Loading...
2007-09-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) QUEENSBURY & FORT ANN JOINT PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 INDEX DISCUSSION Irish Bay Partners, LLC 1. c/o John Lefner Tax Map No. 227.10-1-1, 2, 3 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 09/20/07) QUEENSBURY & FORT ANN JOINT PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 7:00 P.M. QUEENSBURY MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP TOM SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER FORT ANN MEMBERS JOHN PETTICA, CHAIRMAN HOWARD DENISON RON JECKEL TOWN OF FORT ANN CONSULTING ENGINEER-PAUL MALE QUEENSBURY GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON FORT ANN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to welcome the Planning Board members from the Town of Fort Ann. I appreciate you coming here. I think this is a great opportunity for everybody to take a look at the project and to work together on this and express our concerns and maybe get some meaningful answers. There’s really no set agenda. It’s just a workshop. So I guess maybe it might be helpful maybe if we could go around the room and introduce ourselves. I’ll start. I’m Chris Hunsinger. I’m Chairman of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Tom Seguljic. MR. SIPP-Don Sipp. MR. FULLER-Matt Fuller. JOHN PETTICA MR. PETTICA-John Pettica, Chairman of the Fort Ann. HOWARD DENISON MR. DENISON-Howard Denison Vice Chairman. RON JECKEL MR. JECKEL-Ron Jeckel. PAUL MALE MR. MALE-Paul Male, Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Stephen Traver. MRS. BRUNO-Tanya Bruno. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add, John? I’ll just turn the floor over to. MR. PETTICA-Well, I’d turn the floor over to Jonathan, but I think it’s wonderful that we’ve been able to get together like this and come together as two communities and hopefully move this project along and reach the same goal that we’re looking for. MRS. BRUNO-I have a question for you. I’m sorry. Did Dan know about the meeting this evening? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Dan? MRS. BRUNO-Ryan. I’m just wondering. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. They have their lawyer. Their engineer. MR. FULLER-It’s usually in Queensbury that the Engineer doesn’t attend the meetings. Fort Ann’s just the opposite. The Engineer generally does attend. MR. DENISON-Normal procedure for us. MR. SEGULJIC-Good move. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-I’ll just give a quick overview for the record. Jon Lapper with Kevin Frank from the LA Group, John Lefner who’s one of the principals, and Howie Fischer one of the current owners. We were, most recently, at the Fort Ann Planning Board last month to bring them up to speed with what’s changed with the project, and essentially what happened was that we went to the Zoning Board in Queensbury for some variances on the Queensbury lots and came to the Queensbury Planning Board and you had made recommendations that two of the variances, which were minimum lot width and side setback on the houses on those lots, that you didn’t recommend them. So instead of asking for them anyway at the Zoning Board, we changed the plan to accommodate what the Planning Board recommended, and as a result we lost one of the lake lots. So we now have two lakefront lots in Queensbury, and that just eliminated the two main variances. We’ve been working with the Zoning Board, because the Queensbury lots don’t have frontage on a Town road because Pilot Knob Road is only in the Town of Fort Ann, and that variance was granted. So now we’re ready to get started on the planning process, and I know that you had a meeting, the two Chairman with the Zoning Board Chairman, and there was a list of issues that we were made aware of which were all totally to be expected in terms of what we thought you’d be interested in, and we’re just generally here to listen. We’ll write down the issues, and we’ll come back with, you know, any project changes that we need to address what you raise, but I guess just to start with we’ll have Kevin walk everybody quickly through what the project is. It’s pretty straightforward, and then we can hear your issues. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to add, Jon, really the big issue that we talked about when I met with Mr. Abbate and my colleague from Fort Ann was that we needed to hold this joint meeting, and that was really I think the biggest thing that came out of that meeting, and also that we felt we needed to move at the same time, and that’s really, I mean, this meeting was really the result of that preliminary meeting in July. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That certainly makes it more efficient for us because we can hear from everybody at once. So let me turn it over to Kevin. MR. FRANK-Thanks, Jon. I’d just like to reiterate. I think it’s a great idea, too, getting both Boards together and have them consolidate things and get everyone up to speed at the same time. We’re looking at about a 98 acre parcel. Pilot Knob Road running through here, the area of the existing Fischer’s Marina on the west side of the road, and the majority of the property is in Fort Ann approximately 87, 88 acres. You can see here this is Rockhurst. Beyond there is Cleverdale. So we’re back in the Bay, Harris Bay being over here. This is Bean Road, comes off of Pilot Knob Road. Access to the house is back in there. That was one issue that came up at the Zoning Board. Just very briefly if I could, just for those folks aren’t familiar with what’s on the site right now, if we could fire up that PowerPoint. This is the Site Plan that was very similar to what was submitted to Fort Ann back in February. The only difference is we have one less house lot on this. There were some issues with density calculations with the APA, and as a result, there are now only 15 residential lots in Fort Ann, whereas our original proposal to you guys there were 16. So the density is a little bit lower. What you see in pink here, 14 building lots in Fort Ann and 3 in Queensbury. Okay. What you see in pink are the footprints of the existing buildings that are on site right now, Fischer’s Marina, and if we can get that PowerPoint up and running, we’ll just get you a quick overview of what’s there. Obviously everything is on that west side of Pilot Knob Road, and that’s a view from Pilot Knob Road approximately from this location from the north looking to the south. I’m going to run through these pretty quickly. So you’re up in this area up in here, looking down Pilot Knob Road. On your left hand side is the open field area there. That’s the area that’s proposed for the community wastewater disposal system up in here. Next one, please. That’s a view of the barns that are in this area. Again, the same area, this 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) very northern part of the site, within Fort Ann but close to the Queensbury Town line. Next one. Basically these barns are used for storage, mostly just old motor parts, various other things. We’ve got another view of the storage that’s in there. That is the view of the main shop building, looking in from Pilot Knob Road, inside of the shop, the main office, also where boat repair is done. Next slide please. That’s a view from this portion of the project site looking towards the northeast, and that’s the interior of the large shop building for boat storage. Next slide. There is a single family residence and attached garage located on this portion of the project site. Next slide, that is a view from the launch area towards the marina office. Next slide please, commercial activity in there. Next slide please. That is a view, there is a boat storage building that sits on this portion of the project site. Next slide please. View into the existing docks from near the shoreline. There is gas dispensed there. This is a view from this portion of the project site showing two smaller buildings. Next slide please. The building on the right, as you were looking from the north towards the south, in the background of that photograph is the gasoline storage tank. In the foreground is a storage tank for septic pump out from the boats. Next slide, please. This is a shot that John took during this summer just showing the general level of activity on the site during a busy summer weekend. This is taken from Pilot Knob Road, looking in towards the docks. Next slide please. This is an overlap a little bit further to the east. This is a view from the lake looking in, in this direction. You’ll notice the number of cars that are parked in this lawn area, which is right about in this vicinity, and again, just a similar view from a little bit different location. These next couple of slides are just character sketches of what John and his partners see the homes might look like, in terms of architectural character. The next couple of slides, just a general feel for what they’re thinking the homes might look like on the site, and again, this was the plan that was very close to what was originally submitted to Fort Ann, showing the building locations. Jon mentioned that we have made a few minor changes to the plan, as a result of our discussion with the Queensbury ZBA. The other plan that I just had up had three lots with frontage on Lake George. We revised that so now we have two lots in Queensbury with frontage on the lake. The other one does not have direct frontage, and essentially through all these plans, the layout in Fort Ann has pretty much remained the same. The plan that you folks have in front of you is one I’m showing here. One of the most recent developments with the ZBA in Queensbury was the elimination of some of the existing docks, and that’s reflected in the plan that you have in front of you. Five of the slips that are there now are being eliminated, but again, two waterfront lots in Queensbury. We have a third lot in Queensbury that is not lakefront. The fourth lot in Queensbury is actually split towards a portion of a common lot that’s in Fort Ann and Queensbury. So it’s not a building lot. There’s nothing proposed in terms of structure or anything else. That’s the HOA lot. That’s going to give them access to the lakefront. There’s a little parking area here, and a bathhouse, swimming pool, and there’s a common open area right here in front of the lake, two access points off of Pilot Knob Road for the upper portion. Again, you saw a picture of the proposed common wastewater disposal area, and the current concept plan that we have now includes areas allocated to stormwater control, which, right now, there really, to be honest there is not much out there for stormwater control at this point, but we have already dedicated those areas to where we will be dealing with stormwater. The property extends well up the hill. You’ll notice that we’re only developing a portion of that. Just to give you an idea of the relative extent, the back of the lots that you saw on that other board is extended right about here. So the remainder of that land will remain as open space, common HOA lands. MR. LAPPER-Which means less visibility from the lake because we’re not taking down trees. MR. FRANK-Exactly. We’ve been actively involved with meetings and discussions with DEC, DOH, APA, we’ve kind of been moving the process along at the same speed, so to speak, as we have been with the local boards, but obviously we want to have a project that you folks are comfortable with first before we go ahead too far with those other agencies. So, in a nutshell, that’s what we have for you, and we welcome your comments and want to work with you to address any concerns you might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Who wants to go first. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess my first comment is, I don’t see the Critical Environmental Area noted on the plot. MR. FRANK-That’s certainly something we could add. That’s something that the ZBA brought up and we’re very well aware of. We’ve been in discussions with not only the APA, DEC and DOH, but with the Lake George Park Commission also. We’re very cognizant of the fact that this is a CEA. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So, from a CEA perspective, what are we doing to protect the lake? MR. LAPPER-Let me answer that. Right now there is zero stormwater management, because this was all approved before there were any regulations. So everything, you know, essentially sheet flows into the lake, and now we’re going to have three homes that will have proper stormwater controls. So that’s a huge change. Right now we’ve got the metal buildings, the metal roofs and everything just rolls onto the ground and rolls into the lake, and as you saw in the pictures, there are automobiles that park on the grass, right next to the lake, and all that’s going to be eliminated, too. So, in terms of the lake, by eliminating gasoline sales on the lake, on the dock, boat service, boat storage and by eliminating the public access, we’re making major improvements in terms of the stormwater controls on the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Has that been quantified at all? MR. LAPPER-The traffic has, in terms of the reduction in the vehicle trips, and in terms of the stormwater management plan, and it’s clear that we’ve got a compliant stormwater management plan, compared to having no plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So I assume, then, they’re not going to be salting or sanding the roads at all in the wintertime? MR. LAPPER-There’s not a road there. Next to the lake there are driveways, but they don’t get near the lake, and the parking lot is all the way up by Pilot Knob Road. So there’s nothing down by the lake, in terms of any pavement. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I, for one, would like to see your comment quantified. That’s a broad, general comment to make. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I think that’s in the application materials, but we’ll check and make sure, what we would call the positive impact on the lake. We’ll make sure that that’s quantified. MRS. BRUNO-That should probably include any of the fertilizers or lack thereof. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, as far as the stormwater project, what are you going to consider this? MR. LAPPER-Kevin will answer that when he gets back, but I’m sure that it’s got to be Major. It’s got to be more than 15,000 square feet on the lakeside. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the disposal system, what are you using for the standards for design? MR. LAPPER-For septic or stormwater? MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry, septic system. MR. LAPPER-The septic is being pumped 1,000 feet away from the lake to this area here. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess what standards are you going to design it to? MR. FRANK-DOH, a couple of agencies, your regulations. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you aware there’s enhanced standards for septic systems? MR. LAPPER-We’re not anticipating seeking any variance for septic system. We’re proposing a compliant system. MR. JECKEL-I’ve got a question. The undeveloped portion in the back. Is that anticipated to remain like forever wild, or is there any thought of any further movement in that direction? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re using all the development rights, in terms of the number of building lots. So it would be forever green, and that would be a condition of approval, and it would be on the subdivision map as a condition. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MRS. BRUNO-Will the owners, the future owners, be able to utilize that for hiking? MR. LAPPER-Yes, just passive recreation. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned there was going to be no gasoline sales there. What about pump outs for the larger boats? Is there going to be a provision for pump out facilities? JOHN LEFNER MR. LEFNER-We’re going to have a deed restriction to keep the boats under 30 feet, nobody can stay in their boats overnight. It’s not going to be, you know, somebody’s weekend house, and we’ve made arrangements with a local marina for the pump outs, the launching and any service. It’ll strictly be all residential. MR. FULLER-One quick question, following up on Ron’s thing. While I sat here, that actually brought up a legal question for you. As far as the forever wild portion, it is physically separated from any other Homeowners Association property in Fort Ann. Would you guys envision, or would you consider, because I guess where I’m heading, it’s probably going to be one of my recommendations, at least Fort Ann, that you tie that to the other community property, for one tax map property. The thing I’m getting at is certainly in Fort Ann we would never want to see that forever wild parcel go up for tax sale, because if it’s forever wild, the development rights are gone, then I think what we’re seeing is the potential for some of these, if they’re not tied together with some other highly valued Homeowners Association property, then there’s the potential that they could end up on a tax sale. MR. LAPPER-We could probably just draw a line. MR. FRANK-That’s a very good point. Yes, the road will be, something I didn’t mention, these will be roads that will be built to Town standards, but will be owned by the HOA. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. FRANK-And there are opportunities between each one of these lot lines for an easement, if you will, to HOA members to pass between lots. MR. LAPPER-What Matt’s suggesting is we change the line somewhere so that it actually is detached so you never have to worry about it going back to the Town for lack of taxes. MR. FULLER-Or even, maybe we could check with Bill McCarty over at Washington County to be sure that we can put a deed restriction or something in the deed to the Homeowners Association to forever tie those parcels together, you know, so that they can’t be lost for a tax sale. The reason I say it is I’ve seen it come up with paper streets recently. This would be no different. Once the subdivision’s approved, there’s value in the view shed, but if it’s not taxed to the development as a whole, then you get the potential that it goes up for tax sale because it can’t be developed. MR. LAPPER-We have no problem with that concept. So whatever is appropriate, we’ll tie it together, one lot. MR. FRANK-Right now there’s a tie line between the wastewater disposal area and an area we dedicated for stormwater. So the same thing, a tie line in between the road right of way and the upland. That’s not a problem. MR. JECKEL-I understand why he wants to get that access, but physically, how are you going to get from there to you? MR. LAPPER-To the top of the mountain? MR. JECKEL-Yes. I mean, if you just have something that goes right up this, this is pretty steep here. MR. LAPPER-It’ll just be for walking, hiking. I mean, not. MR. MALE-I guess my question is, you mentioned trails earlier. If you’re going to put some trails in there, how are you going to get to them or how is someone supposed to get up that steep slope without having some circuitous route? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. FRANK-If you look, Paul, seeing in here, this is not a heavily forested area. I mean, this has been logged pretty hard. So it’s fairly open. I don’t disagree with you, the grades are steep. If someone who owns a home there wants to walk up, then they will have the opportunity to do that. MR. MALE-But if it’s part of the Homeowners Association, shouldn’t they have the opportunity to get from the road to get up there, without having to go up something that’s like a five on one slope? MR. FRANK-They kind of have to have an easement like between the two property lines. MR. MALE-I understand the easement, but rather than just have a straight line through here, that’s pretty steep. MR. FRANK-Looking at the topo, if you look at Fort Ann Lot Six, that’s pretty steep in there, but there’s an area along that southern lot where you may be able to get up there. MR. MALE-Right, well, all I’m saying is if you’re going to do that, create some kind of, you know, maybe the corridor you’re looking for is not just a straight line from along the property line. You need something to get up to the top. MR. LAPPER-We’ll show the logging roads, because they are switchbacks. MR. JECKEL-Matt, I’ve got a question with regard to terminology. We’re using the word forever wild. In order that we don’t get confused with the State of New York definition and use of forever wild, is there another term that perhaps should be applied to that aspect, so that it isn’t just? MR. FULLER-Undevelopable. I know what you’re saying. That connotation, though, needs to have two parts. One is State ownership and the other is that designation. Here you could call it forever wild, but you don’t have that second part to get into any constitutional issues or anything like that. MR. JECKEL-Just so there’s no confusion. MR. FULLER-No, because the constitutionally protected lands are all State owned. Good question. MR. SIPP-Jon, you’ve got a stream, an intermittent stream coming down the hill, going over the road to a culvert I assume that is, into a wetland, and the wetland drains directly into the lake. MR. LAPPER-Kevin, do you want to show where that goes? MR. FRANK-Sure. There is, actually it’s a perennial stream. We’ve been out there, actually this summer, and it was still running. So there’s a perennial stream that runs, it runs along this lot line, actually the lot line is the stream itself, and then we have a bridge crossing here, continues, culverted underneath Pilot Knob Road. There’s a wetland here before it enters into the lake. MR. SIPP-And it drains into the lake. MR. FRANK-Yes. It’s direct tributary. MR. LAPPER-That’s existing, Kevin, right, that culvert? MR. FRANK-Existing stream and existing culvert. MR. LAPPER-And existing wetland. So that’s all how the water gets from the mountain to the lake now. MR. SIPP-Is there going to be any proviso to screen out the oil, the salt, the antifreeze? MR. FRANK-Conceptually right now, and that’s where we are with stormwater before we get a good feel about the layout, we’ve got a stormwater basin up here. We’re going to have stormwater basins all through here before any of the runoff reaches the lake. MR. LAPPER-So it’ll be treated. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. SIPP-All right. Now, a couple of other things here. There’ll be no boat launch here. MR. LAPPER-Well, we proposed no boat launch, but the fire department asked us, so there’s not going to be any public boat launch, and we had propose taking a boat launch out, removing it, and the fire department, fire company asked us to keep it there for their use. So it would be chained and locked and they would have a key, because they want that so in case there’s fires that require them to get their boat into the lake. MR. SIPP-How would they access this? MR. LAPPER-The launch exists right now, right here. So they would have to come onto the Homeowners Association property and drive over the lawn. MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got, the southern border is wetlands, and you’ve got quite a bit of, what I’m getting at is there’s going to be a hard surface driveway exiting into the lake. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. LAPPER-There isn’t now. They asked us to keep it there. It certainly wasn’t the applicant’s intent. MR. SIPP-All right. You’re eliminating some docks. MR. LAPPER-We’re eliminating five slips. Right now the marina has 45 slips and we’re going down to 40. MR. SIPP-Now, on Queensbury Lot Number Four, on the north end it kind of circles around the inlet that’s there and ends up in a thing called sea wall. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-I’m concerned as to where the sea wall is, and why does that lot zig around the inlet? MR. LAPPER-Okay. Those are two questions. The sea wall is existing, and in working with the Zoning Administrator in Queensbury, the issue was that even though the docks are existing, that because there’s going to be what’s called contractual access, because the off lake houses are going to have slips, we had to have essentially 25 feet per contractual access right. So we had to, that lot, in order to make that a conforming lot, so we didn’t need a variance, we had to, that’s to comply with the Queensbury Code. We had to do that, to include that much shoreline frontage, for the existing dock. So that got designed to meet the Code. MR. SIPP-Okay. Now I’m concerned on Lot Two, Three, and Four, who’s going to be responsible for buffering this area, buffering these lots up next to the lake? MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s certainly a Planning Board issue that we’ll talk about when we get to subdivision approval at the Queensbury Planning Board in terms of what kind of plantings, you’ll see the stormwater management plan for that, and you’ll want to see what kind of plantings we’re proposing along the lake, and we expect that. MR. SIPP-If somebody parked out next to the Pilot Knob Road and wants to get to their boat, Dock Number 23, they’re going to have to walk across Fort Ann Number Four, Queensbury Number Four, to get there? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s right, but it’s flat, and that’s how it works now. It’s flat. MR. SIPP-There’ll be no walkway, no solid path? MR. LAPPER-No, just what you have here. MR. SEGULJIC-Now you note those docks are existing permanent docks to remain? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That actually is the configuration of the docks today, correct? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. LAPPER-It is. We had proposed, at one point, changing them, but because of the grandfather, we had to keep it there. So we went back to the existing docks, except that we removed five slips. MR. SEGULJIC-So the dock as portrayed on this map are as they exist today? MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s true for the two big dock facilities, but the docks for QB-2 and QB-3 are brand new docks. Those are the only two homes that have lake frontage. So they also have a dock, but those are conforming. They did not require any variances. MR. SEGULJIC-So where is the gas dispensed now? MR. FISCHER-Right here, and then the gas tanks and the holding area is right here. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s dispensed on Dock Five, then? MR. FISCHER-Yes. That’s where the gas is right there. It’s on the farthest most out into the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Back to the septic system. What do you propose as flows to septic system at this time? MR. FRANK-For flows, I’m sorry, I can’t give you exact numbers, but it’s in compliance with DEC’s standards for standard single family home generation on a bedroom basis. MR. SEGULJIC-How many bedrooms do you expect? MR. FRANK-We haven’t gotten to the point of actually getting floor plans together. MR. LAPPER-It’ll probably be four bedrooms. MR. FRANK-But we have specified the square footage of the homes themselves. So as part of the next step in design, we will be specifying the number of bedrooms per home, and then we will use that number to generate our wastewater flows. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have any idea as to whether it’s above or below 10,000 gallons? MR. FRANK-I don’t think we’ve gotten that far. It may very well be above it. If it is, we will get a SPDES Permit. MR. MALE-How many lots have you got? MR. LAPPER-17. MR. FRANK-17. Like I said, we had a pre-application meeting. It was great. MR. MALE-I doubt you’ll be over 10,000. MR. FRANK-Probably not. We got DEC, DOH and APA, all their engineers in the same room, back in April. Got everything on the table, got everything squared away. About three weeks after that APA came out and did some more test pitting in the area proposed for the wastewater disposal system. They were very satisfied with what they saw. I don’t foresee any problems at all. MR. SIPP-Test pits have been done? MR. FRANK-Yes. We’ve test pitted a lot of that site. If you drive by and see that open field out there, there used to be stakes out there. Now there’s pins in the ground because Fischer’s wanted to keep his open mowing. MR. SIPP-I would like to see the results. MR. FRANK-We will certainly compile that altogether. Perc tests, deep hole test pits. Like I said, we invited DEC, DOH and APA to come out and witness those test pits. DEC and DOH deferred to APA. APA soil scientists were out there. Their project review officer were out there, and they walked away very satisfied with what they saw. MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of test pits did you do, deep hole, shallow? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. FRANK-Yes. We were down seven, eight feet. As a matter of fact, we had to ask the gentlemen from the APA to come out of the test pit because it was not exactly safe when you’re down in eight feet and you have unconsolidated material in there. Folks from the APA actually got into a little heated discussion amongst themselves about the safety of being in those test pits. So, yes, they’re definitely deep hole test pits. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one thing I’d like to point out. I assume you’ve got a General Permit 0-00-001, Sanitary Systems, 1 to 10,000 gallons, then? MR. FRANK-That would be, depending on what the flows are. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. In since you’re in the Lake George basin, I just want you to be aware that the requirement is, if you read the first paragraph for the General Permit, it states you have to follow the design standards for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George basin, which go beyond, well beyond what DEC typically says. MR. FRANK-Certainly, and we will meet all regulatory requirements. The system will be designed and stamped by a professional engineer, meet the requirements locally, regionally, and State wide. MR. SEGULJIC-Did the DEC bring this up at all? MR. FRANK-I don’t know that they brought that up specifically, but they did say be cognizant that you do have local regulations that need to be complied with as well. Specifically in terms of design standards, I don’t think they broached that at the meeting, but they just reminded us that those things need to be complied with, and we’re fully cognizant of that. MR. SEGULJIC-And also, if (lost words) you could potentially have five bedrooms a home. MR. FRANK-Potentially. We haven’t gotten to the point, we’ve established footprints, and those are on the Site Plans, I think they’re in front of you, and when we get to the point of developing our application a little bit further, including our application to you, we’ll specify the number of bedrooms in each one of these homes. MRS. BRUNO-I have a question regarding that. So will the current owner be developing the houses? You mentioned you haven’t worked on the floor plans. I have a note. MR. LAPPER-The property’s under contract to Irish Bay Partners, LLC, which is John Lefner’s group. It’s currently owned by the Fischer’s and it’s under contract to be purchased. MRS. BRUNO-And then they’ll be developing them? MR. LAPPER-The applicant will be developing them. MRS. BRUNO-You mentioned that the designs of the house, such as. MR. LAPPER-Those are examples of what they have in mind, in terms of character. MRS. BRUNO-All right. So the new owners will have very little to say about what’s built? MR. LAPPER-No. These’ll be expensive homes, and the new owners will probably be very involved in the architectural design, but in terms of gabled roofs, I mean, those are just what they have in mind, what they want to see in terms of the character. The developer will have the architectural review rights on any of the houses that get built. MR. FRANK-Based on our experience with applications with the Adirondack Park Agency, we’re going to need to submit to them to provide for review some architectural guidelines that would be part of the HOA agreement and they specify. MR. LAPPER-They’ll be talking about exterior finish, the amount of windows, the type of glass, reflectivity of the glass. Those are typical APA requirements when you have houses that are viewable from the lake. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. JECKEL-Would an applicant be able to enlarge the specifications you’ve laid out on a footprint here? In other words, you’re saying there’s 4,000 square feet for this footprint. Can the applicant expand that to more bedrooms? MR. LAPPER-I expect that as part of this process there are going to be limitations, that it’s going to be a certain size clearing, a certain size footprint. So we’ll work that all out during the process. MR. JECKEL-As well as numbers of bedrooms. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JECKEL-So that your outflow will be in compliance. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because we’d have to know that to do the septic system design. Maybe it’ll be four, you know, but we’ll certainly specify that when we make the next formal proposal to the Boards. MR. PETTICA-As far as this proposal here, you will be including, I thought I heard you mention, architectural standards for the buildings that you’ll be putting up, the color, the roofs, the exterior woodwork and stone that will be used. MR. FRANK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And on that line one of the things I’d like to see is the visual impact from the lake. MR. LAPPER-That’s going to be one of the biggest issues for APA , and in terms of limiting tree cutting, you know, we’ll be able to have filtered views. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see a depiction of what it’s going to look like. MR. FRANK-As part of the APA and part of the application we’ll currently submit to you, we will be submitting a full visual impact assessment. We had APA out on the roads, on the lake, when we were taking pictures of the site, and the leaves were off, and you’ll have full renderings and everything of views from, I believe there are about eight or ten vantage points that we’ve identified within the zone of visibility. So that certainly (lost words). MR. JECKEL-With regards to tree cutting, and to what the point was just made here, is there a, because it’s in an Association, will there be restrictions on what a neighbor or what anyone can cut or how much they can cut? MR. FRANK-That will be included in the architectural standards. I mean, not just architectural, this is a general catch all term, but there will be site terms built in to the architectural standards as well, it’ll spell out how far out from your basement wall, and different clearing, thinning, etc., within different zones. MR. JECKEL-So that if a Property Owner A purchases a home, Property Owner B is going to be protected that A isn’t going to be clear cutting? MR. FRANK-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have no cut areas on each lot, areas of cutting the size of the back yard, you know, all that stuff will be specified when we get to that level of detail, for both Boards. MR. FRANK-There’ll be enforceable recourse. MR. JECKEL-By the Homeowners Association? MR. LAPPER-And each of the members of the Association against their neighbors, if necessary. MR. FULLER-Would you plan to submit the covenants and restrictions as part of the application process? So we can get an idea as to that language? MR. LAPPER-Yes, to the Board. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the lot widths, I believe Queensbury’s 150 feet, lot width requirement. You have an average lot width of, the narrowest one is 152 feet, and it’s always been confusion as to how lot widths are calculated. So I would like to see those, the Board would like to see those calculations. MR. LAPPER-We went through that whole thing with the Planning Staff already, and the Zoning Board, and you measured them every 25 feet or something like that? MR. FRANK-It was a regular interval throughout there. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s going to help clarify, this comes up a lot. It’s going to help clarify. That’s why I’m interested for this site. MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, we had to establish, on the three Queensbury lots, that we had the, we did that last month at the Zoning Board, to go through all the math to show that we had. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’d like to see that also. MR. FRANK-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I mean, we specifically designed this. Remember the first time we were here before you, we had three lots and we didn’t comply. So we changed this to comply, and that was done to the satisfaction of Planning Staff and the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a broad general question, and that deals with SEQRA, and how that is also going to apply. Could you chime in on that? MR. FULLER-I could. We’ve actually been round and round on this, and it’s certainly a topic you guys will probably be able to follow up again with, you get new Counsel on. I was asked, initially, to make a determination for the ZBA, that I did, and they ended up adopting, that they agreed with my analysis. It’s an interesting fact. It’s in the CEA, right, but that isn’t the sole determining factor. You’ve got to take the SEQRA Regulations and go right through them, because this is an interesting project, and the Town of Fort Ann, the Town of Fort Ann doesn’t have zoning, okay. So, in the Town of Fort Ann, the project is a Class A Regional Project under the Adirondack Park Acts, okay. In Queensbury, Queensbury is an approved jurisdiction under the APA, and in Queensbury the project, what they’ve proposed here is a Class B Regional Project. So if you take a look at the Type II list, okay, under SEQRA, the project is a Type II for SEQRA, because of the APA review, and that certainly gave the ZBA quite a bit of pause, and understandably, but as I said to them, and as I’ve said to this Board, and Fort Ann, too, you guys initially, that doesn’t mean the information that you’re looking for through the SEQRA process is off the table. Your subdivision laws still give you as much ability to get the information you’re looking for. You talked about visual, the sewer, stormwater, traffic, line of sight, you know, all that stuff comes up under SEQRA, but it also comes up under your Subdivision Regs. So, you know, as I say when I teach the class on that, just because it’s Type II doesn’t mean environmental stuff’s off the table, and one of the bigger parts, too, is both Boards have the ability to offer their comments and concerns to the APA, in the form of a resolution, and the reason it’s Type II is that when the SEQRA Regulations were enacted and adopted, the APA’s review was thought of as as stringent as a SEQRA review. They don’t go through a separate SEQRA review process. It’s kind of built in to their review authority. So, you know, people can debate about whether or not it is as strict or as compliant, but that’s why it’s Type II. So, even in a Critical Environmental Area, Critical Environmental Areas don’t trump the Type II list, because if you read the SEQRA Regulations, if something’s Type II, it cannot be anything else other than Type II. You cannot make a Type II Action a Type I Action. MR. LAPPER-Matt’s point is really important, his last point that the APA review is going to be so exhaustive that it’s going to cover all the issues that would be in SEQRA and you’ll be covering those issues under Subdivision Review. MR. SEGULJIC-So how is this all going to play out, then, as far as all the approvals? Do they do their review first and then we look at it and do all our reviews and then they do their reviews? MR. FULLER-I can tell you from my experience, and Jon can chime in, too. The APA will generally not take a final action until the municipalities have. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So they’ll be waiting for Fort Ann’s approvals, and our approvals and it’ll all get packaged up along with any recommendations we have? MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-That’ll then go to the APA for review at their end? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-In the meantime I assume we’ll be doing reviews. MR. FULLER-And I’ve done that before. I’ve had a town on the north end of the lake that we did that exact thing. They had some concerns that they expressed to the APA and the APA paid attention to them. It actually worked pretty good. The town didn’t necessarily have the jurisdiction over it, but they knew the APA did, and so they passed those concerns on to the APA and that worked out, but like I said, both Boards are going to get all that information. The only thing that wouldn’t happen at the Town level is potentially a positive declaration and an Environmental Impact Statement. If you think about it, from the review process, that’s the only difference. You can still get all the information that would necessarily be in an EIS through your review process. So that’s, sometimes people have a misnomer about SEQRA that it gets them more information. It just gets them that information in a different form, which is an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, here’s another question. As far as the review, as far as the Queensbury Town Board, this whole project is one. I assume you have to look at the entire site when we do our review, or is it segmented? I hope you say the whole thing. MR. FULLER-I figured you probably would. Certainly the portions of the project that are Fort Ann are Fort Ann, but there are some parts of the project that straddle, to the necessary, I say to the need of the Queensbury lots, and I think the biggest one is waste disposal. You’re not going to have waste disposal in Queensbury. It’s going to be combined and piped to Fort Ann. That is one instance where certainly that part of the project comes into both Towns. MR. SEGULJIC-But then can’t we also say, I mean, the stormwater in Fort Ann ends up in Queensbury. Traffic generated in Fort Ann ends up in Queensbury. I assume the line’s down the middle of the road? The road is actually Fort Ann? MR. FULLER-The dark line. It’s actually the dark line. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s actually Fort Ann. MR. FULLER-Yes, but again, that was one of the reasons for this is that exchange of information. If, during your review, you guys see things, you have the ability to say, all right, we’re going to pass a resolution to forward these comments on to Fort Ann that we thought of, and vice versa. They have the ability to say, you know what, something popped up that we think needs to be done in Queensbury. We’re going to pass that back, too. MR. DENISON-If you thought there was too much traffic going to be created on the Fort Ann Town road, then that would be something that you would pass on your concerns to us. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now how is this going to work. Where are you going first? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll submit to both at the same time. I mean, you could have a joint public hearing if you wanted. It would be efficient for all of us, if, you know, we do this again and have one public hearing on both subdivision reviews. MR. SEGULJIC-That makes sense to me. MR. PETTICA-I think that’s an excellent suggestion. MR. FULLER-You know what, Jon, the only thing we’ll have to look at is if the public hearing has to be held in the municipality. I think it does, by law. I’m not opposed to it, but I don’t want to leave open a hole that you guys could get attacked. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. LAPPER-That’s just a suggestion. MR. FULLER-It would be fine for Queensbury, if we had it here. That’s probably the question of jurisdiction. Something you’ll have to pass to Counsel. MR. DENISON-Jon, you went through line of sight with DOT? MR. LAPPER-Yes, in terms of sight distance. MR. DENISON-Because there’s nothing on this map that shows what’s down the road here. MR. FRANK-Right, and that’s something we talked about when we were in front of you guys in February and something that Paul asked about in his comment letter, shortly after we were there. We had Creighton Manning Engineering evaluate the whole frontage along Pilot Knob Road and they broke it down into three categories, unacceptable, marginally acceptable, and acceptable sight distances, and that’s something we can certainly include in the package that we have in our submission to you. MR. LAPPER-That’s why we picked those locations. MR. FRANK-Exactly. That’s why these locations have been identified on the road. MR. DENISON-The common parking area for there, that entrance/exit access, was that also in your study, as far as how close it is to the other? MR. FRANK-Yes. MR. DENISON-Okay. What is the sight, what is the distance between that parking lot exit onto the Town road and the exit that’s coming off of the new subdivision? MR. FRANK-Looking at 60 scale, we’re looking at probably 128 plus or minus. MR. DENISON-Okay. When they did the report, I assume that you have a report that shows? Do you want to pass that along to us. MR. FRANK-Yes. MR. DENISON-Because some of those cars are going to be going like 55, 60 miles an hour. MR. FRANK-Unfortunately, yes, they will, and this horizontal curve here, that’s why, we had a couple of different locations where we sited this entrance, and we provided documentation on why that was there. MR. DENISON-I’m just wondering if you move that entrance up to the other side of that parking lot, you’d have more distance there. MR. FRANK-That’s something we’ve talked about, and we may well adjust that if you guys have concerns about that. The only thing we’ve got constraining, you do have this wetland. Here’s the culvert underneath the road, and the wetlands, this little bit lighter color that’s in here. MR. DENISON-You could probably move the parking lot closer to the line to adjust it. MR. MALE-Are those Army Corps wetlands or DEC wetlands? MR. FRANK-Everything that is here, well, it’s not DEC wetlands because any State wetlands would be under the jurisdiction of the APA. We do have confirmation from both the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the APA, as to the limits of their wetlands on the site, but to answer your question, Paul, this is under the jurisdiction of both the APA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The APA does not have any buffer requirements in their rules and regulations. They do have some recommended setbacks in their, what they call their (lost word), which they recommended a 35 foot setback. Again, that’s a recommendation, not a regulatory requirement. So, to answer your question, there are no regulatory buffers established. MR. MALE-But it looks you’re meeting that 35 feet anyway. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. FRANK-Yes. That’s always our design intent, knowing that that’s their design guidance, to try and stay back at least that 35 feet if we can, if not more. MR. DENISON-And if you could re-look at that exit off that public area, or private area parking. MR. FRANK-At one point we, and Jon and I, we talked about even having maybe two entrances to help flow back and forth. So it’s something we’ve thought about already is elimination of this and replacing it here. MR. DENISON-I’m just always concerned about two being so close together, 120 feet is not that far. MR. FRANK-Twelve houses here. MR. DENISON-I’m not worried about the houses coming off. I’m worried about the one car coming off and the guy coming down Pilot Knob Road. MR. FISCHER-May I say something about the traffic, and here again, I’ve always hoped, when I go to these meetings, when I started this back in April, that people would do their homework and come up and spend some time on the property and have an overview of what’s going on. Over Labor Day weekend, there was over 550 cars put through that Marina. I kept count. We’re talking 17 homes. MR. FRANK-And to piggyback, that’s not with cars, that’s cars pulling trailers, with, how big of boats behind them? MR. FISCHER-Up to 40 foot. MR. FRANK-That are coming down that hill, around that curb, and all of a sudden there’s the entrance to the launch and they’re on the brakes. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. If I could ask the gentleman a question. You say that Fort Ann has no zoning code? MR. DENISON-Correct. MR. LAPPER-They have subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-What exactly does that mean? I mean, do you have Codes for steepness of development, like no development on 15%? MR. FULLER-That’s part of the general Subdivision, but no bulk height, minimum lot sizes. MR. PETTICA-Subdivision Regulations as in Site Plan Review, but there’s no zoning. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does this map include areas that are greater than 15% in slope? MR. FRANK-This map doesn’t, sir, but there is a different version. Actually, this version, if you look at it, I don’t know what the slope specification is, but you’ll see there’s some slightly darker areas. These slightly darker areas you’ll see here in the rendering. I don’t know if you can pick it up from where you’re standing, but those are the areas. I don’t know what the slope classification is, but it may be 20% or 25%, but I don’t believe it’s 15%, but those are more for APA purposes, when we had our pre-application with them, when we have identified the areas of steeper slope. As you can see the house locations are obviously not on those steeper slopes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then looking at the map, I just noticed you have an existing cemetery, Town of Fort Ann. I don’t see any gravestones there. MR. FRANK-That, Jon and I had a very interesting meeting with the folks down at New York State Parks and Historic Preservation, Ms. Blakemore down there, and that’s actually an outparcel. It’s not shown correctly on here. It’s actually owned by the Town of Fort Ann, and as part of that discussions with New York State Historic Preservation, we’ve agreed to certain conditions, as far as no disturbance area within that area. That’s actually the actual Irish family that Irish Bay is named for. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll have to pay attention. I don’t know that I’ve ever, I’ve walked down that road, run down that road, road down that road. MR. FRANK-It’s very easy to miss because it’s all overgrown. MRS. BRUNO-You had mentioned that the barns, just the way that you wrote them up, historic barns, is there some formal historic importance to them that you talked to the Department of Parks and Rec about. MR. FRANK-Yes, the entire site. There’s been a study of the entire site from historical and pre-historical standpoint, and that’s been submitted to Parks Department and you will have, as part of our application, a letter of no impact from that agency. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So they’re aware that they’re coming down. MR. FRANK-That label of historical wasn’t put on by anyone who is quote unquote an expert in the field, but it was done by the person who did the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. So the term historic is kind of a layman’s term. MRS. BRUNO-Right, general. MR. MALE-Have you done any topo study preparations on this so we could get an idea what the elevation change is from Pilot Knob Road up to, you know, your access road? MR. FRANK-Sure. We have two foot contour intervals, and part of our formal application we’ll have a complete grading plan, sediment and erosion control plans, stormwater management plans, the whole gamut. MR. JECKEL-Could you comment on the storage shed there and the visibility as cars drive up and down the road to the new storage shed? MR. FRANK-The proposed boat storage? Sure. When we prepare the visual impact assessment for the entire property, from all the locations that we’ve looked at, what we’ll do is we’ll take existing topography, we’ll take our grading plan, which may change the grades a little bit, we’ll take the footprint, the height and shape of all the structures, and we’ll insert that into the simulation. So, be it a single family home or any other part of the development, that will all be included in the visual impact assessment. Right now, unfortunately, I was stuck in the office. I wasn’t able to go out on the boat, take a nice ride and take pictures, but generally, because of the configuration of the lake particularly, this really doesn’t show the whole picture, but again, I mean, you’ve got the main lake on the back side of Cleverdale. You’ve got Assembly Point out here. Your zone of visibility, particularly from the lake, is quite limited. You really need to be in the immediate vicinity to get a view in from the lake. That’s not to say that the visual impact assessment will only deal with the lake. We rode the roads, took photographs from anywhere potential visibility within five miles. MR. JECKEL-And that storage shed is going to be, the openness of it will be not facing the road. It will be facing the property line? MR. FRANK-The way it’s oriented now it’s perpendicular to the road. We really haven’t gotten that far, as far as building design, and how the face of it, like the slide that we saw, the existing boat storage is open on one side and perpendicular to the road, and if you drive by that now you’ll see the square shape of the end of the building. Again, this is oriented the same way. Again, that’s something we’ll have in the application and give you more information. MR. JECKEL-So, you know, hopefully when one drives by, they won’t see the boats sitting in the bins as they’re seen presently. MR. FRANK-Exactly. MR. FISCHER-Correct, and we propose if we do build a storage barn that it looks like the rest of the development, (lost word) style and heavily shaded and covered, and it’s only exclusively used for the homeowners of Irish Bay. We’re not going to rent anything out. We’re not going to rent dock space. It’s going to be exclusively for the homeowners. MR. JECKEL-Is there one boat per homeowner to be stored there, or, on the slip I think you have two slips per homeowner? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. FRANK-Correct. MR. JECKEL-Okay. What is the size of the storage shed relative to the number of potential boats? JOHN LEFNER MR. LEFNER-At that particular point we were talking about 24, maybe 30 foot brand new building. So we don’t have that answer for you tonight, but we will. MR. DENISON-Is the intent to be able to store 60 boats there? MR. LEFNER-No. MR. JECKEL-Some people would have to store somewhere else. MR. LEFNER-That’s correct. Just like they’d have to have service somewhere else, pump outs somewhere else. MR. DENISON-The intention of the slip is so that if somebody comes to visit them they have a slip? MR. LEFNER-The guest slips? Correct. MR. DENISON-So we’re basically looking at one storage unit per house? MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. DENISON-So we’re looking at something that would accommodate 17 boats no longer than 30 feet? MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. DENISON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s going to be a deed restriction in your covenant that only, no renting of docks? MR. LEFNER-That’s correct. MR. FULLER-I had posed that question as well, not simply from a dock rental standpoint, but something you guys pick up, if you are going to rent, where are you going to park? It’ll still be a marina as the term is noted because of the size, but not the commercial aspect. MR. PETTICA-It wouldn’t be a Class B Marina, so to speak, so somebody could rent out their dock space. MR. LAPPER-No rental whatsoever. It would be in covenants. MR. FULLER-Actually, it will be B because of the cottage type of classification. MR. FRANK-The mass of what you see will be the same. Obviously the character is going to be somewhat different. MR. SEGULJIC-So this is going to be considered a Class B Marina? MR. TRAVER-Well, no, it wouldn’t have to be if you’re not renting, he’s not renting dock space. MR. FULLER-It doesn’t necessarily mean rental. It just means that the boat that’s docked, and I’m not trying to quote it directly, but if I remember, it’s the boat that’s docked is not owned by the property owner. It doesn’t have to be rental. MR. TRAVER-Doesn’t that also require public restrooms and public pump out? MR. FULLER-Yes, that’s A. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I’m sorry. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to withdraw your existing permit and get a part B Marina permit. MR. FISCHER-I wouldn’t have any permit. MR. SEGULJIC-But you have a permit now. MR. FISCHER-Yes, I do. MR. SEGULJIC-That would allow that one to lapse, then. MR. FISCHER-Well, that would be Mr. Lefner’s permit, not my permit. MR. FULLER-I think they would exchange it, pretty readily. You’d give up an A for a B. MR. FISCHER-If you review the Park Commission’s standards for the different marina permits which I believe this would be a B. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. You have a Marina A permit at this point. MR. FISCHER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’ve got to allow that one to die, expire, whatever. MR. FISCHER-Well, it would be non-commercial. So A is commercial. MR. FULLER-They would just convert it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but the A Marina permit would go away, in other words. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. Okay. Now there was a comment about the wetlands. I probably didn’t hear you, but what type of wetlands are they? MR. FISCHER-All the wetlands that are shown on here, with the exception of a perennial spring, which is just a water of the United States, but not a wetland, everything else that was delineated on the site, APA has indicated to us that they are jurisdictional wetlands from the State’s standpoint. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re considered DEC wetlands, then? MR. FISCHER-No. In the Adirondack Park, DEC does not regulate wetlands. The responsibility for the State wetland regulations in the Adirondack Park falls to the Park Agency. MR. SEGULJIC-Part of the wetlands extends into Queensbury. MR. FISCHER-Certainly, yes, and they are under both the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Adirondack Park Agency. MR. SEGULJIC-But we also have our own Code here. So it would fall under our Code. You would need 100 foot buffers. MR. FISCHER-And we will have our engineer comply with that. MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t have 100 foot buffers now. MR. FISCHER-If you looked at what we have here, it’s not exactly to Town of Queensbury Code, 100 foot, but it’s close to 100 feet. That’s part of the problem we had with the ZBA is the location of that. MRS. BRUNO-Fort Ann doesn’t have a more stringent setback from wetlands than the APA? MR. FULLER-That’s zoning. MR. SEGULJIC-Any consideration for use of permeable surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces for roads and parking areas? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. FISCHER-Certainly. I mean, that will be more of a warm weather use for the roads, and from a safety standpoint. (Lost words). Porous pavement product, something that would withstand more than a few winters (lost words). Certainly it would be a much greater expense to install that, but it’s certainly something we would consider for the parking lot, which is more likely just to be used during the summer months. MR. SEGULJIC-Where are the homeowners going to get their water from? MR. FISCHER-Community system. It would be a community well system installed. I’d pay for it. MR. SEGULJIC-Community well, or are they going to take it from the lake? MR. FISCHER-It will be a drilled well. When you look at the hydrology of the way it’s going to happen, you’re in the (lost words) deposits in this area. You’re probably going to have direct connection between those wells and the surface water. We have incorporated into our design filtration that will meet the standards, as if we were withdrawing directly from the lake in order to meet DOH standards. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there going to be a building for the well? MR. FISCHER-That would be within the pool building that’s right next to the pool. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-When do you expect you’re going to be presenting this, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Most likely we would submit in November at this point. So we’ll be on the December agenda. MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things I’d really like you to consider is that you’re going to have rather large homes on these smaller lots and I’d really like you to consider the impact you’re going to have on the lake by reducing the number of homes you have close to the lake. MR. LAPPER-We have two homes in Queensbury that are on two lake lots. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re close to the lake. The problem we have with Lake George and the water quality is that all your development is on the shoreline. If we push it back from the shoreline you’d definitely help the lake. MR. LAPPER-Essentially the analysis there is that they’re paying millions of dollars to buy the land, because this is valuable lakefront land, to take down this commercial nonconforming marina with all the metal buildings and all that use. We already compromised, at your request, on reducing one of the three lakefront lots that are very valuable. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you’ll recall, that was because you didn’t meet the zoning. So you really didn’t compromise. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we eliminated the need for variances. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re in a CEA. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the issue with the CEA is that we can’t impact the lake, and we will show the stormwater management plan, you know, we don’t have the ability to go to less than two lakefront, and then we have a few lake view lots, but those are very important from the economics. MRS. BRUNO-I haven’t gotten a chance to go down Bean Road. I’m looking at the aerial picture. The lots down at the end, which will be adjoining to, I guess it’s actually, I guess it’s just the Queensbury side that I’m looking at. Approximately, do you know approximately how large those lots are and what the houses are? MR. LAPPER-You mean what’s existing on Bean Road? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I’m just wondering what the neighborhood is like. MR. LAPPER-It’s very small lots. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MRS. BRUNO-And houses are more like small camps? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. FISCHER-They’re nice houses down there. MRS. BRUNO-Are they? MR. LEFNER-I’d like to say that I live on Bean Road. Fortunately, we do have a nice house, but it is a small lot with a large house. I think what we propose is apportioned to the size of the lots to the size of the houses, and also the other alternative is that if we don’t sell the property, the Fischers are going to sell to another marina operator, and life as we know it on Bean Road and on the lake is going to change forever. This is the chance that we could do something positive for the lake and positive for the Fischers, positive for the Town, putting up a high quality very low density is something I think that we can look back 50 years from now and say, you know what, that was a good thing. MR. JECKEL-Once again, keep in mind here I think is that the sanitary system here is going to be something that does not exist elsewhere on Pilot Knob Road. It’s going to be an off the lakeshore community system, and the houses on the lots on the lake will not have septic systems, and that is one of the worst issues impacting the lake today, because an awful lot of septic systems are failing, or have failed. So, you know, rainwater is one thing, but effluence is another thing that is really nasty for the water quality, and that is protected here, as I see it. MR. PETTICA-Also, echoing what Ron has said, by eliminating the need for a septic system on those lots, there’s more of an ability for stormwater control, I would think, and there are homes that have been built on Pilot Knob, large homes that have recently gone up, that have been in violation with stormwater regulations. MR. FISCHER-And there will be a transportation corporation formed that will own and operate that common wastewater disposal system. So there will be a legal entity that is responsible to make sure that system is functioning properly, as opposed to an individual homeowner. MR. SIPP-What happens in the case of a two day power failure? MR. MALE-Most of those pumps are designed to have the capacity, but then again, if you have power failure, you’re not doing anything else because you have no lights. So you’re not cooking. You’re not doing anything else. MR. FISCHER-And you’re not using water because the wells, unless they have a back up electricity, they’re not pumping water either. MR. LAPPER-We want to mention that we’ve had a whole series of public hearings at the Zoning Board and the neighbors from Bean Road came out in droves and were very supportive of it. They’d like to see the public marina operation go away. MR. SIPP-Would you open up this system to other homeowners? MR. LEFNER-No. MR. LAPPER-It’s not going to be designed for that. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that you had talks with emergency services, I guess North Queensbury, regarding using the launch. MR. DENISON-They came from Fort Ann. MR. LEFNER-Both, we met with both, and it’s something that they. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did they inquire about ice water rescue in the wintertime? So, are you going to have to plow access to the water? MR. LEFNER-This was a request of both fire departments. It wasn’t in our original thing. We wanted to take that launch out. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand. MR. LEFNER-They came and looked at the plans, walked the property for road access (lost words) road, but they were very adamant. Queensbury sent us a letter stating that they want the launch, and we were being a good neighbor. We want to be receptive to their needs, and while it’s not our first choice, to extend that olive branch, we’re willing to do that. MR. TRAVER-I’m just thinking about the ramifications of plowing up that area in the wintertime, so that they have access. MR. FISCHER-We had talked about putting grass pavers in, reinforce (lost words) underneath it, but to answer your question, yes, we did talk about hard waters as well as open water situations and they indicated that hard water would (lost words) for access. MR. TRAVER-Yes. A lot of ice fisherman in there, and they aren’t very good about knowing about ice. MR. JECKEL-Speaking of ice fisherman, in that this will be a community that’ll probably be used in season, not off season. Will there be some patrols there to eliminate, if you will, or try to monitor anyone having access to the lake? MR. LEFNER-Well, you’re on private property. MR. JECKEL-Yes. MR. LEFNER-So you’d call the sheriff. Obviously we’re not going to have a 24 hour security service for 17 private homes, but the neighbors are always very good about monitoring what goes on next door. So if they see somebody there, like fisherman or a snowmobiler, they’re going to be arrested. MR. DENISON-And the launch will be gated as you previously said. So that will eliminate some people wanting to go down there. MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. DENISON-For easy access. MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. FISCHER-I’ve offered Mr. Lefner my services. Any day I’m ice fishing on there, I’ll keep an eye on it. MR. JECKEL-With regards to the fire department had asked, Pilot Knob had asked anyway, for a standpipe up by the road, and in a later conversation which I had with them, they also thought that it would be a good idea if there was a standpipe up into the community area there to lay some piping in while you’re doing your construction there. Is that a possibility? MR. FISCHER-We can certainly venture into that. MR. JECKEL-Yes. MR. MALE-The dry hydrant will probably work, Jim, but I don’t know if you can get enough water pressure to suction, do that. MR. FISCHER-The conversation with the dry hydrant (lost words) your question about ice fisherman, last winter we had (lost words) 12 months of the year to help EMS and whatever. The problem is if you look at the elevation up through that parking lot, with the original parking lot, you look at the elevation distance, it’s not practical to put a dry hydrant in. MR. PETTICA-Well, you know, this summer we had a fire company test at my residence to see what the capabilities of a pumper truck, and how high they could get, what elevation they could get. The elevation difference from Pilot Knob Road, vertically, to my house, is 150 feet, and it came up perfectly. It was a very successful test. MR. FISCHER-And where did all that water come from? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. PETTICA-A truck. From you. MR. FISCHER-From me. MR. PETTICA-That’s right. Well, the companies are using that ramp regularly now, and this test was done last June, and it worked flawlessly. It was wonderful, and you haven’t got an elevation of 150 feet from the lake to your uppermost house there, I don’t believe. MR. MALE-You get more than 33 feet vertically you can’t draft. You can pump. MR. FISCHER-The lake elevation is 321. Our top elevation, 380. MR. PETTICA-So at worst, you know, they could, you might be able to get a dry hydrant down some place (lost words). MR. DENISON-The house sizes. Is the 4,000 square foot footprint a single story house? MR. LEFNER-No. MR. DENISON-So it’s actually a 2,000 square foot foundation. MR. LEFNER-No, that’s footprint size, including walkways, garages. MR. DENISON-Everything. All right. So you’re proposing to build 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 square feet houses? MR. LEFNER-Total living space, yes. MR. DENISON-Yes. Okay. That’ll be in some kind of deed restriction or homeowners association? Are you planning on building the houses yourself? MR. LEFNER-We have a contractor selected. MR. DENISON-Okay. So you’ll be in charge of your contractor. You’ll be the GC, more or less? MR. LEFNER-Correct, but we’ll have the final say. It’s going to have to be a certain look, a certain style, something that’s going to fit in. MR. SEGULJIC-Getting back to the septic area, one of the things you should show is reserve area, in case of failure. MR. LEFNER-That will be indicated on all the plans, yes. Again, we’re dealing with sketch plan level drawings. When we submit for site plan approval to the Boards, all that level of detail you folks require will be on there, and we’ve already confirmed that we have reserve available. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-We’ll take everything you’ve said into account when we submit our formal application. MR. PETTICA-And we are going to try and see what we can put together as far as a joint hearing, public hearing on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I think that would make sense. MR. FULLER-Unless the lawyers mess it up. MR. PETTICA-When are we looking at for this, December? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re not certain how long it’s going to take to get all the, this level of detail to get this submitted. I’m hoping we get to the November for the December meeting, but we’ll give you a heads up before that. MR. MALE-I would reiterate again, as I did at the last meeting, for a project of this size, I want more than 10 days to review it. So don’t get it to me on a Friday afternoon and expect to get it the following week. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. FULLER-Just on the Fort Ann side, the Queensbury application process, you submit by the middle of the month before to get on for the next month’s agenda. It’s a little bit different than in Fort Ann. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and there’s also no guarantee that if they submit it for November, that we won’t already have a full agenda for December. MR. FULLER-So, yes, we should work up an agreement to build in some lag time. MR. SEGULJIC-But don’t you think this should be on a separate agenda item for its own meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-We could do that, if we felt that it would take that much time, especially if we did a joint meeting. I mean, that would be probably all we would do then. MR. PETTICA-Yes, I think that would make the most sense to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-George, can I request that we receive the minutes from the ZBA meeting? MR. LAPPER-There were a whole bunch of meetings. MRS. BRUNO-A whole bunch. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we see them all? MR. JECKEL-Jon, could you go over what you’ve got on your thing there, what you’re going to get back to us on? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Add CEA to the map, quantify positive impact on lake stormwater, address fertilizer use, passive recreation, no septic pump out for boats, forever wild portion (lost words), trail systems, show logging roads, plat restriction, no further development (lost word), plantings along the lake, septic system design flow, Lake George basin requirements, soil test pit results, number of bedrooms, architectural standards, visual impact from lake for APA and Planning Boards, tree cutting standards and declarations of covenants enforceable by homeowners association, minimum lot widths, show APA, sight distance, grading plan, boat storage, show visual impact and architectural design, 17 boats no more than 30 feet long, no dock (lost words). Class A Marina, wetlands, APA and (lost words) porous pavement for parking lot, fire standpipe, house (lost words) size, architectural approval, and septic (lost words). MR. JECKEL-On the tree cutting, I think the term is used screened view, I don’t know what the definition of screened view means, like how many trees are standing. MR. FULLER-It’s just general planning concept, to look out, not in. MR. SIPP-We need a landscape plan, too. MRS. BRUNO-I know you said you had a contractor picked out. Do you have an architect as well? MR. LEFNER-Yes. MR. FULLER-I guess one thing we should just clarify on the marina part is maybe just a clarification, that they can get a clarification, because there could be some nuance at the Park Commission that we don’t have here right now in front of us that may leave it as a Class A Marina, but I think the express the concern, if I heard you right, is more the commercial aspect. We don’t want, that stuff’s going away. So if for some reason it still remains classified Class A, which it could for, I don’t know, whatever reason, but just that clarification, you’re looking for the commercial aspects to disappear. MRS. BRUNO-Are the other Class A Marinas aware that there’s the potential of this one being shut down, and influx? MR. FISCHER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23