The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-11-22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 15-2005 Curtis Harrington 1. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-9 Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 5. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 Site Plan No. 61-2005 Steve & Debbie Seaboyer 6. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Site Plan No. 63-2005 Mandy Spring Farm Nursery 7. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-16 Subdivision No. 1-2005 J. Michael Blackburn 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 253.-1-18 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 20-2005 Andrew Darnley, Jr. 21. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-70 Subdivision No. 21-2005 Michaels Group 31. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.19-1-67, 68 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 11/22/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE GOETZ RICHARD SANFORD LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2005 SEQR TYPE CURTIS HARRINGTON UNLISTED OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A & SR-1A LOCATION BIG BAY & WOLFE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A TOTAL 3.5 ACRE LOT RESULTING IN LOTS OF 1.54, 1.01 AND 1 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 56-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-9 SECTION A-183 CURTIS HARRINGTON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you want to summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is Subdivision No. 15-2005, Curtis Harrington. This is a proposed three lot residential subdivision of a 3.55 acre parcel at Big Bay and Wolfe Road resulting in lots of 1.0, 1.01, and 1.54, acres respectively. It’s zoned Suburban Residential and Waterfront Residential both one acre minimum lot size. This application was tabled on October 25 for receipt from DEC clarifying whether or not there are endangered species on th the property. You do have a copy of that tabling resolution. Specifically pending receipt from DEC clarifying whether or not there are endangered species on the property. In specific terms, we’re interested in having a better understanding of whether or not there are Karner blue butterfly sites and lupine patches on this parcel of land. In response to that, you also have a DEC letter from Kathy O’Brien, which states “this letter will serve to confirm”, this is dated November 2, 2005, “confirm my 10/31/05 e-mail to Curt Harrington concerning the proposed Hudson Bay Estates development. I compared the map he sent me with an aerial photo of the 3.5 acre parcel at the north corner of Big Bay and Wolfe Road. I can see that it is heavily forested with mixed conifers and hardwoods. There do not appear to be any openings or trails that could support wild blue lupine, the only food of the endangered Karner blue butterfly and threatened Elfin butterfly. Without this habitat present, and no known populations nearby, I concluded this subdivision is not likely to impact either species”, again this is signed by Kathy O’Brien, Biologist at DEC. That’s it. There’s a SEQRA Long Form submitted with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HARRINGTON-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question for Staff before we get into it. Was this application publicized for a public hearing? Was there a public notice for a hearing this evening? MRS. BARDEN-For tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MRS. BARDEN-I think you tabled this to a specific date. MR. HUNSINGER-We did. MRS. BARDEN-And in which case it wouldn’t have been re-advertised. However, I believe the sign is still up on the property. MR. HARRINGTON-Right on Big Bay Road. Both signs are located right on Big Bay Road, about in the center of the lot from the blue house that’s existing now, to the corner of Wolfe Road, a metal sign. There’s actually still, when I applied at the Zoning Board, when I originally looked at a four lot, both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board notices are posted there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t re-visit the site, and Gretchen had indicated she didn’t see it. MRS. STEFFAN-But I looked for it on Wolfe Road, not on Big Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So I didn’t see it from that location. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. That answers that. I think I’ll just open it up to the Board for any questions or comments. I thought we pretty much covered everything at the last meeting. The only outstanding issue was the blue lupine. MR. METIVIER-I’m very encouraged to see the letter. That was exactly really what we needed to see, and we should applaud the response from Kathy O’Brien. Not applaud the response, but the timeliness of the response to get back to us. I think that’s great. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m pleasantly surprised that you were able to secure this determination in such a short period of time. We had our doubts the last time because sometimes it takes a long time. MR. HARRINGTON-That’s what you lead me to believe, and she was very responsive. Very good to deal with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did have the public hearing left open. Is there anyone here that wanted to make comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I think, if everyone feels comfortable, we’ll move forward on the SEQRA. It is Unlisted, so Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CURTIS HARRINGTON, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22day of November, 2005, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? It is a two part resolution. One for Preliminary and then with the Final. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2005 CURTIS HARRINGTON, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Curtis Harrington Subdivision SUB 15-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Lot size 3.5 acres Location Big Bay & Wolfe Road Zoning WR-1A & SR-1A Tax Id No. 316.9-1-9 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 56-05 Warren County Planning N/A Public Hearing 10/25/05; Tabled to 11/22/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3 lot residential subdivision of a total 3.5 acre lot resulting in lots of 1.54, 1.01 and 1 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 10/25/05 and 11/22/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a resolution for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2005 CURTIS HARRINGTON, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Curtis Harrington Subdivision SUB 15-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): Lot size 3.5 acres Location Big Bay & Wolfe Road Zoning WR-1A & SR-1A Tax Id No. 316.9-1-9 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 56-05 Warren County Planning N/A Public Hearing 10/25/05; Tabled to 11/22/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3 lot residential subdivision of a total 3.5 acre lot resulting in lots of 1.54, 1.01 and 1 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 10/25/05 and 11/22/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Final [ A183-13 E (2) (3) (4) ] WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] [ A-183-13 E (2) ] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. [ A183-13 E (3) ] WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. [ A183-13 E (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 2. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]. 3. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 4. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) 5. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 6. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 7. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thanks very much. MR. HARRINGTON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate your patience. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING AGENT(S): THE CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): RICHARD & MONIQUE CUNNINGHAM ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION NORTH QUAKER ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RESTAURANTS REQIURE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 68-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 3.104 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020 MR. HUNSINGER-It was on the agenda, but we did not approve the SEQRA last week. So I wasn’t sure how we were handling it this evening. We do have some new information I see. MRS. BARDEN-You don’t necessarily have new information. That was old information that we just handed out that I thought you should have on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-This will be, this Site Plan 57-2005 will be tabled until we get the new information regarding traffic and you continue with your SEQRA review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page on that. I mean, obviously I knew we weren’t doing the site plan this evening, but I didn’t know if there was an expectation by the applicant who I didn’t see here anyway that we would re- visit SEQRA. MRS. BARDEN-The traffic information was faxed to Jim Edwards, too, so he’s working on the traffic impact study that you all requested. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we open and table the public hearing, or should we just warn a new public hearing when the applicant gets the information to us? MR. SANFORD-Actually, it was tabled to an unspecified date. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was the SEQRA public hearing. Well, we can’t proceed on site plan anyway. MRS. BARDEN-Right. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. SANFORD-The motion was to table site plan to an unspecified date, not the SEQRA. MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s the same number SEQRA and site plan. So this resolution, this tabling was last week November 15 tabling this same site plan 57-2005. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So there’s not even any reason to bring it up. MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2005 SEQR TYPE II STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 71 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,299 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. EXPANSION OF A PRE-EXISTING ONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 81-2005, BOH 1,2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION 179-6-060 MRS. BARDEN-This project was tabled by the Zoning Board on November 16, to the th December 21 meeting. We did receive a fax today from the applicant, Steve Seaboyer, st which reads, this is to the Planning Board, Town of Queensbury, “Dear Board Members: We hereby request that our application be withdrawn from the November 22, 2005 agenda while we consider possible modifications to the project. Following input from the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Please reschedule us for the December 27, 2005 meeting.” Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve and Debbie Seaboyer, but I think he means tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, since we do have a specific date and we know when the Zoning Board will meet, we can then open the public hearing, and table the application to the December meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward that resolution? It would be the December 27 meeting. th MR. SANFORD-Has that been set on your agenda, then? There’s no conflicts in getting that on? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. That’s fine. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2005 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Tabled until the December 27, 2005 meeting. Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic SITE PLAN NO. 63-2005 SEQR TYPE II MANDY SPRING FARM NURSERY AGENT(S): TODD SMITH OWNER(S): DEAN REALI/SUSAN RAYESKI ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 24 JAY ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DECK, RETAINING WALLS AND PATIO AREAS WITH A NEW 694 SQ. FT. DECK, 1090 SQ. FT. PATIOS AND STAIRS, 225 SQ. FT. WALLS. CROSS REF. AREA VAR. 76-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-16 SECTION 179-4-030 TODD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, do you want to do Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is Site Plan 63-2005. Todd Smith is the applicant for Dean Reali. This is site plan review for a development within 50 feet of the shoreline, totaling 1,959 square feet of hard surface area, specifically a 644 square foot deck, a 1,090 square foot patio and stairs, and 225 square feet of retaining walls. Summary of Staff comments. The site plan indicates that the “Plan includes drainage and run-off improvements”. The applicant should explain what these improvements are. The removal of two trees is also indicated on the site plan. The location of these trees should be identified. The applicant should quantify and define the specifics of the landscape plan and any approval should be conditioned on the development of this plan. You do have the associated Area Variance No. 76-2005 was approved by the Zoning Board on October 26 for shoreline setback relief of 16 feet for the th 644 square foot deck. I believe you have that in your package. Just a reminder that no vegetation should be removed within 35 feet of the shoreline, and I believe that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? If you could come forward to the table, please, and if you could identify yourself into the mic for the record. MR. SMITH-Hi. My name’s Todd Smith. I work for Mandy Spring Farm Nursery, and I am the representative of the homeowner at 24 Jay, which is Dean Reali, and I have an additional packet for you this evening for the Board members. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We generally don’t accept new information the night of a meeting. MR. SMITH-Okay. Just the landscaping planting, the detail that was mentioned in the Staff notes, the detailed landscape proposal only. That’s the only new information I have tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure if it’s particularly material to the application, in terms of us. I think we can move forward even in the absence of it. How about you? MR. VOLLARO-I think we have it satisfactory in the drawing of September 12, 2005. This drawing gives us a pretty good idea of what it’s going to be. If you’ve got anything to amplify that, you can put it into the record later on. MR. SMITH-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize your project for us, if there’s anything you want to add? MR. SMITH-Yes. The project basically is a reconstruction of the lake side yard of this property. The existing landscaping includes a deck, a patio, some walkways, and extensive retaining walls that are probably 35 to 40 years old, and they’re of cobblestone and mortar, concrete, and they’re crumbling and falling down. So the homeowner has hired us to redesign the lake side part of the property and we redesigned the deck, which was decaying, and we did apply and were approved for an Area Variance because the existing deck was close to the lake. We also designed new retaining walls in a different configuration but approximately the same quantity, and we are re-working some of the planes and some of the spaces between, it’s very close, the house is very close to the lake, so we’re trying to soften those spaces up and make them a little more usable for the homeowner, and that is the project. Everything happens between the house and the lake. It’s really our scope of work at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. I don’t know whether this is within your purview or not, but the site plan that was prepared here, on September 12, really a drawing as opposed to a th site plan, but it identifies where the septic tanks are located, out in the back. MR. SMITH-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. VOLLARO-There’s a building permit, an issued building permit 2003-668, issued for septic alteration in 2003. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Which of those two tanks are currently being used? Or are both of them being used? MR. SMITH-Robert, I can’t answer that exactly, except for I think it seems to me, because I have a site analysis, it is out of our scope, and before our time, but it seems like there’s new manhole covers on both of those tanks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SMITH-And the driveway’s been freshly paved, like within the last year. So I would be pretty confident. MR. VOLLARO-The driveways are over those septics and the manholes are visible? MR. SMITH-Yes. They’re cast iron manhole covers. So I think they’re both active tanks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If this drawing is accurate to a scale of one to twenty, the easterly tank is eight foot to the property line, and the 136 Code that we go through for on-site septic systems requires 10 feet. So I think we’ve got a discrepancy of two feet there between the tank to the east and the property line that is shown on this drawing. MR. SMITH-Robert, I can’t answer that exactly, except for that would have to be site verified because we did a, I personally didn’t do the measurement, but it could very well be in compliance with your requirements and our drawing is slightly inaccurate. I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-What I’ve got to go in front of me is a drawing that shows eight feet with a scale of one to twenty. So I’d have to question that, as to whether that tank is in or out of compliance. MR. SMITH-The property line is very close on that side of the house. It’s true. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I realize that, I can see that, but the 136 Code which we operate underneath, which is the on-site septic Code requires 10 feet, and this site plan shows eight, on a one to twenty scale. So I don’t think I can approve anything on this until that’s been cleared up. I’m not sure any of us can, until we know that that tank is in compliance with the Code which we have to live by. MR. METIVIER-But by moving forward on this application, are we putting ourselves in some type of jeopardy by approving it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is the only drawing that we have. MR. METIVIER-Right, and I understand where you’re going with it, but because we’re concentrating on the front and they’re not doing anything in the back, are we, I mean, even in discussion about the septic system? MR. VOLLARO-I think we can discuss anything on this, but I don’t know whether we can approve it, knowing that a drawing placed in front of us has got an inaccurate separation. MR. METIVIER-Because then we’re basically approving a nonconforming septic system is what you’re saying. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I’m not totally sure on that, in that these are pre-existing, and it’s, all the site plan adjustments or new stuff doesn’t relate to the septics. So I’m not sure if this prejudices our review of the application at all. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a site plan, if you want to call it that. It’s a drawing prepared by Mandy Spring Farm Nursery, to which this Board is looking at, and it includes septic locations. I don’t know how we can just ignore where they are, when one of them is. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. SANFORD-But we’ve done it before. I think we have the right to review the whole site, not necessarily is it mandatory that it’s our obligation to do so, and that’s a legal question. MR. HILL-I think if it’s a pre-existing condition on the site, I don’t think that you’re obligated to take any action with respect to it. The Board may decide that it wants some field verification or further clarification on it, but I don’t think it necessarily needs to hold up your review and approval process, if, it’s in fact, a pre-existing condition that’s been there for a long period of time. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m basing my decision, Bob, or my understanding on this, on when we reviewed Home Depot, and basically anything dealing in that whole entire Plaza could have been reviewed by this Board, but it wasn’t, and we looked at certain things, but not everything, and so I’m not sure we’re obligated to look at the whole site in a comprehensive manner. I believe we have that degree of discretion. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that may be true, but I think omission in the past doesn’t mean we should do that going forward. What I see here though, what triggered me, is there’s a building permit issued in 2003. Now, that building permit, 2003-668, that went to, basically was for a septic tank alteration. My concern there is that that doesn’t exactly put it in a pre- existing, it doesn’t pre-exist the Code. MR. SANFORD-No, no, it pre-exists, I mean, this application is dealing with a number of things, stone walls, decks, this kind of a thing. These septic systems are in the ground. They’ve been there for some time, and they’re not contemplating doing anything at all disturbing these septic tanks. That’s my point. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you both have very valid points. I guess the question I would have is. MRS. BARDEN-Typically you look at the septic system when you are increasing the number of bedrooms. I think that this site plan review for this project in front of you is for work within 50 feet of the shoreline. It’s not interior work. It’s not an addition of a bedroom. That’s not to say, Bob, that you can’t look at the whole site. You certainly can, if you want to, condition this that when the applicant comes in for a building permit that we make sure that it’s, you know, it’s to Code, or we can pull that 2003 file when they did the septic alteration and check those property lines. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where I was thinking we should go with this is, I mean, if there was a building permit issued for septic tank work, then what is there must have been built according to Code and Department of Health criteria. MR. METIVIER-Well, actually not necessarily, because if they opened the permit, and then they came out there and discovered that they’re not in compliance, there could still be an open permit, I would believe, that hasn’t been acted on. MRS. BARDEN-They would have had to have gotten a variance for that deficient property line setback. MR. METIVIER-Right, but we don’t even know if they’ve acted on that. We have no idea what the status is. Yes, we have record that there was a permit in 2003 for the septic. Based on these drawings, something’s wrong. So, we really do need clarification, and if we wanted to move forward with the application, I think we should make it contingent on verifying that the septic permit is in compliance with what it needs to be, or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-In compliance with the 136 Code. MR. METIVIER-Right. MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-We can certainly condition that on that basis. I just wanted to raise, once a site plan is set, or even a drawing, is set in front of us, this is really not actually a site plan in a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) sense. It’s a drawing, because site plans have to be, I believe, according to our Code, have to be prepared by. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have any other questions or comments, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-One of them is, one of the drainage runoff details. I’d like to know that, and how does this design affect the runoff into the lake, because, and what prevents any kind of fertilizer or anything like that getting into the lake? MR. SMITH-Yes, we dealt with that. We did some drawing with some arrows to show you where the water flow would go. There’s some dry laid retaining walls. Obviously the house has some gutters on it. Right now, there’s no drainage provisions at all, and everything provisions at all, and all these terraces that are on the property all sort of slope toward the water, and the fertilizer’s going in the lake. I think what we will do is, of course we’re going to create some flat terraces and while we’re working this, Robert, we have the chance to direct the water wherever we would like. So firstly we’ll take the water that might come from the gutters, and from the subsurface drains, which would be underneath the walls, and we will direct them into a catch basin made out of crushed stone, underneath that lower patio that we’re proposing. So we’re going to run all the pipes into that patio, and we’ll make a 300 square foot, basically, drywell. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about a retention pond? MR. SMITH-No, that’ll be a drywell, and then from the drywell we’ll put an overflow basin. That’ll hold 7,000 gallons, or 7 or 8,000 gallons, 7500 gallons, from the lower patio that shows up down near the lake, from that, that’s a dry laid patio. So from that drywell underneath that patio we’ll run an overflow pipe out into the lawn area, which we will grade such that it can hold 27,000 gallons of water, which would handle a two inch storm. So we just did some quick calcs on that. So, in other words, we’ll be able to handle basic storms and gutter runoff through the drywell and then all the surface drainage will also go toward that retention pond. So we should be able to handle, we should be able to stop any direct runoff into the lake. Those areas are all sodded with grass. So they’ll catch the water very well. MR. VOLLARO-If we were to send somebody out into the field to look at that, though, there’s no way that he could, from this drawing that I have in front of me, there’s no way that he could verify what you just said. What you said sounded right to me. MR. SMITH-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But he would need a drawing to say, okay, let me go out and check this and see how it’s going, and check what you’re doing to the drawing and see that there’s compliance between the two, and I don’t know how he does that. In other words, if Bruce Frank was to go out and look at this, how would he determine whether or not what this gentleman just said, I believe your name is Todd Smith, what he just said is correct. There’d be no verification capability there, that I can see. MR. METIVIER-Did you say on your new drawings that they’re there? MR. SMITH-Yes, I have that all. Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Right. He would have to submit those drawings that show the details of what he just described. MR. VOLLARO-It seems that way. Is that what you have here? MR. SMITH-Yes, I have. MR. METIVIER-Without opening a can of worms, can we take the drawings? I mean, I know where that’s going, that if we do it for them, we have to do it for everybody, but, you know. MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily. We can make determinations on the Board when it’s minor. I don’t know that that creates tremendous precedence. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. SMITH-There really is no change to the plan, per se. The footprint is identical. The only thing that’s, there is clarification arrows to help you see where the water’s going, but there’s no changes. MR. METIVIER-I say we take a look at them. I know. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want something in the record, that when this gets put to bed, and when Bruce frank is called upon to go out in the field, which I know he may be, he has something to take with him to compare what’s being done to a drawing. Otherwise he’s out in left field. He just can’t do it. MRS. STEFFAN-And that was my question was how would we handle this stormwater runoff and the fertilizer going into the lake. So that’s my concern area. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a concern I had as well. I guess we will accept the information that you’ve prepared, at the risk of setting a precedent. MR. SMITH-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Make sure you get one to Staff. When do you hope to do the work? MR. SMITH-The main work on the deck would be soon. We have the variance approved for that, and the other work would happen over the next six months. So some this winter and then most of it in the Spring. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any other questions, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments or questions, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. Actually, I’m all right with this. I think actually overall it’s going to be an improvement, I mean, as far as retention and fertilizer issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that was my main concern. So the drainage patterns are important to me. I’m not sure whether this drawing is sufficient for us, but I guess, this is an area of concern for us, any of the lakefront properties, and the phosphate runoff and those things into the lake. So this may be precedent setting. MR. GOETZ-Gretchen stole my thunder, because I think we all had the same concern about the fertilizer in the lake, and it sounds like you have a program to try to prevent it. It’s just a matter of whether or not this is, as Gretchen asks, if this is adequate enough to go by. MR. SANFORD-I mean, we’ve done it up at Lake George. Can’t we approve this with a condition that they can’t use fertilizers? I don’t think they should be anyway in that close proximity to the lake. MRS. STEFFAN-But how enforceable is that? MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. MR. SANFORD-How enforceable is anything we do? And that’s not the point. We’re not here to be enforcement people, and in fact in many cases we don’t have enforcement in the Staff at all, when a number of things come into mind, like the tents and all that kind of stuff. The point is, we condition it. We’ve done our job. We don’t want fertilizers used in close proximity to the lake, and we can trust that the applicant will abide by the condition of approval. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that falls short of the objective, though, Richard, I really do. I think what Gretchen is saying is that one of the things that we’re looking at here is protection of the environment. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. SANFORD-If you want to protect the environment, you don’t allow fertilizer to be used where it could run into a body of water, especially a body of water like Glen Lake which is a small body of water. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I agree with the concept. Again, you’re saying that it’s not, we can’t go on the enforcement side. Somebody else has got to do that. MR. SANFORD-Tom’s not here tonight unfortunately, but I remember that’s a big issue of his, and we’ve conditioned same types of situations up at Lake George, which has a far better ability to absorb fertilizer than does Glen Lake, and we’ve conditioned approval with the condition being that there will not be fertilizers used, and if the applicant chooses to ignore the condition of approval, they choose to ignore it, but it’s certainly worthwhile for us to put it in there as a condition of approval. It wouldn’t hurt. What does it hurt? MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t hurt, but I don’t think it helps. MR. SANFORD-I basically am inclined to believe that if someone agrees to something they’re probably going to adhere to it. That’s my position on it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, looking at some of the photographs that I see here, and what they’re planning to do and the extensive landscaping that they’re going to go through, I can hardly believe that they’re not going to use some sort of growth enhancement material here, called fertilizer, I guess. I just don’t see that that’s, I think it’s an unrealistic point of view to say that, you know, you’re going to tell them not to use fertilizer, therefore they’re not going to use it. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think that that’s something that has to be legislated, and if we want that as part of our Code, of some sort, a regulation that we want to put in place, then it’s a regulation that should apply to everyone. MR. SANFORD-I’m out on a limb on this one, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think so. MR. SANFORD-I’m out on a limb all by myself on this one, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I think so. Well, one of the things I see here, though, I’m looking at, for example, when we do work here, we a lot of times ask for stormwater management plans, and those plans are predicated on a 50 year storm, normally predicated on a 50 year storm, and then they have, you know, volumetric analysis as to how much water a particular drywell is capable of holding, and it’s done mathematically. MR. SMITH-Yes, I’ve done them for you before. MR. VOLLARO-Hydro Cad. So you’re familiar with it. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how we take a look at it and determine whether or not all of the calculations that are on the drawings are correct, and in fact will function. Here we have a crushed stone drywell, volume of 900 cubic feet, but we really don’t have any substantiation for that. MR. SMITH-Right. Those aren’t scientific. Yes. We’ve done them before when we’ve added a lot of hard scape, the hard, impervious materials and surfaces. The net gain in this situation was around maybe around 550 square feet, the next gain. In other words, we’re taking away 1300, adding 1900. So the net gain is somewhere around 500 square feet, and we did asks that question, if we were required, and I think the answer was that we were not required. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re talking about the pre to post existing runoff? MR. SMITH-That’s correct. I think it’s 500, maybe 600 feet. I think we calculated it at 550 square feet, a net gain. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. VOLLARO-A net gain for the property, meaning that if it percs well, it should be able to get rid of more water after this than there was before? MR. SMITH-Yes, the soils will perc well, and they’re incredibly sandy there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know it is. It depends, I’m just raising these questions so the Board gets a chance to hear what I’ve got to say on the issue. Certainly Board members have their own opinions here, and when it comes to the vote, we can talk about it, but that’s about all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-George, did you have any questions or comments? MR. GOETZ-No, but I would probably be supportive of this if it were contingent upon putting in his system of crushed stone and things to try to stop whatever fertilizer or whatever he uses on the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add, Richard? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here to speak, have comments or questions on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. BARDEN-There’s one letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments. MRS. BARDEN-This is I guess really just on the notice of public hearing document. “We feel the proposed replacement deck will enhance the property at 24 Jay Road. Therefore we are in favor of your allowing them to do this.” This is signed Marilyn Higley and Donald Higley at 23 Jay Road, Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-This is a Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II, yes. I didn’t want to rush into SEQRA. I was going to ask you if there were any other questions or comments of the Board first, before we addressed the SEQRA issue. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s it. I don’t have any further comments on it. MR. HUNSINGER-If not, I guess we can look at the SEQRA issue. MRS. BARDEN-It is Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, no SEQRA. I even circled it so that I would know that there’s no SEQRA requirement. What’s the feeling of the Board? It seems like there’s some consensus, everyone’s comfortable moving forward. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I think after the comment that there’s a net gain of 500 square feet, I’m feeling better about that. It puts it in a different perspective. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2005 MANDY SPRING FARM NURSERY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Mandy Spring Farm Nursery Site Plan SP 63-2005 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) Owner(s): Dean Reali / SusanRayeski SEQR Type II Agent(s): Todd Smith Lot size 0.67 acres Location 24 Jay Road Zoning WR-1A Tax Id No. 289.10-1-16 Section 179-4-030 Cross Ref. Area Var. 76-2005 Warren County Planning N/A 11/22/05 Public Hearing Adirondack Park Agency Project Description: Applicants propose replacement of existing deck, retaining walls and patio areas with a new 694 sq. ft. deck, 1090 sq. ft. patios and stairs, 225 sq. ft. walls. WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/17/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on November 22, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and 179-9-080 A through E WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179- 9-080 of this article. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WE FIND THE FOLLOWING, The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following: That there be a verification of the location of the septic tank on the property as depicted by a map prepared on September 12, 2005, specifically the septic tank furthest to the east being what the drawing depicts as eight feet from the property line where it should be ten, and that should be looked into. The drawing depicts the eastern septic tank being only eight foot from the eastern boundary line, and Building and Codes ought to check out and see just exactly what that is. Staff should verify the septic tank meets the requirements of our Code 136, which is the on site septic code, and the other condition is that the site be prepared in accordance with the drawing dated September 12, at a scale of one to sixteen, that talks to the surface/drainage water plan, and be th constructed in accordance with that plan. 2. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 4. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 5. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 6. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO- Staff should verify the septic tank meets the requirements of our Code 136, which is the on site septic code. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want field verification, or just to pull out the survey map and make sure it’s 10 feet from the side property line? MR. VOLLARO-I think, do we have a field survey map of this? MRS. BARDEN-Probably do, sure, with that building permit that you were discussing. MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at the building permit, then, on the drawing and see what it says. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. We’ll do. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. SMITH-Thank you, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-5 & LC-10 LOCATION EAST SIDE RIDGE ROAD NORTH OF DUNHAMS BAY GUN CLUB APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN LOTS OF 5.17 AC., 5.18 AC., 22.10 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 80-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 32.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-18 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a proposal for a three lot residential subdivision of an approximately 32 acre parcel, creating lots of 5.17, 5.18, and 22.10 acres. This is located on Ridge Road. This parcel is split zoned Rural Residential 5 Acre and LC-10, Land Conservation 10 Acre. A SEQRA Long Form has been submitted. Staff Comments: “Cross easements and maintenance agreements included in the deeds of Lots 1,2, and 3 (for the shared driveway) should be submitted for Planning Board review with a preliminary subdivision application”. A buffer type “C” is required between the single-family use on lot 1 and the commercial/recreation use to the South. This area should be shown as a no-cut buffer zone on the site plan. Consideration should be given to incorporating additional buffering along Ridge Rd. The submittal includes a letter from APA dated 11/23/05, indicating that, “the proposed three-lot subdivision does not require a permit from this Agency”. Also, the associated Area Variance 80-2005 was granted on November 16 for shared driveway th accessing all three lots, with conditions, and I will read the conditions. As mentioned as part of the agreement, recognition from the nearest neighbor was also asked that we recognize that the Dunhams Bay Fish and Game Club which has been in existence since the mid 50’s also be included because future people who will be purchasing these lots must keep in mind the fact that they do have noisy activities that occur from time to time, and that they won’t be having to cease and desist from those activities in the future. As far as the general feelings of the Board, it’s generally thought that the three acres fits into the formula, based upon the 32 acre parcel size, and that this is a minimum intrusion into that 32 acres in totality. That there be a written agreement that all three lots can use this one driveway to gain access to Ridge Road, and also that there be no further subdivision on this lot. This project was before this Board on January 18 of this year for Sketch Plan review. The Board’s advisory th recommendation included the Town Engineer verify the test pit information and to incorporate a 20 foot wide driveway. There’s also some C.T. Male comments dated November 16, 2005, and that’s all I have. There’s one letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper that came to our office today. MR. SANFORD-Susan, based on the November 16, 2005 letter from C.T. Male, it’s heavily suggested that they did not verify test pit data. Because on Item Number Four they talk about a review of the sheets, and stating that there’s concerns about high ground water. So do you know whether or not they verified or did not verify test pits? MRS. BARDEN-The applicant was notified of the minutes that that came out of that meeting, at Sketch Plan review. So I would ask the applicant if that was done. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves. I represent Michael Blackburn on this application. As Staff has stated, this is for three lots on the east side of Ridge Road, just north of the Dunhams Bay Gun Club, and we did obtain the zoning variance. As far as the Staff comments, we have no issue with any of those. We agree with all those. We do show clearing limits along the driveways, the existing driveway, naturally, and then the proposed, leaving a buffer zone along Ridge Road, we have no problem with that. That’s one of the 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) reasons we intended on having only one access drive, and not three. It was not only for minimizing the curb cuts, but minimizing the cutting along Ridge Road. As far as the C.T. Male comments, I talked it over with Tom Hutchins, of Hutchins Engineering, who is doing the septic design, and related stormwater information. He was in contact with C.T. Male. No, they didn’t witness those pits. Charlie Maine did three or four different jobs that particular day. This one was one of them that C.T. Male was not able to attend, but Charlie was lined up to do three or four. He did these. We were in contact with Jim Edwards, I believe it was, Tom Hutchins was today, and said that he would be able to have somebody from his office meet Charlie out there again, but would need three days notice, and we don’t have any problem with that. We’re not saying that the soils are four foot of soil. We’re showing you that we only have, as the test pit data indicates, mottling basically at 17 inches and 22 inches, which means that these are a raised type system, and that’s obvious. We know it is. I don’t think the test pit data, if we do it again, we have no problem with having C.T. Male confirm that data, but we know it’s going to be that. We’re not trying to split hairs here and say that we have, you know, just enough. It’s not. It has to be a raised system, or a fill system. As far as the other information that C.T. Male asked for, Items One through Three, the location and type of erosion and sediment controls, Tom has talked it over with that today. That’s not a problem. He’s going to be incorporating that into the plan, and Number Two, the managing of stormwater along the driveway, it’s a small ditch along of the drive. He has no problem with that, and then again, back to the septic issue. We will have, if this Board would like that, we have no problem with having C.T. Male back on site, or on site with Charlie Maine back on site. As far as the topography question that they brought up, anybody that’s been to this site, it’s flat. I mean, there isn’t two foot of change from Ridge Road back to the wetland line. Then you start going up the hill beyond the wetlands, you know, you gain 25 to 30 feet in 200 feet, but we did profiles down the driveway and we had six and a half inches of grade change in 400 feet. You won’t even have one contour on this site. I have no problem, if you want some more, but if you’ve been to the site, you can see for yourself, it’s flat as a site gets. MRS. STEFFAN-If you look at the Gun Club, you’ll know that it’s the same. MR. STEVES-The Gun Club put their own berm in the back. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s true. There’s a couple of little bumps. MR. STEVES-We have no problem with any of those comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Did his response address your question, Richard? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I still feel that, again, we wrestle with this from time to time. C.T. Male hasn’t signed off, Comment Number Four, they have questions regarding whether or not the soils are suitable for absorption for a septic, and so do I. I would feel much more comfortable if these were resolved and signed off by C.T. Male, not necessarily, I guess I appreciate that maybe that they don’t need to do the actual on site inspection, but I think they need to do more review and get back to this Planning Board before I’m going to feel comfortable. I’ll leave it at that. MR. STEVES-I just want to note that we have no issue. I know that there’s been a concern before as to whether or not when you have a soil test pit, and it’s right on the border line of saying it’s acceptable or not acceptable for a conventional system, and I didn’t know if that was the issue here, where it’s obviously not. We don’t have the two foot of cover. It is definitely a raised system. MR. HUNSINGER-And that was depicted in your plans. MR. STEVES-It was upfront from Day One. We have no issue with that at all. I know that there was one one time with the subdivision we did over near Azure Drive. We had the test pits done, and it was real border line, and there was just enough room, and then we had C.T. Male go back and review additional test pits to confirm that it was right there at the 26 inch range, and that was my recollection of what we had C.T. Male review before. If it’s a condition of the perc rate or the existing soils ability to absorb the effluent, we have no problem, but like I say, we were right up front with this one. There’s no question. It’s not, it’s going to be a raised system. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes, but whatever system you put in, I want to make sure it’s going to work, and that’s all I’m saying. MR. STEVES-And we wholeheartedly agree. I want to make it work. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any other questions or comments, Richard? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-No. I did go out a while ago, the first time when you came in. It’s pretty flat out there. I have to say those remarks are very accurate, and I’d like to see some sort of signoff by C.T. Male on this. MR. STEVES-We agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think I’m satisfied with the information. We’ve talked this one through, you know, I think in extensive detail. So I’m feeling pretty comfortable with that right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just went over their Part I on the Environmental Assessment Form, and in looking at that, Question Number Eight there, what is the depth to water table, and it says two feet. MR. HUNSINGER-And in there doesn’t it say to the nearest foot? MR. HUNSINGER-Which Page, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s Page Three of Twenty-One. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But actually it’s much closer than that. It’s 17 inches, apparently, 17 to 22. So that’s got to be looked at, I thought, and then it says, does the site present, this is on Page Four of Twenty-One, does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community, it fronts on Ridge Road, and Ridge Road is designated as a scenic road. So there may be some question as to whether or not it’s known to be important to the community or not. MRS. STEFFAN-I actually, on that particular point, I don’t think that’s going to change very much because we talked about the buffer being kept in the front of that. MR. STEVES-We’re not changing what exists. MRS. STEFFAN-So it won’t change the view of that particular area from the road, and you can’t see it other than from the road. MR. VOLLARO-Right, that’s true. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s flat, it’s generally flat. MR. VOLLARO-On Page Seven of Twenty-One, it talks about the water supply is from wells. We do have a well supply here, don’t we? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And we talk about seven gallons a minute, and I was just wondering how was that determined? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. STEVES-From the existing well on Mr. Blackburn’s house. MR. VOLLARO-He has a well on his house that’s getting seven gallons, is that what? MR. STEVES-Yes, since 1986, I believe is when he built this house. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. You know the story with well drilling. Yes, no. I have it, I don’t have it. MR. STEVES-No, he has never had a water issue there, ever. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And his house, I believe, if you look back, I don’t know if Staff has it, it was ’86, ’88, somewhere in there he built this house. ’86. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, it was in ’86. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just went through here to make sure that when we get into SEQRA we’re not overlooking some of the questions in Part I. MR. STEVES-Okay, and I understand Bob’s comment, real quickly, on the soil depth to ground water. It says everything in SEQRA is to the nearest foot. Twenty-two inches, I went to two feet. I have no problem reflecting 1.5 because it’s between 17 and 22. I have no problem with that, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I just, I didn’t know whether this was prepared after C.T. Male and after some of this seasonal high groundwater was determined or whether it was prepared before that. MR. STEVES-It was prepared before the test pits were done. I prepared the Long Form. I knew the area very well and going through the soils maps, soils maps depict ground water at two feet. So that’s what I used. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. Charlie Maine went out afterwards. I would have liked to have gotten back up there, but we didn’t get the information back until the 16, but like I say, we knew it th was shallow when we started. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, in any event, it’s going to be raised beds, we know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m actually okay with this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that has any comments or questions about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. BARDEN-One letter. MR. HUNSINGER-You said there was a letter. MRS. BARDEN-Dated November 22, 2005, from Chris Navitsky, P.E., Lake George Water Keeper. “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: I have reviewed the application and plans for the above referenced subdivision application”, this is for Blackburn Subdivision 1-2005, “I am unable to attend the meeting this evening due to a conflict and would like to offer the following comments for the record. 1. There is no information contained regarding the stormwater management system proposed for the subdivision and development activities. In addition, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) there is concern about the drainage plan functioning without grading information for the driveways. Final grades should be provided to ensure proper drainage. 2. There is concern about the ability for the site to manage stormwater with the apparent shallow depth to groundwater on the site. Information should be provided. 3. The clearing shown on Sheet S- 1 does not appear to match the limits shown on the wastewater plan. This information should be consistent and also be incorporated into the stormwater management plan. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, P.E., Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess since there’s no other comments from the public, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any comments on the comments from the waterkeeper? MR. STEVES-Well, I agree with Mr. Navitsky as far as this being extremely flat. In some instances that makes it more of a difficulty in stormwater than it does when there’s steep slopes. We don’t have any issues with it running off onto neighboring properties with it as flat as it is. As I said, the driveway that’s there, if you’ve been in there, it’s a raised driveway. You’re going to bring in some fill. The rest of the driveways will be the same way, and they’ll incorporate the 20 foot width as described by this Board at the concept plan. So that we can incorporate a swale on the sides of all the driveways, and that’s exactly what you’re going to have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And like I say, we have no problem with that, and that comment from C.T. Male that Tom Hutchins has already talked to them today and he’s incorporating that into his plan, and as far as the clearing limits, his septic plan, he shows the septic plan. He doesn’t show clearing on it whatsoever. I show the clearing on my subdivision plan S-1. I will make sure that he takes my clearing and superimposes it onto his septic plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SANFORD-I would prefer to see C.T. Male do a signoff before we do SEQRA, sort of as a follow-up to our prior meeting we had preceding this Town Board meeting with our lawyer, and we talked about perhaps sometimes going into SEQRA ahead of time. I’m not suggesting there’s any issues. I just would feel more comfortable with that process. It may result in a tabling until C.T. Male comes back, but I think we made it perfectly clear when you read the Sketch minutes that we had significant concerns on groundwater, and yet some of the things that I think I specified in those minutes, for reasons explained by Mr. Steves, were not done. I would at least like to have engineer signoff. That’s my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to chime in? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would tend to agree with that. The other thing that we could get out of this is the integration of Mr. Steves’ drawings with Mr. Hutchins’ drawings, so that what Matt has in terms of clearing information would be depicted on the Preliminary that we get. I’m a big fan, lately, of trying to get the Preliminary drawing as accurate as possible, straight up front, with a minimum amount of conditions. Because every time, even when we condition a Final, it places a tremendous burden on Staff to follow up and all of the Staff work that has to be done to make sure that everything is complied with. So I’d like to see a Preliminary plan get very, very close to what we’d like, and then, you know, approving the Final would be pretty much a stamp by us. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I would support waiting, doing a tabling and waiting to do the SEQRA until next time. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-The same. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward such a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Matt, on the, we’ve talked about the Dunham’s Bay situation with the Gun Club, and I think in one of our discussions we talked about a deed notation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, should recognize the existence of that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and that’s, we’ve done that? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Would that be on the Preliminary, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes, and I also have the driveway cross easements on there, but I’ll make a more definitive note regarding the Dunham’s Bay Gun Club. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, just a suggestion before you move on. I think the public hearing status right now is closed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to make that comment as well, but I’m sorry, go ahead. MR. HILL-I think we’re anticipating each other. You may want to re-open the public hearing, pending the receipt of the additional information from C.T. Male. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will do that, then. Actually, that’s not what I was going to say, but I think that’s the more cautious approach. So we will re-open the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MRS. BARDEN-And table to a specific date. MR. HUNSINGER-And we will table this to a specific date. If someone would like to put forward that resolution. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Tabled to December 27, 2005. Looking for a follow-up by C.T. Male to review the data on the test pits, in accordance with their Item Number Four in their letter of 16 November 2005 where they talk about that. Secondly, we would like to make sure that the deed concerning the existence of the Dunham’s Bay Fish and Game Club to the south, those deeds shall recognize the existence of that, and that condition should be stated on the preliminary and final plat. There should also be a cross easement agreement between the three lot owners, to follow Stu Baker’s comment that was done at the Sketch Plan review, that we have a cross easement agreement between all three, concerning the driveway, and ultimately what we’d like to have here, after C.T. Male reviews this information, is a C.T. Male signoff. Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: nd MR. VOLLARO-In the tabling motion we’re looking for a follow-up by C.T. Male witnessing the test pits. MR. STEVES-Okay. You do want C.T. Male to witness those? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. VOLLARO-No, just to review the data that they have, in accordance with their Item Number Four in their letter of 16 November 2005 where they talk about that. MR. HUNSINGER-I also wanted to see the septic sheet to reflect the clearing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I said, have the drawings integrated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Right. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANDREW DARNLEY, JR. AGENT(S): PETER BROWN OWNER(S): ANDREW DARNLEY, JR. BARBARA SUE DARNLEY ZONING SR-1A/MOBILE HOME OVERLAY LOCATION 10 WARREN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, RESULTING IN LOTS OF 0.344 ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 82-2005 LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-70 SECTION A-183 ANDREW & BARBARA SUE DARNLEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, would you summarize Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This project is for a two lot subdivision of a .7 acre parcel, creating lots of .34 acres each. The property is located at 10 Warren Lane, and is zoned Suburban Residential One Acre. The Zoning Board, on November 16, approved the variance request th for minimum lot size for both lots. Staff Comments: The applicant should discuss a clearing plan or provide delineated clearing limits for the proposed. Stormwater management for the proposed new impermeable surfaces should be discussed. You do have the resolution from the approved Area Variance No. 82-2005, and that’s it. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DARNLEY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just state your name for the record and summarize your project. MR. DARNLEY-Andy Darnley and my wife, Sue Darnley. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to tell us what it is you would like to do? MR. DARNLEY-Basically divide the property we had, which we already established a new home on, and we’d like to divide and put another home on and make the clearing basically like we did on the first home and leave a row of trees in the back of it and a row on, I don’t know north, south, east, west, but the other side of it, but between. MRS. DARNLEY-The east side. MR. DARNLEY-The east side, and basically put up another home basically the same as that, and help the area, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any other comments in response to the comments from Staff that were just read? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MRS. DARNLEY-Only under the Record of Resolution. We wanted to see if we could get waivered the $500 recreational, as we have been paying taxes on the property at this time, and we will be continuing to pay taxes, and continue in the future to pay taxes, and we just didn’t understand why we’d still have to pay this fee, and then under Number Two, with the C.T. Male Associates signing off, we wondered why that would be necessary if the Board does approve and signs off on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe this went to C.T. Male. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I didn’t think this even was reviewed by C.T. Male. So, does anyone want to jump in? MRS. STEFFAN-And I think that the $500 fee, I’m not sure, Counsel has to correct me, is a non-negotiable, it comes along with the building permit when you file a building permit application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say. I don’t think that’s part of the discretion of our Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It goes along with the building permit. MRS. DARNLEY-The way it was worded we didn’t understand why, I mean, if that’s the building permit. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I believe when you fill out your building permit there’s a recreation fee that’s part of the permit process. MR. DARNLEY-We just don’t remember paying that when we got the first one. MRS. STEFFAN-How long ago was it? MR. DARNLEY-A year ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you probably didn’t, because there was no subdivision. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s required only when there’s a subdivision. MR. DARNLEY-Okay. It’s fine with us. MRS. STEFFAN-I know. I bought a lot in a subdivision and I had to pay the $500, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I only have a few. I think the plan itself is fine with me, but I think on this drawing by, I think it’s William Montgomery, P.E., there should be a P.E. stamp on these drawings when it’s presented to us, and there’s no P.E. stamp on this drawing, and it’s required by our 183 Code, that these drawings be stamped by a Professional Engineer. MR. DARNLEY-We had one originally. Peter Brown unfortunately couldn’t make it. He’s our agent. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this would have to be a stamp from William E. Montgomery, because he’s the registered P.E. on this one, and due to the fact that these are not to scale drawings, we sort of need a site development data sheet to determine the actual permeability is here. I was unable to determine what the permeability was, because I couldn’t determine what the square footage of the homes were on this property, on both of them, at least on the one. Without a site data sheet, can’t do that. So I need to know what the area of the existing home is and what the area of the garage is, and come up with a permeability number. Unless I’m missing, was there a site data sheet incorporated with this, or did I miss that? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MRS. BARDEN-I have one, but I’m looking at the Area Variance application right now. Let me check out the site plan application. MR. VOLLARO-The Area Variance had to do with, what, setbacks mostly, didn’t it? MRS. BARDEN-No, just for minimum lot size. That was the variance. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I think you’re correct, actually. I don’t have one, I apologize for that, with the site plan application. However, I do have a stamped, surveyed map signed by Charles Nacy, to your earlier comment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The problem is Charles Nacy is not an engineer, is he? MRS. BARDEN-No, he’s a licensed land surveyor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he’s a surveyor. MR. VOLLARO-But does he have an exemption to be able to sign that stuff? MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s a stamped surveyed map. I’m not sure if they need engineered drawings for this type of. MR. VOLLARO-When surveyors do this, there’s several surveyors in Town who have N exemptions that allow them to do that. Other than that, it’s got to be a P.E. stamp, and this drawing that I have here is done by William Montgomery, Jr., consulting engineer, and that should have a stamp on it. That should have a professional engineering stamp on it. Maybe the original of this drawing does. I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-I see. MR. SANFORD-You’re talking about Page Three, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about Page Four. MR. SANFORD-Page Three they have a note that it was prepared by William Montgomery, P.E., but it’s signed by Charles Nacy, who’s a surveyor. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but he has to have an N exemption to be able to do that, I believe. MR. SANFORD-I hear you. MRS. BARDEN-You’re saying that you want the engineered stamp for the septic plan, or the site plan and septic system plan stamped by an engineer, but not necessarily the actual surveyed map? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This talks about site plan and septic system plan. They’ve combined the two, or Mr. Montgomery combines the two, on this one sheet, Paged Four. MR. METIVIER-Page Four, yes, it’s not stamped by anybody. It’s not signed anybody. MR. VOLLARO-So it should be. MR. METIVIER-You’re right. You’re absolutely right. Everything else is signed by Charles Nacy, but the last sheet is not signed by anyone. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And it was separated from the package. MR. METIVIER-Yes, and actually I think Mr. Steves’ comment was right on, depending on what sheet you sign. This sheet is not signed. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Well, we can get that. We’ll have to require that when they apply for a building permit. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it should be submitted to the Planning Board. For us to approve a drawing, you know, it’s something that was required in our 183 Code, and to let it go by, as a party of one, I’m not willing to let it go by, but I’m just one on the Board. MR. SANFORD-I think that’s a valid point, Bob. We don’t know if it’s going to be the same sheet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This is Sheet Number Four. It’s got a four in the lower right hand corner. MR. METIVIER-It’s funny, don’t the engineers have to have their addresses on all sheets, too. Is that not a requirement? MR. VOLLARO-Normally the stamp has all their. MR. METIVIER-I’m saying, this Map Number Four has no reference. It has a name and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s interesting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I guess we’re going to need that stamp. Is that the consensus of the Board, Mr. Chairman? MR. DARNLEY-I know we can provide it because I know Mr. Montgomery did, with the first perc test, and before we could put the house and everything on, we had to have all that, everything done, and he stamped it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t doubt that. I don’t doubt his word or anything like that. It’s just these drawings, when they come before us, when we make an approval on something, we should have the stamps on the drawings, because they go into files. MR. DARNLEY-I know Peter Brown can provide it to the Board, whatever is necessary to do here next. I’m sort of lame duck in this, because to tell you the truth, I never got notice of this meeting or any of this until today, from Peter Brown around three o’clock, and even Staff notes, he faxed them to me. I didn’t know anything about the meeting. I mean, they told me at the variance last week everything was passed. I thought that was it until we put in for a building permit. MR. HUNSINGER-You didn’t know you had to come back before the Planning Board? MR. DARNLEY-No one told us anything like this. So we thought we had everything in line anyway. We haven’t gone through this before. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. DARNLEY-And we went through the variance board, that was fine, it went through, no problem, and as I said, we provided everything when we did the first one, and I know Mr. Montgomery did the stamp and everything, and whatever else. That’s why I hired Peter Brown has my agent, but unfortunately he couldn’t make it tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s unfortunate. MR. DARNLEY-And I don’t know what the next step is? Is there any other step after this? MR. HUNSINGER-No. The Planning Board has the last say on your site plan. Once the Planning Board approves something, then you can go file your building permit. MR. DARNLEY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the consensus of opinion on this site development data sheet in order to determine a permeability number for the property? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it is something that we will need. MRS. STEFFAN-We need it. It’s required. MR. SANFORD-Yes. My suggestion would be we table this to the next available meeting, which I believe might be the first meeting in January at this point because we’ve been adding them to December, a couple of meetings, and I would have to assume that they’re pretty full, though I don’t know that for sure, and then at that meeting, we just have the stamped drawing and we review it, and it shouldn’t be a big deal. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we haven’t heard from everybody on the Board, yet. I don’t know if there’s any other outstanding issues. MR. VOLLARO-We need a stamped drawing and we need a site development data sheet that somebody can prepare, so that we can actually determine the permeability on the property. The area appears relatively flat. I see no need for stormwater management discussions on that. The only one thing I would advise is that when Mr. Montgomery or whoever it is prepares this, they also give us a water entry, because you’re going to be on public water. MR. DARNLEY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And there’s nothing in here that shows where the water entry is. There should be. MR. SANFORD-There is a data sheet, Bob. Did you see that, on the application for permit on septic disposal system, last page of the pre-submission conference packet, dated August 3, 2005, which gives some parcel information on groundwater and soil nature and bedrock and perc tests, things of this nature. Have you seen that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m looking for it now. I looked for it before. I was looking for the classic site development data sheet. MR. SANFORD-I understand, on the drawing, you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, either that or the sheet. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, anyway, I see this as a septic disposal system permit application which it looks like there’s been work done. MR. VOLLARO-Is this the one that’s dated 9/30/04? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that doesn’t give me enough information here to come up with a permeability number. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I need total square feet against the lot size to do that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Just so you know, because it’s in front of me, again, it was submitted with the Area Variance application. They’re showing total square footage of impermeable surface for both lots is 5,292 square feet divided by the parcel area, total of 29,985 square feet for a percent non-permeable of 17.6%, which gives you a permeability of 82.4 where the required is 30%. MR. VOLLARO-And where is that? That’s in the variance? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I’m sorry. Apparently it wasn’t submitted with the subdivision application, with only the variance. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If I had seen that, I would have said, yes, somebody’s done their homework, but I didn’t find those words anywhere. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MRS. BARDEN-We’ll get that to you. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m confused with the numbers. I mean, aren’t we talking about a much smaller total parcel? I mean, it’s a two lot subdivision, right, of less than .7 of one acre is being subdivided. What was the number that you used? I mean, wasn’t that considerably larger? MRS. BARDEN-For the total parcel area? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-29,985. That sounds about right. An acre is 43,560.7. That’s about right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That sounds right. MRS. BARDEN-And what they did was the mirrored exactly what was on the lot now, and just did it times two. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Basically I think it’s a good project. I think it’s going to go through. I just wanted to make sure that we get what we need to make an approval. MR. DARNLEY-I’ve got a form here, the site development data. I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly what we’re looking for. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what we’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a site development data sheet there. MRS. BARDEN-I mean, anybody can have mine as well, if you’d like it. MR. HUNSINGER-It just didn’t make it into the copies that came to us. Did you have any other questions or comments, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I think that this would satisfy that portion of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How about you, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. I was just looking at the last sheet, too, to see if Pete Brown signed or stamped this, either, and there’s no stamp here. So the septic disposal system permit, I was hoping there might be something, so at least we have an idea, but there’s just, again, no stamp. So, you know, I don’t know if you want to move forward without it, or if we really should get it. MR. HUNSINGER-I want to at least get all the issues out on the table first. MR. METIVIER-But I have no issues with the subdivision itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t, either. MR. SANFORD-Is that the only issue we have now is just the engineer stamp? Is that what we’re coming to the conclusion that that’s the only outstanding issue, the stamp on the drawings? MR. METIVIER-Well, if the site development data sheet looks good. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it looks like it just wasn’t included with our packet. MR. METIVIER-So really it’s the only issue. MR. SANFORD-Yes. So I can go either way with this, Chris. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. METIVIER-If it’s just a stamp, maybe we could condition it on a certified stamp or does a P.E. have a stamp? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. George? MR. GOETZ-I don’t know why we can’t condition this. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Let’s go in that direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that has questions or comments about this application? Was there any written correspondence, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Nothing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, Susan, you have the site development data sheet as part of your packet? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and she’s passing it around. MRS. BARDEN-We’ll make sure it makes it into the file for the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted Action. Is the Board comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. MRS. STEFFAN-Now they submitted a Short Form and a Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-Use the Short on this one, I would think. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANDREW DARNLEY, JR., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to offer a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2005 ANDREW DARNLEY, JR., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Andrew Darnley, Jr. Subdivision SUB 20-2005 Owner(s): Andrew, Jr. Darnley SEQR Type Unlisted Barbara Sue Darnley Agent(s): Peter Brown Lot size 0.69 acres Location 10 Warren Lane Zoning SR-1A/Mobile Home Overlay Tax Id No. 308.6-1-70 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 82-2005 Public Hearing 11/22/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes a 2-lot residential subdivision, resulting in lots of 0.344 acres each. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/22/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ]. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the third page of the resolution being changed to reflect a date of November 22, 2005. Duly adopted this 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-With one exception. I think the resolution prepared by Staff has a date of 15 November 2005, as opposed to 22 November. So this resolution should be dated 22 November 2005. MR. HUNSINGER-Not the one I’m looking at. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got three pages of the resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-It says the 22 there, but the third page. nd MR. HUNSINGER-The third page. I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right on the bottom. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, the 15. th MRS. STEFFAN-Bob, you’re the detail man. MR. HUNSINGER-Good catch, Bob. MRS. STEFFAN-With that change noted. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Are you on a roll, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think so. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2005 ANDREW DARNLEY, JR., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s): Andrew Darnley, Jr. Subdivision SUB 20-2005 Owner(s): Andrew, Jr. Darnley SEQR Type Unlisted 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) Barbara Sue Darnley Agent(s): Peter Brown Lot size 0.69 acres Location 10 Warren Lane Zoning SR-1A/Mobile Home Overlay Tax Id No. 308.6-1-70 Section A-183 Cross Ref. AV 82-2005 Public Hearing 11/22/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes a 2-lot residential subdivision, resulting in lots of 0.344 acres each. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 11/22/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Final [ A183-13 E (2) (3) (4) ] WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] [ A-183-13 E (2) ] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. [ A183-13 E (3) ] WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. [ A183-13 E (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved according to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the third page of the resolution being changed to reflect a date of November 22, 2005, and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) 1. With the following condition: That the applicant provide a drawing set to scale stamped by a licensed professional engineer, with Mr. Montgomery, Professional Engineer, identified by address. 2. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 3. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]. 4. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 7. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 8. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Do you understand what you need to do? MR. DARNLEY-I’m pretty sure she wrote it down. MRS. DARNLEY-On Sheet Four. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you basically need to get that last site plan stamped by your engineer, and submit that to Town Staff, and then you can file your building permit. Okay. You’re all set. MRS. DARNLEY-Thank you. MR. DARNLEY-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2005 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE N/A MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SOUTH SIDE CORINTH ROAD PROPOSED 20-LOTCLUSTER SUBDIVISION, RESULTING IN 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 (TWO) AREAS OF OPEN SPACE TOTALING 11-ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 27 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-67, 68 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, summarize Staff notes? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Location of this proposed subdivision is Corinth Road. The zoning is SR-1A. This proposal is for a 19-lot cluster subdivision on 27 acres. Specifically 18 residential lots sized between .40-acre and 3-acres, and one open space lot totaling 11-acres. The project will result in 17 new house sites, one house site is existing (lot 1, 2.97-acres). The 11-acres of 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) open space will be conveyed to the Queensbury Land Conservancy as indicated on the site plan. A copy of this agreement should be provided with the preliminary subdivision submittal. The density calculation shown on sheet C-1 does not show the brook and buffer area subtracted out of the total lot area. It is my understanding that the applicant’s agent removed the entire area of slopes over 15% in the rear of site from the density calculation, and with that the brook and buffer, but this should be clarified. The area to remain as undisturbed open space includes Clendon Brook, and, on average, a 100-foot buffer on both sides of the brook including areas of steep slopes. The plan also shows a 20-foot no cut buffer at the rear of lots 2-5 and lots 10-18, and a 30-foot buffer on the back of lots 5-10, these latter lots abut the open space lot. There is some concern with lots 9 and 10 because of the presence of steep slopes traversing these two lots. It could be possible to shorten the road and make those lots smaller and/or move the house forward to avoid excessive grading which will alter the natural contours in this area. This design would also better meet the objectives of the cluster provisions in § 179-11-030, specifically, shorter roadway, smaller lot sizes, and preservation of the natural topography. The proposed roadway is located to line-up with VanDusen Road across Corinth, this is a good design. The proposed roadway ending in a cul- de-sac at lot 9 is approximately 850-feet long. The driveway to lot 1 off of Corinth Road should be abandoned and a new access from Sutton Place should be provided. The applicant should check with the Highway Department regarding the name “Sutton Place”, it may already be taken. The access to the open space lot off of Corinth Road should be discussed. It would be better suited at the end of the cul-de-sac. Will an area for public parking be provided? The lots will be serviced by municipal water and individual on-site septic systems. Was a community wastewater system considered? There’s also a letter dated November 8, 2005 from the Water Department, from Bruce Ostrander, specifically SB 21-2005, Michaels Group “This project is located within the Queensbury consolidated water district, and sufficient water is available to meet domestic needs.” Again, from Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent of Water, and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves. I represent The Michaels Group on this application. As Staff has stated, this is property located on the south side of Corinth Road, directly opposite Van Dusen Road. It’s an entirely wooded parcel at this point, owned by Mr. Roland Aikens, who is in the audience here tonight. His existing house site is Lot One. That is going to be modified slightly to increase that lot size. That’s part of this application shown on the map, and, yes, we will be proposing, as Staff has suggested, to have that driveway enter off the new road. We have no problems with that. As far as the density calculations, (lost word) oversaw the density calculations from my office. All the area within the brook and all the area of slopes 15% or greater were taken out of the calculations before we did the number of lots that would be allowed by density. I believe it’s written on the map, the density calculations are on there. If you divide it out, you have an allowable density of 20 building lots. Again, the areas in the back of the property and on the far side of the Niagara Mohawk ownership are to be conveyed to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. We will have a letter from that Board to this Board saying that they do intend on acquiring that, which they do. They have already met and they definitely want this property. There’s no question there. We will have that letter of intent or commitment, however you want to word it, from their organization to this Board. We did use this under the cluster provision to preserve that area around Clendon Brook and knowing that the Queensbury Land Conservancy was interested in obtaining the property, worked with them for a configuration that was suitable with them, discussed the setback requirements and no cut zones along the back of the lots. They were very happy with it, and the length of the road was in consideration as well. I know Staff had brought up a point about shortening the road. You look at these lots, they’re still basically, you know, .89, 1 acre. I think the smallest one is .41, which would be Lot Two, but they’re predominantly around eight tenths of an acre, and what you’re looking at is houses similar to what The Michaels Group has built in Quincy Lane, and I didn’t want to narrow the lots up anymore than what we have shown. We actually took their model homes that they’re intending to put on this subdivision onto this plan, so that you can see that the setbacks will work fine. We didn’t want to overcrowd the lots, in case some of these wanted to be side load garages, and that area in the back of Lot Nine and Ten, it’s about a 10 foot little cut in there that was actually an old barrow pit area in there, and right in the back of Lots Nine and Ten, as you can see, then that would be graded so that that area that is now sloping down toward Clendon Brook would not be sloping down toward Clendon Brook anymore on the grading plan that Tom Nace is developing. So we would rather not shorten the road any more and create narrower lots. We’d rather leave them in the configuration 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) they’re in. It works well for the placement of the homes and potential side load garages and septic systems. MR. VOLLARO-Matt, are you saying you’re going to take those 50% slopes that are in there and grade them off? It looks like they’re 20 and 10 to me, when you scale them up. MR. STEVES-You mean as far as some of the grades on that barrow area on Lots Nine and Ten? MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you just take a look at the. MR. STEVES-It’s an old pit, Bob. We’re going to grade that off, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because right now, without knowing that it’s a pit, it looks like it’s a slope of 50%. MR. STEVES-And we looked at that, Lot Ten especially, that particular home is the style that they have the garden view walkout on the bottom. So it would be a minor amount of grading. Like I say, at Preliminary, we’ll have the grading for those two lots, but as you can see now, Bob, that those two lots kind of filter down with the grade into the area that would be the open space, and that would be, you graded around it so that those wouldn’t be sheet draining toward the open space land anymore. As far as the comment from Staff of community septic, these were large enough lots, and the soils there, just about a week and a half ago, Tom Nace was out there with representatives of the Department of Health and Charlie Maine himself, and they were going six and eight feet with no water table issues. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all sandy. MR. STEVES-Yes. So we would rather just use on site individual wastewater systems. MR. VOLLARO-That’s termed the pines which is noted to be a sandy area. MR. STEVES-We have also performed, since this plan went to you for concept, it’s been an ongoing process, naturally. The topography as you can see before it was even submitted to you for concept has been completed. All the tree line is shown. We have also done the sight distances on Corinth Road, and they do meet, they more than meet the requirements of the speed limit on Corinth Road in both directions. We’re okay with the Water Department. All that’s going to come in at Preliminary. Really looking at this to see if there’s any specific comments the Board may have or concerns they may have with the proposed cluster provision, in looking at this. We believe that this is one of the few, I know there’s been a lot of them that come in front of you with the word “cluster” and trying to justify that. I think here you finally have one, in my eyes, that meets that requirement. You have the areas of the steep slopes, and you have the protection of Clendon Brook in mind, with the cluster, and the conveyance of that to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board, comments? MR. VOLLARO-Well, what our obligation here, I guess, under the Sketch Plan, is to let the applicant know what we expect him to come back with in Preliminary. So I would say the first thing, make sure you post the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sure you won’t forget that. MR. VOLLARO-Even though we know it’s sandy there, we should have test pit data to show us what the seasonal high groundwater would be. MR. STEVES-Like I say, that has been performed. Understood. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the perc data to go with it. MR. STEVES-That’s been done. MR. VOLLARO-Now, part of this site is owned by Niagara Mohawk? MR. STEVES-Correct. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. VOLLARO-And what have we done to take a look at this Karner blue operation on that, with DEC? MR. STEVES-This has been sent to Kathy O’Brien. I’m awaiting a response. She has seen the aerials, as you can see here. She has no issue with the subdivision. I will have a letter from her, and because of the buffer along the back of those lots, and the depth of those lots, if she had a concern, we could even increase that buffer slightly, but I will make sure that I have comments back from her prior to the Preliminary meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, as you know, I mean, one of the concerns about that has been dumping of grass clippings and stuff into the Niagara Mohawk right of way that kills off the habitat. MR. STEVES-And one of the benefits here is the frontage along the power lines. If you look at the frontage, the total length on both sides of the power line that this application affects, 75% of it is occupied by the Land Conservancy, which there’s no development. We’re not proposing a crossing to try to get lots over there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s pretty obvious. I’m just looking at what the situation is on Lot 14, 15, 14, 13, that doesn’t have that protection. MR. STEVES-Yes. Fourteen does not abut the power lines. It’s the corner of thirteen through ten, and, yes, we have the same concern and we are looking into that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-But I can tell you that I know that there won’t be an issue with that. If there is a requirement for more of a substantial setback, that’s one of the reasons I’ve established the road in the location I have, so that I can accommodate more of a no cut zone in the back of those lots. MR. GOETZ-Are there going to be lights and things down the road? MR. STEVES-This is going to be almost identical to what you have on Quincy Lane, except for the fact it’s not a boulevard at the entrance. They’re going to have the entrance sign. I don’t know, on Quincy, if there was street lighting or not. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. METIVIER-There’s not on Quincy Lane. There’s no boulevard entrance on Quincy Lane, either. MR. STEVES-Hudson Pointe, I’m sorry. MR. SANFORD-The land that’s going to be deeded, is there any, I mean, I haven’t checked it out. Is there any possibility for that to be utilized in some way for recreation? I’m not familiar with the brook, but typically when you deed it off to, like you’re proposing, it’s pretty well just kept, it’s off limits, isn’t it at that point? MR. STEVES-No. MR. SANFORD-They allow passive type? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. They want it for the passive. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So people living in this community can maybe walk through it and hike it and do things like that? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. STEVES-Yes. I can get more of an answer for you, Richard, on that from my father’s, and his group the Queensbury Land Conservancy. Just so everybody knows, my father is the President of that, and see what they want, but it is for passive recreation. Absolutely. So they will actually have some frontage on Corinth Road as well. They don’t want to necessarily have a parking area, you know, in the middle of the subdivision, but it is for passive recreation, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What do they envision, hiking and fishing? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Both of those. More than that? MR. STEVES-I don’t know. I don’t believe so. They don’t really want to have any clearing or anything like that. Utilize the existing foot paths, but I don’t want to speak out of turn. I want to get that answer directly from the Conservancy group. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think those are all things that we would certainly take into consideration, in terms of meeting the cluster requirements. MR. STEVES-Right, that it is for passive recreation and it absolutely, that’s what it’s for. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the whole purpose of the public benefit. MR. STEVES-And that’s exactly what the purpose is for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GOETZ-Gretchen had a good question. How do you get up to the back there? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s access down there. MRS. BARDEN-It’s shown on your map. MR. GOETZ-Is there access there now? MR. STEVES-Yes. There isn’t now, but there will be. MR. GOETZ-Let’s say we wanted to go in and look at the land, particularly Nine and Ten. How would we get to that? MR. STEVES-You can, there is an area, with the owner’s permission, you can pull into his driveway and right at the turn of his driveway is shown there is a little pull off that heads into the woods in the south, and you can park there, and I actually have the center line of the road flagged all the way down, for the benefit of the Department of Health to be able to walk in and know where they were doing their test pits. You can walk right down there and know exactly where you are. MR. SANFORD-The owner is Lot One? MR. STEVES-The owner of the entire property owns Lot One. That’s his house. It’s Mr. Aikens. MR. VOLLARO-Matt, I just have one question. Recognizing that we’re dealing with a good deal of sand here and a great permeability, I believe, and good septic sites, and I know that that’s true because I live not too far from this, but I’m looking at the septics that sit on Lot Eight and Nine and the average grade here is toward the brook. If you look at the grading, we’re talking 290, 280, 270, 260. So the grade is heading down toward the brook, and I’m just worrying about those leach fields being in good sand, leaching, because of the gravity situation, leaching down towards the brook. Now I don’t know if that’s, it’s a long way. It’s not close. I guess it’s about 200 feet. MR. STEVES-To the brook? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. STEVES-It’s more than 200 feet. It’s about 200 feet, Bob, at the closest point. MR. VOLLARO-About 200 feet. So that should be enough in that kind of, to filter out for soils. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I wanted. MR. STEVES-And to make another point of that, Bob, those were particular areas of concern when we looked at the test pits and we had test pits done with the Department of Health. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And that data will be shown on the Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-I have one suggestion for this Board to consider. I know on Sketch a public hearing isn’t required, but it doesn’t preclude the Chair from offering public comment. I do notice that there are a few people here from the public who may be able to add some insight that the applicant may find beneficial. I, for one, always welcome public comment, but I guess it probably is your call, Chris, if you want to allow the public to give a little feedback, if they choose to. They may not. They may just be interested in hearing what we have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SANFORD-But I think my understanding is, correct me if I’m wrong, when it’s not required for Sketch, it doesn’t prohibit it from happening. Is that correct, at the discretion of this Board? MR. HILL-I think it’s always your prerogative to take comments from the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can take comments, absolutely. MR. SANFORD-When I see the audience here, I know it’s the last application, that’s what we’re here for. MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering the same thing, absolutely. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Just the last one, I think prior to bringing the Preliminary in, I’d like to hear a comment from the Highway Superintendent on snow removal here. I know that, living at the end of a cul de sac, which I do, snow is always a problem, because the plow comes up and tries to get that snow loaded up right on top of the cul de sac itself, and I know that Rick is not a big fan of this kind of thing. I’ve talked to him before. MR. STEVES-There’s not a Highway Superintendent inside the States that has snow that would rather see a cul de sac than a through road, but there’s instances where there’s nothing else you can do, and Rick understands that, but I have no problem with passing this on. MR. VOLLARO-I want to see his comments, whether there’s anything we can do with it, or could we put a hammerhead at the end where he could work a turnaround that way. I don’t know, but I’d like to hear his input in any event. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I just have a comment, and you look at the break outs. Lot Two and Lot Three are much smaller lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, much smaller. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MRS. STEFFAN-And there might be an opportunity for us, as a community, to provide affordable homes on those two lots, you know, smaller scale. MR. STEVES-They are. If you’ve looked at the homes that are proposed, those are two of the smallest models they have. They really are. MRS. STEFFAN-But what I was going to recommend is look at the affordable housing strategy, because I know the average home price in Queensbury is about $223,000, which I assume these would probably fall in the range of. MR. STEVES-I believe so. MRS. STEFFAN-And so if we looked at the affordable housing strategy, there may be an opportunity to meet some of our community goals on Lot Two and Lot Three as part of this site. MR. STEVES-Sure. I will pass that on. MR. VOLLARO-That might be a tough mix, but I agree with you, but the mix may be tough there. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don’t think so. MRS. STEFFAN-A nice little home, you know, I think that there might be a nice opportunity, because it is a small lot. It’s right as you come in. So, I don’t know. MR. STEVES-I’ll take it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I was going to say, we’ve talked a lot about, in the Ordinance Review Committee, as we’re looking over regulations, we really like the idea of conservation subdivision, and in this particular situation, this isn’t a conservation subdivision, but with all of this open space on the end, it’s certainly very nice. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Clendon Brook runs right in back of my house, and I’ve pulled a couple of nice size bass out of there. So I don’t want anybody fishing up there. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think they can put a deed restriction, Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-I will take the advice of my colleague, and if there’s anyone here from the public that had comments about this, I’ll certainly take them, if you have anything to add or questions, comments to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve covered just about everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Just in case you are here to hear what’s going on with this site plan, when the applicant files their formal application, there will be a formal public hearing. Neighbors will be contacted, and certainly there will be an opportunity for public questions and comments as well. Okay. Well, if no one has anything to add, we will, I guess we’re all set. MRS. BARDEN-Can you summarize what you’d like the applicant to bring back at Preliminary? MR. STEVES-We know the obvious, as far as the Preliminary requirements. If there’s anything in particular you would like to see, you know, somebody had mentioned lighting. Do you want lighting in there, is it something you want me to bring back to my client? Those were the kinds of things that we need to know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was kind of a question. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. SANFORD-We normally on residential don’t go into lighting because it can be changed by the homeowner, unless you’re talking street lighting, which probably. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was more of a question. Did the applicant intend to put in street lighting? I think it was kind of a. MR. STEVES-Maybe just at the entrance details as The Michaels Group has done on every subdivision in Queensbury, and I think everybody here can state the fact that they do a nice job on their entrance details, and that’s the only thing that they’re proposing at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Who would maintain that? MR. STEVES-The Michaels Group. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There is no street lighting at Quincy. MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-So if they’re patterning it after Quincy. MR. STEVES-They’re going to pattern it right after Quincy Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t hear anything from the Board that was unusual or specific requests, other than what we normally would ask for. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think we did. There wasn’t anything very specific. I think Gretchen touched on the fact that it was a really, a good start toward a conservation subdivision. I think it is. MR. STEVES-Understood. We know the requirements of Preliminary. That’s what we’re here for is to get the comments are. I know that there isn’t an official approval with concept plan. It’s just a discussion item. I just wanted to make sure that this Board was comfortable with the fact that we’re submitting it as a cluster, and knowing the reasons why. That’s the main reason we’re here. MR. SANFORD-Actually, I think we agree with you. I mean, you know, with the preservation, if you will, of the river or the stream, and the slopes and what have you, that kind of really fits the purpose of the concept of clustering. MRS. BARDEN-Are you looking for a snow removal plan? I think, Bob, you indicated that that was important. MR. VOLLARO-No, I just want to hear what Mr. Missita’s comments would be on snow removal, because we have looked into hammerheads in the past that are associated with the cul de sac itself, gives him an opportunity and a place to put the snow, other than loading it up on the cul de sac itself. So I know he’s in favor of it, and I’d like him to get some input into this before we get to the Preliminary. That’s all I had. MRS. STEFFAN-And that also addresses the issues of the slopes on Lot Nine and Ten. MR. STEVES-Right. I will have a detailed grading plan on those slopes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it. MR. STEVES-And the DEC. MR. VOLLARO-You’ll get a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-The Karner blue. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/22/05) MR. STEVES-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Any other business to come before the Board? Anyone have anything? Have a good Thanksgiving. A motion to adjourn is always in order. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 41