Loading...
08-27-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 29-2019 Reece Rudolph 1. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-34 Site Plan No. 51-2019 Daniel Pickett 5. Tax Map No. 239.17-1-5, 239.17-1-9 Site Plan No. 52-2019 William Mason 14. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-24 Site Plan No. 49-2019 Verizon Wireless 17. Special Use Permit 2-2019 Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Site Plan No. 48-2019 Adirondack Builders 19. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-53 Site Plan No. 50-2019 Robert & Heidi Underwood 22. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-19 Subdivision Mod. # 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky 26. Tax Map No. 289.8-1-39 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury th Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, August 27, 2019. This is our second meeting for August th and the 17 meeting thus far in 2019. If you have an electronic device please do us a favor and turn off the device or at least turn off the ringer so that we won’t be interrupted by the sound. We get our robo calls, and I’ll do that myself because one time I asked people to do that and almost immediately my phone rang. It was pretty embarrassing. Our Staff leader Laura is running a few minutes late so I’m going to try to pinch hit for her for the first few applications which she reviewed with me. So I think we’ll be okay. I’d like to draw your attention to the emergency signs at the doors. If we have an emergency that is your way out. There should be some agendas on the table 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) at the back of the room. If you would like one please take one. We have no administrative items this evening. So we’ll move right to the first part of our agenda which is tabled items, and the first item under Tabled Items is Reece Rudolph, Site Plan 29-2019. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 29-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REECE RUDOLPH. AGENT(S): DAVID HUTCHINSON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 24 NACY RD. APPLICANT HAS REVISED PLANS TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF 129 SQ. FT. PORCH AREA AND 392 SQ. FT. ½ STORY TO CONSTRUCT A 715 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY OVER THE FIRST FLOOR. ALSO, A 56.4 SQ. FT. BATHROOM ADDITION TO BE INSTALLED ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE EXISTING PARCEL INCLUDES A 623 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 968 SQ. FT. HOME FOR A SITE FLOOR AREA OF 2,844 SQ. FT. THE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 2,906 SQ. FT. THE HOUSE IS A PRE-EXISTING AND NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 91653-2495 SEPTIC ALT. 1991. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .24 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-34. SECTION: 179-3-040. DAVID HUTCHINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And this is Planning Board review and approval for a 129 square foot porch area and a 392 square foot, one half story, to construct a 715 square foot second story over the first floor. Also, a 56.4 square foot bathroom addition to be installed on the first floor. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINSON-Good evening. My name’s Dave Hutchinson. I’m representing Reece Rudolph. He is here tonight if you have any questions for him. We were here a couple of months ago and discussed this project. Essentially we have a second floor on this building already and it has the sort of triangular shaped eaves sections up on the second floor. We’re trying to extend the exterior walls up on the outside, not increasing the footprint, to capture that space. When we went to zoning the first time they thought we were adding a little bit too much to the floor area ratio by doing that. So we went back to the drawing board, took a look at how we could offset what we were doing and there was sort of an old addition, maybe you have the plans in front of you. There’s an old addition to the side of the building that we’re proposing to take a different portion of that off, leaving just enough space for a bathroom on the first floor because you kind of need that, and that gets us way down to just .6% addition to the floor area ratio. It also benefits by adding 1.2% to the permeability. Making the site better, and then lastly one of the suggestions when we were here the first time was because the way the site flattens out near the shore, with the grassy area, the site would benefit from a buffer right on the shore and we’d implement in the drawings as well with native plantings. So zoning was very happy with that and we got a unanimous yes on it when we made those adjustments. st MR. TRAVER-I see you were granted the variances on the 21 and reflected those changes that you spoke about in your updated packet. I’ll open it up to questions from members of the Planning Board. I know we’ve looked at this twice. There are some minor changes to accommodate the ZBA’s request, but they all seem to be a positive change. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on the 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) Rudolph application? I’m not seeing any, and I understand from Laura there are no written comments, no additional written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. SHAFER-When was the property acquired? I’m looking at signatures dated October 2018. My question is, I guess that’s before the Queensbury Town law about septic systems being inspected. That was just this year. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINSON-We also did have it inspected. MR. SHAFER-The seepage pit is under the driveway? MR. HUTCHINSON-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like October of 2018 you purchased it. MR. HUTCHINSON-Correct. Incidentally at the zoning meeting each of the adjacent neighbors wrote a letter. I don’t know if that got included or not. MR. TRAVER-In support? MR. HUTCHINSON-In support. The owner happens to be very good friends with the neighbors and they’re very excited because the site could some more, as you can see from the elevations. MR. TRAVER-Well the shoreline buffering is a benefit to the lake of course. Very good. Any other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I guess the question I have is I’m not, I didn’t see the, I haven’t come across that letter from the septic. It’s a 1,000 gallon tank with one seepage pit 10 foot by 8 foot. All right, and you’re adding a bathroom and then how many more bedrooms? MR. HUTCHINSON-The net bedrooms stays the same. It would be two bedrooms. MR. MAGOWAN-It still stays the same then? MR. HUTCHINSON-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-But you’re adding a bathroom. MR. HUTCHINSON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not a designer, you know, being the change. I think it’s based on bedrooms and usage but I mean it was, it looks like it was installed in ’91. MR. HUTCHINSON-In the beginning of all your septic, you don’t have that? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, right here. MR. HUTCHINSON-That letter from the engineer, then. Did you see that? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. HUTCHINSON-Right. I mean the bathroom on the ground floor is a convenience bathroom for the same number of occupants of the building. There’s two bedrooms. It’s just so you can have one on each floor. I think technically the usage of the bathrooms would be equal. It’s just forcing people to have to go upstairs to use the one at the top of the stairs. So I don’t see an increase in usage, just convenience. MR. MAGOWAN-And then it is under the driveway. MR. HUTCHINSON-Correct. So I mean, this is signed by Dennis. Dennis is here. Would anybody mind Dennis just answering my question? How do you feel? I have faith in your knowledge. MR. TRAVER-Well Dennis is not here representing the applicant. MR. MAGOWAN-No, he’s not, but he did sign this letter. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I have a problem with, one the seepage pit under a driveway, all right. MR. TRAVER-We’ve run into that before. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and I just want to make sure it’s adequately sized. Because it was put in in 1991 and Mr. Rudolph bought the place in October of 2018 with the uses. I’m just curious. If I’m going to approve something I want to make sure I’m comfortable with what the additions are. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. TRAVER-And you don’t feel that the letter enclosed in the packet answers your concern? MR. MAGOWAN-Well it’s just telling me what’s there. I would just, you know, I don’t know, you know, I know there’s lateral sizes and lengths, you know, but eight foot round, 10 foot deep, you know soils around it. MR. TRAVER-Well I can’t speak for this specific occasion but I mean typically when these evaluations are made, if there’s a change it’s a Board of Health issue, but generally when these evaluations are made during the evaluation if it’s determined by the reviewing engineer that it’s not adequate they would make a change as part of the application. I mean that’s been our. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I see that Dennis wrote a letter but he’s not representing him as the engineer here. So, you know, I’m just concerned, especially on Glen Lake with all the environmental issues and with the new septic laws, and I just want to feel a little bit more comfortable. If that’s me, that’s me. I asked if we could. If you don’t want it, fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, let’s poll the Board. Are there others that feel that they need additional information regarding septic on this application? MS. WHITE-No. MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments for the applicant? Let’s see, I believe we closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If I didn’t Maria will remind me. I guess we’re ready for, this is SEQR Type II. So I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 29-2019 REECE RUDOLPH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant has revised plans to include removal of 129 sq. ft. porch area and 392 sq. ft. ½ story to construct a 715 sq. ft. second story over the first floor. Also, a 56.4 sq. ft. bathroom addition to be installed on the first floor. The existing parcel includes a 623 sq. ft. garage and 968 sq. ft. home for a site floor area of 2,844 sq. ft. The proposed floor area is to be 2,906 sq. ft. The house is a pre-existing and non-conforming structure. No other changes to the site are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/29/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/27/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/27/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 29-2019 REECE RUDOLPH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, not that I want to make a stink or anything here, but in his letter it said, you know, they observed the conditions, proposed continuances as a two bedroom residence. In my opinion the wastewater system remains compliant with the original conditions of approval and it’s a functional system suitable for continued operation. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant has reported that it’s, there’s not additional occupants using the additional bathroom, and there’s not an additional bedroom. MR. MAGOWAN-But you’re changing the, you’re increasing the size of the house, though. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. TRAVER-Right, but the size of the house isn’t what determines the size of the septic. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINSON-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-No offense to you, Reece. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda also under Tabled Items is Daniel Pickett, Site Plan 51-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DANIEL PICKETT. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY DISTURBANCE OF 35,000 +/- SQ. FT. INCLUDING DRIVEWAY/PAVED LOOP AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER DEVICES TO MANAGE STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 & CHAPTER 147 PF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE DISTURBANCE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 101-2000, SP 77-2000, AV 63-2001, AV 68-2002, AV 86-2002. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019, TOWN OF LG. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGP. LOT SIZE: .6 ACRE & 2.33 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5, 239.17-1-9. SECTION: CHAPTER 147, 179-9-020. DENNIS MAC ELROY & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Planning Board review and approval to maintain property disturbance of 35,000 square feet including driveway and paved loop area. This is under unapproved development as we discussed last time. Welcome back, and again I would like to offer my apologies on behalf of the Planning Board as far as the mix up in our agenda. The Staff actually has a pretty good record for that despite the complexities of all the issues we’re dealing with I apologize nonetheless. So thank you for your willingness to come back and speak with us again this evening on this application and I know the other members of the Planning Board have now had a fair opportunity to review your information and if you would begin by telling us about your situation. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing the applicant for this Site Plan Review application for Dan Pickett. Jon Lapper is here with me tonight as well. If you remember I mentioned last week that I had a potential conflict tonight, but that’s worked out and Jon was here just in case I didn’t make it. I just need to explain to my wife 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) why on our wedding anniversary I’m spending it with Jon instead of her. I would add to that that Nate Hover is here also who is the property manager for Mr. Pickett. It’s also his wedding anniversary. Anyway, thank you for getting us back on the agenda for this evening. I think it gave us an opportunity to provide some additional information the owner had in his files regarding a little bit of history. I’m going to pass out some photos. We did have a PowerPoint that Laura was going to manipulate for us, but the photos will do the same. MR. TRAVER-And we do expect her shortly. MR. LAPPER-We printed them out. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand. In lieu of her absence we will accept the materials this evening. Normally we don’t. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-So, to begin with, while you’re looking at those pictures, I know that this Board recently has become very sensitive to after the fact approvals, and this is distinguishable from something that was intentional. What the pictures show is that in May of 2018 there was a big storm and there was a blow down and some major pine trees and other trees really devastated his property. So this was a recovery project to clean up what was there and what you see, the pictures with the X’s on it show where there were dead trees that the owner was afraid would fall across the road onto neighbor’s property. So this was after a blow down, going in and cleaning up the debris, which was pretty bad just because the east shore of the Lake got hit pretty bad right there. So it never downed on him, which it should have, that it would require a stormwater approval because of the amount of disturbance, but besides the trees that were knocked down and the dead ones, the only other, the disturbance was picking out scrub brush which was just a mess and as you can see from the photos, some people might like grass lawn and some people might not, but it’s very neat and clean and the only impervious area that was added was that parking area. Antigua Road is very narrow, very inadequate for when you have guests and family staying there for all the houses and just to use this lot which could otherwise accommodate a very large home on a three and a half acre piece of property to create a circle for cars to park and just clean it up. So that’s the whole project and obviously it needs stormwater approval. That’s why we’re here and Dennis has designed a project that will capture the water as it runs from the paved area towards the road before it gets to the road and into a shallow swale basin. He’s done a complete stormwater report and submitted it to Chazen. Chazen asked for a soil test and Dennis did that this week and submitted it to Chazen and they went down six feet because that’s all they needed. This site is about 20 feet above the lake. They went down six feet and encountered no groundwater, no mottling. They didn’t go any farther because they didn’t need to, but it’s certainly dry ground. So that stormwater facility captures everything that’s on the paved area and trench drain and it’ll be contained so it dissipates and infiltrates as it’s supposed to be. So obviously they should have come here first but they viewed it as cleaning up after a storm and they didn’t need to come before the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Well I think part of the issue is there are some questions about stormwater, but taking a step back further, what was cleared is beyond what was damaged in the storm. I understand that the owner decided well I might as well get rid of all this brush and so on, but that does have an environmental impact. I mean that’s a good part of the concern. One of the things that was brought to our attention recently is that Plum Point area happens to be one of the hot spots for stormwater problems. So we’re especially concerned about that. You mentioned that you’ve updated the environmental and the stormwater information that was provided to Chazen. We have not seen the most recent evaluation, their evaluation since, I guess, since you’ve submitted that information. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, we haven’t gotten a response from them. They just recently received the response to their original comments. MR. TRAVER-But what you have submitted to them this week I guess is in response to their th original letter of August 15? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And you feel that you’ve addressed all of those issues? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. My thought, I suppose initially, aside from the real concern about the stormwater runoff and the report about the algae blooms and so on, is that this site, in order to mitigate and repair the environmental impact from the storm damage and the initial damage caused by the clear cutting is that there really should be some kind of like planting plan. Some of the trees should be restored. Maybe not the small brush, but some attempt to recreate at least some of the environment that was there or the, well, I mean, I don’t want to speak to the whole thing, but that’s I guess my concern is that the extent of the clear cutting that went on I think could be mitigated, the environmental impact could be mitigated if there’s some plantings to replace some of those trees. MR. LAPPER-So that’s certainly acceptable. This applicant is very responsible and wants it to look nice. That’s why it looks the way it does. When you say clear cutting, most of it was scrub brush and clear cutting really refers to trees. MR. TRAVER-There’s a lot of scrub brush around Lake George and it’s vital to the environment. I understand what the thought was. If I’m going to go in and clean all these trees out, I might as well turn it into a lawn and a parking lot or whatever. MR. LAPPER-Steve, what you’re asking for is absolutely acceptable to do a planting plan and replace some more trees. MR. MAC ELROY-The question I would have is what would be the process? Should we do that and come back with a review of that, or is there some number of trees? MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, I’m sure other members of the Board will have questions. I guess my own thought would be in view of the fact that this is unapproved development in a Critical Environmental area and in an area that is known to be problematic for stormwater runoff with the algae bloom that we’re, the most recent problem that we’re trying to deal with is, yes, my feeling is I would like to see the updated report from Chazen. I would like to see your plan for undoing, basically, the damage that was done perhaps unintentionally but damage nonetheless to the environment of this particular area and tell us about how this may be an opportunity to maybe not 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) only restore but provide an even better environment for the local flora and fauna and so on that are there. MR. LAPPER-So when you cross the street, this is, of course, not on the lakeside, when you cross Antigua Road, those properties are steep and go towards the lake. So stormwater isn’t coming off this site and going into the lake because what would be is getting captured in the basin. MR. TRAVER-Well some of the information, I understand you have more recent information, but the information that we have before us as we sit here tonight is the fact that there’s some question about whether the stormwater is actually retained on the site, but that’s actually not an issue since we’re going to be getting updated stormwater information. The information that we have before us is outdated. MR. LAPPER-We are happy to table this and come back with a planting plan that’ll show, I mean I don’t think we’re going to replace the scrub brush, but we’ll put in some trees to make up for what came down. It’ll be done in an attractive location so that it makes sense, but no problem with re-vegetating. MR. MAC ELROY-There was some re-vegetation as well. MR. TRAVER-I mean I see the grass. I don’t see a lot of pictures, I think there’s one picture that’s kind of a glancing photograph of the paved area. That’s an area of concern. It would have been handy to have a clearer depiction of the area that was impervious, totally impervious, but the pictures that were provided are helpful and we thank you for that. MR. LAPPER-You can see the trees that were planted on the site plan on the north side of the driveway in one of the photos, but we’ll come back with more. MR. DEEB-I think adding more trees is going to be one aspect, but the other thing that I have is we received a letter from the Water Keeper. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ve read that. MR. DEEB-Did you see that letter? MR. MAC ELROY-Today, yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. I would like some of those issues to be addressed. MR. LAPPER-The biggest issue he asked is he didn’t see the soil test because they were done for Chazen since the last meeting. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. DEEB-I’m just wondering if you could just somehow placate and take a look at that and come back with some sort of answers to that letter, with that when you come back. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. DEEB-Because I thought there were some very important points in there that should be looked at. MR. LAPPER-We’re fine with that. MR. DEEB-Yes, I think that’s important. MR. TRAVER-They’re representing that, I mean much of the concerns that I thought were reflected in the Water Keeper’s communication to us were the stormwater things that they’re representing this evening has been addressed. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So we will see that, and I’m sure there’ll be an opportunity for the Water Keeper if he wishes to respond to the updated information as provided. MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back and we’ll have Chazen’s response. We should have their signoff and new planting plan. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-Can I clarify? What has Chazen submitted? What do you have as a response? I’m just looking through to see what correspondence do they want or need, and I see on here, on one of these next to last pictures, EDP to present plan to mitigate runoff from the paved area. Now is that something that’s still outstanding? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC ELROY-That was submitted as part of the original application. A stormwater management. MR. VALENTINE-They’ve reviewed that and commented on it? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. LAPPER-And there were a few issues, and we addressed those issues back to Chazen. MR. MAC ELROY-We have a stormwater control report which is required as part of a Major project. We’ve submitted that with the reviewed plans. Naturally they had, they issued a comment letter which we’ve responded to. Now they haven’t had time to respond back. It’s all in the works, just like any of the other projects. MR. VALENTINE-And my point is I’m hearing, and I think in my estimation we’re jumping the gun to say that we want bushes, trees, this and that and everything and we haven’t seen anything as far as the comments back and forth. MR. TRAVER-Well we know it’s in a CEA. We know that was removed is beyond the damaged trees. MR. VALENTINE-And I’m thinking has somebody analyzed what’s the impact to the stormwater and what has to be mitigated to what degree, rather than sit here and say I think we should put 15 trees up. MR. MAC ELROY-Chazen’s comments really weren’t in that direction. So I don’t think that they had that concern. It was more Chris’ letter. Chazen’s letter and their comments are the ones that we really address. MR. LAPPER-We’re confident that we can come back with a signoff letter from Chazen and a planting plan to address. MR. MAC ELROY-I’ve talked to him about that, anticipating that that may be something that might be supplemented, and he saw that that was a reasonable thing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-My thing is I’m leery about taking an attitude of punitive, being punitive, without having something in front of us first. I’m not comfortable. MR. TRAVER-I’m not thinking of it as punitive. My assumption is based on the representation of the applicant h ere this evening that the applicant would have done that action had he realized the problem that was created by the amount of. MR. VALENTINE-And my whole thing is to try to politely stop the commentary about well you should do this, you should do that, you should do this. We don’t have anything to justify it. MR. TRAVER-No, we’re just asking for a plan, and they’ve offered to provide something. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. SHAFER-Just that this conversation has been very, very helpful and what they’re proposing to submit is also going to be very helpful because before we were faced with a site plan that had 35,000 square feet of disturbance and after the fact, and so we were faced with what’s going on here. You’ve helped clarify that a lot. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing that we left open on this project from last week I believe. So I will ask, are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Sir? Yes. So if you could give up the table. We do have some public comment. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MARTIN FARBER MR. FARBER-Hi. Thank you for allowing me to return. My name is Martin Farber. I live at 33 Antigua Road and you have the comments that I gave last week. I don’t see any reason to reiterate them, but one thing I would like to point out is that they’re not providing you with any pictures of what it looked like before. I just did Google maps. I find it hard to believe that all the trees he took out were dead or falling. You can pass that around, and if you’d like I also have pictures here of what the area looks like. So that is available. MR. TRAVER-I appreciate that. We certainly are aware that this was done without prior approval. I mean that’s already understood, and at this point we’re looking at some mitigation and the applicant has offered some mitigation. We have to see what that mitigation is going to take. MR. FARBER-I think that’s fine. What’s done is done and now what we have to do is try and make things better. I would just want to point out that there is some data to show what it looked like before and I have a difficult time swallowing the statement that the only thing they did was take out dead or falling trees. MR. TRAVER-I think it was mentioned that what was done was beyond that, that there was some brush and small trees and so on. We understand. MR. FARBER-Look at Google maps. Those are not small trees. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? MR. MAGOWAN-Well on my site visit there I did notice the pile of logs, but I see before the thank you was they will be removed when the ground is frozen. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-But it might not be December. It might be January. MR. TRAVER-Brad, let me deal with the public hearing and then we’ll have an opportunity to return to the Board. I’ll ask one more time, is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application to the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-I do have the comment letter from the Water Keeper. Do you want me to read that into the record? MR. TRAVER-No, we actually, if it’s the same one that was distributed to all of us, then we have seen that. You are going to include it as part of the record. The representatives of the applicant have indicated that they’ve received it as well. So I don’t think it’s necessary to read it into the record. Unless other Board members feel that it should be. MR. DEEB-I’d like to have it read. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then, go ahead, Laura, if you wouldn’t mind. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the Chairman, Mr. Traver, “The above referenced Site Plan Review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper has concerns regarding the negative impacts of excessive and unpermitted disturbance and impervious cover within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The Waterkeeper's algae biomonitoring program has indicated excessive algae growth along the shoreline south of Plum Point below Antiqua Road, which indicated high nutrient loading. We would encourage the Planning Board to implement the best measures possible to reduce stormwater runoff. We also understand the Town's concern regarding unapproved development and support the Town Planning Board to impose conditions to prevent such activities as it is impossible to return to undisturbed conditions and difficult to condition properties already developed. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations, specifically Chapter 147, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced site plan application. It appears there are disturbed areas where runoff will be directed off site without stormwater management. The grass area north of the driveway loop will discharge runoff off site without being directed to stormwater management controls. This should be addressed. There is concern about the effectiveness of the proposed trench drain to capture and efficiently convey runoff. Trench drains tend to become plugged with sediment and do not effectively collect and convey runoff. Information should be provided on the type of grate to be installed. Trench drain grates tend to be large to withstand traffic loadings and therefore create by pass flows, which will be experienced with the proposed design where up to half off the runoff may bypass the trench drain. The trench drain will also be capturing a large pavement area with a 10% slope that will increase the amount off by pass flow due to runoff velocity. The Planning Board is encouraged to request alternative design for the capture and conveyance of runoff. The applicant should be required to provide a guarantee of the protection of the existing mature trees that remain. Trees provide important stormwater management aspects of interception of rain, treatment and evapotranspiration. However, trees that have their root systems compacted and covered with pavement, such as on this after-the-fact application, have a low life expectancy. The Planning Board is encouraged to consider a guarantee for the existing trees or require additional planting. The grading for the grass swale should be improved to guarantee the capture of all runoff from the paved surfaces and eliminate bypass flows. From the grading plan, there are areas of the pavement that will flow between the trench drain and the stormwater management control and flow off site. The applicant does not contain any deep test pit 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) information to verify the separation to groundwater or bedrock for the stormwater management facilities. I apologize that I am unable to attend the public hearing on this application. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Queensbury Planning Board table the after-the-fact application and ensure that all stormwater runoff is adequately captured and treated and improve mitigation measures for unapproved development within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper” MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Brad, you had some additional comments you wanted to make before I close the public hearing. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I just, I saw a bunch of logs there and I was going to ask about them and I see that they’ll be out in December, or when the ground’s frozen. Because that was quite a pile. I noticed there wasn’t a lot of bark on the trees. That was it. MRS. MOORE-So, Laura, welcome back. Thank you for coming in to help us out for the rest of the meeting, and I guess the applicant can return to the table. So we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if you’re going to table it you’re going to want to leave it open. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria. I stand corrected. So we’ll leave the public hearing open because we anticipate tabling this application. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, just prior to your arrival we had some discussion with the applicant and they provided some updated environmental stormwater responses to the Chazen letter. We have not received that obviously, but the applicant understands that we need an opportunity to look at that updated information and also we had a general discussion with the applicant with regards to a landscape plan to do some environmental mitigation for the trees that were removed. I don’t know if you have any specific recommendations in terms of quantities. My thought was let the applicant come back with a proposal and we’ll take a look at it. MRS. MOORE-If the applicant meets with Staff then between myself and other Staff in the office we can either give guidance or move that plan forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, that would be very helpful, Laura. Thank you. All right. MR. VALENTINE-The letter that was just read into the record, does that go to Chazen? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-No, it does not, not typically. MR. VALENTINE-Have we ever been in a position that, the recommendation in his letter says that, it struck me as odd, guarantee the protection of existing mature trees. Have we ever been in a position to put a guarantee on somebody’s? MR. TRAVER-Not to my knowledge, no. I think that typically when we’ve been concerned about, when there’s been landscaping or tree removal where there are surviving trees that are damaged and we’re fearful that additional trees are going to be lost, because of that, typically the way we respond is re-planting, which the applicant is talking about offering some type of a landscaping plan. So if these trees don’t survive presumably there’ll be some immature trees that will replace them. Hopefully they will survive. I would hope that the landscaping was done in such a way that they would anticipate or hope that they would survive. Otherwise they would come down, but not being an expert. I can’t even keep a plant in my office alive. So I’m not going to try to do that. Typically what we try to do is respond with mitigation of re-planting and replacing, anticipated loss. So my other question then to you folks is how long will it take you to prepare such a plan and get with Laura and her team to get back on the agenda. I mean I know that you mentioned last time that this is basically done, but we would certainly like to get it completed. th MR. LAPPER-We should be able to submit by September 15 for October. MR. TRAVER-Okay. October agenda, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That is fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we’ll have a draft motion. MR. DEEB-Do we have a date? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in October. th MR. TRAVER-The first meeting in October would be the 15, according to my schedule. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 51-2019 DANIEL PICKETT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant requests to maintain property disturbance of 35,000 +/- sq. ft. including driveway/paved loop area. Project includes installation of stormwater devices to manage stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 & Chapter 147 of the Zoning Ordinance, site disturbance and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2019 DANIEL PICKETT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the October 15, 2019 Queensbury Planning Board meeting. Tabled so that the applicant can return with re-submission of a landscaping plan, updated stormwater response from Chazen. th Seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: MS. WHITE-At one point you asked for some response to Chris Navitsky. Is that something to include? MR. TRAVER-No. We normally don’t. We appreciate input from the Water Keeper, but we don’t report to him. MS. WHITE-You were just saying some response to a couple of these issues. MR. LAPPER-Those are all the same issues that Chazen. MR. TRAVER-For the most part, yes, they’re all stormwater related. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. MR. TRAVER-And I will remind members of the audience that we did leave the public hearing th open. So when this application returns October 15 there will be additional opportunity for public comment on the updated proposal. All right. So next we move to the next section of our agenda, which is Old Business. The first application being William Mason, Site Plan 52-2019. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM MASON. AGENT(S): WILLIAM MASON. OWNER(S): MATT SMITH. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 SENECA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 768 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A BASEMENT AND SECOND STORY – FROM A TWO BEDROOM TO A THREE BEDROOM. NEW FLOOR AREA OF 2,196 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MULTIPLE AV & SP “TAKUNDEWIDE”. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGP, TAKUNDEWIDE. LOT SIZE: .05 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065 BILL MASON, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant received their Area Variances the other evening at the Zoning Board of Appeals. Again the applicant proposes to remove a 768 square foot home to construct a new 768 square foot home that has a basement and a second story to it. MR. TRAVER-Welcome back. MR. MASON-It’s nice to see you again. MR. TRAVER-So this is the Takundewide project that we reviewed previously. We know that we have an MOU. I think we reviewed this pretty thoroughly the last time you were here. I see that your variance was granted. Just for the record, as a result of your discussion with the ZBA were there any changes to the plan? MR. MASON-No. MR. TRAVER-So it’s as we reviewed. MR. MASON-It’s exactly as you reviewed. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have one. I just had a question, looking at the plans, I notice the egress windows in the basement, two of them. Is that standard up in Takundewide? MR. MASON-There’s two of them? MR. MAGOWAN-There’s two of them. MR. MASON-It’s not, there’s nothing standard. When I built them, I built Number 30 one time with no egress windows and I built other ones where all of them were oversized windows. This is what this owner wanted and I had had very few discussions with him about this. There’s nothing standard about it would be the answer to your question. It’s different. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Well I just remember you stating, you know, it was an unfinished basement. So usually an unfinished basement you can get two different sized basement windows, but these, you’re actually going with the egress windows with the studded walls. MR. MASON-One would think that he’s got an anticipation of finishing the basement. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. That’s all. MR. MASON-I have not had any discussions with him about that. MR. MAGOWAN-And I respect that. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the other Board members. I don’t know if they noticed that, but I noticed it. I just found it odd. I can see one, but two. MR. MASON-I did a home for my sister and we put them all the way around because she saw that I did it on a different home and she loved it and then she was complaining why did we put all these huge windows around, I want to put storage shelves and I’ve got windows right in the way. Can you fill those in? And I said well you could, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s one bright basement, I have to say, if you’ve got windows all around. The only reason I brought it up, I wanted to be sure if anybody else noticed that. MR. VALENTINE-Was that a test? MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Mason application? I’m not seeing anybody. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are not written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there’s no other comments we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2019 WILLIAM MASON 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 768 sq. ft. home to construct a new 768 sq. ft. home with a basement and second story – from a two bedroom to a three bedroom. New floor area of 2,196 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/27/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/27/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/27/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 52-2019 WILLIAM MASON. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under Old Business we have Verizon Wireless, Site Plan 49-2019 and Special Use Permit 2-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2019 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. VERIZON WIRELESS. AGENT(S): DAVID BRENNAN, ESQ. OWNER(S): STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 347 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING SMALL CELL WIRELESS FACILITY ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING STEWART’S SHOP STORE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SMALL CELL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON A PROPOSED LIGHT POLE TO BE INSTALLED WITH THE NEW STORE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES LEASE OF A 10 X 10 SQ. FT. AREA WITH THE LIGHT POLE AND CELL FACILITY HEIGHT AT 31 FT. 9 INCHES – LIGHT POLE AT 15 FT. 6 INCHES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130 AND 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SITE PLAN 7-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.037 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33. SECTION: 179-5-130 & 179-10. DAVID BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-This applicant also received their variances the other evening with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Again it’s removing an existing small cell wireless facility to install a new one on top of a light pole of a proposed Stewart’s Store on Aviation Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. BRENNAN-Good evening. Dave Brennan with the law firm of Young/Sommer and with me tonight is Chris Boyce from Pyramid Network Services and as Laura aptly summarized, we were here last week for the recommendation to the Zoning Board for the setback variance. We did receive that variance with no opposition and very little discussion and so now we’re here asking for the amended Site Plan for this proposal to locate the small cell antenna off the roof of the building that’s coming down onto a light pole that is going up as part of that site plan. MR. TRAVER-And no changes as a result of your chat with the ZBA? MR. BRENNAN-None at all. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I know this is fairly straightforward. We were anticipating this since the Stewart’s project. MR. HUNSINGER-Since the Stewart’s project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We also have a public hearing on this application again. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding the Verizon application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there are no additional questions for the applicant from members of the Planning Board, I’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 49-2019 & SUP # 2-2019 VERIZON WIRELESS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove an existing small cell wireless facility on the roof of an existing Stewart’s Shops store. The applicant proposes a 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) new small cell facility to be located on a proposed light pole to be installed with the new store. The project includes lease of a 10 x 10 sq. ft. area with the light pole and cell facility height at 31 ft. 9 inches – light pole at 15 ft. 6 inches. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130 and 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, telecommunication towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/27/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/27/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/27/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 34-2019 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2019 VERIZON WIRELESS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-We now move into the area of New Business on our agenda and the first item under New Business is Adirondack Builders, Site Plan 48-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADIRONDACK BUILDERS. AGENT(S): DEVIN DICKINSON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 127 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 1,210 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME – 2,169 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE 5,002 SQ. FT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-96, SP 3-93, AV 25-91, AV 17-96. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-53. SECTION: 179-6-065. DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes removal of an existing 1,210 square foot single family home. That’s the footprint. Construction of a single family home, this is a 2,169 square foot footprint with an attached garage. The new home is to have a 5,002 square foot total floor area. In this case this application is before the Board for our new Code requirement which is 179-6-065 for the new floor area. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. TRAVER-And the fact that it’s in a CEA. MRS. MOORE-And it’s in a CEA. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. DICKINSON-Good evening. Devin Dickinson. I’m with Dickinson Associates. I did the site plan and engineering for this project. I’m also here with Peter O’Neil. He’s the owner and builder. So like Laura said to recap a little bit there, it does have an existing attached garage, driveway. We are proposing to remove the structures and build another single family home with an attached garage. This project actually reduces the impervious area by about 1,000 square feet in our new proposal. It actually puts us in a position where we’re not required to have stormwater. We did do a stormwater plan so we do have some infiltration devices that we propose for this. We also have the 35 foot shoreline buffer. This is a site that currently is lawned with a sea wall. We worked pretty hard on this to comply with all the setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, building heights. So we didn’t have to ask for any variances for the new building. The last thing on the list is we have a new wastewater treatment system for the four bedroom home. I’ve met with Dave Hatin a couple of times and had discussions over the phone with him a couple of times to make sure that this was an approvable system. Once we get site plan approval we can get a permit for this. So overall I think it’s an improvement to this neighborhood. We’re reducing the impervious area. We’re adding buffer, stormwater controls, and of course a new wastewater treatment system as well. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. The home that’s removed is a 1,210 square foot footprint. What’s the approximate footprint on the new house? MR. DICKINSON-So the house footprint with the garage and the porches and everything is about 2432 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-How many bedrooms? MR. DICKINSON-Four bedrooms. MR. SHAFER-Do I understand the existing house is gone? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. We had all our asbestos mitigation, testing and we applied for our demo permit and we took the old house down. MR. SHAFER-When I read the project it was remove the old house and build a new one. Removing the old house has already been done. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. DICKINSON-Correct. PETER O’NEIL MR. O’NEIL-Very recently. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of hard not to like it, I mean the increased permeability. They don’t need any variances. They’re going to add to the shoreline buffer. MR. TRAVER-Yes, 35 foot. MR. SHAFER-Question on the size. I was struck by the size of the house. It’s 92 feet from the front to the back. The garage is 22 by 34. That’ll park at least four cars if not more. There are three doors, but that’s a big garage. What drove the size of the house? MR. DICKINSON-I think a big part of it is, you know, trying to, you know, this is a tricky think to really try and pin down, but I think a lot of it is trying to build to that customer base in the neighborhood. MR. SHAFER-That’s my point, McMansions. MR. DICKINSON-So it’s kind of the balance. I think the nice thing that this particular project lends is it has a very small profile to the lake and it’s set back quite a ways, and obviously with the limited height requirements and stuff there. MR. SHAFER-There’s mature trees by the water, too, as I recall. MR. DICKINSON-We do have some trees that we’re going to save. We’ve got a nice hickory tree down there that we’re going to save. That’s a good substantial size, and then of course we’re going to plant new tree, shrubs and ground cover. MR. SHAFER-This is a spec house? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 48-2019 ADIRONDACK BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes removal of existing 1,210 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home and construction of a new single family home – 2,169 sq. ft. with an attached garage. The new home is to be 5,002 sq. ft. total floor area. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/27/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/27/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/27/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 48-2019 ADIRONDACK BUILDERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal, s. snow removal. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have an application from Robert & Heidi Underwood, Site Plan 50-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT & HEIDI UNDERWOOD. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: O. LOCATION: 413 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES RE-USE OF AN EXISTING 5,636 SQ. FT. BUILDING SITE TO OPERATE ADIRONDACK ENRICHMENT PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN FROM BIRTH TO FIVE. PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR CLASSROOM AREAS, OFFICES AND THERAPY AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH NO SITE PLAN WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SIGN PERMITS AND 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) CO’S ONLY. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.23 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-19. SECTION: 179-9-020. HEIDI UNDERWOOD, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to re-use an existing building that’s 5,636 square feet. They’ll be operating what they call the Adirondack Enrichment Program for children from birth to five. This includes interior alterations for classroom areas, offices and therapy area. There are no exterior changes to the building or to the parking area or to the landscaping or lighting on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. UNDERWOOD-So I purchased this property and am looking to do construction inside. We are business needs. We’re not looking to do anything on the outside of the building or to the property itself. So I think I have to come to you folks first. MR. TRAVER-So this is a purchase not a lease? MRS. UNDERWOOD-Purchase. MR. TRAVER-Purchase. Okay. All right. I’ve heard of the Adirondack Enrichment Program from some of the staff that work at the non-profit where I work. So I’m somewhat familiar with your services. Can you give us just an overview of the kind of services that are going to be provided in this building? MRS. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. So Adirondack Enrichment that has been around for over 15 years and we service children birth to five. Occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, special education services. We do treatment and we do evaluations. That’s about 75% of our business, and the other part of our business is we do a physical program, and that came about just because we saw the need. We actually have on staff 28 employees. Out of those 28 employees, 12 are part-time. Out of that 28, 16 of them work offsite. So we provide services to children in their homes, in daycares, in head start programs and big daycare facilities. So the majority of what we do actually isn’t on site. It’s offsite, but we do run these pre-school programs where we do have to have space for participants to come and play. MR. TRAVER-And this then would also be your administrative office space as well? MRS. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MS. WHITE-What was the expansion? MRS. UNDERWOOD-So right now I own a building in Glens Falls and then we grew out of that rd and we rent actually 2/3’s of we call it the green barn, the Sprinkles building, and so it just makes sense for us to all be in one place. So we now call it the pink palace that we purchased so we can consolidate, and actually both of the building sizes, this is a little bit bigger, but it provides us all one space which is really nice. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-The applicant has not included information on the signage at this time. Board may request information on a wall sign and free standing sign. Do you have any comments on that? MRS. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. I haven’t really even thought about what I’m going to do with the sign. I do have the permit that they used when they put that original sign in. My thought process is we’re going to keep that original sign and ask to paint it and put our name on there. So keep what is there, but we haven’t really gotten to that part yet. MR. DEEB-As long as it’s Code compliant. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess that’s a question. Do I have to go through site plan review to? MRS. MOORE-No. It was the idea if you had the idea of the sign or the type and the lighting and things like that that you could present that to the Board, but as the Board member pointed out, it just needs to be Code compliant when you do apply for your sign permit, but probably similar to what you did with the other site in Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-So you won’t have to deal with us for that. As long as your sign is compliant, you’ll be fine. MR. VALENTINE-What you submitted here is a 1987 site plan on this one. MR. TRAVER-The floor plan. MR. VALENTINE-So does that meet the parking requirements for now? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. There’s actually two. If you look in the Staff Notes I did two calculations because we based it on the type of services that were being offered and they exceed the parking requirements. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. VALENTINE-How do you calculate when you have 16 employees that are not on site? Like say you’ve got 28 employees. Do you remove that 16 from the calculation? MRS. MOORE-So it’s based on square footage. MR. TRAVER-Is that one site for every 500 square feet? MRS. MOORE-I’m trying to locate that number. MR. TRAVER-Three hundred? Okay. All right. Other questions, comments from the Board before we go to a public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like a nice re-use of that building. MRS. UNDERWOOD-In our purchase agreement they asked us to keep the statute of the girl. That was out there. MR. TRAVER-We do have public comment for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-In that case we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other final questions, comments from members of the Board before we entertain a motion? Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 50-2019 ROBERT & HEIDI UNDERWOOD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes reuse of an existing 5,636 sq. ft. building site to operate Adirondack Enrichment Program for children from birth to five. Project includes interior alterations for classroom areas, offices and therapy area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial buildings with no site plan within the last seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/17/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/27/2019, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/27/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 50-2019 ROBERT & HEIDI UNDERWOOD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, j. stormwater, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Next we have, also under New Business, Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky, Subdivision Modification 6-2019. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. AGENT(S): MATTHEW F. FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: MOON HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION “IMPERIAL ACRES” (APRIL 1990). PROJECT CONSISTS OF SEVEN LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND TWO LOTS FOR STORMWATER REDESIGN. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN WAS FOR 8 LOTS WITH TWO FOR STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 17-1989, AV 90-1989. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 23.7 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.8-1-39. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT FULLER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-For this application, it’s the proposed, the existing Imperial Acres which is a subdivision which was approved in April of 1990. It’s seven lots for residential and two lots for stormwater redesign. The previous approved plan was for nine lots with two for stormwater. Lots One and Three are to be combined as part of this project, and this project as you notice specifically in Site Plan Two, stormwater design has been updated so that it no longer drains to Moon Hill Road. It’s actually kept on site. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Hi. Matt Fuller for the applicant, Barry and Jacqueline Lashinsky. I’ve got Brandon Ferguson here from EDP. As Laura was saying, it’s a pre-existing subdivision from the early 90’s off Moon Hill Road. The site is about 23.7 acres. It’s an RR-3A zone. The pre- existing seven lots aren’t changing. So it would still be a seven lot residential subdivision. In preparing to start the development phase I started looking through the stormwater plan. The approved plans which could be built. In concept with the previously approved plans, we could 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) build that. The old days of funneling the stormwater off site didn’t make a lot of sense. There’s a couple of residences, I know the one comment letter came in, but there was originally on the original subdivision plans, kind of a flag stick if you will there, a 30 foot right of way that if you carry out where that discharged to, it is right along the one property there. It didn’t make a lot of sense and it would have been discharged underneath Moon Hill along the side of the road. So anyway the idea was to try to go back and make some improvements upon what was originally approved. So Brandon and Dennis came up with some plans and the idea is to utilize what were originally Lots Three and Five for some stormwater management on site, and maintaining that onsite. Originally Parcels One and Three were to be conveyed to adjoining owners. The Lent family, looking at the old maps, appeared to own the whole area there. That never happened. So that’s where we kind of came here with the idea that, okay, well we’re going to utilize that for stormwater, and as part of it abandoned by ultimately recorded document, a quit claim deed or something along those lines, to obtain that 30 foot right of way that runs down along that property. So that would free up a title for the neighboring properties from what right now is that map easement. So if it’s approved and goes forward, I would say likely the highway dedication would be done. There was a question I got during the week here about Moon Hill Place. It’s a small right of way. It touches the back of Lot Seven, and the question was, that was posed to me, was there a driveway going to be built directly off that to service the house, and our response to that is, no. Obviously it does have access, it has right of access out back there, but there’s no intention to build a driveway to the house off of that Moon Hill. It would access off of the road that’ll be built. As for the dedication, I saw in Chazen’s comment letter to you guys that, we’ll go through that, but we did receive word today that the proposal of the road with the stormwater, obviously built to specs, would be acceptable, the concept is acceptable to the Highway Department. We got that back today. There was a comment letter that I did receive yesterday about the location of the one stormwater basin up on, we’ll call it Lot Three that’s going to be combined with the road. I think when you look at the topo and the elevations on that thing, this isn’t a 15 foot deep stormwater basin. It’s two feet deep over that area. It was about 100 feet if you scaled it off from the back of the property. So again it’s not a large retention that’s going to, I saw the comments about erosion and slopes and things like that. It’s a couple of feet deep, just to manage that top part of the road up there, but one of the questions that was raised is who owns the improvements once they’re done. The Town does. That’s why it’s got to be done to Town spec. If there’s any management requirements, no different than drywells or things like that, you know, we have to supply that, what those requirements are, management program, things like that, as part of the dedication. I’ve been through them. We dedicate the road. We have to have the signoff from the Highway Department. The Town engineers title. So obviously all that stuff, if we propose changing any of that, and the remainder of the comments that were kind of directed to my client, we’re not going to acknowledge, dignify a response. My clients are the developers and they’ve got the wherewithal to do this. The last part about the, I want to comment on the road, helping this get built. Again if you guys know the process, building permits for a development like this aren’t issued until a Town road is built and dedicated. So it’s not like you can get a building permit on a dirt road in the Town of Queensbury. They’re not going to allow you to do that. So it has to be dedicated and the usual process I’ve been through is, you know, the first couple of coats go down on the pavement, and then in order to dedicate it to the Town Board you either post a bond or a letter of credit for that final top coat. The reason being that the Town Board and the Highway Department don’t want a developer pounding a road to build houses and then the top coat fall apart. So they make you build it to spec, dedicate it, and then bond off or letter of credit for the top coat, again, so the Town doesn’t get stuck with that building. Do you want to hit the Chazen letter? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. I think like Matt said the main modification of this site is to bring up the current stormwater regulations. It was originally approved in 1990 so there weren’t any regulations then. So if you look at the plan, we decided to use Lots One and Three that weren’t buildable lots in order to maintain the existing approved subdivision. So we looked at what we could do for stormwater, and the soils are great out there. Sandy soils. We did some test pits. So infiltration was the preferred solution. So we submitted the plans to Chazen and looking 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) through their comments there wasn’t really anything too major. We got them on Friday. So we’re still kind of going through and making some of the changes. Most of them had to do with just putting some consistency to the plan, adding some information, giving them a little more information on stuff, and there wasn’t anything in the comments that I thought would draw us off our current path. This is a residential subdivision of over five acres of disturbance so it does require, we were following New York State DEC stormwater regulations for this, the design. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any comments on why nothing was ever built here before? It was approved so long ago. MR. FULLER-That’s a good question. It was for sale for a long time. We did the due diligence when we were purchasing it, making sure, working with Craig Brown and making sure that the approval was still valid. We didn’t really get to the bottom. I think in the interim somebody had passed away and it was an estate that we dealt with. We dealt with the children. BARRY LASHINSKY MR. LASHINSKY-The original owner designed and submitted it and he died and it was forgotten about. MR. FULLER-It sat there for years. I remember the sign being up for a long time. MR. DEEB-Well I went through the minutes of the previous approval. It was a lengthy process. MR. FULLER-It was, months. MR. DEEB-And there was a lot of contentiousness and it was pretty surprising. Could you give us the basis of what that was about? I mean it doesn’t affect it today. MR. FULLER-I went through it. Believe me we read through all of the minutes before we purchased. There was a pretty good investment, at least in my time, to ferret out the details. I came in and looked at the files. The Town’s files are largely here and intact. I made copies of all those minutes. The Laserfiche system is good. You type in the last name and all the minutes come up. That was an eight, ten month process that they went through. There were a lot of engineering comments, stormwater, things like that. To give you a direct answer, I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-If I understand you, at the beginning of your presentation, it’s your position that it’s actually buildable now. You’re just offering to update the stormwater to make it approvable. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. FULLER-Yes, that was the very first discussion we had with Craig years ago, before we built this, is could I, hypothetically, fill and dedicate the road and start pulling building permits and the answer was yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FULLER-So we started looking into it and frankly, not to want to upset the neighbors with a 30 foot stormwater easement down the property line that they haven’t seen in 25 years. So, to my client’s good credit, they said well let’s employ an engineer and at least look at this and look at the options for using those two lots that were never deeded, pull the improvements back as close as we can to the road and don’t put the near those residential lots and see if we can get the capacity that we need on site to build it, and that was the design. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-I didn’t see test pits or perc tests. Those will be done on each house per building permit? MR. FULLER-Yes, for septics and things? Yes. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, they were actually on the original approved plans. The house locations, septic locations, everything stays the same. They were on the original approved. We can add them on ours as well, though. MR. SHAFER-It’s 110 gallons per bedroom? Do you remember? That changed over time? MR. FERGUSON-If anything it would have been more at that point. It was higher and I think maybe at that point, I can’t remember exactly when that change was, 110, but it was around that time, 1990. MR. SHAFER-Has the Town agreed to take the road? MR. FULLER-Well we did get that e-mail today that the concept, obviously they don’t give you an approval until you submit, but that the concept of what we proposed, I don’t want to misstate it. MRS. MOORE-So I had a conversation with Dave Duell. I’m sorry. I had a conversation with Dave Duell our Highway Superintendent. He’s aware that this is coming before him at some point in time in reference to the road and to the stormwater devices. MR. SHAFER-He was okay with the grade? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-He will evaluate that. That’s what I’m saying. Conceptually, yes. MR. FULLER-Yes. His response was I did review the changes to the Imperial Acres subdivision with Craig Brown and they are acceptable to us. Now there’s a lot in between now and then. First of all we have to submit the plan of what the highway’s going to look like, get that approved, then build it, get it to the point of dedication, then put the title together and all that and then actually formally petition the Town Board for dedication. So I don’t want to represent up here that the Highway Department has approved everything. I don’t want that coming back and kicking me in the shins. MR. FERGUSON-The grading on the road did not change from the original approval either. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just asking what is that? MR. SHAFER-It’s 10, right? MR. FERGUSON-I believe it’s 10, yes. MR. VALENTINE-Ten percent’s the current? MR. FULLER-We didn’t want to change the subdivision plan itself. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD CAVALIER MR. CAVALIER-Good evening, everyone. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. CAVALIER-My name’s Richard Cavalier. I live at 734 Moon Hill Road. The paperwork I’ve submitted to the Board, but the stormwater that we’re talking about Lot Number Three directly pertains to what’s in my backyard, but I do want to say that this is not a NIMBY conversation here. I don’t want to talk about my backyard. I understand and I’m aware of the real possibilities that a subdivision of some sort will be in the back at some point in the future. I understand that. I am, however, directly affected by the proposed stormwater modifications. I’ve already provided the Board copies of what I would like to address tonight as well as the attachments, a couple of photos and what not. Please follow along. I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-Just hang on. They don’t have those. Usually I read them in. If you’re going to read them in. MR. CAVALIER-I’m going to read it. I only made seven of those. Sorry. MRS. MOORE-They all got one. MR. CAVALIER-Everybody set? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you, Laura. MR. CAVALIER-The initial design was high impact to the environment and this radical proposed change from the original is even more of an impact. Proposed stormwater #3 is approximately 30 feet above my backyard, not behind my backyard, above it. Please see the attached pictures. Attached Picture #1 you’ll see that my 5 foot tall daughter is at the bottom of the hill that’s in my backyard. She’s circled in red, and 30 feet above her, circled in red, is her friend, just to give you some perspective of what 30 feet looks like. That is where the entrance to the proposed stormwater will be. Picture #2 shows the view from the top of where the stormwater is proposed to be, 30 foot above my home and clearly in line with my roof. These photos were to give you perspective, would you want something like that where you have water and runoff collected above your home? Probably not. Major concerns for us, my wife and I, living below the stormwater basins, Attachment #3, landslides, erosion, blowouts of hillside, ice damming in stormwater causing flooding below, rain, snow and ice causing overwhelming surface and subsurface runoff. Think about it. We’re substantially clearing almost 10 acres of a subdivision which will mean less vegetation for natural absorption and eventually failure of a stormwater system of any type is possible. Other major concerns: Future damages caused by stormwater failure, who pays for that? I would request that an escrow account be set up for future damages if this stormwater plan eventually passes the Board. Who owns the stormwater area? I know that Mr. Fuller mentioned that the Town would. Well if the Town owns it, why should the tax payers have that burden? We do agree, however, on what Mr. Fuller mentioned how the abandonment of the 30 foot easement. If you read the letter, the deeds of Lent now Cavalier as cited in the letter dated July 15, 2019 from Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell PLLC to Town of Queensbury Planning Board, and cited on Subdivision Plan, Sheet #1 from EDP dated April 19, 2019. Request that be done immediately. That the easement is no longer necessary and that it wouldn’t meet today’s standards anyway for any type of stormwater relief in that area. I do recommend to the Planning Board that instead of these stormwater basins that they’re proposing that we go to subsurface drywells on individual developed lots and roadways. That they be used in this plan and not any stormwater basins as proposed. Individual subsurface drywells will lower the environmental impact of this subdivision. It will reduce unnecessary clearing, reduce grading and increase buffers between the neighbors. Lastly, about Imperial Acres subdivision itself, to my knowledge, the owners have zero history of developing a subdivision of this size. The cost for this planned subdivision is exorbitant and the time it will take for completion will be extensive, which are probably the main reasons why the plan has sat undeveloped for 30 years, which was asked by Mr. Hunsinger. The Town should insist that a surety bond is put in place until all work is complete according to final approved subdivision and completed at a reasonable time. This will protect the town and the community from many things, but specifically, Clearing the land and leaving those most affected with little or no recourse for damages from a cleared lot and incompletion of approved drainage, also abandonment of the project altogether because it is so costly, and the third would be Zombie homes. I recommend that the Town insist that a surety bond of an appropriate amount be held until completion of the entire project to specs. This will protect the Town’s interests and the neighboring community as well. In closing I would like to thank the Board again for taking the 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) time to listen to the concerns of everyone in the community. I know there’s a few others after me, and for consideration of my recommendations. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Are there other folks that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. JEFF GRENIER MR. GRENIER-Hi, I’m Jeff Grenier. I live at 738 Moon Hill Road. Right next to, between Mr. Cavalier and the proposed beginning of the roadway. I know Mr. Fuller and Mr. Cavalier covered a lot of topics. Basically I don’t disagree with the entire project. However I do have some concerns with stormwater next to my property. It was a little bit of concern of mine and my wife’s. Clear cutting, in my opinion, would have a high impact on the environment. It limits the privacy barrier between Moon Hill Road itself and my house and also between my house and the proposed roadway. In that area of Moon Hill as you see on the bottom of the screen it has quite a bang coming by my house and Mr. Cavalier’s house, kind of that barrier of trees where the proposed stormwater would be toward the beginning of the project would limit all privacy for us and would be just a concern of mine. Back to the stormwater, the same exact area. I’ll cover that mostly. Would there be a fence around it? I don’t know that. I know Mr. Fuller touched on it being about two feet deep. Would it require a fence, would it not? We have small children. That’s kind of a concern of mine, if they would run out, interact with that. Also, too, if there was a fence or any sort of barrier between that, how would it affect the curb appeal of my property and the neighboring properties? The standing water is another concern, more because of the treatment of mosquitoes and other insects to the area. How would that water sitting stagnant near my place affect our quality of outdoor time? He covered that the Town would take care of it and so on and so forth. Would the Town take care of the stormwater itself? Was that covered? I’m not sure. So furthermore, like putting in the roadway itself, as you can see my property is the closest, yes, right there. Thank you. So, I mean, like the top portion of that, the driveway, the proposed driveway comes right on top. It’s kind of hard to show there, but it’s, we basically live in a bowl where the proposed roadway would be far up here and drop down into my property which would have concerns for privacy and setback and so on and so forth. So basically where I sit would probably be more affected because it’s roughly from my estimate about 350 feet between the road and how it curves up would be kind of clear cut due to this project. How would it affect the traffic flow? Putting possibly seven new houses back there, how would that affect it and if you’re familiar with Moon Hill Road, like I said it has quite a bend to it and it’s, sometimes I feel nervous coming out of my own driveway. So how would potentially seven to fourteen more cars being just down the road on the sharp bend. Mr. Cavalier touched on the stormwater south of my house is the same exact thing that I would almost estimate to be about 30 feet above my house as well. I know we’ve had problems in the area with just erosion. Just another concern of mine. Another thing, too, I don’t know if it shows on this exact plan, but the emergency overflow spillway, it has it almost basically dumping into my backyard. It is actually on there. If you want to go to the top, go more to the right. Right there. So basically from what I understand looking at this is that any overflow, emergency overflow would flow directly into my yard and my yard isn’t flat with that. It’s quite in a bowl below that which is a concern, and mostly my recommendation would be to relocate the stormwater near the roadway and above the property. Like Mr. Cavalier kind of said, putting in drywells amongst the development in the roadway, reduce cutting of the trees, having less impact on neighbors and also on the environment itself. The traffic study which I touched on, maybe having something like that done for myself and the neighbors and the environment. Reconsider the roadway location. I don’t know if it’s possible but go back maybe a little bit further to create a barrier between my property line and like where it kind of touches almost. I think that’s basically it. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment to the Planning Board? Yes, ma’am. STEPHANIE MAYNARD MRS. MAYNARD-Hi. My name is Stephanie Maynard. I have no interest at all in stormwater. I just want to say that I live in the area close behind Sherwood Acres. We have children that are always talking about moving closer to mom and dad. Many of our neighbors express the same thing. They have children that want to come home, and this would be an ideal place for them to be, close to their families and we just think it would be a wonderful thing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application tonight? Yes, sir. LUCAS DOBIE MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Board and public. For the record, Lucas Dobie, 24 Mark Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of the development, although I do border the southwesterly lots and spoke to Mr. Lashinsky coming in and Mr. Ferguson. Respect their land rights and respect the Board that approved the subdivision once and just would like to ask if they could sharpen their CAD pencil a little bit if you will to maybe tighten up some of the clearing and the grading when they’re re-working this to get through their engineering comments. MR. TRAVER-You mea reduce the clearing? MR. DOBIE-Correct. And the grading and possibly more vigorous erosion and sediment control so maybe you could steepen up some of the slopes to reduce that, those back cuts along the road. Just a couple of items that I would ask that Mr. Ferguson could address when he comes back up, if he could speak to the road profile, because I dusted off the old C.T. Male plans and I don’t believe that was submitted as part of the package and it does show some pretty extensive cuts and fills that I think the Board needs to be aware of and how they’re going to manage the soils. Just on my pdf review I think they’re going to have quite a bit of excess material come out of the sites. If they could speak to that, how it’s going to balance and again if we could look at reducing some clearing, particularly on the bottom right if you will. As best I can tell that’s quite an extensive fill slope over there that I don’t know if that could be preserved over there. The back of the house does, appears to meet native grade pretty well and then it drops off. So there’s possibly some opportunity for reduction in clearing there. And then just finally if Mr. Ferguson could research, and I’d ask the Town Engineer to research also, because I’ve run into this on a project from last year, that under the DEC, the general stormwater permit, there are provisions where projects are exempt, which is Part I.F.6. In layman’s terms it speaks to a Double A or Double AS watershed, which is the Lake Champlain Watershed and the Lake George Watershed as well, and if, there’s three clauses. If you’re in that Watershed, if you have E grade soils, E slope classifications, which these are, and if you disturb an acre then you may be ineligible for permit coverage under the general permit. I just want to make them aware of that, that we had experience with that in the last year where it required DEC review also. So just to make everybody aware of that to do their due diligence. We’d request that. Again, this was an approved subdivision. I respect that they’re bringing it up to more modern standards and I’d like to see them, if they could look at doing drywells typical of a Town road say on West Mountain or wherever because we do have good soils, may be an opportunity to reduce that clearing for those storm basins, which, as best I can tell 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) from the topo, the basin near Moon Hill Road has about 10 feet of cut coming off of the Grenier lot and about six feet off the road to make the required volume work. So there may be an opportunity to preserve that area for the neighborhood and get it right in the ground for the drywells. I think I would appreciate that if they would explore that. I thank you for your time and thank you for your efforts and wish everybody well. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I missed the introduction. Where do you live? MR. DOBIE-To the west of the project, the sand pits that we re-developed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOBIE-Five years ago. I’m the last house in there, bordering Mr. Lashinsky. MR. HUNSINGER-Mark Drive. MR. DOBIE-Mark Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t realize that. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments for the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Are there written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. There’s written comments. Mr. Cavalier already read his into the record. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-But I have one more that was already touched on but I’ll read it into the record. It’s addressed to the Planning Board. “Moon Hill Place is a private right of way. I request that access to and from Imperial Acres be made from the cul-de-sac off of Moon Hill Road and that the right of way on Moon Hill Place be used only in emergency situations. Respectfully, James J. Whiting 19 Moon Hill Place” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. If you want to return to the table. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-You heard a lot of comments and a lot of concern about stormwater, especially of alternative designs, you know, in-ground stormwater management as opposed to the current proposal. MR. FULLER-It’s the deep irony of us being here to improve stormwater and their biggest concern is stormwater. I think a couple of things. You just have to, again, keep in mind if you look back at the original subdivision plans, particularly up where the road exits out, on relocating the road and that we have to maintain the three acre lots. So moving the road at all would drop those lots and we’re obviously not going to apply for a variance and things like that for the subdivision, but the outlets, the one outlet to the west near the Grenier property was right along that boundary. So again, we’re pulling that off. There would have been a discharge to the road, the swale along the road, right along their property line by the driveway and then it would have cut across Moon Hill Road and discharged out. Again I would just submit to you the proposal is far better for their property, as well as the Cavalier property on both fronts to get rid of the stormwater that would have come down one boundary of both properties on either side. Brandon can hit on the basins and a few other comments like that, but one of the public wanted to know, again, given the soils that are out there, these are not designed to be swamps. So they’re not designed in that soil to retain that type of water or vegetation. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there was one concern about mosquitoes and that type of thing. I mean it’s been my experience that you’re not going to see standing water. MR. FULLER-I think there’s a small private area close to Tee Hill Road where their stormwater is managed. I don’t think I’ve ever seen water in that thing, but, yes, soils would dictate. Those are my comments. MR. TRAVER-What about the concern about the stormwater at the high elevation above the one gentleman’s property? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So if you look at where his house is, right in that area, you go up to the top of the hill, there’s about probably a 30 foot rise. However our stormwater is proposed on the back side of that. It’s actually about 20 feet below the top of that knoll on the opposite side in a different drainage area. It’s over 100 feet from his rear property line to where the high water elevation could possibly get into that stormwater basin. Though we are still, elevation wise, above his property, we are not. So this elevation here is about 494, at 490 down here and I think it’s 494 at the top right at the rear property line. MR. VALENTINE-The rear property line is 488. MR. FERGUSON-The rear property line is 488. The bottom of our basin would be at 475. 477.6 would be the outlet, but the bottom of that basin is going to have that elevation 475. MR. VALENTINE-The finished grade at the bottom of the basin is? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. FERGUSON-475. MR. TRAVER-So can you comment about the concerns regarding landslides, blowouts of the hillside, ice damming in the wintertime causing flooding? MR. FERGUSON-For mudslides, I’m not a geo-tech, but you typically do need certain soil conditions and layering of soils in order to get those types of mudslides. Here we did test pits right near this basin. We dug down 12 feet and it was consistent sand all the way down, which wouldn’t be conducive to mudslides by any means. Ice damming, usually ice damming within streams or drainage issues, this would be a closed drainage system in the roadway. It would discharge to this basin. So if we did the swale out behind the house it would be actually a higher chance of maybe some ice dams forming in there. This actually, everything gets collected in there and then discharged to this basin, as well as this one down here. Everything is collected in the road and then discharged out. There’s not open swales along the road that could potentially dammed up, although they’re pretty common on most town roads. There’s not too big an issue with that. MR. TRAVER-And your stormwater is being and has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and you feel you can address the concerns that have been expressed. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. I understand Chazen also brought up the spillway when they did the review. So we actually designed this basin so that it would hold through a 100 year storm without infiltration. Over designed to make sure that there’s no runoff outside, coming out of that basin. MR. TRAVER-How could you have stormwater without any infiltration? MR. FERGUSON-Well if you were to take away infiltration, just to be overly conservative we looked at it. We also looked at it with infiltration to make sure it would drain within the required 30 hours after a storm event. It might have been 48. So that spillway, the problem is you really almost have to show some kind of overflow capability of out that basin. Because if let’s say you’ve got some crazy 300 year storm event and you had wash out or something downstream you don’t want to make it worse by having an uncontrolled outflow out of that basin. The other option would have been to maintain that easement through here and have our overflow go down this way to that easement down to Moon Hill Road, which wouldn’t really be ideal. MR. TRAVER-That’s for sure. MR. FERGUSON-One of the things I was going to recommend to Chazen we can do also to help with some infiltration here is to add drywells into this basin. So we have the separation to groundwater. So we could add drywells which would help with the infiltration during the winter conditions. Make sure that there’s no standing water in that basin. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you did the test pits, did you see any mottling? MR. FERGUSON-No. We got down 12 feet and there wasn’t any mottling. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. TRAVER-Wow, 12 feet. MR. FERGUSON-In both locations. The sand was very consistent out there. It actually got a little courser as you as you went deeper. You had a little bit of gravel there. MR. TRAVER-That’s a glacial moraine. MR. VALENTINE-So the way you’ve got the spillway set up on the side with that elevation, that’s at 477. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, 477.65 or something like that. MR. VALENTINE-Well no that’s the other outlet. It says the overflow emergency spillway 477. So in effect any release is flowing that way rather than to Mr. Cavalier’s property. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So the natural drainage in that area, because this whole property actually does kind of funnel down into that neighbor’s backyard and kind of go through there. So that was a design point that we looked at when we did the stormwater just to see what that outfall would be there, and obviously since we designed the basin to attenuate the 100 year storm, there’s zero discharge off the site during a 100 year storm. MR. VALENTINE-But if it’s not the Cavaliers that are picking up that water and the overflow. MR. FERGUSON-It wouldn’t be the Cavaliers. MR. VALENTINE-But it would be the adjoining owner. MR. FULLER-As it does now. So we’ve raised that outlet versus what’s there now. MR. FERGUSON-The natural drainage of that, that overflow would direct any overflow to the natural drainage corridor in that area. This property as it exists now kind of drains through there. There probably isn’t much drainage off the site now. It’s good sandy soil. MR. VALENTINE-Obviously you’re looking at existing grades on here so you can’t tell what may have been changed. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, on the neighboring property. On site observations nothing changed that much off the property. MR. DEEB-So you’d be willing to add some drywells? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. FERGUSON-I know they talk about drywells in the roadway on the private lots. The only issue with private lots is that the Town kind of loses control over maintenance of it. However, you’re kind of relying on the homeowners to be knowledgeable enough to understand what they have and how to maintain it and if they can’t get rid of it, the property changes hands over time. By keeping the stormwater with the roadway, for the most part there were a couple of little stormwater things on the lots that we had to incorporate. It keeps it in the Town’s hands who’s more familiar with maintaining these types of systems and who would do a better job of it. MR. FULLER-That’s really been an ebb and flow from a policy standpoint. The municipality has gone back and forth to wanting private maintenance of those because of the manpower issue, versus the often resultant enforcement of that private maintenance. At least in my experience what I try to do is look at it depending on the project. If you’re in wet soil you know there’s going to be significant maintenance. That’s a cost thing for the Town versus soils that are going to drain a little bit better with the maintenance because you’re not seeing a lot of discharge of sand and plants and things that you’ve got to clean out on a regular basis. We wanted to submit that maintenance plan to the Highway Department. MR. FERGUSON-And the other thing with the stormwater on the individual lots is that things changed a little bit from what we showed here on this plan, obviously the lots, we show a house location. The house locations were actually off the original plans. We kept all that stuff the same, but, you know, the houses come in a little bit different shape, a little bit different location. Their stormwater management changes. They’ve got to update all that and try to get it to comply. And we do have a couple that we had to do separate discharges off the site. MR. FULLER-You probably noticed in the back of Lot 8. MR. FERGUSON-And way in the back there’s a little berm back there to hold some stormwater, and then down, like on Lot Four it shows an infiltration trench. MR. TRAVER-A couple of other questions. A question was raised about fencing around the stormwater. I think that was a concern, I’m assuming, expressed because the thought was that there would be standing water and there might be a potential hazard to children and so on. Can you comment on that? MR. FERGUSON-So as we said there are infiltration basins to let the drywells into to make sure they are always infiltrating. So there shouldn’t be any standing water for any periods greater than 48 hours and I think our mottling shows during a 100 year storm it will drain within 30 hours after the storm event. Plus the, will be shallow from the spillway elevation to the bottom of the basin. So typically the DEC requires fencing if you have standing water over four feet deep. There’s no requirement for fencing on these. MR. TRAVER-A question was raised also about liability in the event that there’s damage as a result of stormwater runoff. Can you comment on that? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. FULLER-Yes, I mean the question is would somebody be potentially liable if there was a loss. The question is if somebody caused a loss, and I’m not going to try to get into hypotheticals, but if somebody is responsible for a loss, yes, I think there would be a liability. AUDIENCE MEMBER-To who? MR. FULLER-To the person who caused the loss. But in terms of bonding, there’s no, long term bonding or something like that, that marker would be astronomical. I would actually offer you we’re going to post a bond any liability no different than any other development. Like with West Mountain years ago. MR. DEEB-The cutting. They suggested that there be less cutting of trees. Is there any way to look at that? MR. TRAVER-Yes, there was concern about buffering and privacy concerns. MR. FULLER-Yes, we can look at that. It’s more the context of what it is. If we need to look at planting around the stormwater basin near the road or something we can look at any of that, but I think to a degree it has been kept to a minimum versus what was on the original plans. That’s part of the stormwater management is to keep your disturbance to a minimum. It’s not 10 acres. To keep it to the minimum so that you design to, that’s the charge of the engineer. If there’s comments about less we can look at it. MR. TRAVER-Well can you understand that the context, the concern I guess is the impact on privacy. MR. FERGUSON-And I think like Matt said around the stormwater areas there’s things we can do as far as plantings and stuff go. We can put a planting plan together for this. That’s definitely a possibility. We can always look into reducing some of that. It’s something we can definitely look into. As far as the lot grading we didn’t alter the lot grading from the previously approved subdivision. We kept everything the same on that, and I know the one comment was on the grading along the eastern side, and they mined it out years and years ago. There’s steep slopes back there. So a lot of that grading was proposed on the original subdivision and my belief was that it was intended to kind of make that a safer slope for having somebody occupy that lot. We can take a closer look at it but like I said we didn’t change it from the original proposed. When these lots go to actually get developed, things change a little, maybe that person doesn’t want to grade all the way down. Maybe they’re okay with the steep slopes. MR. SHAFER-So Sheet Three shows the limit of disturbance for the whole project. I think the request was to look at that and see if there were any ways of not disturbing quite so much property. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we can look at the grading on the existing lots and as far as the stormwater management areas go, I mean. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. FULLER-There was a limit of clearing and grading that was imposed as part of the original approval and that’s what’s on Sheet Three of Seven of the original plans. So we did not change that. We didn’t go further than that proposal. MR. SHAFER-But I guess the question was, is it possible to take another look at that so that there are less trees cut, less areas to be disturbed and graded and so on and so forth? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we can take a look at that, yes. MR. SHAFER-Another question. There’s a note on Sheet Three and it has to do with the sequence of construction. It says begin clearing and grubbing operations, clearing and grubbing shall be done only where areas where earthwork will be performed and only in areas where the building is planned to commence within 14 days after clearing and grubbing. So that says you’re going to clear lot by lot? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So typically in a subdivision like this you would clear for the roadway and the stormwater first and the owner hasn’t talked with a contractor yet. He usually want to do a little kind of, be able to come up with a construction plan for the roadway , because we’ll keep everything under five acres during construction, and usually the roadway gets constructed first, the stormwater with that, and then after the roadway’s built they can start building the lots. Because I don’t think they can even get a building permit until the road is in. So then the lots would be built as people buy them. MR. LASHINSKY-As they’re sold. MR. FERGUSON-As they’re sold, yes. MR. SHAFER-So you’re not planning to build, clear all of the lots at one time? MR. FERGUSON-No. MR. SHAFER-And build all the houses at one time. MR. FULLER-No, from a stormwater permitting, that would be a foolish decision. Because you’ve got to put all that site specific stormwater management for each lot, screening and all that. We would maintain that for however long it took us to build the lots. MRS. MOORE-Do you know, do you have a timeframe of when the road and the stormwater will go in? MR. FULLER-I don’t think it would be this fall. In the spring. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-Do you think that that whole system will be accomplished by, starting in the spring and completed within one year? MR. FULLER-Of building houses? MRS. MOORE-Not houses, just the road. I’m just wondering if there’s a timeframe that you have. MR. FULLER-Yes, we haven’t speced it out yet. I would say one season, though. MR. FERGUSON-To build the road, stabilize it. MRS. MOORE-You could potentially start in the spring and be completed by the following spring. MR. FULLER-I wouldn’t think it would take that long. MR. VALENTINE-Going back to Lot Number Three, the stormwater management area, and I’m sort of stuck on that overflow spillway and is there any way that that can be moved or even look at moving that right of way and moving it towards, so that it would possibly be in the backyard of the house? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, I see what you’re saying, move it kind of south on the map as close to our proposed right of way as we can. Yes, we can look at that. MR. VALENTINE-I’m looking at grades, and that spillway grade does, as you move closer to the rear property of that existing home there, that could take you right to, toward the right of way but it would also bring it over into your other stormwater area, tie in there and in the right of way, and then that spillway, which is only going to give you two foot of water in there at the most, that takes away somewhat the fear that the Cavaliers would have that of buildup of that water and the release in their back way. Also where it’s situated right now it would take it from the overflow going in toward the backyard of the house, and I’m not sitting here saying, hey, I’m going to design it. I’m saying look at it and see. MR. FERGUSON-We’ll definitely look at that, and I know, going to the Chazen comments, I know that was one of their comments. So we’ll definitely take a look at that. My first glance is that that would be possible to slide that as close to the right of way as we can get it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’re going to update the plans to reflect what sounds like some changes in your stormwater. You’re going to address the Chazen comments, and I think we will need that before we address SEQR. So how long will it take you to do that, and your analysis of the public comment which you might be able to do with issues that we raised in terms of moving the clearing areas, the outflow, various things like that. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. FERGUSON-Yes, I would say it would be something that would be done at the earliest late next week would be the earliest we’d be able to turn it around for you. It would be kind of a quick turnaround. MRS. MOORE-October would be the, you would submit by September to be on October’s agenda. th MR. FERGUSON-Yes, what’s the submittal date, the 15? So, yes, I think we’d have something th by the 15. MR. TRAVER-So another candidate for the October meeting. MRS. MOORE-Yes, that’s fine. MR. TRAVER-And the first meeting or second or is there a preference based on what you’re aware of? MRS. MOORE-I’m not aware of anything pending at the moment. So we can do the first, that’s fine. th MR. TRAVER-The first meeting. So that would be the 15 again I think. . th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the 15. MR. TRAVER-So especially with the concerns that were raised regarding stormwater and so on, if you can come back with the engineering comments addressed so we have some confidence that the stormwater is going to be approved by the Town. That would be good. MR. FULLER-We can take a look at the limits of clearing. MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. MR. FULLER-I think we’ve got the gist of the comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then what we will do is I guess re-open the public hearing so that it will be open when this project returns. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-So folks that commented on this application understand what we’re doing. At this point we’re going to be tabling the application to October. We anticipate this being on the agenda 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) th for October 15, and between now and then the applicant is going to submit an updated plan so there will be some changes we anticipate to what we have in front of us this evening. So you want to take a look at that. We’ll also have some updated information from the Town Engineer from Chazen regarding stormwater which I know is a concern. That information will be available to the public as well. I think that’s all. MR. MAGOWAN-I just had some questions on the bank behind the Cavalier house. I’m looking at the picture of the kids and that, and, you know, that’s all new growth. What happened to the growth that was on that bank because it looks like there’s a lot of rocks and that in it too. So I guess, you know, the stability of the bank, having that stormwater up above, what can we do to do some stabilization on that whole bank going down to the backyard there? MR. FULLER-That’s not our property. We didn’t clear that out. MR. TRAVER-That’s not part of this project. MR. FULLER-Above the retaining wall? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. FULLER-No, we didn’t cut that. MR. MAGOWAN-So I’m looking at the stormwater lot and it comes all the way down right off the back corner of the pool. Correct? And I see the pool all the way down there at the bottom of the hill. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, so some of that, we don’t have the existing grades so we don’t have what their final grades are on the neighbors’ properties, but anything of the grading that would have been done in the retaining wall on that picture I’m assuming would have been done on the Cavalier’s property and not the project site. MR. MAGOWAN-So the retaining wall isn’t the back of the Cavalier property line? MR. FERGUSON-I think the property corners are out there and staked. The retaining wall doesn’t fall onto our property. So it must be on the Cavaliers’ property. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I know it doesn’t fall on you, but is that their property line? MR. FULLER-I don’t know. I’m not sure where the picture is. MR. FERGUSON-You’re asking where the retaining wall falls compared to our property line on the plans? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. FERGUSON-We can try to draw it on with an aerial to kind of show you about where it is, but I’d really have to go out there and survey it. MR. LASHINSKY-But the retention area is way at the top of that hill that’s been excavated and back over 100 feet way into where the road is. So don’t visualize that it’s right at the top of that sandy hill. You have to walk up that sandy hill, beyond the retaining wall and walk 100 and something feet in before that area of drainage would be, and it flows in the other direction. It doesn’t flow towards. MR. TRAVER-Can you mark that retaining wall on your map when you come back? MR. VALENTINE-And that scales from the rear property, the rear property line of the Cavalier’s to the top of slope is 80 feet. MRS. MOORE-Just for the record, your name for the record, so that it’s in the minutes. MR. LASHINSKY-Barry Lashinsky. I’m the owner of the property. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board before we move to the tabling motion? All right. I guess we’re ready for the motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB MOD # 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY A subdivision application has been made to modify an existing subdivision “Imperial Acres” (April 1990). Project consists of seven lots for residential and one lot for stormwater redesign. Previously approved plan was for 8 lots with two for stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION NO. 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the October 15, 2019 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting with submissions due by 9/15/2019. th Seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to clarify that it’s in regards to comments made at the meeting, some of stormwater and some of site development. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We will see you in October. MR. FULLER-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-One other item before us this evening is a resolution setting a Special Meeting. We’re all aware that Laura sent out a plea that because of the workload that we have a third meeting in September, to which I believe everyone has agreed that third meeting would be on September th 25. So we need a motion for that, and we’ve been provided a draft motion by Staff. RESOLUTION SETTING A SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON 9/25/2019 MOTION TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2019. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-Just to let you know I won’t be here for the three meetings in September. MR. TRAVER-Okay. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there anything else before us this evening? MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2019) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TH AUGUST 27, 2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 54