Loading...
2011.03.22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 8-2011 James & Lillian Conway 1. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-32 Site Plan No. 16-2011 John Shine/Larry Cleveland 5. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-39 Site Plan No. 17-2011 Randy Gross 15. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 Site Plan No. 14-2011 A2000 33. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24 Site Plan No. 15-2011 Adirondack Tire 34. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24 Site Plan No. 18-2011 North Country Imports 38. Tax Map No. 303.10-1-12 Site Plan No. 22-2011 C. Chris Mackey 44. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, March 22, 2011. I’d like to welcome everyone here. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2011 SEQR TYPE II JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 32 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 2,660 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW 1946 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. CONSTRUCTION ON A SITE HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% WITHIN 50 FEET OF A PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND CONVERSION OF A SEASONAL DWELLING TO A YEAR ROUND DWELLING IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 9-11; BOH 33,2010 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA; 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.25 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-32 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 8-2011. This is for James and Lillian Conway. This is for Site Plan Review for construction on sites having slopes in excess of 15% within 50 feet of a proposed structure and conversion of a seasonal dwelling to a year round dwelling. 32 Nacy Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Engineering report, that nd date should actually be updated to the 22. Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,660 square foot residence and replace it with a new 1946 square foot residence. To clarify the project, the applicant proposes to replace the existing seasonal structure with a smaller year round structure. Compliant designed wastewater system is proposed. The system did require setback relief from the Town Board. The Planning Board had seen this, I believe, last week. Since that time, they did get the Area Variance taken care of. Obviously the Board of Health has approved their holding tank, or, actually I don’t believe there was a holding tank. Now, Tom, was that just setback relief I think it was? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s it. We did, again, receive the engineering comments today. When I walked in the door they were on my chair at 6:30. So Department of Community Development apologizes for that, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. With me is James Conway, and Mrs. Conway is also with us. They’re owners of 32 Nacy Road. I believe we introduced the project when we were here last month for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. This will be vast improvements to the Conways property. I would note, they current reside year round in this property. It’s not a seasonal dwelling. I don’t know if there’s some classification as seasonal, but the Conways live there year round. It is their primary residence. It’s a difficult residence in the winter, due to the elevation change, how far down it is from parking area to the main floor, and I introduced the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) house concept last time that we’re bringing the building up slope over eleven feet to reduce that vertical distance between the parking area and the residence. We’ve designed a residence that was designed for the lot. In every way we feasibly felt we could, we’ve kept the residence within the setbacks. We did ask for some relief from side setbacks for some stairways and access structures to get to the building, but the building itself we’ve kept within the setbacks, and that was designed that way intentionally. We’ve been through quite a process. This lot, it’s not feasible to do a fully compliant dwelling on this property. There were septic system issues. We’ve been to the Board of Health in January, and received the relief required for the septic system. We have been to the Zoning Board and received our zoning variances, and we’re back before this Board for our Site Plan Review, and with that, I won’t get into any lengthy explanation and turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Anything you want to add, Jim? JAMES CONWAY MR. CONWAY-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, did you get to see the VISION Engineering comments? MR. HUTCHINS-I just saw them. MRS. STEFFAN-You just saw them. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I was handed them when I walked in. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And obviously I think you folks are concerned with that, too. That’s, it’s unreasonable for us to try to respond to those now. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Well, in looking at those comments, it does appear that they are largely clarifications or additions to the Site Plan. There is, a Number Twenty refers to the proposed septic not complying with Code, but then you have a relief for, you know, you have your Board of Health. So that takes care of that. So I don’t really see anything, you know, there’s some clarifications needed, basically, on stormwater and. MR. HUTCHINS-And admittedly I could clarify a little more on erosion controls during construction. It is a steep site, and we’re aware of that, and we’re concerned with that, and I could clarify that a little more clearly, but it would be erosion matting where the slopes are over one on three, just as their comment was, that was my intent. The package that you have was really put together to get us through all of our variances and the Site Plan. We were initially advised that we weren’t subject to Site Plan, and the Site Plan came up right at the end, and you got the same application. So there are some erosion control issues that could have been more clear on there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That makes sense. MR. HUTCHINS-But we think it’s a very well thought out plan. There was a question about access for the well installation, and I have visited the site with a well driller, and we’ve looked at it, and that’s how we determined we’d do it. Without the removal of the existing house, it’s not likely that it could be accomplished. With the existing house removed, that gives us an avenue to get a rig down there with some mechanical assistance and get a good, modern well installed and a good water supply. With regard to the 200 foot rule he’s brought up, I met with Dave Hatin on that very issue, early in the process, and he agreed with me that we’re in compliance with that requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No. Certainly the Staff Notes have to be satisfied, I mean, not the Staff, there’s a couple of issues in the Staff Notes that could be conditions, and one thing, the planting quantities should be clarified. Do you have any feedback on that? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-I could do that. I left, what we had shown is a list of recommended plantings, which was a selection from Queensbury’s list of recommended plantings, and we gave an overall quantity of 20, I believe it was, but I didn’t specify each individual one. I could do that. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it 20 plants in each location that you show? Because you show two darkened circles. MR. HUTCHINS-We show a total of 20 plants in the small planting areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So 20 plants in each, or is it 20 total? MR. HUTCHINS-The intention was 20 total. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and of course most of the plantings are fairly large. They’re gallon size. MR. HUTCHINS-And they’re from your shoreline buffer list, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No, just public hearing. I think the applicant can satisfy the VISION Engineering comments, you know, conditional approval. We don’t need to be involved with that, and certainly Keith could, you know, review the planting plan and make sure all species were compliant. So conditional approval would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. For this project, and I think for every application before the Board this evening, there is a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Let me check real quick. I don’t believe we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. We will open the public hearing, and if there are no comments from the audience, let the record show that there were no comments received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II SEQRA so no further SEQRA review is necessary. Unless the Board feels otherwise. So I guess I would entertain a motion for approval. We do have Staff comments and engineering comments to satisfy. MRS. STEFFAN-VISION Engineering had something on the soil stabilization, didn’t they? MR. HUNSINGER-Keith did, as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That’s why, I just want to know if it’s in the VISION. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they’ve got one in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that would be redundant. Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 8-2011 JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,660 sq. ft. residence and replace it with a new 1946 sq. ft. residence. Construction on a site having slopes in excess of 15% within 50 feet of a proposed structure and conversion of a seasonal dwelling to a year round dwelling in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 2/22/2011; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 2/23/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2011 JAMES & LILLIAN CONWAY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)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; and 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 7)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will 8) not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 9)This is approved with the following conditions: a)That the applicant will provide a planting plan with Town of Queensbury approved plants according to our Code, and they will present that to the Staff for compliance and approval. There will be a minimum of 20 plants. b)That the applicant will satisfy and address VISION Engineering comments and obtain a signoff. c)The limits of clearing should be clearly marked in the field. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion. They do show on the plan, areas of planting. So I wonder if maybe we need to give Staff a little more. MR. OBORNE-The quantity, I think, is what I was looking for. Okay, and, Tom, what was the question? MRS. STEFFAN-You said 20. MR. HUTCHINS-The plan was an overall quantity, and I believe I said species and plants to be selected by the applicant, with, a minimum of 20 to be provided in the areas indicated. MR. TRAVER-So at least 10 per each area. There’s two areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one area is bigger than the other. So, maybe it’s six and thirteen, you know, or seven and thirteen. I’m just trying to give some guidance to Staff so that they don’t come back and say, you know. MR. HUTCHINS-And I was trying to give a little flexibility to them. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, do you feel comfortable, Keith, with the motion? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Considering the circumstances, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, then, I can amend Condition One to say that provide a planting plan with Town of Queensbury approved plants to Staff for compliance and approval. There will be a minimum of 20 plants. MR. TRAVER-I’ll second the motion as amended. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2011 SEQR TYPE II JOHN SHINE/LARRY CLEVELAND AGENT(S) TOM CENTER, NACE ENGINEERING CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR LOCATION APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 538 +/- SQ. FT. CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,990 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES 15% OR GREATER IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BOH 3- 11, BP 2010-552 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.21 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-39 SECTION 179-6-060, 179-9 TOM CENTER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 16-2011. John Shine and Larry Cleveland are the applicants. This is construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in the WR zone. 90 Rockhurst Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. SEQRA status is, again, a Type II. Warren County Planning Board had a No County Impact on this. Again, engineering review received today. The applicant has received a Board of Health variance on this property. The applicant proposes removal of existing 538 square foot seasonal camp and construction of a new 1990 square foot single family dwelling with new septic system and stormwater management controls on a 0.21 acre parcel on the east side of Rockhurst Road. The applicant has received approval from the Town Board of Health for a wastewater variance associated with this parcel. I believe you have that attached resolution. What follows is Site Plan Review. Really the only issue that Staff has that I would like to bring up again would be shoreline plantings. The applicant does not intend, or at least through the design, to disturb within 30 feet of the shoreline, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, Nace Engineering. MR. DYBAS-Curt Dybas. MR. CENTER-And we also have Mr. and Mrs. Shine in the audience. As Keith said, this is a proposal to construct a new camp on Rockhurst, on a .21 acre site. The actual footprint of the house itself will be 822 square feet. There would be parking proposed for three cars. We did receive a septic variance from the Town Board of Health for a septic system that’s been oversized for the two bedroom use, and we have provided stormwater management for the parking area and the site and the house in the form of a shallow swale rain garden along the shoreline. We do plan on, as the plan shows, not disturbing anything within 30 feet of the shoreline, and that kind of put us betwixt and between in the shoreline buffer, because that talks about, within 15 feet, doing plantings. So we’re kind of, we’re away from the long side of the shoreline, we’re up slope a little bit, but we do plan on putting plantings in the rain garden, in and alongside the actual device, so that it’ll work properly. I have given the planting handout to the landowners and at the time when we are ready to install, we will be putting rain garden plants in there. It’s a fairly small site. We are reducing up to the 100 year storm, reducing it beyond 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) what’s existing. Currently there is no stormwater management on the site, so everything goes right into the lake, including some runoff that comes alongside the road and goes straight down. We’ll be re-directing that runoff around the septic system and down the south side of the property and directing it into the stormwater management system as opposed to just letting it bypass and go right into the lake. We’re trying to accommodate that water, anything that would come off, and getting any sediment out within those swales before it gets down to a stormwater management pond, and then treating it and allowing it to go through from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Have you had an opportunity, and on behalf of planning we apologize, but have you had a chance to glance at the VISION Engineering comments that you received this evening? MR. CENTER-Yes, I have. MR. TRAVER-Looking at comment number one, they’re talking about design standards for. MR. CENTER-For New York State Department design manual. MR. TRAVER-Yes, major stormwater project. MR. CENTER-I think we get, again, caught between regulations. The Town regulations along the lake go along with Lake George Park Commission require that you manage the 25 year design storm and the volumes which this project certainly does, and we go beyond by reducing the 100 year storm also. The new design manual which talks about green infrastructure and all the other pieces and parts with it, that’s for disturbance of over an acre, any disturbance over an acre. This is, the site is not even an acre. It’s barely a quarter of an acre. So they really don’t apply to a smaller project. New York State does not have design requirements for the small projects. We try to generally design it around the management, managing the storms, and that’s what we’ve done. We’ve reduced the runoff up to, you know, the 100 year storm, but as far as going into a full blown stormwater report that talks about compliance with the green infrastructure techniques, channel protection, I did do the channel protection in the 100, the over bank flood controls, the extreme flood, that’s, you know, I’ve done those calculations. I’ve included the 25, I believe, in the report itself, but in part of designing it I looked at it again today, and made sure that we were still controlling the 100 year storm, with what’s existing now. Because there is nothing now. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-And we did try to direct that runoff from the road through our system and get that, some sedimentation out prior to getting to the lake. So I think we’re, this is going to be tricky. The Board’s going to be, it’s going to come in to the projects that are over an acre with the green infrastructure. It’s a learning curve for everybody, but on a project like this, a lot of those calculations, water quality volume, really don’t apply, because you don’t have the volume, you know, you don’t have the size. It’s not an acre. So how can you apply what New York State DEC applies to an acre or more of disturbance to a smaller study, where you don’t have the land to do that, to do some of the stuff they’re asking for, or the cost. I mean, green infrastructure talks about, you know, green roofs. We are doing some vegetated swales. We are trying to capture the stormwater as close to the source as possible. We’re on the slope site. We can’t get it right up close to the house. We can’t get it right up close to the asphalt, but we’re trying to manage it and get it closer, as far away from the lake as we could, and treat it, but on the smaller lots, you have a very difficult time complying with that, and I don’t think the Code, the Code has it in there that, you know, we’ll comply, but I think the reason, that’s the only guide they have. If you go through the Code, there’s an A, B, and a C in the stormwater. I don’t know the exact Chapter, and we don’t even apply to those three. We are a major project. We apply to Lake George Park Commission to manage the 25 year storm. We kind of fall under that with the Major project. MR. MAGOWAN-How many trees do you plan on disturbing? MR. CENTER-We will be disturbing everything that shows within the limits of construction. Anything pretty much from the disturbance line that we’ve shown down to the lake up. Anything that we can save we will, but because of trying to flatten the grade, most of the trees on the upper portion, in the north, it would be the northwest corner, in order to get that graded properly, we’ll be taking down, and then most of that is a brush thicket type of woods. We will be leaving everything along the southern property. We’re going to try to leave the 24 inch cherry that’s over in the corner. There’s some thought by the next door neighbor that they’re concerned that it may be dead, but we’re certainly going to try, we’re not showing it disturbed. We’re going to try 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) to leave it there, but there’s some concern from the neighbor, but again, we felt that not disturbing anything within 30 feet of the shoreline was kind of, you know, a must, not getting down in that (lost word), and there is a buffer along the riprap line. There are some trees there. We plan on leaving those, and then the plantings for the rain garden, but certainly if there’s, the Board is looking for any replacement trees, we wouldn’t have any issues. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it looks like you’re taking a lot out. I mean, you know, after looking at your laterals, your pumping station there. MR. CENTER-Right. Well, most of that’s on the inside of that existing buffer. We’re actually staying, we’re not taking, we’re leaving out those trees about 10 feet off the property line, and that’s about as far as that brush comes, or the woods, the wooded area comes 10 feet off the property line. We’re not disturbing anything in there. We’re tying those grades right back into the existing. So we’re leaving everything on that side of the residence, but up in front, in order to, we are doing some disturbance. We have to relocate that guy wire in order to locate the D Box and the Eljen field. We felt it important to try to get more than the required for the two bedrooms to kind of spread the flow out across the swale. MRS. STEFFAN-While we’re on the subject of bedrooms, Tom. One of the comments VISION Engineering, Number Twenty-Six, the septic system should be designed as a three bedroom home to include the basement level living space which could easily be converted or used as a bedroom considering the three quarter bath provided. So I’m wondering, regarding the size of the current septic system, was that taken into account? MR. CENTER-Of course it wasn’t prior to because I just received the comments, but there is enough to accommodate three bedrooms. We are installing everything including the 50% expansion area, but New York State, the way they define a bedroom, is a room with a closet and it’s designed as a bedroom. We have designed this house with two bedrooms, and I guess that’s, it becomes, you could say that, you know, a living room could become a bedroom. Different rooms could become a bedroom. This house has been laid out per Building Code and designed for two. There was enough capacity for three bedrooms, but it is designed for two bedrooms. MRS. STEFFAN-I think, in my mind, as long as there’s capacity, because we know that over time, folks use any living space as an extra bedroom for lakefront property. It’s just going to happen. MR. CENTER-And that’s why we try to get it maximized as much leachfield as possible when we design these, and this is built out to the maximum, which is up to the three bedroom for Eljens. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m looking for the rain garden. I’m not finding it. MR. CENTER-There’s a rain garden, there’s a detail on the plan, grass line swale depression, bottom right hand of 493273, and there’s a note on there, refer to Lake George Association preferred buffer plant list for acceptable plant species. MRS. STEFFAN-And how far away is that from the shoreline? MR. CENTER-I believe it’s 35 feet, 30 feet. It’s greater than 30 feet. I know we’re not disturbing up to 30. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the triggers, we’ve had a couple of rain gardens that are before us tonight, and we approved a rain garden last year for a property on Lake George, and then we were, the project actually came back to us for some changes because the rain garden, which was deemed as an infiltration device was too close to the shoreline. We’re in this gray area. MR. CENTER-Again, it becomes a gray area. DEC does not look at the infiltration portion of the rain garden as, if you’re not using infiltration in the Hydro CAD design calculations, and it’s not an infiltration device, i.e. drywell, infiltration trench, something that’s designed below grade with the stone, and that goes into the calculations that you’re using the exfiltration rate, or the infiltration rate, the two words are the same, in your design calculations, it’s not an infiltration device. It’s a detention device. Obviously, you’re not going to put a hard bottom on here and just allow the water to sit and evaporate. Does it go through the soil? Yes, it does go through the soil naturally. It’s not an infiltration device as per New York State DEC. We’ve talked with Mr. Lupo. If you take it out to the legal extremities, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t want to get into there, but if you allow a structure to be built within 50 feet of the shoreline, but you have, you know, what do you do with the stormwater between the 50 feet and the shoreline? You don’t 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) want, certainly you don’t want to put a drywell down into groundwater, and put that stormwater into there, but that’s what these systems are for. They’re shallow system, that uses the ground, that detains, allows it to filter through the soil. We have four minute perc rate. It’s, you know, a moderate soil. It’s not a fast, you know, it’s not like 30 seconds and it’s getting right to the groundwater table. We have, you know, separation. We’re above the groundwater table, and it has that soil to kind of spread out and go down, and again, we’re looking at, you know, a whole lot that’s .2 acres, and you’re just trying to capture the water that in the summertime is going to be warmer than the lake. You don’t want it to get into the lake. You’re capturing it before it gets into the water and you’re treating it, you know, we try to look at it as commonsense engineering, and you get tied up in a lot of the regulation. You could stop almost every project if you wanted, you know, what do you do? If you allow a building to be built within 50 feet of a shoreline, you don’t pump stormwater. We all know that. It’s illogical to pump stormwater and treat it further away. You try to do the best that you can, and with these rain gardens that have come out and the plantings that they have for them, trying to keep that water up gradient and allow it to filter through the soil before it gets to the lake, I think we’re doing a good thing. MRS. STEFFAN-I think I speak for the whole Planning Board on that issue. We thought this is a great solution for us to use on lake projects, and then when we got the ruling back from the judge we were perplexed. MR. CENTER-I think we’re splitting hairs on terminology. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to say, and, I mean, you don’t label it as a rain garden on the plan. MR. CENTER-Again, we’re kind of, we have good soils. We don’t need to, we have a four minute soil. We’re using the grass line swale depression with rain garden plants, with the plantings in there. It’s almost a hybrid of it. Because, again, we’re not into that one acre of disturbance where we have a large volume of water, we’re trying to do a little bit of both. We’re trying to do good things to the stormwater and capture it, but again, larger site, we would have to go a little bit more in depth with the composting and everything else, but again, people are walking through this. People are getting down to the lake. It’s not like it’s in a corner of a large parcel either. MR. HUNSINGER-So your definition of rain garden in this particular application is just the plantings that are being used, right? MR. CENTER-Yes. Keeping it shallow, using the plantings, shallow depression with rain garden plantings. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because you’re not changing the soil. You’re not tearing the existing soil out and augmenting the soil in any way. MR. CENTER-Right. It would be, you know, you start to get into, start to play around with a four minute soil and trying to get it to ten, you know, in a large area you could have some issues there, and you’re down along the shoreline. You’re trying to limit your disturbance in what you’re doing. You want to use the natural features. We’re building a berm. We’re going to, you know, grass line it, get the plantings on top of it, you know, get it topsoiled and allow it to filter the water before it gets to any boundary condition, to detain it, to allow it to change temperature and go into the soil and not go to the lake, as it does now. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess in my mind, because we’re not changing the soils at all, we’re just putting plants in, I don’t think we have an issue with, you know, with the term rain garden in this particular application. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I wanted to question that. I mean, I’m thrilled that you’re leaving the shoreline buffer and the trees that are there. I mean, that’s an ideal situation from our point of view, but it’s this rain garden issue, and it’s one of those, I think it’s a gray area for us since last year. You know, we thought, in concept, they were a great idea. We liked the fact that we were being incorporated in the lake projects, but then, you know, we get this feedback which makes us reconsider. MR. CENTER-Reading the DEC manual, rain garden is not listed as an infiltration device. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-You know they have a pretty explicit list of infiltration devices. I believe it would be called a filtering device, in that instance there is no boundary condition (lost word). 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add to this discussion, Keith? You’ve been quiet. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. Any other questions, comments that we haven’t addressed? MRS. STEFFAN-The Staff Notes identify that clarification of the existing septic system plans for decommissioning should be forthcoming. Do you have those? MR. CENTER-We will add a note to 493271, the first drawing, that basically will say the existing septic tank will be pumped out and removed or decommissioned in place right in the bottom, and that the existing absorption field will need to be excavated and identified and then we will go out and determine, along with Town, whether it can be filled in with sand, if it’s a drywell, which we believe it is a drywell, but uncertain, and we didn’t want to get out the, don’t want to dig things up. We will identify it and determine the appropriate decommissioning for that, whether it needs to be filled or if it appears that it’s in our system area, of course, it’s going to be removed, and the other comments. The low point elevation. What we were trying to do there was create a point, it’s actually a low point, so we’re draining away from the house, and then allowing it to go either side of the house and get it to our swales, that is the area of the entrance. So it’s a low point from the house is the high point from the other side, but we’re trying to make a break point, basically, so that the water will go either way and follow the swales. MR. MAGOWAN-You don’t feel that you’re removing too much of the, you know, vegetation on this small lot as it is, I mean, between the parking lot and the bigger size building, and not knowing how many trees you’re going to take down. You know, on the upper side, you know, with everything sloping down to the lake, that’s where I have a concern of not really knowing what you’re going to be leaving. MR. CENTER-Well, the trees within the building setbacks, and the 26 inch maple to the north, definitely in order, you know, the way the building is constructed, and keeping it within the setbacks, those will definitely be removed. The four inch maple, the eight inch cherry and the six inch pine, those are pretty much right on top of where I believe the drywell is. So they’re going to be disturbed in order to decommission the existing septic system. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you’re talking the pine, the cherry, the maple. MR. CENTER-And plus there’s some significant grading there. Those are within the area of the absorption issue. The existing, that existing, the parking area, in order to try to do some of, to get the grading to drain around the new structure, and to direct water to the stormwater treatment systems, we’re doing some grading there. So, we are going to have to disturb those areas, and most of it is a brushy thicket type of, I wouldn’t call it woods or forest, but thick trees. The surveyors identified the largest trees. What we tried to do was leave the stuff down by the lake. If there is, if the Board has, is looking for some tree plantings along that line, we’d entertain any thoughts that you folks may have. MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, basically what you’re saying, what I’m seeing is the 26 foot, there’s a 26 foot hemlocks going, the four inch hemlock, the four inch maple, the eight inch cherry, the six inch pine, the 26 inch maple over there. So there’s two huge trees that are going. You’ve got the wooded brush area up there in the corner for the parking lot, all right. So you’re going to be cutting into it over here on the side, on the south side there a little bit. MR. CENTER-The south side, yes, up near the front corner, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So, basically, I mean, I see what you’re going to be leaving is the five inch hemlock in front. So, to me it almost looks like you’re going to be clearing every single tree, and then you’ve said there’s one cherry that possibly could be, you’re going to try to save it. So it looks like you’ve got the one five inch hemlock right in the front of the house. I mean, that’s the way I’m looking at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a suggestion? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, my suggestion is is what can we do to maybe move the house over to the south side a little bit more? MR. CENTER-Moving the house closer to the south side, we have, we’re stuck with our 10 foot setbacks from the property line and from the house to the septic system. We have enough room to get our septic tank and the. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you’re a pumping system anyway, right? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. CENTER-The pump station, yes, but because of the way the grade is, we have to maintain 10 feet of separation from the pump station to the foundation, because there is a basement elevation in this house. So that we have to maintain those separation distances. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, how about downsizing the house? I mean, you’re going from 500 and something feet to 1900. I mean, it’s an awfully small lot for that size house. It’s a very congested area up there. MR. DYBAS-The house footprint is 855 square feet. MR. CENTER-The house footprint, total footprint is 822. The existing footprint is 522, and as far as the, the total proposed floor area is 1990 square feet, and that includes stairs, decks, there’s some non-living space that that 1990 includes. So really, I believe, what was the number that we came up with that was actual living space that excluded, I think it was somewhere, maybe 1600 square feet of actual living space, the way those calculations go through. MR. DYBAS-I don’t know if I have it. MR. MAGOWAN-So by removing all those trees, you’re saying that the swales that you design are going to be able to compensate for the removal of everything and the stormwater? I mean, the water comes off of Rockhurst, you know, right down there. MR. CENTER-There’s a small amount, as this rises, that we are capturing and taking through our swale and along our property line around the septic system to protect the septic system and towards this basin. If we replaced a couple of, you know, a couple of hemlocks and a few cherry trees along the northern border, trying to space those out, along with the rain garden plantings, is, you know, trying to put some sort of a tree lining along that north parcel to replace some that were taken. MR. TRAVER-That would be helpful, I think. Because you are, you know, taking out a substantial percentage of, you know, the trees that were there. So anything that can mitigate that. MR. CENTER-Some of them are within the footprint of the septic system and the house, and going along, you know, we tried to do the least grading as possible, but we also want, you know, that three on one slope was kind of a goal to calm anything coming off, and it is less steep than the existing, and we’re trying to take that parking and route it the longest way around the parcel and back down. So that’s kind of how I was thinking when we designed it. Certainly if we came up with maybe two cherries and two hemlocks along that northern property line, tried to space them out in there. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m just looking at this quickly. All right. Just a flash I came to in mind. If you move the house back over to the south and you put the septic over on the north, and switch your leachfield over to the parking area and the parking area over, just your opinion on it, I mean, seeing quickly wise, that’s what I’m saying, I’m just looking at this quickly, a flip flop of everything, would you be able to save more trees? MR. CENTER-No, most of them are, again, we’re leaving most of that predominant, we’re taking a small corner of that buffer. We’re leaving most of it between the southern property and this one. Even if we moved the house and flipped it over, we’re still going to get into the grading on that, the northern buffer. That’s going to take away some of that brush, and I think, you know, trying to replace that. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess the only reason why is you’re taking away the camp that’s already there, the one story frame camp, you know. So we know the buffer’s not over there. So if we shift the house over and then put everything back on the other side, you know, the septic and that on the other side. MR. CENTER-I still need to do disturbance in that front corner for the septic, because of that guy wire and the way the setbacks, to meet the requirements of the variance that we had. We still have to do some disturbance. Depending on how we can get the guy wire changed by National Grid will determine how much disturbance we have to do. What I was assuming that National Grid would be was take that guy wire and turn it 90 degrees, and have it go to the east. Thereby that’s really what the disturbance in that corner would be, is due to that guy wire. So it’s not really the, it’s the D Box location and the guy wire that, even if the D Box isn’t there, any excavation for that Eljen system is going to require that guy wire to be moved. So it’s more or less, if we can get National Grid to do something different with that guy wire, relocate it somehow, so that we won’t disturb that corner, certainly, you know, the plan is to disturb as little as possible. It’s a tight fit. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-You say disturb as little as possible, but you’re actually disturbing quite a bit. MR. CENTER-With .21 acres, I mean, I’m trying to take care of the stormwater also and that gets into some disturbance with grading on a slope site. On a flatter site, you can kind of, you don’t have to do as much grading work, and you can do less disturbance. MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with you on that one. MR. CENTER-You know, I’m 77 feet wide. I’ve got a pond that takes up almost the entire width of the lot in order to accommodate stormwater, and I’m sloping down to it and I’ve got to get swales and have pointed, you know, stormwater channel. MR. DYBAS-And as far as the size of the house, if you look at the basement, you know, the basement floor plan, you’ve got 19 by 32 square feet, which is very small by standard. I mean, we can’t pack it in any more than we have to minimize our footprint. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you be any more specific about, you mentioned what if you planted a couple of cherries and hemlocks. Could you be more specific as to where you would propose to put them? Go ahead. MR. CENTER-If we put a well around that existing 26 inch maple to the north of the house and came along with two hemlocks and a cherry along the north border, would that be something? I think trees along that border would be better than a (lost word) being on a slope and trying to get a shrub berm and mulch and things on a slope. I think if we put a well around the 26 inch maple. Again, I’m not a tree expert. As long as we can save that 26 inch maple, and put a well around it, and attempt to leave it there. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, how deep do you think the well would be? MR. CENTER-We are digging, you know, we are within, about eight feet of the foundation. So it’s kind of close to the foundation. If we went along with two hemlocks and two. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. A 26 foot tree, you’ve got to remember that the root structure is. MR. CENTER-The roots are going to be as far as the diameter of the. MR. MAGOWAN-Now is this a seasonal, summer? It’s going to be a year round living there year round? MR. CENTER-It will be built per New York State for year round use. JOHN SHINE MR. SHINE-It’s going to be year round occupied. MR. OBORNE-That’s as now. You know, in 20 years it may be, 10 years it may be. So you can’t go by that assumption. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Just, in my opinion, putting a well around the 26 inch maple won’t allow it to survive for a long period of time. It’s too close to the foundation. You’re going to take out half of the roots. There’s going to be compaction when you’re running equipment around it. It happens, and so even if it looks alive, it won’t be alive five years from now. It’ll be dead. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer for something. Obviously any plantings that the applicant is going to offer is a positive. I think that goes without saying. I, from my point of view, an aggressive shoreline plantings would also mitigate some of the concerns the Board may have. I’m talking aggressive, because they are disturbing 70% of the property pretty much, small parcel, slopes. Pretty important. That’s my two cents. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay. We have at least one. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe our minutes. So make sure you speak clearly into the microphone, and with that, I will turn the floor over. Good evening. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We had prepared comments. We sent copy to the applicant’s agent, about a week or so ago, and sent them in to Staff today. We do not oppose the redevelopment of the site, but we think the Planning Board should take the opportunity to maximize water quality protection measures. Regarding the stormwater management area, we felt that should have been turned into a rain garden, we obviously read the plan and saw it as a stormwater management area, did not see the reference to a rain garden detail. So we support that. However, we feel that there are rapid percs there, and that reduces the contact time. It is, you know, within 50 feet of Lake George. So if it is a rain garden, we feel that there should be amended soils, and I’ll touch on that in a second. So we support the rain garden, but we do feel there should be amended soils. We had a question on the stormwater collection. I talked with Mr. Dybas, and the stormwater management report said there was going to be gutters, with the piping, but we did not see any on the elevation. So we just think that should be clarified. We support Staff’s recommendation on a shoreline buffering plan. We also had a comment that said the extent of vegetation removal should be indicated, and I think a Board member was also referring to that. So with that, we do think there’s justification for the shoreline buffering. I think the aerial actually shows that that’s kind of a fairly well established vegetated lot, not too many along that northern shoreline are, or eastern shoreline, and after that, that’ll be quite disturbed. So we think an aggressive buffering would be recommended. On a couple of the points regarding stormwater, there’s always some discrepancy and different views on it. There’s been reference about the DEC manual and the rain gardens. However, the Lake George Park Commission has jurisdiction here, not the DEC. You may say it’s splitting hairs, but the rain gardens are infiltration devices. Water is collected. Water is moved through the soils. That is the definition in the Queensbury Code. That is the definition of the Park Commission’s code, and I’m well aware of the litigation that happened a year ago, and the rain gardens, and we think that it is a difficult situation. We think that, in light of that, when you have separation distances greater for stormwater than for buildings, you need to take a look and maximize your separation for stormwater, and I think they’re attempting to do that on this site, but what you do need to do is also maximize your treatment, and that will require amended soils. The plantings aren’t the main treatment component in rain gardens. It’s the amended soils that’s working in the biological component, working in the compost. It gets the biological processes going in the rain garden, that helps the plants grow. That does help treatment, it’s really the amended soils. So I do think it’s an infiltration device. I do think they’re trying to maximize that separation, but I do think we need to improve treatment through amended soils. So, that would be our recommendation to increase the shoreline buffering and increase the rain garden treatment capabilities with amended soils. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Not to belabor the issue or split hairs, and I’m not a scientist, but I would agree with you that if you’re amending the soils then it should be considered an infiltration device, for what it’s worth. Any other comments? Any written comments, Keith, other than from the Waterkeeper? Okay. If you want to come back to the table. What’s the feeling of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that there’s, you know, a lot of outstanding issues. Certainly there’s the issue of the voluminous comments from VISION Engineering that I think need to be addressed. Then there’s some issues that came out tonight. So I think that the applicant has to go back and make some changes before we could, you know, do an approval. I think a conditional approval would just be, would not be appropriate. There’s too many outstanding items. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think, you know, with the shoreline buffering, I think we need to see a landscaping response to that, and the discussion that we had about adding the trees after the disturbance, which I know you have noted that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And the size of trees that will be replaced. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. MR. OBORNE-I think you may want to give the applicant a little clear direction on what size trees you’re looking at. Do you want three inch? Do you want larger, what are you looking for? Obviously this is a mature site. So, balance that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we’re certainly not going to replace 23 inch trees, but, you know, the smaller trees that are four and five inches, I mean, personally I’m not concerned about those that are being removed. It’s really the big ones I think that cause the concern. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. TRAVER-It really has an impact on the view shed, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes. What’s the feeling of the Board on replacement trees? Typically we would specify a three inch. That’s pretty typical for us, right, Keith? Three inch replacement tree? MR. OBORNE-That would be fine. As a minimum. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I was thinking a little larger, taking kind of an average. How hard is it for a six inch tree? Is that outrageous? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s getting pretty big. MR. CENTER-Yes. You’re looking at a big base, you know. It takes, you know. MR. TRAVER-You run into some issues with more disturbance on the site when you start parading in five tons of. MR. CENTER-Yes, you have to have the equipment to. MRS. STEFFAN-The equipment to move those. MR. CENTER-To place these. If we did some, and again, I’m going to defer to Jim Miller who, we use as our landscape architect, to place appropriately space trees along that north boundary, and then if we provide a buffer along the, basically right behind the deck, you know, staying within, I’d probably have to disturb slightly a little bit more to take that, you know, you see the silt fence line along the pond. If we made that perpendicular to the north property line on that end, and you came up with some plantings along that portion of the rain garden, that would tend to shield some of that view scape from the lake looking up. You had the existing buffer that’s along the riprap line, the existing wood. If we added plantings in that area, between the steps that go down to the deck and the north property line, is that adding something in that area? Again, we’re not within that 15 foot buffer right along the shoreline. We’re not disturbing up to there, but if we did something that kind of did a tiered effect where you have a buffer down here, and then another one, you know, some sort of a planted buffer on the east side, would that make sense? And then, you know, properly spaced. Again, I was saying four, but I’ve really got to talk to Jim and go with his recommendations on spacing out the right types of trees along that property line, and putting something to replace those trees along the north property line. I really don’t like to place plantings, you know, close to the septic system, the roots, they love, so it would be difficult. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I’m thinking some of those trees that you’re actually going to be taking out there, the four inch maple, the four inch cherry, the four inch hemlock, you might be able to, before you start, you know, you might be able to get the equipment down there to scoop them and move them forward. I mean, just an idea. MR. CENTER-Sometimes it’s easier to replace with a three inch, depending on, you know, three inch balls you’re going to get a better growth. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they do have those big scooper machines there that can, you know, I see them coming up and down the road, and I said wow. MR. CENTER-Yes. We’re on a sloped site, and, you know, walking those things around Rockhurst. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you’re going to have a bulldozer and chains. You can get it down there. It was just an idea. I just saw them there. MR. TRAVER-And we also have the outstanding engineering issues that you’re just looking at this evening. You heard the comments from the Lake George Water Keeper regarding the rain garden and adding some soil modification to increase the. MR. CENTER-I’m probably going to, again, we have four minute soils. We’re mixing up, the actual, the three minutes comes in when you’re talking about wastewater systems, the zero to three. MR. TRAVER-Right. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. CENTER-That’s for, you know, stormwater, DEC doesn’t talk about amending soils, in infiltration type systems. We’re kind of crossing the zero to three and amending it to seven to ten, as he brought up in the septic system. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, in any case, these are engineering issues that we’re, although experienced, not qualified to deal with, but there are a number of them here that you’ll have to work out somehow. MR. OBORNE-Does the Planning Board want those soils amended in the quote unquote, well, it is an infiltration basin at this point, but do you want it to become more of a filtration, which I think is, and correct me if I’m wrong, Chris, that’s kind of what you’re looking for is more of a filtration action going on. MR. DYBAS-DEC guidelines do require amended soils. MR. TRAVER-I mean, that’s certainly, I can hear both sides of the discussion, and my feeling is I’m very reluctant to make a stand on an engineering issue. I mean, I have some, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess is what I’m saying. MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same way. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Yes. So I mean, I think it’s something, I may want it to go one way or another, but I think fundamentally to have it really done right, it shouldn’t be something that makes me feel good. It should be whatever the engineering says. MR. OBORNE-Right, and the reason I ask the question, I just want to make sure that you’re going to land where you want to land. MR. TRAVER-Sure. I appreciate that. Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to bring it up if you didn’t, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But I agree with Mr. Traver. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s one of those situations where what might feel good or what you think might be the solution actually may end up exacerbating the problem. I mean, it really is an engineering. It needs to be done as, I guess by the scientific method rather than by my preference is, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Are you ready with a, it like you have a lot of notes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 16-2011 SHINE/CLEVELAND A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of existing 538 +/- sq. ft. camp and construction of a new 1,990 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling with new septic system and stormwater management controls. Construction within 50 feet of slopes 15% or greater in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2011 JOHN SHINE/LARRY CLEVELAND, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: This is tabled to the May 17th Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials is April 15th. This is tabled so that the applicant can: 1. Provide decommissioning plans for the existing septic system and laterals. 2. So that the applicant can identify on the plan that shoreline buffering within 30 feet of the lake will be undisturbed. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) 3. The applicant will submit plans for construction waste and the staging areas so that they are quantified and located respectively for the project. 4. That the applicant will address and satisfy VISION Engineering comments of March 22nd and obtain their signoff. 5. That the applicant will add tree plantings to the northern property line. The trees that they will add will be a larger basal width, minimum of three inches. 6. The applicant will add an aggressive shoreline buffering plan, in addition to the existing undisturbed area, to compensate for the heavy deforestation of the site. 7. Regarding amending the soils of the rain garden to improve the treatment capabilities of the rain garden, the Planning Board would like VISION Engineering to review this particular issue and comment on whether the soils should be amended. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-I would think that, should comment if the soils should be amended, yes, I think that works. I don’t want it to come back here where now they’re going to go back and forth. VISION says, yes, it should be, and. MR. CENTER-If we’re looking at amending the topsoil layer, planting, composting, that’s not an issue. My issue would be amending the existing soils to propagate percolation through the ground. That’s where I would disagree. I have no problem changing the material at the bottom, at the base of the rain garden to a composting, planting, biologic, and I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So is this wording sufficient for VISION Engineering to provide a comment? MR. OBORNE-I think so. MRS. STEFFAN-Because, again, we’re not engineers, and we’re looking for their input, and you will likely have discussions with them on satisfying their requirement. MR. OBORNE-And Staff promotes those discussions. th MR. CENTER-If I’m given permission to try to get a signoff and deal directly, before the 15, with the engineer, we have a number of comments that I think they may have questions for Staff, based on our discussions tonight, clarifications of what applies, what doesn’t, in regards to the DEC manual and this size project. If we’re held to the DEC manual, we can’t meet it. That’s just it’s not, you know, this project isn’t the size, and you get into a lot of extra stuff that a .2 acre site doesn’t have that an acre site does. We are managing stormwater, though, we are making it better than what it is now, and I think that’s the goal of the Code, of what Lake George Park Commission is looking for, and that’s what we’re trying to do. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s something the engineers obviously need to work out. It seems like Dan is looking for water quality volume. I’m not sure. You’d have to ask him. MR. TRAVER-I’ll second the motion. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2011 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY LOCATION OF THE APPROVED PARSONAGE LOCATION, LIGHTING AND PARKING. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 21-10, SP 25-09, SP 10-08, SUB 19-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 LOT SIZE 15.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, summarize Staff Notes when you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 17-2011, which is a modification of Site Plan 21-2010M, which is a modification of the original Site Plan, 10-08. This is for Randy Gross, New Beginnings Community Church. This is modification, again, to an approved Site Plan. 47 Dix Avenue. This is in a Commercial Moderate zone. The old zone was Main Street at one point. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Concerning SEQRA, you may want to reaffirm in this case. With Project Description, applicant proposes to move the location of the approved parsonage to the north, increase the east parking lot by 34 spaces, install four pole mounted lighted fixtures adjacent to the east parking lot and reconfigure stormwater and landscaping as a result of the proposed changes. Staff comments, records indicate that the applicant has been before this Board for modification to the approved Site Plan on two separate occasions. This is noted, as this is not a typical scenario for approved site plans it should be ascertained if additional modifications are forthcoming. What follows is Site Plan Review. Under additional comments, I would like to see potentially the Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may require the applicant to perform an additional seasonal high groundwater determination with a qualified individual from the Town present, or conduct the test in season, March through June is what is considered in season. I don’t think that’s an issue, being that we’re in that season. Also, the Planning Board may wish to ascertain if the applicant proposes any permanent signage along Dix Avenue. To come back on that, I do recall permanent signage being located on the 08 plan. I believe that’s true. There is a little bit of an update. There has been some notice to the Town of some drainage issues, and that may come up in public comment, and I would like to just get out in front of that, and Bruce Frank has been on the site and has visited the site and has talked to the applicant, and we can just basically go from there, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. For the record, Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, with Pastor Randy Gross from New Beginnings Church. The application we’ve submitted outlines relocation of the previously approved parsonage location, and it moves a couple of hundred feet to the north, and the other modification is an additional strip of parking along the easterly most access road, and along that additional strip of park, where we weren’t proposing parking, we are now actually proposing an additional strip of permanent parking there, and some light fixtures. The modifications have, we’ve re-looked at the site layout in order to accommodate them, and the drainage has been updated, the permanent drainage structure has been updated to accommodate the proposed changes, and I think with that we’ll turn it over to the Board. The re-location, I’m sorry, my submission shows what we propose. The second sheet includes as approved. So you can see where we’re proposing to move the parsonage from, to, and the old access road. We had an access road there along the east side. We just shifted it out 20 feet so we could get a row of parking in there. MRS. STEFFAN-So the drainage changes, is that a new addition or is that in a package, because we didn’t get engineering comments on it, because I’m assuming. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just to inform the Board, I did receive engineering comments from VISION insitu, basically, and they are up. There does not appear to be any major issues whatsoever. I think there’s a total of eight, at this point. So that’s the best I can do at this point. If you’d like I could read it in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That would be helpful. Thank you. nd MR. OBORNE-Okay. Basically this is from VISION Engineering. It is dated March 22 . This has to do with Randy Gross’s New Beginning. MR. TRAVER-Approximately 8 p.m. should be noted. MR. OBORNE-Right. Well. “Based on our review, we offer the following comments. One, an existing conditions plan should be provided, detailing the current status of the project and identifying what has been constructed on the property thus far. The existing vegetation limits should be updated to reflect current site conditions. Two, please clarify what area of the site is to be included for the proposed Phase 3 of the project. The construction phasing notes indicate that additional impervious (building and sidewalks) will be created during this phase. Has this been addressed in the stormwater calculations? The plans should show the building, proposed 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) sidewalks and associated utilities to be included in Phase 3, along with associated details for each if planned for approval. Three, the Town Stormwater Management Officer should verify that all components of the previously approve SWPPP (dated September 14, 2010) are being currently implemented properly on site. Four, the revised SWPPP provided (dated January 10, 2011) does not comply with updated 2010 New York State Stormwater Manual. The Applicant should update SWPPP and all stormwater components proposed on site, that are not yet constructed, to comply with the updated Manual. Additional requirements include, but are not limited to: a. Water quality calculations for each individual subcatchment along with the corresponding provided WQv for each. WQv should be calculated and analyzed based on each individual watershed area where impervious surfaces exist. Also please provide calculations verifying the WQv is fully dewatered within the required 48-hour time limit. b. Calculations for Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) requirements. c. Include green infrastructure planning measures and analysis according to the DEC Stormwater Design Manual. d. Winter infiltration should be analyzed and provided for infiltration basins and/or devices. Please provide to our office for review and additional pond sizing calculations for the 100-year storm event assuming the bottom of basins and/or the infiltration surfaces are frozen, while ensuring adequate storage volume and freeboard to mitigate the offsite runoff to pre-development rates. The area of below- frost infiltration surfaces may be included if provided. e. The Applicant should provide to our office for review infiltration test result for each infiltration practice proposed in accordance with Appendix D of the Stormwater Design Manual to verify the design methodology use in the calculations. 5. Please clarify the swales along the sidewalks and how runoff is conveyed below the sidewalk crossings. 6. Clarify what will occur with the drywells for roof runoff when the future building is constructed. 7. It should be clarified what stormwater measures are provided for the parsonage and its access drive. Please include in the SWPPP and calculations. 8. It is not clear if test pits were conducted for each of the stormwater basins to verify depth to groundwater and that the required separation distance of three feet is provided. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Daniel W. Ryan, P.E.” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Just one correction to that reading into the record. Keith, could you go up on the previous page briefly. On Number Four, just one correction for the record. The revised SWPPP was provided January 10, 2011, not 2010. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Tom, this is the first time you’ve seen those, too. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it is. MRS. STEFFAN-So, any feedback for us? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I guess the big issue would be I don’t concur with the reviewer that this is a modification to an existing approved plan that is currently under permit by the DEC, and the DEC’ s program is set up that if things change during construction, you modify the SWPPP under the same permit. I don’t believe that, because we’re proposing to modify this plan slightly from its approved condition that we all of a sudden are, DEC has just made a major revision to their design manual. I don’t concur with him that we’re subject to the requirements of the new design manual, which would make a number of the stormwater related comments go away, and I think, to clarify, what was done here in the modification were minimal. We increased the size of the basins a little bit because there was a little bit more pavement. That’s essentially what was done from the approved design that’s under permit. Those were the majority of his comments, and I don’t concur with his take on that, and I will clarify it. MRS. STEFFAN-That certainly seems reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What was the runoff issue that Staff mentioned that occurred? MR. HUTCHINS-There is a, and I just found out about it last night and I went through it today, Bruce and I were there. There’s an area to the east that there is a drainage channel that, and it’s on a piece of parcel that is on the other side of NiMo that is the applicant’s property that they had located some stumps and they had blocked the drainage. They had blocked a drainage channel in that process and it’s causing some ponding, and we’ve obviously had a big week for runoff and snow melt, and it is causing some ponding, and we’ve met with Bruce and Randy’s agreed we’re going to take care of it, or he’s going to take care of it, open that channel back up. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s off site? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) RANDY GROSS PASTOR GROSS-No, it’s on the site. MR. HUTCHINS-Can I go up? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. TRAVER-It’s on the property, but not on the part of the property that’s being. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-This is NiMo, this strip. This and this are the applicant’s parcels. They had put some stumps in this area, and there is a drainage channel that runs down through here that is blocked up in this area and it’s causing ponding in this area. So it is real. It’s there. Randy’s agreed to take care of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that it drains to the south, to the Feeder Canal eventually. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. OBORNE-I think there’s a pipe underneath the road. There’s also another issue to the northeast, I believe, where the parsonage, that parsonage area is also. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s some water there because there was a hole there, yes. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if you walked that. Right. I know there’s a drainage ditch up that way, too. PASTOR GROSS-Just to clarify that, I sought out Bruce Frank last Fall regarding putting that what he called slash, the stumps in there, and he conferred with Craig Brown regarding that, and they also noted about the drainage ditch. However, we ran out of season to work and we didn’t get that cut in to, so that in the Spring when it thawed, you know, this wouldn’t be a burden. So, that’s the full explanation from my point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. PASTOR GROSS-Then regarding the ponding in the back, we had dug the basement for the approved parsonage and that area is lower grade than the water course. So there is ponding there from that, and so that explains that comment there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the primary reason for moving the parsonage? PASTOR GROSS-Well, when we did the modification, the parking lot encroached on my wife’s space, and so she didn’t like that. So we said there’s a beautiful knoll up toward the back of the property, and so we said, well, let’s look at locating a house in the woods. So that was the motive there. Instead of the parking being 150 feet away, it now was 50 feet from the house, and so just that green space. MR. TRAVER-You’re also increasing the total amount of parking, correct? PASTOR GROSS-Well, there was a rule change that allowed for doubling the parking in our first modification, and then this is an additional, where it was 50 grass parking spaces, we are now proposing, part of the motive for that was that doing the grading plan, it generated so much more fill, and I thought it would be prudent to do it now rather than have to piecemeal it later, and so I presented the idea to Tom and so that’s where that originated from. MR. HUTCHINS-But, yes, there’s additional parking in front there. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-And the proposed lights in the new parking area, are they the same fixtures and wattage and everything as was previously approved? PASTOR GROSS-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re back to an engineering issue it would seem. The engineers have some issues to work out. MR. HUTCHINS-And that’s an issue, to express a little bit of frustration, I guess, that’s an issue that I could have had resolved with a call to DEC, had I had the notes that we just saw at three o’clock today. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The Staff comments identify that the foot candles for the house of worship and education parking lot are a little bit hot, and when I looked at the lighting plan, there are some hot spots, and so, is there anything that we can do to change the wattage on the pole lights proposed, so that we can decrease the wattage a little, so that we can decrease the foot candles? MR. HUTCHINS-We could look at decreasing the wattage on the ones that are proposed, yes. I mean, it’s an easy thing to run. We could look at that. I mean, we don’t have them. PASTOR GROSS-Yes, we do. MR. HUTCHINS-We do? PASTOR GROSS-Yes. What I wound up doing is purchasing, for cents on the dollar, used equipment, and so, you know, but it all meets the requirements of the approved plan. So I guess one comment I’d make regarding our usage is that we’re a very limited use facility, and so our, you know, impact with lighting is going to be negligible. At current, when we get a C of O, our usage will be like two hours a week, at night. On a Wednesday night we have a family night. So it’s not like a shopping center or other type of plaza that would be. MRS. STEFFAN-They’ll be on all the time, they will not be. PASTOR GROSS-Yes, so it won’t be that intrusive into the community, but when it is lit it’s lit, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That sounds reasonable to me, if they’re not on all the time. MR. OBORNE-Right, and you’re talking the pole mounted lights? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Where there’s a lot of flood. It’s just the numbers were high. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, hence the comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. PASTOR GROSS-They were approved as designed. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question I asked, if they were the same. PASTOR GROSS-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, as what was previously approved. PASTOR GROSS-I think some of it is when we did light it, it was, you know, obviously the snow had created a real bright sheen to carry the light, too, a lot further. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve certainly had a lot of that this year, snow. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-No. There is a question in Staff Notes about permanent signage. Do you have any proposed? PASTOR GROSS-There is an approved sign with the 2008 plan. MR. OBORNE-I concur with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there will be no changes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this item this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay. Same drill, if you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DIANA GILLIS MS. GILLIS-Diana Gillis. PAUL VAN ARSDAL MR. VAN ARSAL-Paul Van Arsdal. We live at 499 Dix Avenue, right next to Randy, and I guess the issue’s already been brought up about the drainage, and everyone’s aware of it. MS. GILLIS-Our backyard is flooded. MR. VAN ARSDAL-And we’re just wondering what’s going to be done and when, as long as everybody’s aware of what’s going on. We talked to Bruce Frank, and I guess everyone’s in agreement there’s a problem there, there’s an issue. So what’s going to be done I guess would be our only question. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like a reasonable question. Have you had problems in the past? MR. VAN ARSDAL-No, nothing in the past. We’ve been there 11 years. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VAN ARSDAL-Where the water and storm runoff, spring runoff gather, that’s all been filled in, and that’s caused water to go on National Grid property that comes into our yard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VAN ARSDAL-It’s pretty stressful, to look out your window. We’ve got a septic system there. MRS. STEFFAN-So is the flooding on top of your septic system? MS. GILLIS-It’s right up to both of them. We have two septic tanks, and right now we’re not doing laundry in our home. We have ducks, as of today. MR. VAN ARSDAL-There’s actually ducks in there. MR. HUNSINGER-So it looks like you brought pictures with you? MS. GILLIS-We did. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to pass those around for us to look at? MR. VAN ARSDAL-And I’ve talked to Randy. We went out there. Everyone’s aware of it. MR. TRAVER-There was some comment that this ponding was associated with the introduction of the cuttings and stumps and so on. Is that your understanding as well, or your experience? MR. VAN ARSDAL-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-That there were stumps put on the adjacent property? MR. VAN ARSDAL-Yes. That’s where they were placed, yes. MS. GILLIS-Well, we were told, originally, from the Town also, because we’ve been calling for over a year now, that it was a compost pile, and those pictures, that is not compost. That is not the definition of compost to me. MR. VAN ARSDAL-I think where Randy’s putting his septic system, one of them by the power pole there, there’s a ton of water laying in there now, an awful lot. I don’t know where that’s going to go. It’s not going to go uphill. MS. GILLIS-Thank goodness, for right now, we’re still flushing toilets. So we’re just crossing our fingers, but, you know, we’re limiting showers, everything. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d be nervous, too, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So how deep is the water? How deep’s the? MS. GILLIS-It varies because our yard is, our lawn is a little. MR. VAN ARSDAL-It could be six inches in spots. I mean, some of it’s gone down now. It’s steep enough for ducks. MS. GILLIS-You definitely have to have boots on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? We’ll make sure you get your pictures back. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, you have ponding now. Obviously there’s a lot of snow, the ground’s frozen, but did you have it in the Fall, or this is a new phenomenon? MS. GILLIS-No. MR. VAN ARSDAL-It’s nothing like any other yard in that neighborhood. My neighbors, or the houses down, nothing. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MS. GILLIS-No, that’s enough. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. VAN ARSDAL-I know Randy’s on top of that. Just, is there a timeline, or what’s going on? Does anybody know? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. We’ll find out. MR. TRAVER-Thanks for that information. MR. VAN ARSDAL-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Ma’am? You’ve got pictures, too. MARCIA TYMINSKI MRS. TYMINSKI-Hi. I’m Marcia Tyminski. I’m the owner of 82 Queensbury Avenue. I guess first of all we’d like to know how he was approved for so many lights? There are so many lights out there. They have more than the armory has. It looks like a baseball field lit up. I don’t know, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t know much about the first plan, but this man has gone in there with bull dozers. This property is completely ripped apart. He went in and he logged way to the back, if I could show you. The house is here that he’s, whatever, doing, and then they put the church in the middle.. He has stripped all this land, the trees, everything back there. He has blacktopped, there is junk, there is water. We have an easement that runs for the County, it’s a ditch and it’s a waterway. He has covered the whole waterway where this water comes down past the armory, then goes down into the back here. He has covered that with dirt. Out here, he’s got a hole dug, and over here there’s another hole, huge, that’s dug. If anybody, what a 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) safety hazard. He’s grossly messed up this whole beautiful meadow grove. They’re selling the topsoil. They’ve skimmed it off. They’re selling the topsoil. They’re selling the wood. They have a huge, had a huge white tent. Every night, last year, the last two years, they’ve held some kind of services. They’ve screamed and they’ve chanted with some kind of, God only knows music, blaring until 10 o’clock every night. My granddaughter has to go to bed, you can’t even sit out on the screen porch. These people are just screaming and yelling and hollering. Now, I don’t know about the cherry trees and the things the other guys have taken down, but why wasn’t he asked, to begin with, what he was going to do? This has been going on for two years, three years. Now, I had the Town of Queensbury down there today. He’s got the wrong lights up anyway, they put the wrong, they’re shining right west, probably, the lights that are on the church now are the wrong lights. They’re supposed to be facing down. There are tires out there. There are old cars. There’s old trucks, ditched way, way out beyond where this church is, and the holes are filled with water, probably 20. You can see in the pictures how deep. CARRIE BREEN MRS. BREEN-My name is Carrie Breen. This is my mother. I live at 82 Queensbury Avenue, and that foundation that was dug has been a 20 foot drop off, bordering my property, for a year and a half, filled with water. I, out of the blue, one day almost fell in it. Walking, it is, in one of the pictures you can see the sand. I stopped and there it was. You look down a cliff, right on the edge. It’s filled with water that’s probably now I’d say at least three foot deep. Next to that pond, to the left of it, would be the drainage, and that is blocked with brush piles, hole trees, garbage, and the water is slowing down there, and it’s pooling up there, but the water that is coming down Queensbury Avenue from the armory and everywhere else, that is coming right through my property, and the waterway is right in my yard, that is pushing the flow of the water against the flow of the County, the drain, and my basement is flooded. Because the water, there’s so much water going in the other direction that they’re colliding. So, this, these piles are slowing and stopping most of the water from the original, from the drainage that was there before all this started. Last year it was a small pile that I was, it was getting around. This year there was a large pile. I know this is hearsay, but it looked as though, that the water was being re-routed. I don’t know. Another location is being asked now to build the house on the property, and I want to know if the drainage and the stormwater maintenance plan will be returned to its original state, after the structure, which is the house, is finished. As I heard, he wanted a home in the woods. There are no woods. They are gone. As a little kid I picked monarchs and it’s gone. The applicant requests more lighting. There are already 16 double lit lights that are up already. So that’s putting 32 lights that are already there. The lights on the building structure are overly hot and out of Code. I spoke with Bruce Frank this afternoon. He investigated it, and he brought to my attention, and to the applicant and his engineer that the Code, the lighting code, was, it was out of code, out of violation. They were too bright. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. BREEN-They are not facing down. They are facing my house. When I pull in my driveway, it looks like I am pulling into a baseball stadium. I can’t even imagine the thought of more lights. That would mean going across five houses. These lights are so bright that when I go halfway onto my property, my back, before I have trees, it’s more wooded, it would shine, it’s so bright now that if he was going to run that driveway, I think that house, I think he wants to put the house up on that hill, so he can have a driveway that’s going to be all lit up. MRS. TYMINSKI-He put that hill there. That hill has never been there. I’ve lived there my whole life. He just built that hill. That used to be a meadow, a grove, then it went down into the cornfield where, it used to go through, there was a big fence there, and it was a gully. When the waterway came down through, we were told we weren’t allowed to touch this through the County, that’s the water runoff that goes out there. MS. BREEN-It’s so high now, if you can see in the pictures, I took pictures from my property line. There’s been so much excavating and lift of, and piled that the land, there’s actually grass on it. It would be, it would take so many tons of soil to be removed from where that has been pushed for that natural water flow to ever go back. It would be like sending it straight up a hill. MRS. TYMINSKI-We’d just request that he not be allowed to put a house back there, or anywhere on the property. If it’s a church, then so be it. MS. BREEN-Well, I’m also concerned, too, is there going to be, because I heard earlier that it is a commercial property, is an adequate buffer going to be created, and I also want to know, with the amount of time this is taking because of volunteer work and lack of finances, why more lights? Why more paved way? The costs of electricity to keep them lit, to install them. If the lack of finances are there, then why is all this being added? I also wonder if the house being 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) built, because of the noise ordinance, all, spring to fall, the ceremonies are, they would start mi d afternoon and go to ten at night, four or five days a week. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask, regarding the lighting, can you give us your impression of when the lights are typically operated, in terms of the hours and of the day and the number of days a week and so on? MS. BREEN-They’re lit every night. MRS. STEFFAN-When do they go off, or do they stay on all night? MS. BREEN-I know they’re on until at least 10 o’clock. After that. MRS. STEFFAN-You’re in bed. MS. BREEN-I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-This County waterway that you talked about. Is there an easement or a deed restriction? I mean, this is the first we’ve heard about it. So I’m just trying to understand it better. Is it on your property? Is it on the church property? MS. BREEN-It runs in between my property and my neighbor’s property. It’s owned by the County. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it shown on the map, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. The waterway is, you can see it’s linear. It’s right through here, and I believe, Carrie, I’m not sure where it begins on your property, but it runs along your property line, is my understanding, your northern property line. MRS. BREEN-Yes, it starts, where the line, where the first line is. MRS. TYMINSKI-The road, the Queensbury Avenue. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and obviously here is the industrial park here. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there an easement that’s recorded? MR. OBORNE-I’m not aware of one, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I’m not sure. MRS. TYMINSKI-When they put the new line in, what was it, five, six years ago, and they had County Line all dug up, and they put the new drainage systems in, and the new road, they put, the culvert was always there at the corner of the property and Queensbury Avenue, and then the pipes went down 100 feet, I would say, to the ditch, we always called it the ditch, and then it runs along that northern part of the property, right across and down in there. Down in his property, and he’s covered it all up, and bulldozed it, and it is an easement. I talked to Mr. Lamy today about, he’s semi-retired right now, but they came down, and they dug that out for us, because when they put the road in, had such a build up of water and muck that came through in this waterway, that they dug it out with backhoes and things like that so the water would flow. Her cellar, she’s never had water, and there’s water. Fifty years, never a drop of water in that house. Now there’s water. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MRS. TYMINSKI-But, you know, there’s no regard for people. There’s no regard for wildlife. I mean, I just don’t understand how someone can go in and do these things, and there’s no one to properly watch what they’re doing. These trees are gone for good. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. TYMINSKI-You know, it’s very sad. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-How deep is your lot? Your house is at the (lost word) Queensbury Avenue. Your lot’s pretty deep. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. TYMINSKI-Yes. MR. OBORNE-770, about 800. MRS. STEFFAN-Wow. MR. OBORNE-I believe what happens, I think right here is the intake, and the pipe is buried to about this point here, and then it daylights here and just runs out. MRS. BREEN-And then you could see on the screen the course of water that was, used to be there. MR. HUNSINGER-So it runs from left to right or right to left, Keith? MR. OBORNE-It goes to the east. MR. TRAVER-Right to left. MR. OBORNE-Left to right. MRS. BREEN-That is barricaded, where that line is, where the water, and going upwards. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can clearly see it on the picture. MRS. BREEN-Going upward in those pictures is a hill. So I want to know how that water is going to be re-routed. Because it’s, there’s such a hill there now. Is it, how is the water going to be re-routed so it doesn’t back up onto that easement and flood that basement and flood everything else, the pond? I also want to know, when a year and a half that drop off has been on my property line. Why wasn’t it filled in? I know there’s volunteers, everybody’s doing different things, different work, but you need to keep track of piling brush and soil in front of easements, and stopping the flow of water. Those things shouldn’t slide by. It’s your responsibility to watch out, whether it’s volunteer, whether it’s a church or not, you should know if you have bulldozed and blocked an easement, and stopped the flow of water, and that wasn’t done. MRS. STEFFAN-Have you complained to the Town regarding the drop off at your property line before this, before your water, you’ve got water in the basement now, but before this time, had you made any complaints to the Town, the Community Development office about the lights or any of that other stuff before now? MS. BREEN-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. TYMINSKI-We were shocked when we saw the lights go up because, you know, we thought it was going to be the church and that was going to be it. As far as the noise, I know nobody could have stood it. This is like something you can’t believe. MRS. BREEN-I’m just concerned that if a private residence would allow get togethers that were not so called church related, and that could bring in, again, these ceremonies or, that would go, that the music would, and the chanting, I mean, on loudspeakers, big loudspeakers and microphones. I mean, we couldn’t even sit outside at night. I mean, it was so loud. All I wanted to do was listen to the peepers and the frogs, and you couldn’t, it over powered them, and I just don’t know if, having a private residence could correspond. I don’t know because it’s a church, is he paying taxes, is he going to pay taxes on some of it? Is he somehow maneuvering a house on the church land with this driveway with additional parking, with additional lighting, so that additional things can be added, because I’ve seen what’s gone on back there for three years, and things just don’t make sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BREEN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BREEN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else wishing to comment? Okay. Did you have anything that you wanted to express, based on some of the comments that we heard? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I guess we’ll take an initial response to them. As far as, let’s talk about the easterly issue first. Do you have any timeline on when we’re going to be able to open that up? PASTOR GROSS-The cutting of that water course would be done as soon as we can possibly put a piece of equipment in there and get it back out, and so, safety. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. PASTOR GROSS-And the same for the previous comments about the water course from that area there. That will be addressed at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, do you have an easement on your property for that waterway? PASTOR GROSS-No. No, this has been searched through the whole process and the attorney’s reviewed this. MR. HUTCHINS-Not that I ever saw, and I’ve got the record surveys. I haven’t seen them. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, which leads me to another thought. I know it’s your turn to address the comments, but, you know, when we do Site Plan Review, usually if there’s some kind of known water course or drainage ditch, then we would look for a plan, and culverts or whatever if you were going to fill. So I’m not sure how that fell through the cracks here. MR. HUTCHINS-We didn’t have any grading in the area of this water course. We didn’t propose any grading on the approved plan. It’s near where the parsonage was proposed, okay, but the drainage ditch is further north from that. Now there was excavation done in the area that parsonage was proposed, but there was no cut back there, beyond that. PASTOR GROSS-On the original approved Site Plan there was a leach field actually scheduled to go in that area where that drainage ditch was. So, that was prior to Tom’s work, but that was on the original plan. MR. OBORNE-And that obviously has been modified, for obvious reasons. MR. HUTCHINS-That has been modified. PASTOR GROSS-But we certainly will honor that watercourse and maintain on our property so that it can flow freely. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not personally aware of what they’re referring to as the hill that was built because I didn’t see that when I was there today. I’m going to go back and look it, but. PASTOR GROSS-The original topo map will reflect a raise in elevation of the property. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s certainly natural up where I did the test holes for the proposed parsonage location. That hasn’t been altered up there because that’s wooded. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any comments on the remarks that were made regarding the lighting, every day until late at night, the amount of the volume of noise, amplified noise coming from the site in the neighborhood? PASTOR GROSS-Last summer we did one week of meetings outdoors, and as far as timeline, it would end approximately 9:45, 10 at night. MR. TRAVER-Just one week out of the whole summer? PASTOR GROSS-Correct, this past summer, yes. Now the summer before, we had weekly services there on Sunday and Wednesday, and then the very first summer, which would be three years ago, we had three weeks of meetings. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the pictures, I saw that there was a, looks like a tent that was back there, big, white? PASTOR GROSS-Yes, that’s a 20 by 20 tent that we store stuff in during the winter. MR. MAGOWAN-And when you’re not storing in the winter, what are you doing with it in the summer? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) PASTOR GROSS-We use it for storage in the summer, because we have building supplies. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a nice tent for storage. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s original intention was you used it for services when you were under construction. We had approved part of the Site Plan, that was before Brad. MR. OBORNE-And that is no longer occurring, is my understanding. PASTOR GROSS-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I just want to make sure the Board is aware of that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, well, and when I was listening to some of the comment, I think that, you know, some of the noise issue will go away now that you have a structure and it’s contained within the structure. PASTOR GROSS-Right. The design of the structure has the highest rating for sound transmission coefficient that there is. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the comment about the lights being not to spec? MR. HUTCHINS-There is an issue with the building mounted lighting fixtures, and we’re working that out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are they angled down? Are they angled wrong as well, or are they just to bright? MR. HUTCHINS-There’s an issue with the wall pack fixture. It’s a standard wall pack, it’s not a cut off, and somewhere there was a mix up in fixture. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ve got to resolve that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. PASTOR GROSS-I handed the Site Plan to the vendor and they supplied this light to me, because I don’t do this all the time. It wasn’t, to my knowledge, wrong until they brought it to my attention, and so what we hope to do is get a lens and cover that will make that alteration, but as far as the lumens, we’re under our wattage for the lighting as it was approved for the wall packs. We’ve got 150 watt fixtures and what was approved was 175. So, it’s just a matter of changing that one part. MR. HUTCHINS-But there is an issue there. MR. HUNSINGER-And that does make a huge difference. MR. HUTCHINS-That does make a difference. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So where are we at this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. MR. HUTCHINS-As far as grading and general site, it is a construction site, and as the season closes, things will get tightened up and areas will get finished, and there are infiltration basins located in the rear of the building, and they’re partially excavated. They aren’t formed and shaped, but there is an area excavated there, and it’s being used as a temporary sediment area, and it is a construction site, and there are some areas that I guess if somebody looked at it in their yard it could be perceived as a hazard. It’s not a permanent thing. It’s a construction issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And these are remnants from previous Site Plan approvals that were changed and construction that had begun on a previously approved plan were not remediated? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-The only issue that’s in that category is the former parsonage location, or the approved parsonage location. They began excavating in that area to get it to grade. MR. TRAVER-What’s the plan for addressing that? MR. HUTCHINS-It would be filled. It would be corrected, shaped. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? It seems like there’s a number of outstanding issues. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds like lighting is a real issue. I’m reluctant to add more when we have what sounds like excessive. I almost wonder if, would it be, would we want to get some additional information maybe from the Town on maybe do a site visit and get a report on the condition of the site with the various site plans and various constructions going on? MR. OBORNE-You can definitely so direct Code Compliance to do that, sure. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, it sounds as though we’ve got some mitigation to do to restore the site to safe condition, a compliant situation before we talk about making any further changes, and certainly before we get into lighting, we want to make sure that all the lighting is appropriate and in compliance and so on, and that there’s not. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I will say Bruce does watch over the site, and he is very familiar with the site, and is certainly in contact with the Pastor on this. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And it sounds like he’s been out there recently. MR. OBORNE-As of five hours ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. That’s pretty recent, yes. MR. TRAVER-Indeed. That’s more recent than on some of our engineering reports. MR. OBORNE-You beat me to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any more definitive timetable on when the drainage courses could be re-opened? MR. TRAVER-I mean, it sounds like that needs to be done tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you can’t. MR. TRAVER-I mean, this sounds like a very serious and in fact dangerous situation that needs to be addressed immediately. MR. HUNSINGER-But I don’t know how you’re going to get any equipment out there, as you pointed out. MR. TRAVER-Maybe that’s something, maybe there could be some suggestions. PASTOR GROSS-I mean, I’ve already placed phone calls inquiring about equipment being brought on site to address it. It’s up to the owners of the equipment as to whether they will do it, because, for obvious reasons, sink a piece of equipment over there, maybe, maybe not. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-If we can provide some feedback. MR. MAGOWAN-Or find somebody that’s got a large boom, you know, a track hoe with a large boom, like down on Exit 17, that’s got a longer reach where you might be able to get a safe distance on a hard ground and be able to reach in and, just to move enough to get the water to start flowing. PASTOR GROSS-Well, the topography is such that the water table is right there at the top of the ground, naturally. So it’s a bit of a precarious place. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-If he can provide some feedback through Staff say this week as to a timeline is that reasonable? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Can you do that? PASTOR GROSS-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-I have no idea what I’m writing. I’m going in a thousand directions right now. So I need some help from you guys. I’m looking at Staff Notes and the things that need to be addressed and we’ve got some other issues. We wanted Code Enforcement to review the current site conditions against approved plans for compliance, and we want him to provide the Planning Board with a report of issues. I’m assuming, is that clear enough to say outstanding? MR. TRAVER-Well, could we, that’s good. I wonder if we could say, in addition to that, with emphasis on direction so that applicant can, as expeditiously as possible, mitigate the water issue. Maybe Town Staff could provide some suggestions as to who or how that could be. MR. OBORNE-In consultation with the project engineer? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t know if there’s any real new information that we need, other than some of these issues need to be resolved. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it’s a matter of before, I mean, it seems to me that before we talk about doing more stuff, we need to mitigate some situations that are there, and then take a look at what we’ve got. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not like we’re looking for a new drawing or, you know, anything else. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, myself I’d like to hear from the Town maybe what needs to be done to mitigate this situation and remediate the neighborhood and make it a safe, because it sounds like there’s some real hazards there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Maybe some issues with, well certainly we know about the water. It sounds like there’s some lighting issues, some safety issues. I heard about garbage was talked about. I don’t know what, if that’s an issue, but if it is, you know, let’s get all that cleaned up and then see where they’re at. MR. HUTCHINS-And that information should probably come from Bruce or somebody. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’ll be Bruce. It’ll be Bruce. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-But I don’t know, you know, I’ve heard the conversation, Steve, but I’m just not sure how to put that in place. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, we have people at different levels of responsibility. Is this an applicant responsibility issue? Is this a Community Development issue that they have to first find out where the water course was? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the Community Development issue would be a status report. MR. TRAVER-That’s what I was kind of looking for. Let’s, once we get a status report, we can then have the applicant respond to that through the Department and, I think we can say that we don’t want to see anything further until that, I mean, again, I’m just speaking for myself, but I think that we want to have site analysis. We want to see a plan to remediate that situation and those issues addressed before we look at doing anything further, I think. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-I like your thought on a remediation plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I mean, I had this written down, so I just added one word to it. Is this what you want, applicant needs to put in a remediation plan in place for review and approval to mitigate water runoff issues on neighboring property. Is that what you’re looking for, or are you looking for something different than that? MR. TRAVER-I guess I’m looking for something different, and I’m thinking that the applicant needs to develop a proposal to address issues revealed by Town Staff and site assessment of current conditions. Yes, the water would certainly be part of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But it sounds like there’s some other issues as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Sounds like there’s some other things, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Are you saying that the Board would want to look at a plan before he were to take action on some of the water, I mean, I’m just getting a little concerned on the timeline. Would you want to see a plan before he were to take action on some of the things we’ve discussed? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we want to see a plan to make sure that the actions are taken. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, that it’s done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, if you can go in there tomorrow and correct those things, I think. MR. OBORNE-That’s the hope. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the way I’m hearing this, because obviously we do want action, but Code Enforcement’s going to review the entire site, if there’s anything that we’re missing that they will identify, these are the outstanding issues that have to be dealt with. They would be communicating with you on that, because that’s really what the Code Enforcement folks do. I mean, they go out to make sure everything is, you know, on target, and so you could be working on resolving some of the issues that would come as a result of that. Just like the wall pack issue with the lighting. Bruce Frank found out about it and now you’re working to mitigate that problem. So, any of the other issues that arise, you know, we know that there’s a drainage issue. That can be worked out before, you know, while you’re coming back to the Planning Board, before you come back to the Planning Board. However, on the final site plans we need to identify any kind of mitigation measures, you know, if you put a culvert or any kind of, all that stuff has to be reported back to us. So I’m not sure what other language to put in this. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not either. I mean, as far as we’re concerned, if all these things are taken care of before you come back, that would be fine. MR. HUTCHINS-I think we understand that, and we’re certainly willing to go at it and come back in a month or the following month, whatever you feel. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my initial thought was to try to bring you back in April, since there really is no new information that we need, in terms of, you know, reviewing an application, but I’m not sure how others feel about that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I was just hearing some concern about how long it would take before some of these issues could be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And I think they should be addressed before we move any further. So, if they can do that by April, that would be, I would like to see it done by next weekend, but if they can do it by April, that’s good. Let’s move forward, but obviously one of the issues is, you know, it’s been under construction for a couple of years, and that’s certainly, we want to get that finished, but I don’t know, I’m not sure what kind of, I mean, I guess unfortunately to some degree we’re reliant 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) upon Code Enforcement and the applicant to tell us when they’re ready to come back. I don’t know what, maybe we could be part of it. Could you e-mail us perhaps as these communications are occurring? MR. TRAVER-I could also place it in the record. What I’m seeing here is obviously, it looks like th you’re going to table them off, I would image, to May, with a deadline date of April 15 for any revised materials. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that would be the scenario, but Chris thought if there’s nothing new, we could bring them back in an April meeting and add them as an extra item. MR. TRAVER-There’s a certain amount of tension between wanting to get the construction finished and it needing to get the remediation done, plus we know that we’re dealing with volunteers and, you know, limited resources to some degree. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the applicant is on record as far as willing and wanting to remediate this as soon as possible, especially with public comment. I think that’s a given, and I think Code Compliance is aware of that also, and there’ll be something along those lines mentioned in the resolution I would imagine. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. OBORNE-As far as turning this around, yes, I mean, I see where you’re going with that. I mean, obviously you’re going to have to work that out between the four of you. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Where you want to table it to. MR. HUNSINGER-And I see where your thought process is going now, too, yes, which is, if it’s being worked out, you don’t need to rush them back here. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess that’s our decision to try to figure out. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, there’s a couple of outstanding issues in the Staff Notes that we have to make some decisions on, based on what we’ve heard tonight. There’s the issue of moving the parsonage. Do we want to wait on that until we have more information? I’m just throwing that out. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-To increase the parking lot by 34 spaces. That’s issue two, and then the addition of the extra lighting. Those are all brand new issues, and that’s the reason why they were here for a modification in the first place. So, I guess what I’m hearing is, we don’t want to move forward on any of those items until these other issues are addressed. MR. TRAVER-That’s my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that’s where we’re. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What about additional clearing proposed for the east parking lot which appears excessive. Does anybody have any feelings on that? MR. TRAVER-I don’t think there should be any clearing or anything done until we know what we’ve already done, until we know what the issues are, have been revealed by what clearing has taken place, and what excavating has taken place, and we know that some clearing and some excavating was done as a result of an initial Site Plan Review. Subsequently there was a modification to Site Plan Review, and it sounds as though some of the construction or partial construction that was done in response to the first Site Plan Review was no mitigated after that plan was changed, and I think we need to see that done before we, it sounds like we have a number of site plans going on at the same time. That is contributing to unsafe and not a good 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) situation for the neighborhood. So let’s try to get that consolidated and get those issues mitigated, and then see where we’re at. This is also the third modification to the Site Plan. Maybe the mitigation of the site will result in a change in what they’re proposing, but I think anything further taking place on the site as it appears to exist now is going to exacerbate the problems that are there that are kind of overwhelming the positive intended use for the property. So let’s address that first. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the Board more inclined to bring them back in May or in April? I think, after the discussion, I think it would be better to have some of these issues resolved before they come back. So I think I’d be leaning towards May. MR. MAGOWAN-May. MR. HUTCHINS-Not to interrupt, but a May date would allow us to submit, even clarify some information or some revised, by the April deadline. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that’ll give the Town a chance to participate with the applicant and make sure everything is done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I mean, if maybe we could get a report from Staff in April about progress. MR. HUNSINGER-In the meantime, yes. MR. TRAVER-That would be nice. MR. OBORNE-Make sure it’s in the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Right. thth MR. OBORNE-The dates in May are the 17 or the 19. thth MR. HUNSINGER-17 or the 19. th MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve tabled quite a few things to the 17. MR. OBORNE-Of May? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, last Thursday we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, last Thursday we did. th MR. OBORNE-So it’s the 19. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. I anticipation of the tabling resolution, I just want to clarify for the record that the public hearing was left open. There will be opportunity to make additional th public comments on May 19, when we reconsider this project. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I just want to make sure. There are some outstanding Staff comments, but we are not going to address those in the tabling resolution because we’re not entertaining those until. MR. TRAVER-And they will be different Staff comments, I suspect. MRS. STEFFAN-Comments, based on what comes out of it. MR. TRAVER-The only exception might be the groundwater, the reference to additional seasonal high groundwater determination, but if we’re doing some mitigation of the ponding and everything, I mean, again, not being an engineer. MR. OBORNE-And quite frankly the season is upon us. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So, I mean, it doesn’t need to be witnessed. MR. HUTCHINS-You were referencing the one for the new system? MR. OBORNE-Correct. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. TRAVER-So I think all this analysis that’s been done on this proposal may be totally dependent upon what happens on the property between now and May, and again, it may very well be that there will be changes to this proposal, perhaps as a result of what transpires between now and then. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though there’ll be changes to lighting. MR. OBORNE-Or at least brought up to Code, to standards. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Which I’m sure is the intent. MRS. STEFFAN-So do we want to put a condition in here, because one of the Staff comments, I know we’ve had a discussion about the proposed lighting, and so if you think it’s excessive, we need to direct the applicant to come back with a plan that’s more Code compliant. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it needs to be Code compliant. Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 17-2011 RANDY GROSS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to modify location of the approved parsonage location, lighting and parking. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2011 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the May 19th Planning Board. Submission deadline for new materials would be April 15th. This is tabled for a few reasons. 1. Code Enforcement needs to review the current site conditions on this proposal against the approved plans for compliance. We would request that the Code Compliance Officer provide the Planning Board with a status report of the issues. 2. We would like the applicant to work with Code Enforcement and Staff to immediately resolve out of compliance items identified. 3. We would like the applicant to address VISION Engineering comments and potentially obtain a signoff. 4. We would like the applicant to resubmit lighting plans for compliance with Code. 5. We would like to direct the Community Development Department to provide us with status reports on this project. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in May. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2011 SEQR TYPE II A2000 AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 15-11, SUB 15-10, AV 66-10, AV 92-04, SP 50-02, SP 4-00, SV 3-00, SP 10-83 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 LOT SIZE 2.82 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION 179-9 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 14-2011, A2000 is the application. Requested action is modification to an approved Site Plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 1025 State Route 9. Existing zoning is CI. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County, on 3/9/2011, issued a No County Impact. Project Description: The parcel associated with this application is the result of a two lot subdivision approved by this Board on January 18, 2011. As a result of this subdivision, two distinct sites that require Site Plan approval have emerged, A2000 and Adirondack Tire. Staff comments: Access to this property is proposed through the Adirondack Tire parcel and will also utilize existing access to the south. Concerning stormwater, on site controls have been inspected by Nace Engineering and have been deemed adequate. See letter submitted with application material. Plan Review, basically as there are no site changes to this portion of the site, I have absolutely no issues with this. I think the Planning Board is familiar with this. This is in lock step with Adirondack Tire, of which there was some engineering comments which are before you, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening, Stefanie Bitter. I’m here on behalf of A2000, the tenant of Lot Two. As you know the site plans are separated. We’ve been here for quite a few months going through this project. We are simply, have subdivided the property and are now looking at what’s referenced as Lot Two, which is the existing storage units for A2000. Like Keith mentioned, there’s no changes proposed for Lot two. Lot Two will access over Lot One, with a proposed access and drive easement, and will also have an easement so that the circulation with the two lots in between the bordering property line would provide adequate area, which is immediately behind the existing Adirondack Tire building. We have provided waivers or requested waivers, I should say, for landscaping, lighting, erosion and sediment controls, contours, grading and stormwater, since we are proposing no changes to this site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-If they were all this easy. MS. BITTER-I feel the same way. MR. HUNSINGER-I kept thinking, well, what am I missing here? Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m good. MR. TRAVER-Same here. MR. HUNSINGER-Public hearing. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, you’re coming back just in time. Do we have any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show there were no comments received, and will so close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other questions or comments, we will entertain a motion for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 14-2011 A2000 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change to an approved site plan. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2011 A2000, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is approved without conditions. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)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; and 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; erosion & sedimentation, and contours; and 7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2011 SEQR TYPE ADIRONDACK TIRE AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 14-11, SV 6-11, SUB 15-10, AV 66-10, AV 92-04, SP 50-02, SP 4-00, SV 3-00, SP 10-83 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 LOT SIZE 2.28 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION 179- 9, CHAPTER 140 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 15-2011 Adirondack Tire is the applicant. Requested action, again, is modification to approved site plan. This is at 1025 State Route 9. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. Type II. No further review required as far as SEQRA goes. Applicant proposes a change to an approved Site Plan. Specifically to change this from one parcel with two uses to two parcels with one use on each. The parcel obviously is associated with A2000. Discernable changes to this particular property would include the realignment of the access road for the storage facility and removal of gravel areas with what is assumed to be seeding adjacent to the access drive. I do have some Site Plan issues. Concerning the crushed stone area, they say they’re going to remove it, but it doesn’t say on the plan what they’re going to replace it with. I assume it’s grass and we hope it’s grass, and if so, I’m looking for, again, the all-important scarification of the surface of the compacted area, and VISION Engineering notes are before you. I will say some of those notes are taken without the knowledge that Tom Nace has already given this project a look over as far as the stormwater goes, and there’s no change to it, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening, again. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter on behalf of Adirondack Tire, tentative Lot One. Lot One is a one acre parcel, and as mentioned in the A2000 Site Plan, we are utilizing a proposed access easement which will cross Lot One, that is really the minor change that’s occurring to Lot One because of the implementation of stone and gravel over that access area. We are then finding more pervious spaces by removing the crushed stone in the northern most corner of this property. In response to Staff comments, we don’t have any issue with implementing a note with reference to Number Two of Keith’s comments with regards to the implementation of grass in that area, so that that’s definitely clarified. He also had certain concerns relative to the parking. Lot One references this concern of the two spaces which are immediately adjacent, I believe, to the office which A2000 currently occupies. We don’t have any issue with removing those spaces, and then utilizing the other three for customers that are either waiting to go into the working bays or have finished the working bays. So that the Adirondack Tire employees have access to those vehicles. The other concern that Keith had was relative to the handicap spot, and I think that concern was relative to the length, not necessarily the width, because the width, I measured to scale as being 15 feet in width. So that we could replace that handicap spot with one of the spaces that are parallel to Route 9, if that’s something that Staff feels is more appropriate, they don’t have an issue with that, but we do have more than enough parking which meets the parking calculations to be able to make those modifications. So, relative to VISION’s comments, I think he did at least reference there was an error on my application Site Development Data that it doesn’t coincide with the numbers of Matt Steves’ maps which I can make a correction to that Site Development Data so that it’s corrected, but again, like he mentioned, we have, provided a letter saying that Nace did go to the site and demonstrate in a letter that the stormwater is adequate and working. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. BITTER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MS. BITTER-We’re seeking the same waivers as we did for A2000. MR. TRAVER-There’s a comment about removing a reference to the sign, additional comments number four, on Staff comments. MS. BITTER-Yes. We were going to seek a variance relative to a secondary freestanding sign for the storage units, but at this time the owners didn’t feel it was necessary. They weren’t planning on putting that sign up immediately anyway, so they just felt they’ll wait until there’s a need that arises, because at this point, all those storage units are about 95% occupied. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So is that a yes, you’re going to remove reference to the sign for now? MS. BITTER-Yes. We already removed, we withdrew the variance application for the sign. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MS. BITTER-So, yes, I should remove it from the map. I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Does the Planning Board have any issues with the sign, so if at a future date they want it, you would want to review it, or is an Area Variance okay, if they decide, at some point, they want it? MR. TRAVER-It’s probably going to be LED, right? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s why I asked. MR. MAGOWAN-It will kind of go with the A2000, right? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I can see it now. A2000, yes, maybe we should take a look at it if they decide to put one up. It doesn’t sound like they’ll need it, but you never know. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project, also. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. Let the record show there were no comments received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any further questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I think we just impose some of these conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s just a few conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-And so the issue, because I was writing conditions, the parking spaces near the north office appear to potentially block access to the work bay south of the office. Was that addressed? MS. BITTER-Yes. We’re going to remove the two. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re going to remove them. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that needs to be a condition. MS. BITTER-And then I said I would re-locate the handicap space. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I’m actually just going to word that so to confer with Staff to meet the requirements for handicap parking, so that you can meet with the Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-That sounds fine with me. MR. OBORNE-That sounds fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the parking spaces are going to be re-located to where? Sorry. MS. BITTER-We have a sufficient number so that removing those two will still provide us in compliance with the Code. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MS. BITTER-We’re just going to re-locate the handicap spot to the other side. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Perfect. Now, the VISION Engineering comments, if we just do the, address them, get a signoff. MS. BITTER-I just have to correct my Site Development Data sheet so it matches to the survey. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Bear with me on this one. Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 15-2011 ADIRONDACK TIRE 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change to an approved site plan. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2011 ADIRONDACK TIRE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)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; and 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans, erosion & sedimentation and contours; and 7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 9)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 10)This is approved with the following conditions: a)Regarding the parking spaces near the north office, which block access to the work bays south of the office, the applicant will be removing those from the plan. b)Concerning the crushed stone areas to be removed, the applicant will replace that crushed stone with grass. Staff recommends a 12 inch scarification of the existing bed prior to topsoil placement and seeding to promote vegetative stabilization. c)Regarding the handicap loading zone which appears to be undersized, the applicant will confer with Staff to meet the requirements for handicap parking. d)That the Planning Board will require that the access easement language be reviewed and approved by Queensbury Town Counsel prior to final signoff by the Zoning Administrator. e)Regarding additional signage, the applicant, on this particular application, any additional future signage will need to come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. f)The applicant will need to obtain a VISION Engineering signoff. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to clarify the engineering signoff is only on the Site Plan comments. Right? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, this is, well, 15-2011. MS. BITTER-So the waivers that are granted would obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, take care of all of those. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other discussion? MR. OBORNE-Could you run that by me again? What was the VISION Engineering, you wanted a VISION Engineering signoff, but just on one point? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I wanted the VISION Engineering signoff, and Chris said that there was only one item. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s just on the. MR. TRAVER-15-2011. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. BITTER-Just because the waivers we’re seeking are going to eliminate a number of these. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So you’re granting those waivers anyhow? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Stefanie. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2011 SEQR TYPE II NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS AGENT(S) LEE HORNING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW FAÇADE FOR CAR DEALERSHIP AND 8’ X 8’ SIGN TOWER. CHANGES TO BUILDING EXTERIORS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 13-11, SV 38-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.10-1-12 SECTION 179-9 LEE HORNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 18-2011. North Country Imports is the applicant. The applicant proposes a change to building exteriors and change to the roof pitch. Location is 616 Quaker Road. Commercial Intensive is the zone. Type II SEQRA. Warren County gave this a No County Impact on 3/9/2011. Project Description: Applicant proposes an upgrade to the façade of the dealership to include additional signage and a change to the roof pitch. Further, the applicant proposes an eight by eight foot, twenty foot by six inch tall slate tiled tower addition 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) located on the northeast portion of the dealership. The site has had interior upgrades accomplished in 2001 and there are no records of exterior upgrades found. The applicant proposes to change the pitch of the roof along the front portion of the building that is proposed for façade renovations. It equates to approximately a 60 by 32 foot or 1920 square foot roof pitch. Just to, I guess the long and the short of it is there seems to be a little bit of a difference in the amount of roof that’s being changed, based on my calculations, which was what was presented and based on what Lee has told us. They are requesting a waiver from stormwater. Staff’s position is that there needs to be some mitigation for stormwater on this project, but obviously that’s up to the Planning Board, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HORNING-Lee Horning with Ken Lundrum, the owner of North Country Imports. Keith covered just about everything. With regards to the roof, it should read about 2,000 square feet. We’re changing the roof pitch back to the rear of the building. Now this water will go into a gravel area and into a ditch which goes to the remaining six acres of the property, and right now all the water drains across the parking lot into a gravel area and dissipates into that low lying area. It’s almost impossible to put a drywell in here because the water table’s about two foot underground, but they have no problems now with water at all on this property. There is a drainage area about eight foot wide around the building, around the showroom. I’ve got some pictures here, a before shot and after shot, or what we propose anyway, if you want to take a look at it. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that picture there really helps a lot, too. MR. HORNING-That right there, the only thing we’re not doing is we’re not putting these columns in. There’s no excavation involved. The only excavation is this power area right here. KEN LUNDRUM MR. LUNDRUM-The day that we built this building, we didn’t realize that this whole wall faces north, so that all winter the snow melts on the roof, just to the east, drops on the ground, freezes. So it’s been a colossal problem for the entire time this building’s been built, and Lee came up with the idea to just put the snow and the rain water to the back of the building and stop this ice problem in front of the door. We put tons of salt down a year because we’re still afraid somebody’s going to slip and fall on it, and the whole purpose of making this pitch change is to get the freezing water from falling down in front of the main entrance to the building. MR. TRAVER-So basically with regards to stormwater it sounds like you have high groundwater and you’re basically saying that the change in the roof will have the stormwater go from one graveled area into another graveled area. MR. HORNING-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So if on the proposed façade there’s no columns, is there still going to be that overhang as shown? MR. HORNING-We’re still going to have that overhang. The overhang right now is about three feet. We’re going to maintain that same overhang with this façade. It’s going to hang off the existing structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LUNDRUM-Yes, the pitch is just a little bit deceiving, because when the, whatever you call them, designer drew it, he had it spaced off the idea with the idea that the ice and snow would come forward and then fall down, which is really not a good plan, and when I had Lee look at it, he said let’s just slide that back from the picture, slide it back about two feet, attach the façade to the roof, and just change the roof so that it all goes to the back. We’re actually only talking about 25% of the total roof surface that we would be pitching. MRS. STEFFAN-So just the front part of it that currently pitches down. MR. HORNING-Yes. MR. LUNDRUM-Just the front part, right behind where the façade is, is only about 25%, maybe not even 25% of the total roof, and we’re just going to re-direct that to the back of the building, instead of coming off the front of the building. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. OBORNE-The roof is going like this at this point, right? MR. HORNING-Right. It’s a gable roof. MR. OBORNE-You’re just taking that portion and going like this, and half of that is already going that way. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Correct. MR. OBORNE-I just want to make sure you understand that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes MR. MAGOWAN-And you’re basically only doing that over the showroom, right? You’re going to keep the mechanic area the same? MR. LUNDRUM-No, no, we’re going to put a, what do you call that, portico over that door, the service entrance door. MR. MAGOWAN-An awning, a little awning hood? MR. LUNDRUM-Yes. With some supports, I hope. That ice can get heavy, Ken. MR. TRAVER-It’s even shown in that picture there. MR. MAGOWAN-I like the look. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LUNDRUM-Yes, we were due. It’s time. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t see SAAB up there, next to Subaru. MR. LUNDRUM-Well, we made a deal with the Board last week. That SAAB sign will go, it depends how you look at it. MR. HORNING-To your far right. MR. LUNDRUM-It will go back on the building. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re still keeping the SAAB line? MR. LUNDRUM-You know, that question came up last week, too, because there’s a lot of loyal SAAB enthusiasts around and, you know what, I grew up with that car company. I’m not going to give up on it as long as they are trying to make a comeback, which they are, but it’s a longshot at this point, it’s a longshot. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I’m glad you’re hanging in there. MR. LUNDRUM-We’re the only SAAB dealer from Canada to Newberg, and to Syracuse, which is not saying much. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MRS. STEFFAN-Wow. MR. LUNDRUM-But the one is Albany’s gone. The one in Kingston is gone. The one in Utica is gone. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. TRAVER-When I was a kid growing up in Lake George, the two cycle SAAB sedans could not be beat on the ice track. They were fantastic. They sounded like a popcorn machine when they went by, but boy they were awesome on the ice. They were amazing. MR. LUNDRUM-Well, that’s how far back my roots go. So I’m really reluctant to give it up. Subaru would love us to give it up. They’d promise you the world if you are just a single point Subaru dealer, but, you know, it’s pretty hard to give up on what you grew up with. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LUNDRUM-And, you know what, they’re building new cars. They’ve got new funding. They’ve got new owners. They’ve turned a corner. General Motors did the most that they could to destroy the brand, but as one guy said, think about this. Hummer’s gone, Pontiac’s gone, Saturn’s gone, but we saved SAAB. That’s pretty cool. MR. MAGOWAN-Very cool. They’re a great car. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any issues with the waiver requests? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s the stormwater issue, you know, it appears both on VISION and Staff comments, and, you know, I know that we’re moving water from the front of the building to the back of the building, and the water table is very high there. We already know that, and. MR. TRAVER-They’re by the Cedar Swamp there. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. So, certainly a stormwater plan would confirm what we likely already know. So I, you know, I don’t know whether we want to put a condition on the applicant. MR. OBORNE-And not to be an advocate, I didn’t even think about the ice going down and then the salt having to follow after that. Well, that’ll be mitigated to a certain extent, too. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So that’s just one thought. MR. LUNDRUM-The water ends up in the same place. It just takes a 50 foot shorter path to get there. MR. TRAVER-And it won’t be quite as, it won’t have as much sodium in it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So, is the Planning Board willing to grant the stormwater waiver and not ask the applicant, as the VISION Engineering comments, identify, that we need a mitigation plan? MR. TRAVER-They haven’t provided a stormwater erosion, yes, I feel that, it’s my feeling that they do not need to do a stormwater plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I don’t think they need a plan. Like I said, the water taps there, I know the property very well. I don’t think so. MRS. STEFFAN-VISION Engineering also identified they recommend an updated survey or existing condition’s plan be provided before, for consideration in its review. MR. OBORNE-I think the question is, do you have enough information before you to make a reasonable decision? MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. I appreciate that recommendation. It’s my feeling that we have enough information to move forward. MRS. STEFFAN-The site’s not changing. It’s a roof line pitch, and it’s the façade that changes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just thinking of how the, for example like when we reviewed the Site Plan for the plaza where O’Toole’s is, I forgot the name of the plaza, what it’s called, and basically, you know, the same thing. They’re updating the façade. They’re giving it a more modern look. They’re improving the site, but they’re really not changing any of the underlying site conditions. MR. TRAVER-Right. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess, you know, so I feel, and, you know, at least those two waivers were consistent with what we’ve done in the past. I did have questions, though, on lighting. I just wanted to get a sense from the Board on lighting. I intended to drive by there before the meeting but it wasn’t dark. So it wouldn’t have helped. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s getting lighter and lighter in the evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can you comment on lighting at all, what kind of fixtures are there now? MR. HORNING-We do have a couple of yard lights there. Right? MR. LUNDRUM-We do. We have two tall aluminum lights, and then we have four smaller lights that shine down. It’s not really very exciting. MR. HORNING-You’ve got some wall packs on the building, correct? Which are going to remain. If they’re in the area of the new façade we’re just going to replace them in the same spots. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not concerned about lighting, and part of it is because the site hasn’t changed over time, but where it’s located, it’s really kind of in a pocket. You’ve got the National Grid building above it. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, dark pocket because they’ve got the (lost word) behind them and then the woods on the other side. MRS. STEFFAN-And the wetlands around it and on the street. So it’s not, there’s not a lot of interference that it has, but it’s not a very brightly lit site anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my recollection, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re not going to put any soffit lights in that little short overhang over the windows. MR. HORNING-That wasn’t any intention of doing that. You want to light the inside so you can see your cars, right, Ken? MR. LUNDRUM-You do, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there are no written comments or public comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA. No further review is required. Are there any additional conditions that we want to consider? MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to, well, the applicant needs to provide accurate square footage of the roof pitch change, because there was, between. MR. HORNING-Do you want me to change the date on the letter and just re-do that? MR. OBORNE-That’ll be fine, or place it on the plan. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Just update it on the plan, and that way that’ll be on file with the Community Development office, which is part of the condition anyway because you have to provide as built drawings. So, we’ll just do it. That’s the only condition I have. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 18-2011 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes new façade for car dealership and 8’ x 8’ sign tower. Changes to building exteriors in a CI zone require Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2011 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II-no further review needed; and 3)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)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; and 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 9)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 10)This is approved with only one condition. a.That the applicant will provide accurate square footage information on the roof pitch. That was a change from what was submitted to what will be designed. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HORNING-Thank you, Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2011 SEQR TYPE II C. CHRIS MACKEY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 15 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF TWO TERRACE AREAS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 24-03, AV 5-03, AV 4-03, SP 46-99, AV 78-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 1.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-6 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-As previously stated, Site Plan 22-2011 for Mackey. This is hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 15 Wild Turkey Lane. This is a Type II SEQRA. 3/9/2011 there was a No County Impact by Warren County Planning Board. Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of two terraced areas adjacent to single family residence approximately seven linear feet from west property line and 38 feet to the closest point of the shoreline. The proposal calls for an approximate 50 foot long by four foot wide permeable path leading up to two terraced areas of 350 feet and 115 square feet respectively. A rain garden on the down slope portion of the terrace is proposed, as well as seven evergreen tree screenings along the western boundary adjacent to the parcel. Total disturbance is approximately 2,000 square feet. What follows is review. The applicant is requesting waivers for stormwater and the Staff does have a comment that permeable materials should be considered for terraced areas. The Planning Board may wish to explore this with the applicant. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Chris Mackey on this Site Plan application. Keith explained it pretty well. It’s pretty simple. The addition of the impervious areas, a portion of the lower one falls within the 50 foot setback so that that triggers the Site Plan Review. The surface of that impervious area would be proposed to be a manufactured blue stone. There’s drainage provided from those impervious areas to go to a rain garden. The amount of impervious area and the amount of disturbance doesn’t trigger a minor stormwater plan. We’ve asked for a waiver from that. We have, though, in fact, shown a rain garden to receive the, any runoff from those impervious surfaces, the terraces as shown. There is some planting shown to the westerly boundary to provide a little buffer between there and the neighboring property. The access from the house is over a path, a permeable surface. Whether that would be a permeable paver or a mulch, bark mulch type path, that’s the intent there, to get from Point A at the house to the terrace area. I think there were some comments also Keith made about grading. I mean, we’ve shown spot grades and a cross sectional area. This is, you know, fairly simple. I think the cross section, you know, shows the intent of placing this at the front grade and cutting slightly into the upside. The spot grades indicate the level of the terraces and the drainage that goes down to the rain garden area. Clarification that stabilization may need to be forthcoming, I think on our notes on Sheet S-2 should cover what should be done in terms of erosion and sediment control, and stabilization of disturbed area. Plantings to be quantified and qualified. We’ve shown the rain garden area. We’ve indicated a listing of the recommended plantings, that’s on Sheet Two also, so that that’s, the indication of the recognized plants. I’m not sure, that one would have come from the Water Keeper’s office, that listing of recommended rain garden plantings comments, but setbacks, 75, the intent of that setback line was not as a building setback, which I think Keith was indicating here, but it’s the 50 foot setback that triggers the hard scape review. So that was, it wasn’t meant to indicate the building setback. Applicant requested waivers for stormwater. That, in fact, in our cover letter we’ve requested that, and that would, I think, negate some of the comments that VISION has made as well, and permeable materials should be considered for the terraced areas. Keith mentioned that. At this point, the suggestion that I had gotten from the owner, the owner’s contractor, is that the blue stone, that would necessitate having drainage in place, and that’s why, one of the reasons we have the rain garden as well. It’s not a permeable pavement, or permeable product, the manufactured blue stone. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re proposing blue stone. How big are the pieces, though? Is there enough space between each piece to drain? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s not an open jointed situation. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-No, no. Again, that’s the suggestion or the recommendation, the request that the owner had proposed that surface. MR. HUNSINGER-And the owner knows how slippery blue stone is when it’s wet? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just thinking around a hot tub, that doesn’t sound like a great mix. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I’ll be sure to comment on that to him as well. MR. HUNSINGER-I grew up in a house that had slate sidewalks out to the front, and every time it rained, it was like ice skating. I can’t tell you how many times people fell. They’re very slippery when they’re wet. Sorry. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. No, again, engineering comments, limits of disturbance. Certainly we can add to the plan. Vegetation and landscaped features to be removed. There are two small hemlocks, one seven inch, one six inch, that falls within the area of the lower terrace. Those are beyond the 35 foot line. I mean, the whole terrace area, they’re all beyond 35 feet. So there isn’t any disturbance in that zone, the 35 foot zone. Specify and provide details for the proposed permeable surface to be used on the walkway, on the pathway. Certainly we can add more clarification. We’ve just indicated permeable surface at this point, but if there needs to be a better description of that, we will. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a reason why it’s four foot wide? MR. MAC ELROY-No. It’s sort of a standard width. Certainly could be three feet, could be less, but that’s sort of standard width. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s awfully wide. I mean, a standard walkway, you know, usually three foot. Commercial ends you’ll get up to a, you know, four and five feet. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. What this will be, and I think there’s indication there, would be situated to avoid disturbance, and I’ve looked at that where you can easily meander through the existing trees that are there, so that you’re not doing any more disturbance, certainly, and that would be the intent. So if, you know, we can use less than that width, you know, something less than that, whether it was even two feet or two to three feet. Less is better. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you don’t want to make it too tight, but, I mean, it looks like a beautiful area to go to, so you’re going to meander through, but four feet is, you know, that’s awfully wide. MR. MAC ELROY-The three comments are related to stormwater and I just would say that, you know, if the waiver is granted, I don’t know that those comments, then, are applicable, but we’ve shown an area for the rain garden, shown a detail of the rain garden. It is sized, 150 square feet, and that’s based on, there’s a standard in the booklet. I don’t know how to refer, the Water Keeper’s booklet on lakefront development that gives a standard of five to twenty percent, five to twenty percent of the square footage of the impervious area to be used for the rain garden square footage. I don’t know if that makes sense to you, but in this case, if we had 600 square feet of impervious area, 20% of that would only be 120 square feet of that standard volume that would be provided. So we use the more conservative 20%, and that’s what’s provided, yes, exactly, that book. Do it yourself. Underground utility lines, there would be electric out to the terrace area certainly so we can show that detail on the, that indication of where we would have electric come to. There is actually a, the pump pit, you know, would come right from that area of the house over to the terrace, pretty simple addition to the plan, and the slope of the patio surfaces towards the outlet locations (lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-It has to be done. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-What is the plan for that? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that could be pumped for, actually because of gravity you could just discharge that right to the effluent pump of the wastewater system. That’s one solution, one way of doing it. It wouldn’t be a regular operation. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-No, but I mean, being that close to the lake, we have to. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it could be. MR. MAGOWAN-We’ll need, it has to be, you know, come away, obviously. So either pumped into the effluent pump system in an up. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, then it would become part of the wastewater system. It wouldn’t be something that would be done when you’re using, having your normal use of your wastewater system, but it’s the type of thing that would be scheduled. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I don’t know, I just, just something I just was thinking and saw. MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. Good question, and I did think of that. MR. MAGOWAN-I’d hate to see it go into the septic system, but, you know, being close to the lake, I’ve never really thought of, you don’t want that chlorination going. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. It would be, well, to tell you the truth, I’m not sure what Chris’ system is, whether it’s a UV system or a chlorinated system, but regardless, that solution still is in place. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s still, yes, is in place. The UV would be nicer, there’s less chemicals, but, you know, you still, there’s still a bromine or something, isn’t there? I can’t remember. MR. MAC ELROY-In the water? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, with a UV system. MR. MAC ELROY-UV system? No, it’s simply the light. MR. MAGOWAN-Just the lighting? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And that would be just? MR. MAC ELROY-That would provide the disinfection. So there’d be no need to have chlorine in that case, but I’m not sure what his water system is. So if it’s chlorinated, then it would be an absolute I guess that you wouldn’t just open discharge. You would pump it. MR. MAGOWAN-I could just see a hose going somewhere. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, yes, into the effluent pump tank. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. This is what we’re hoping. So that I would like to see that would be tied into a fixed situation where they’d have a shut off valve. MR. MAC ELROY-We could add a note to that plan that would just indicate any maintenance, regular maintenance of hot tub waters would discharge to the effluent pump tank. MR. MAGOWAN-And I also see that the tub is underneath an 18 inch white pine? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s alongside that, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s going to be okay? You might want to think about a little more frequent water changing with that pine up above it. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, you would cover those, when not in use, you would cover the hot tub. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? MRS. STEFFAN-I never would have thought about the discharge of the hot tub. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good catch. MRS. STEFFAN-It never would have occurred to me. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have a hot tub. So I don’t know what the maintenance structure is. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think we have the same issue with this one as we did with the last, a rain garden within 50 feet of the lake. MR. OBORNE-Well, this is a minor. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It’s not even a minor. MR. OBORNE-It’s not even a minor. Correct. MR. MAC ELROY-Even if it was a minor, it wouldn’t trigger that regulation. MR. OBORNE-Yes. What I would say is it’s not a major. Because that’s what triggers the regulation. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments? MRS. STEFFAN-There’ll be a great view, from the terrace and the hot tub. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Public comments. I’ll open the public hearing. I assume you’re waiting? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We did not prepare written comments. I was not sure why, or what the justification for the waiver for stormwater. I was confused. We were glad to see stormwater proposed, but then they’re requesting the waiver. We feel that, you know, if there can be stormwater provided, it should be provided. I did also have the same thoughts on the effluent pump system. I mean, this is bathing water. It should definitely be tied in to the septic system. Does that raise questions on the septic system, but it definitely should be tied in to that. There’s a question on vegetation removal. I guess that has been addressed, and there’s a question on, I recall there being retaining walls and I do not know if the retaining walls are of a size and within the shoreline setback to need a variance for structure size. So those were just our thoughts, but we would not support the waiver request for stormwater. If we can put in stormwater, let’s put it in, and make sure we get that system connected to the wastewater system. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Do you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I don’t know, what about that stormwater discharge? What do you guys think? Stormwater plan, rather, because it asks for a waiver? MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, in a way, we have a plan, because there’s stormwater proposed. MRS. STEFFAN-And they have proposed permeable surfaces. MR. TRAVER-Right. So, do we need to waive it? I mean, we have stormwater is being planned for on the plan. MR. OBORNE-I think, is the waiver more towards calculations? I mean, you’re right, it’s a stormwater plan, but, I mean, Dennis is explaining to you how he came about the sizing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. TRAVER-Well, and we have that information on the record as well, that he used the do it yourself water quality. With that statement, we could choose to accept that, I suppose, as the methodology used to design the rain garden that’s proposed, along with the other changes. MR. OBORNE-I do have the one question concerning the water from the hot tub itself. That’s something that really cannot be regulated, to be honest with you. So my suggestion would be, speaking at this meeting, would be to hard pipe it over there somehow. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that’s what I would have suggested. That’s why I said it’s hard piping with a shut off valve, and it’s tied right in, so there is no chance of being able to sneak a hose in there. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know how you feel about that, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-If that’s what the Board would want. MR. OBORNE-Is it gravity? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it would be gravity. It could flow gravity. It’s just a matter, and effectively you have a trench that you’d be springing electrical conduit over to that area anyway. So it’s probably not that it adds significant amount of work or anything. MR. OBORNE-And if it’s a UV filter, then that would be moot. I mean. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, except, well then what we could do, I guess you could discharge to the rain garden, if that was the situation, but I can’t tell you tonight whether he, it’s lake water. I’m confident of that. It’s whether it’s a UV disinfection or chlorine, and what the next people would do or whatever. MR. OBORNE-Well, I guess it wouldn’t matter if it was UV, because then you could dump it into the septic anyway. You wouldn’t have any issue whatsoever. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So the hot tub outside, it freezes. The new people come in, they don’t know the Code, they throw in a chlorinated one. MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s the risk you’re going to have to take. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s a gamble, I’m not willing to go there, Keith. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any chance or concern that emptying the hot tub into the septic system would overwhelm the septic? MR. MAC ELROY-You’d have to do it at a reasonable time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, it would be planned maintenance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-But, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Because the, the simple answer to your question is, no. It won’t overwhelm the system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t see a request for a lighting waiver. Did you really ask for that? I didn’t see that in the Staff Notes. MR. MAC ELROY-A request for a what waiver? MRS. STEFFAN-Lighting. MR. OBORNE-You probably didn’t write it down in your waiver requests. MR. MAC ELROY-No. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s stormwater only. Okay. I just, the motion said lighting. So I just wanted to clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any lighting on it? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-There isn’t any shown. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not planning any. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, you know, as a I think about that, I mean, there may be, what would that lighting be referred to? I mean, it would be any kind of pole mounted lighting or anything. It would be. MR. MAGOWAN-Like landscape lighting? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, landscaping lighting, built into that wall, that would provide some, you know, in the interior perimeter of the, in the terrace area. I can envision that. I don’t, I haven’t been told that by the contractor, but I would envision that that would be appropriate component of the terrace. MR. TRAVER-If that were used, that would be low voltage and downcast probably, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So maybe we could condition that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any lighting be low voltage and down cast. MR. MAGOWAN-More like a walkway, downcast lighting, or walkway lights. You’ll ask about maybe possibly going down to a three foot pathway? MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. Yes. That was just our designer made that choice. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I don’t know, is there really a big difference between three feet and four feet? I mean, if two people are walking to the hot tub holding hands, I mean, they need four feet. Just think about that. Or even if you’re walking with a child, you’re holding their hand, you know, sometimes the skinny aisle is not sufficient. So I don’t have a problem with the four feet. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s going to be impervious. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don’t think it matters. MR. OBORNE-It’s going to be pervious. MR. MAC ELROY-Pervious, is what you mean to say. It will be permeable. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-Permeable. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And that vision convinces me that it’s even more important to hard plumb the hot tub into the wastewater system. MRS. STEFFAN-So are we okay with the walkway, or do we want to make it three feet? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with the four. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I’ll go your way. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-And what about the VISION Engineering comments? Do we just want to have a signoff so that the agent can work with VISION on satisfying these? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because certainly the underground utility lines are going to be denoted on the plan. That has to happen, and that’s already there. MR. TRAVER-They’ve really all been addressed. We just need the signoff. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, but is the stormwater waiver issued? Because then that would be justification for three, four and five. MR. TRAVER-I see, yes. MR. MAC ELROY-With the waiver, then there wouldn’t necessarily need to be a response to those. MR. TRAVER-Right. Correct. MR. MAC ELROY-If there isn’t a waiver, then. MR. OBORNE-I mean, is it actually necessary to have the signoff by VISION if you are going to grant that stormwater waiver? Why even send it back to them? MR. TRAVER-Well, there are a couple of comments beyond stormwater. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I can add those as a condition. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there we go, that’ll work. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I need to add limits of disturbance, but there’s no disturbance. It’s lawn currently, right? MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So that doesn’t apply. Appropriate limits of disturbance should be noted and quantified. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there would be area of disturbance, in terms of the construction. So that’s something we can add to the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re going to add that, and you’re not taking out any landscaping. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s two trees, two hemlocks that would be removed, a six inch and a seven inch that fall within that footprint of the lower terrace. But again, those are outside of the 35 foot. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we closed the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 22-2011 C. CHRIS MACKEY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes additional of two terrace areas adjacent to single family residence. Hard Surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011; and 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2011 C. CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II 3)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)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; and 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)Waiver request granted: stormwater mgmt.; and 7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 9)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 10)This is approved with the following conditions: 1. The approximate limits of disturbance should be denoted and quantified on the plans. In addition, any vegetation or landscaping features that are to be removed should be noted. 2. Please specify and provide details for the proposed permeable surface to be used in the proposed pathway. 3. Any underground utility lines that are built will be required to be denoted on the plans. 4. A note should be added to the plans to slope the patio surfaces toward the outlet locations. 5. The hot tub discharge should be tied to the effluent pump pit. Please denote that on the plan. Specifically it should be gravity fed hard piped with a shutoff valve. 6. Any lighting installed will be low voltage and downcast. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to be brought before this illustrious Board this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-In light of the new VISION Engineering situation, and we have new engineers that we’re going to be dealing with, I would like to have a meeting of the Planning Board and the new engineer who’s going to be assigned to us, so that we can discuss what some of our performance expectations are for the engineer. MR. OBORNE-We have a meeting scheduled for this Friday at 10 o’clock in the Planning Office with the reviewing engineer, the Senior Planner from Chazen, Chris Round. The senior engineer’s last name is Doty. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And we were going to impart those performance issues, you know, what we’re expecting out of them. If you’d like a separate meeting or would like to join us, obviously you’re more than welcome. Do you want to have them at your next cycle in April maybe to introduce, to have them come in? MRS. STEFFAN-When will they start being at our meetings or available for our meetings and reviewing our? MR. OBORNE-They will be available in April. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-On Friday we’re handing off the first set of packages for the April meeting cycle. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And what is currently in the pipeline and reviewed by VISION will be worked through, through VISION. They’ll continue to review until they’re all done, and everything gets turned over to Chazen. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That’s how that’s going to work. What we will most likely do, and I am going to circle down to Craig tomorrow, because we just scheduled that meeting today, is basically obviously stormwater, erosion and sediment control. If there are any other issues that you wish to impart, by all means, put that in an e-mail or tell me now what you wish to have imparted to them, prior to any potential meeting in the future, with this Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You probably would want a full Board, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So maybe prior to a Planning Board meeting in April, have them come in at six. That’s just a suggestion, and hash that around a little bit. MR. MAGOWAN-I like that better than 10 on Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ll give it some thought and maybe talk about it again on Thursday. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because I have to be somewhere on Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to say, while we’re still on the record, that personally I was very satisfied, this evening excepted, with the performance and the quality of VISION Engineering, and I’m really not looking forward to another transition phase when I thought this was, they were going to be our engineer. So, for what it’s worth. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-I, too, am disappointed in that, but, that said, you know, the decision was out of our hands, and so I do want to be sure that we set some clear, high performance expectations for these folks, because, you know, we’ve gotten to a point where I think most of us were very relieved to have VISON back in January, because of the quality of the review and the kinds of, you know, the kinds of reviews that they were doing on many different levels, and so, I think we will identify for the new engineer exactly what some of those expectations are, and, you know, things that we’ve been happy with, things that we expect them to look for. MR. MAGOWAN-I like the ease of their writing. I mean, it’s understandable. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, it’s plain English. MR. MAGOWAN-Without giving much thought and time into trying to figure out what an engineer is trying to say. MR. HUNSINGER-And just, while we’re on the topic of April meetings, you will know it’s Spring because we will see Laura Feathers with the tents. MRS. STEFFAN-With the tents. MR. HUNSINGER-I saw that on the agenda. That’s our sign of Spring, for the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Good point, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So maybe between, because we have another Planning Board meeting this week, if other Planning Board members, at least the four of us that are here right now, could maybe jot down some things that we are looking for, so that our engineers have a baseline performance expectation, and then we can meet, when the whole Board is together. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And just a short list, obviously, is timeliness. MR. TRAVER-That would be good. MR. OBORNE-Timeliness and timeliness. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s Friday before 10 a.m. MR. OBORNE-It is. It is very difficult for me to sit here and have that happen, as I’m handing out, and it’s not the first time this has happened recently, either. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So, and you see what it does, and I do appreciate the Board being a bit malleable tonight, as a result of that. By no means did you need to be, that’s for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the choice? MR. MAGOWAN-We could have gone home early. MR. HUNSINGER-Table every item. MR. OBORNE-I’m still looking for comments back on the policies and procedures. I know I mentioned that last week. I don’t mean to be a broken record. I just want to keep that front and center and I want to get that taken care of by June at the latest. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I highlighted that and I didn’t bring it with me today, and the other thing, I wanted to thank you for sending that article on aging. I think it was very instructive, and the kinds of things that the Planning Board should be thinking about, because the developments that, you know, are in front of us will have long term ramifications from the Town. MR. OBORNE-It’s a concern of mine, and basically with my training and reading and schooling is when you approve these 55 and older, non-assisted living, when they need assistance, that is 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2011) where the rub is, is where are they going to go after that? They’re basically in islands, that’s all they’re at right now, because there’s no next level of care nearby. So, that’s for the record. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and certainly the Planning, at last year’s New York State Planning Federation, they had two workshops, I think, on aging in place, because our population is getting older, and so we have to look at, you know, the implications of some of this development on the community to make sure that the infrastructure is there to support them, and if we don’t do it at the planning phase, we’re going to pay for that later on. We’re not going to be able to meet their needs. MR. OBORNE-And you really are the only entity in the Town that can drive that at this point. It’s not part of the zoning at this point, and that is typically what you want to do is you want to get it into the zoning to make it that much easier. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-But it’s not. So it’s under your auspices only. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the developers are saying right now there’s a market for it. So they want to build it, and you can’t blame them for that. MR. OBORNE-They’re not wrong. They’re looking at it, but they’re looking at it inside the box. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, well, and the other issue, which we’ll certainly discuss when the Queensbury site plan comes in, but if you look in the media, I mean, there are several adjoining communities to our own that are proposing this kind of housing and so all of the burdens will be shared by the Glens Falls Hospital infrastructure and any of the emergency services that we are all utilizing. So the impacts will be dramatic, and we have to evaluate those as Planning Board members. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes, and I just want to emphasize that this is a Planning Board. Just that word means to plan, and I don’t mean to be on a soap box here, but many times the Board doesn’t plan. They now, and that’s an issue. With that said, I’m done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 54