MR. VOLLARO-Gentlemen, I think that’s about all we have on this. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for the education. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you for waiting, too. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question for the Planning Board. At the last Planning Ordinance and Review Committee meeting, we had a discussion about flag lots. We were actually having a conversation about the new Zoning Code, and we were entertaining some options and one issue that kept coming up was flag lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And I made a comment that, since I’ve been on the Planning Board, we have discouraged flag lots. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. MRS. STEFFAN-But yet I didn’t know the history behind that. I don’t think it’s written anywhere in the Code, but I don’t know the history, and I was wondering if you guys might be able to fill me in, and give me your opinions on flag lots. Flag lots would be a very, actually just like what we saw in this Hayes design, small driveway and a big lot. MR. VOLLARO-So the small driveway is the 40 foot frontage, that they have to have on a public road, and then that goes up like this and all of a sudden the lot spreads out and that becomes a big flag. It looks like a flag type thing. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know the history, and I don’t know that why I would say they’re bad, frankly. I couldn’t come up with a, but they’ve got 40 foot on the road, and they’re 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/22/06) within the zone. They’re one acre or better in the one acre zone, why would a flag lot be objectionable? MR. BAKER-They typically end up with longer driveways, for example, which some emergency service providers don’t care for. I really haven’t heard concerns from our fire departments or EMS squads about length of driveways, though. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give you one, West Mountain, Inglee. You can’t negotiate that drive on his property with a four wheel drive machine, and yet when we had the EMS people they said, it’s okay, we can handle it. We can get a truck up there. MR. BAKER-We had the same thing with that two lot subdivision by Woodchuck Hill. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BAKER-As well. North Queensbury said we’ve got an all-wheel drive ambulance that can get up there. The fire department said we can get up there. Another issue with flag lots is one person’s front yard will often be looking directly into another person’s back yard, if you don’t have a vegetative buffer, there’s no privacy. That’s not a health, safety and welfare thing, per se, as much as maybe a marketing concern for when they’re trying to sell their lots. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s never been a problem before. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 58