Loading...
2006-06-27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 18-2006 Michael Stevens 1. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-29 Subdivision No. 7-2006 Rick Cobello 1. Tax Map No.309.14-1-46 Site Plan No. 15-2006 Ralph Macchio 1. Tax Map No. 278-1-77, 13, 61, 75, 76 Special Use Permit No. 8-2006 Vance Cohen 2. Tax Map No. 288.-1-58 Site Plan No. 22-2006 Martha Schmulbach 21. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12 Subdivision No. 2-2006 Ridgewood Homes 40. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-73 Subdivision No. 8-2006 Tra-Tom Development 60. REVISED SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 290.-1-22.222 RESOLUTION TO TOWN BOARD RE: Amendment to Zoning Code Chpt. 179 69. 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 06/27/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP TANYA BRUNO, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Okay. A couple of administrative things that we’re going to do. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL STEVENS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 1112 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRING FILL OF APPROXIMATELY 0.25 ACRES OF FILL WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50’ OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 34-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 4.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-29 SECTION 179-6-060 MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to be tabling Site Plan No. 18-2006 for Michael Stevens. It was previously tabled for this evening. We’re going to re-table this to 8/22. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2006 RICK COBELLO MR. VOLLARO-Subdivision 7-2006 for Rick Cobello was also tabled to this evening and we’ll re-table that to 8/22. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, are you going to make a formal motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am. We’re going to table Site Plan for Michael Stevens to 8/22. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 MICHAEL STEVENS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled until August 22, 2006. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-The second one we’ll table Subdivision 7-2006 for Rick Cobello and table that to 8/22 as well. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO.7-2006 RICK COBELLO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Until August 22, 2006. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2006 SEQR TYPE I RALPH MACCHIO AGENT(S): JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-3A, LC-10 LOCATION BETWEEN BAY RD. & RT. 9 OVER FRENCH MT. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED FOREST ROADS FOR LOGGING & PERMANENT ACCESS TO MACCHIO LAND ON TOP OF FRENCH MT. RD. CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES 31.3 ACRES OF 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) CLEARING/DISTURBANCE ON THE 5 PARCELS INVOLVED. DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN 5 ACRES ON ANY ONE PARCEL IN THE LC-ZONE OR OVER 2 ACRES IN THE RR-3A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 525.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278-1- 77, 13, 61, 75, 76 SECTION 179-6-010 MR. VOLLARO-The other thing, is there anybody here tonight for Ralph Macchio, who wants to talk to discuss anything? The Ralph Macchio application has been withdrawn. It’s been taken out of the hands of the Planning Board altogether at this point. There may be action by the Town Board concerning the Macchio case, but not before this Board. So, that’s been officially withdrawn by the sponsor for Macchio. Okay. SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 8-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE COHEN AGENT(S): SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): DR. MITCHELL COHEN/VANCE COHEN ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN APPROXIMATELY 2,934 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING RETAIL USE ON THE SITE AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,710 SQ. FT. ROOF STRUCTURE, INSTALLATION OF A GO-KART TRACK AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. AMUSEMENT CENTER USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 34-04; SP 43-02 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 LOT SIZE 1.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-58 SECTION 179-4-020 RON MOGREN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-We have a public hearing this evening, and we also have a SEQRA Unlisted this evening as well. MR. MOGREN-Good evening. I’m Ron Mogren from the Saratoga Associates. MR. VOLLARO-You understand the situation here tonight with four people. MR. MOGREN-Well, I do, and I’m surprised Vance isn’t here. He’s another person missing in action, but he’s supposed to show up any minute, but I’ll go ahead and proceed if it’s all right with you. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, that’s fine. MR. MOGREN-I’d like to start off by talking about wetlands. As you’re aware, we had the wetlands delineated on site, and they’re shown on Drawing L-1 that I’m referring to, and you notice. MR. VOLLARO-Just for the record, the application we’re talking about is 5/15/06 is the updated drawing that you’re looking at? MR. MOGREN-The revised drawing is, yes, 5/15/06. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re on the same drawing. Okay. Go ahead. MR. MOGREN-Well, we had a wetland specialist out there, and he flagged the wetlands, and the flags are delineated on the plan by the little circles, and there’s an approximate wetland boundary labeled on them. There’s a couple of separate systems, but the one stream on the north side of the site has the wetlands surrounded around it, in that manner, and then the other stream on the south side of the site also has the wetland boundaries delineated around that. The small circles are the flags that are in the field, and then the small circles are connected by the line. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MOGREN-And you’ll make a note that that small connection, that small stream connection between the two streams doesn’t show a wetland boundary around there, because we looked at that, and there were no hydric soils there or any wetland vegetation. So that’s been purposely not shown as a wetland, okay. Now I’ve also. MR. VOLLARO-Who delineated the wetlands. MR. MOGREN-Charles Maine. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Are these ACOE wetlands or are these DEC wetlands? MR. MOGREN-These are ACOE wetlands, and I had submitted with my response letter a copy of the Nationwide Permit 39, of which I’m looking at now, and under Nationwide Permit 39, you’re allowed to disturb up to one tenth of an acre without notifying the district engineer prior to construction. What we’re required to do is notify the district engineer post construction with that disturbance. Also, under that same Permit, if there’s disturbance to a stream of less than 300 linear feet, you’re also not required to notify the district engineer before construction. Now these plans show, as I’ve shown here, actually, if you look just quickly just on L-3, of which I tried to hatch out the wetland disturbance, and you might see some dots there as wetland hatch. It could have been darker, but when we found these wetlands, you’ll notice the track was re-designed and kind of pushed up to the north to avoid the stream to the south, and also those wetlands, but there’s a note on L-3 that the wetland disturbance amounts to about .077 acres, which is less than the one tenth of an acre. So, by re-designing the track and moving it away from the stream, we’ve cut down on the linear feet of stream disturbance which was 250 feet, the last time I was here, to just under 150 feet. So we’re clearly under the thresholds of the Army Corps of Engineers guidelines for that Nationwide Permit, and again, we’ll be notifying them post construction. There’s some requirements for post construction, but from the Army Corps standpoint, we should be good to go on this construction. MR. VOLLARO-What Nationwide Permit are you working against? MR. MOGREN-It’s Nationwide Permit 39, and I did attach a copy of that with my letter that I addressed to you, or actually to Susan, dated 5/15. So you do have a copy of that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure I saw that attached to Susan’s letter. That piece? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now, Charles Maine is a soil scientist. That means he purports to be a soil scientist, is that correct? MR. MOGREN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’m wondering whether he’s qualified to set flags or not? Normally we see Charles Maine do things like test pits and percolation data. That’s all I ever see him do, and I’ve never seen him really set flags for a boundary. MR. MOGREN-Well, the distinguishing characteristic, and there are three of them for wetlands, are the soils, and if you go out to that site, it’s like black and night. There’s hydric soils, which are the black dirt, and he’s totally capable and qualified to delineate the hydric soils. Wetland vegetation requires hydric soils to grow. So it’s really, you know, I was out there. I learned a lot myself, but it’s really between day and night where these black soils start out there, and he flagged them quite accurately. So I believe that he is qualified to do a wetland delineation. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you, when we were out there, I don’t know how the other Board members feel about this. When we were out to the site, we were out a couple of times. There’s a lot of disturbance in these areas, and I’m wondering how he was able to, in that mass of disturbance that’s back there, and there is some, and particularly up here where you get into just a tangent from where the race track is there, you draw a line tangent to that and you come on down to it, there’s a lot of disturbance right in that area. It’s very hard for me to understand how he was able to delineate so clearly in there the wetlands themselves. MR. MOGREN-If you go back to L-1, you’re right. The wetland delineation is based on the existing conditions today. Now I do understand, and I was just brought on board with the existing conditions as they exist today, but my understanding is that, yes, there was some disturbance out there, and it was just as a result of tying into the septic system, removing a very large leach field out there, and that the building inspector had been out there, after all that work was done, and was okay with everything that was done out there to that time. MR. VOLLARO-The building inspector being who? MR. MOGREN-Your building inspector. Wasn’t Craig out there, Vance? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Craig Brown? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And he did what? MR. MOGREN-Well, he just looked at the work upon the, you know, removal of the septic system, and he didn’t have any concerns or troubles with what was done to remove that leach field, which was obviously abandoned and removed after the tie in to the sanitary sewer was made, okay. Now Charles Maine, as myself, came out and had located the wetlands based on the existing conditions as they exist today. MRS. STEFFAN-Where were the leach fields, in relationship to the building? VANCE COHEN MR. COHEN-On this map where you see it says like area, 1.92 acres, right there, that’s where the leach field actually sat, right in that hill area right there. MR. SIPP-And that was removed from the site? That was taken off site, the leach field? MR. MOGREN-Yes, after the connection to the new sanitary sewer was made. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a method for removing all the contaminated material, when you pull stuff out of a leach field. There’s a method that you have to store it, dry it, get it on a truck and take it to a qualified storage facility. How did you get rid of that? Where did it go? MR. COHEN-The contractor, Mike Lawrence, was the one who took care of the leach field area. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand you had a contractor doing that, but I want to know how he did it. Contractors can do anything. MR. COHEN-Truck and tractor. I’m not sure exactly what you mean. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you excavate a leach field, you’re supposed to take it and stack that material. It’s supposed to dry for a couple of days, so when you carry it over a road to a qualified landfill, that will accept that material, that doesn’t get tracked all over the road, because normally it’s wet, you put it in the back of a truck, and you take off and the stuff starts to leak out the back. That’s why you’ve got to put it, let it stand, let it dry out, and then you put it on the truck. I’m just wondering how he got it from where you were to where. Were you there? MR. COHEN-I wasn’t, I was in the area. I was working at the store, but I wasn’t doing the work. MR. VOLLARO-The applicant is always the responsible party. You realize that, for whatever happens on your property. It ultimately comes down to you. MR. COHEN-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else so far have any questions? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the things that I’m concerned about, when we went on our drive arounds this month, you’ve got the streams delineated on this map as well as the wetland boundaries, but then you put some fill in there. There’s a couple of pile of fill back there, and one of the things that we were all disturbed about is that there’s obviously a wetland boundary, and then there’s all kinds of debris and garbage and stuff in the water, in the wetland areas. There’s no silt fencing or anything else, and so we were pretty troubled about that. MRS. BRUNO-Staff, is that picture from your file, or is that the disc? MRS. BARDEN-That’s one of yours. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. If you could scroll through, there are some shots where, that’s standing out where your go karts would go, looking back at the building. That’s showing 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) some of the newer fill right up to the wetlands. You can see it right there, pushed right up. If you look closely, I tried to get some of the flags into the pictures. MR. VOLLARO-The flags would be on this side of the photograph? The flags would be close to where the fill is, you’re saying? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So you filled right up next to the wetland, and now you can do that. I think that, isn’t there a 75 foot setback from the wetland requirement? I mean, if you look at what we looked at in the Golden Corral, for example, they are also Army Corps wetlands, and they came in with .095 feet of it, and we had to, they’re going to be getting a variance for the 75 foot setback. MRS. BARDEN-Right. My understanding is the stream is an unclassified stream. I think that the wetland, I think that they need review for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the wetland, but we don’t know where that wetland boundary will be until they bring in the fill, but I don’t believe, again, that there’s a shoreline setback requirement from the that stream. MR. MOGREN-I understand that there is one for a DEC wetland, but my understanding is there’s not for the Army Corps unless you’re doing leach fields. MR. VOLLARO-You can come right up to an Army Corps. MR. MOGREN-Yes, with anything but a leach field. MR. VOLLARO-But Queensbury requirement is if you go up, you’ve got to be 75 feet away from a, that’s the Queensbury requirements, a setback of 75 feet, I believe. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-But what we have, we don’t even know who’s wetland this belongs to. Is this Army Corps? MR. MOGREN-It’s definitely not a DEC wetland. It would default down to the Army Corps, but again, you have to realize that this whole, whatever’s left of this wetland, you know, when the Northway came through, they cut that wetland right off. Apparently what was happening was there was a drainage system that came through there. The Northway came through, just filled it like they usually do. They did culvert it, but certainly we can’t classify this as some kind of pristine wetland. You’re getting a lot of debris just washing down from, if you look to the north of this property, along the back of those commercial strips, you’ll see a lot of junk that’s just piled back there, and some of that’s coming down, and it’s just not at all anything near to a pristine wetland. It’s been disturbed before we got there, what with the Northway. MRS. BRUNO-It may not be of the classification of a pristine wetland like we sometimes look at, but it’s alarming to see the amount of change that has happened before the building permit has been given and before it’s gone through the Planning Board. Just the removal of the trees and now this fill, and I understand there’s a lot coming down from the highway, but it’s really an eyesore, and I’m just, it’s quite bold to do that amount of work, I think, before coming forth, before coming here in front of us. MR. COHEN-I mean, we logged the trees out at the same time we were taking out the leach field, because the trees were right around that leach field area. MRS. BRUNO-It seems like you’ve gone way back towards, you know, where you’re planning on having the track, and the leach field that you’re talking about was more in the vicinity of the building, which makes sense. MR. VOLLARO-The leach field was around that 1.92 acres. Is that where the leach field was located? MR. COHEN-Right in that hill area. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-So that looks like there wasn’t very much disturbance back there when we looked. I mean, the disturbance is right here, just west of where your track is going to be, and where the greatest amount of disturbance that we saw, and couldn’t really account for at the time we were there. MR. SIPP-When was that leach field removed? MR. COHEN-A year ago. MR. SIPP-You hooked up to the Town sewer at that time? MR. COHEN-Right. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-So we can really talk about east of the stream, west of the stream, the leach field really was east, and you’ve got the stream, and then the western portion. MR. VOLLARO-I guess this is an unclassified stream, and it looks to me like it’s probably coming down under the Northway, that it’s been channeled underneath, and it’s probably coming down from West Mountain, or something in that area, and so I don’t know if it’s an unspecified, unlabeled stream, I don’t know what you really do about that. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Vollaro, do you recall what part of the Code talks about the 75 foot setback for Queensbury? MRS. STEFFAN-179-6-100. MRS. BARDEN-It’s 4-030. It’s in the schedule for Highway Commercial Intensive zone, shoreline setback 75 feet. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 179-6, isn’t it? MRS. BARDEN-You can just go to the table of the Schedule of Area and Bulk requirements, and it’s, the shoreline setback for Highway Commercial Intensive is 75 feet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I thought it was. Now that’s for the Army Corps wetlands, or for any wetland? MRS. BARDEN-That is for, well, again, my understanding is that it would pertain to the stream. The wetlands are Army Corps jurisdictional, and if they have, the Nationwide Permit covers up to a tenth of an acre of disturbance, and if they’re under that, then they would, you know, have a fill and have a new wetland boundary, which would be the new wetland boundary that we would look at for filling and hard surfacing within 50 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it looks like on L-2 they are, I guess it’s L-3, one of those, is going to give us what the boundary looks like after it’s been, you’re using the same boundary on your grading and clearing plan as you’ve got on L-1. MR. MOGREN-Absolutely. You can see the hatched, on L-3 you can see a hatched area which signifies the area to be disturbed. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see that. You’ve talked about that before, but it’s not very clear on my drawing. MR. MOGREN-Little dots between, right over the track. MR. VOLLARO-At the top? MR. MOGREN-No, at the top there’s no wetland disturbance. Down at the bottom where the track. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a small amount of dots in there? Okay. MR. MOGREN-Yes. I could have made them a little darker. MR. VOLLARO-Right, you could have. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. STEFFAN-I think that certainly, have you seen the C.T. Male comments from June nd 22? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And they have some comments, and they will obviously need some responses to all the wetland issues, the swales and those kinds of things, stream boundaries. So those things are going to have to be answered, and I guess we’ll have to work out. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a list of questions to go down that I put together on this, and this wasn’t one of them, but I have some questions, and I’ll wait until all you folks have a chance to discuss anything you want, but I think there’s a whole litany of things that I want to talk about. MR. SIPP-This fill that we saw, in some places had pipes in it and concrete structures and so forth. Will this all be removed? That fill that was right up to the wetlands, the boundary of the wetlands, had foreign material in it. Will all that be removed? MR. COHEN-Yes, we can remove that. We’re going to need to to be able to grade whatever, the hillside and stuff. MR. SIPP-You’ve also cut trees there that would probably be part of a buffer. What are you going to use for a buffer area between you and the next piece of property? MR. COHEN-Which property? MR. VOLLARO-He’s talking about the southern property line, the west is up against the Northway. I think you’re talking the southern property line. MR. COHEN-The southern side is pretty well buffered with trees as well. MR. SIPP-Basketville or whatever. MR. COHEN-Yes, that’s pretty well buffered right there. MR. VOLLARO-You can stand right there and see right through. There’s no buffering there, that I could see, when we were there. We’ve been on that site now I think three times. So it’s not something we’re sort of vague about. We know what we’re talking about on that. MR. COHEN-That’s looking at Basketville right there, what you’re looking at right there. You’re looking at Basketville. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but if you move down a little bit further toward where the bottom of where your track is going to be, it starts to open up pretty quick there. MR. COHEN-Which is where the driveway entrance is, down here. That’s right at the, where the building is going to be, that’s where it’s open. Even where the culvert meets, where it goes under the driveway, that right now is almost 20 foot of bush that has just grown up. It grows up every season. So that you can’t even see where the track is going to be from Basketville parking lot anywhere. MR. MOGREN-We talked about buffers last time, and we added some buffering. It was requested that we add some buffering between the Northway, which we did, and it was requested that we add some buffering from New York State 9 into the track, which we did. I think at the time I thought everybody thought that that was a natural buffer, was pretty sufficient, on the south side. MR. SIPP-What I’m talking about is where the stone wall is on L-1, and you’ve got clear vegetation. MR. MOGREN-Yes, the stone wall right there. MR. SIPP-It looks like that vegetation’s already been removed. MR. MOGREN-No, this survey was done after all of that disturbance. So the tree line that’s on here now represents what’s out there now, per the survey that was done, and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) we are removing a little bit of trees right there, you’re right, to make room for the track, but it seems like there’s still a decent buffer there. MR. COHEN-Yes, right there’s an angle right there you can’t even see Basketville. MRS. STEFFAN-But that’s the buffering section that’s going to come out. That’s the clearing. MR. MOGREN-There is, some of that is coming out, yet. MR. COHEN-Just this front corner. MR. SIPP-That’s what I mean. You’re removing part of that buffer right there. MR. COHEN-You still won’t be able to see Basketville with the bushes and stuff on the other side. They’ve got a buffer of trees as well on their property. MR. SIPP-Now if you go back towards Route 9, to where that. MR. COHEN-The bushes go all the way to where that white truck is backed in there. The bushes go all the way up, and that’s probably 75 feet into that driveway, or 100 feet into the driveway from where the asphalt is now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s get on with some of the questions that we have. We want to put a 20 foot no cut zone across the back. That would be across the western property line adjacent to the Northway there, so we don’t get into that at some later date. There’d be a no cut zone in there. MR. MOGREN-Okay, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Wherever you’ve got the cut limits on there, the cutting plan, the cutting limits. MR. MOGREN-The grading limits? MR. VOLLARO-No, the cutting limits. MR. MOGREN-On L-1? MR. VOLLARO-On L-1. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-We want to have some construction material put on those, in other words, flags that show when people come, like when Bruce Frank comes out to inspect, that that material is, flags are put all along there so we know what the limits of cut really are, because what happens is when the guy comes in with the bulldozer, the flags go, just like that. They’re just interested in getting in and getting out. Fast as they can, and I want to make sure that when this is delineated out here, as far as the no cut zone is concerned, what’s called clearing limits, I guess you would call them, that they’re delineated well enough for an inspector to go out there and take a look at that, before the guy comes to start grading off. MR. MOGREN-Yes. That’s a great idea. We have no intent for clearing any more than we have to. We want to clear the minimum. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I’ve laid a 20 foot no cut zone across the western area there. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now I see that you’ve got a new track layout and you’ve moved the clearing limits to the north close to the property line to get away from the stream. That was the force function behind moving this, to stay away from the stream. MR. MOGREN-That’s exactly right. MR. VOLLARO-Now what I did is I calculated the clearing limits on the southern boundary line, represents about 68% of the total, and the total is 452 linear feet all the way to the end of your property line, is 452 linear feet, and so you’ve got about 68% of 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) that, based upon what I see here, covered. The rest of that represents the other dimension. Do you follow what I’m saying? MR. MOGREN-Not entirely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. From this corner of your property line, all the way to here, and then to there, represents 452 linear feet. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I’m saying that of that 452 linear feet, you’re clearing limits go about 68% of that. MR. MOGREN-Well, the clearing limits are, it doesn’t seem like it’s that big of an impact. This is the clearing limits right here. MR. VOLLARO-I know. I’ve seen them. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-This is the end of it. This view is open from Route 9. Basically there’s a short, small window that can be seen through Route 9, right through this view shed. MR. MOGREN-Correct, and we tried to mitigate that with some plantings on Drawing L- 4. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The lighting looks okay, the re-do of the lighting. I looked the lighting plan over, and I think you’re getting close, you are close to your uniformity ratios in there. You’ve got a slight spill onto Route 9. So I think your lighting plan is okay. The height of your fixture, your lighting fixture, is 18 feet above, I believe that’s on. MR. MOGREN-It’s shown on the detail sheet. MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the detail sheet. MR. MOGREN-It’s L-6. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 18 feet above grade. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s L-5. MR. MOGREN-L-5, you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-Because when he comes out to measure that, he’ll be looking for that. You want to make sure that measurement’s correct. That the 18 feet above grade is what you’re showing here, above finished grade. Now the lighting fixture itself comes out of Lithonia Lighting? MR. MOGREN-Lithonia Lighting, just a standard black shoebox with a black pole. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a cut sheet on that anywhere? MR. MOGREN-I didn’t bring one with me. This is pretty much the detail kind of shows exactly what that looks like, and there’s some additional technical information on those fixtures on the lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-So long as he’s able to go out and check that that’s the right fixture that we approved. MRS. STEFFAN-In the Staff notes it said a graphic of the three light types, the fixtures was not provided. The Staff needs to have those for their files. MR. MOGREN-Yes. Okay. First of all there’s only two light fixtures, two types, and it’s shown right here on Detail 11, the two different types was that A. One of them has two shoebox fixtures on it like shown on the detail, and then some of them have, I think one has two fixtures and then one has one fixture, but I don’t know what other graphic you’re looking for. This is the graphic right here. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Normally the manufacturer, or Lithonia Lighting provides a cut sheet which gives all the information, and that’s what we’d be looking for. MR. MOGREN-Yes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s so when the inspector goes out, he’s got a cut sheet in his hand and he can take a look at the fixture and see that really, that the fixture is really 193 watts. That’s what he wants to know, because that’s going to determine whether or not, when you take a look at your lighting plan, you’ve got a lot of foot candles on the ground. MR. MOGREN-It’s based on this fixture, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Based on that fixture. MR. MOGREN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Your stormwater report, let’s take a look at that for a minute. I want to th just check something out with you. This is the revised May 15. th MR. MOGREN-Revised May 15, yes. MR. VOLLARO-2006, hopefully that’s what it is. Under Section Three of stormwater management facilities, you’ve got a Chapter Four of the design manual describes the design requirements for construction of stormwater management facilities. The proposed stormwater sewer pipe system is designed to handle the 10 year, 24 hour storm event, but then you go down, as you get closer to using Hydro Cad as your software package, you start talking about one, ten and one hundred year storm, and then you come up with design points for the proposed conditions, and the summary of the proposed conditions follow that. Our Code, 179-6-080, if you’ve got that, I don’t know whether you have that Code or not, 179-6-080 talks about designing for 50 year storm. The stormwater drainage plan shall analyze the impacts of the project using the 25 year return interval for residential projects, and a 50 year return interval for commercial and industrial projects, and I see you’ve designed to a different level. You’ve designed to basically a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. That’s under 3.1. MR. MOGREN-Could I just say one thing? Going back to L-1, there’s only just a couple of pipes on this site. One of them that we switched to a double 12 inch, you know, conveys the stream over to where that stone wall was. Now back when the Northway was built and the streams came through, this 18 inch pipe that connects into the Town system was designed by some engineer. That’s installed there. That’s 18 inch CMP at whatever slope that is, and that is designed to handle both streams coming through there. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. MR. MOGREN-So what I’m trying to say is that we’ve oversized, I’ve put in two twelve inches. Our main pipe is two 12 inch pipes to convey that, and the reason why I did that was because I had some concerns about the cover, but clearly two 12 inch pipes is going to adequately convey any water that comes from that side, knowing that the 18 inch covers both streams, and then the one pipe that comes out of the storm basin is a control pipe, so that is sized to limit the post development to the pre-development levels. You understand that there’s no increase here. So that leaves us one pipe, okay, and it’s the pipe on top, from CB Number One to CB Number Two, and we never, I just never use less than a 12 inch, that’s a 12 inch pipe right there, and I’m sure that’s going to convey what you want it to convey. We do these calculations, but then we start with the smallest pipe, a 12 inch, just for maintenance reasons, for clogging and stuff like that. So I’m totally convinced and sure that a 12 inch pipe to convey a very small area. We put CB Number One up in there. MR. VOLLARO-Why would you use the statement that says the proposed storm sewer pipe is designed to handle a 10 year, 24 hour storm event when our requirement is for a 50 year return interval storm? Either that, or if you’ve changed this, I don’t know what it does to your Hydro CAD software when you go out to look at summary of existing and summary of proposed conditions. As soon as you start changing some figures in Hydro CAD everything else moves around. MR. MOGREN-I think the piping’s adequate to convey. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can’t, that might be, you might be right, but the book, the stormwater manual has to be correct, it has to follow the Code. So you’ve got to go back and take a look at, if you design for the 50 year storm, what does it do to the rest of your, and it may not. It may not disturb it much, I don’t know. MR. MOGREN-Well, that was the point I was trying to make. We know that everything goes through the existing 18 inch pipe. So I don’t see, I’ll be glad to revise the report for you, but I don’t see how that would impact any of our pipe sizing that we’re showing on this plan. MR. VOLLARO-As far as your design points are concerned. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It may not. I don’t know. I don’t know what software package you’re using in your Hydro CAD, but some of them are very sensitive to the front end design. When you start to put your stuff into the front end, it cascades down into some of the other areas like these spreadsheets that you’re showing here. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So I think you’ve got to take a look at that and see what the 50 year storm looks like in terms of volume. That was my only comment on the stormwater report. I don’t know, I had a note here, how does this fit with the one, ten, and one hundred year storm in 3.2 and 3.3? C.T. Male did not comment on that, in their reply, and I’m surprised they didn’t because they usually do, and it was a clue to me to find out why they didn’t, and. MR. MOGREN-The 100 year storm is used to size, the detention is sized for 100 year storms. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. MR. MOGREN-So that’s why the calculation. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s the piping I’m talking about here. MR. MOGREN-Well, again, it’s just that one pipe that I think is affected, because again, the pipe coming out of the detention basin is down sized. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I can do, or what I can have Staff do, is to contact C.T. Male and ask them to please take another look at your stormwater report, particularly 3.2 and 3.3, and determine whether or not that fits the 50 year storm and then they can talk to you about it. They may say they don’t see a problem with it, and I want them to look at it. So I’m going to ask Staff at this point if you would give Jim Edwards or Jim Houston a call at C.T. Male, ask them to look at the revised May 15, 2006 stormwater report on Page 2 under Overview, 3.1, Section Three, and Section 3.2, which is the existing condition, and 3.3 which is the proposed condition and see if they feel those calculations are reasonable. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. The next comment I have is to respond to C.T. Male’s June 22 letter, which is fairly extensive. Have you had a chance to get into that yet? MR. MOGREN-Yes. The new comments? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw the old comments, but this is June 22. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because I don’t have them here. MR. MOGREN-Well, I have them here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they’re not in front of us. Normally we don’t accept new information on the night of the meeting. Did you get the new information? nd MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have a response from the June 22 C.T. Male letter. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s not in Staff’s possession. It’s not in our possession. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. MOGREN-No. I didn’t, knowing that you don’t accept information, I didn’t, but I was wondering if we could discuss a few of them right now. MR. VOLLARO-I would rather not chew the clock up to do that. Once you get that in to them, then we’ll look at it. It’ll be easy for you to respond to C.T. Male. Normally, if they’re satisfied, they’ll give us a signoff letter, and it’s done. MR. MOGREN-For an example, the first comment, stream boundaries should be shown on the plans, and I’m having a hard time figuring out why, how that even ended up there. MR. VOLLARO-Give them a call and ask them. MR. MOGREN-The stream boundaries we just reviewed. All right. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to talk to them. That’s our engineer. That’s who I rely on, without me doing the calculations myself, I rely on him. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And so there’s 22 comments on there. Some of them they’re saying that certain things aren’t necessary even I think, I’m not sure. MR. MOGREN-Well, a lot of the new ones are based on what we talked about with the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to satisfy Jim Houston. He’s their Senior Civil. You’ll be able to communicate with him without too much trouble. I find him very good. He’s a good engineer. Okay. MR. MOGREN-How do you like the building colors we picked? MR. VOLLARO-I got a comment on color, and the comment is a black roof and a rose building, because that’s what it looked like. I’m going to let some of the people who are more sensitive to colors and that kind of stuff than I am. I’m usually the numbers man on this Board, and, yes, I’ve seen that. I’ve looked at that. MR. MOGREN-Hunter Green roof shingles and then a. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, when I looked at this, two things, so you don’t think I’m coming off on the hoof here. I see a very near black roof and a rose for the building. That’s what I wrote down. So it’s not something I’m dreaming up when I’m sitting at the table here. That’s how I looked at it. I think the colors are, Tanya, what do you think about the color scheme on this? MRS. BRUNO-I actually don’t think I have a copy of that, but you’re saying that the roof is Hunter Green and the building is supposed to be? MR. MOGREN-The roof is Hunter Green, the building is Light Green, and the trim is brown, and these were all submitted here, but let me show you. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, ours don’t look like that. MR. VOLLARO-If you look at this, it doesn’t look green at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they all look the same to me. MR. MOGREN-It’s the Hunter Green roof shingles, Light Green siding, and then the trim is brown. MRS. BRUNO-It’s obviously more acceptable. I know that we talked about the height of the building last time, and, Vance, I think you had said that it was equivalent to the building next door, in terms of height. I think you might still find, if you look at it, it looks disjointed, I think, just from, that’s nothing that’s going to weigh in terms of our acceptance or not, really, but just for your happiness with the design, you might just want to think about lowering that a bit, now that you don’t have the storage up there. What do you guys think about the colors? I see the rose in that one. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, this looks totally different. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. BRUNO-I think it depends upon which printer you use. MR. MOGREN-Yes, what printer you might use, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly that color scheme sounds appropriate. This doesn’t look anything like you’ve described. So the other sounds certainly like what we asked for. MR. MOGREN-Yours are coming out a little different than mine. MR. VOLLARO-The color scheme is not very representative of what you’re talking about. The things you gave us sound right, verbally, but certainly it doesn’t look like that, but we’ll accept what you’ve given us, word wise. MRS. STEFFAN-How about the Staff comments on elevation drawings have not been revised, still appear to have a second story. Can you address that? MR. MOGREN-There is no second floor. I imagine they were just looking at the elevation and noticed that it was so high, but these are the architectural plans and there’s no second story on them. There’s no second floor. It’s a cathedral ceiling. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Inside of the building it’ll be a cathedral ceiling up? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SIPP-On C.T. Male’s comments, Number Seven. Consideration should be given to fencing between the track and the basin for safety reasons, since the steel rail system is only two feet high. Has that been addressed? MR. MOGREN-Yes, I think I’d addressed that when we changed the slopes to two to one. They were one to one the last time with a riprap and it seemed a little more dangerous to fall over. These are two to one side slopes, two horizontal to one vertical. They’re going to be seeded with a wildflower mix, I believe, with a soft material, and I didn’t think there was a need for it, but if you do, we could put that in there. MR. SIPP-How fast are these things going? MR. MOGREN-By the way, we forgot to mention the most important factor. You saw that these are going to be electric carts now, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MOGREN-Okay. Just want to make sure. They don’t go that fast, 15, 20 miles an hour. I think if somebody’s out of their car and on the track, they’re going to bigger problems than rolling down an embankment. They’re probably going to get run over by a go kart or something. MR. COHEN-There is a fence that’s around it. MR. MOGREN-Yes, it’s secured around the perimeter, but we didn’t secure that inside. MR. SIPP-Obviously there’s curbing. MR. MOGREN-Yes, there’s a detail on that. If you see on L-5 again there’s a detail of how that looks. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, on L-3, I’m looking at the front of the building. You’ve got three signs out there. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. SIPP-What do these signs say? MR. MOGREN-They’re all existing signs. Starting from the very top, the top one with the two circles there, that is a directional signage for the highway. The next one down is the existing sign for Scooters, and that’s two of them. Where was the third one you were referring to? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. SIPP-The one right out on the curbing. MR. MOGREN-Again, that’s New York State DOT directional signage for the highway. None of that is new. That’s all highway related signage. MR. SIPP-And there’s only one sign on the front of the building? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s just one more comment I think that I have. There’s a Floor Area Ratio worksheet that goes along with this zone, which is a .3, which is a Highway Intensive zone, and I don’t see, I see a not applicable on the top of that. I don’t know who wrote that or not, but I’ve got it circled and I have a question that says why not, and this zone requires a 30% analysis of your Floor Area Ratio. MR. MOGREN-I didn’t pick up on where that comment came. I didn’t do that. I’m not sure where that came from. As a matter of fact, I don’t think I addressed anything on the FAR because I didn’t think it came up the last meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Looking at the. MR. MOGREN-I don’t recall anything coming up about that. That’s the Floor Area Ratio to the size of the site, is that what it is? MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be under 30%. MR. MOGREN-Okay. I thought I might have checked that myself, but I don’t think I documented that on the drawings, but we do know what the side is and we do know what the building is. MR. VOLLARO-Your Floor Area Ratio shouldn’t be too hard to calculate. It should be supplied with the application, however, in that zone. If you go to our Code, it’s out in the back on the bulk area requirements. Do you folks have copies of this? Do you use this document? MR. MOGREN-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you do, you’ll go to the back of it. MR. MOGREN-I’ll check that. I’m pretty sure that I did check that six weeks ago or eight weeks ago, and I didn’t think there was going to be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-See Highway Commercial Intensive, and you go across that and it says the Floor Area Ratio requirement is 30%. MR. MOGREN-No greater than 30%. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. MR. MOGREN-Just looking at the plan, and that’s building Floor Area, I can just look at that and it looks to me like it’s way, way lower than that. MR. VOLLARO-It probably is. MR. MOGREN-I mean, you’ve got a two acre, but I’ll. MR. VOLLARO-Just for the record, so that the record shows that it’s been looked at and it’s under 30%. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So that five years from now when somebody looks at that this they go, yes, that’s what it is. So we’re going to have to table this for a couple of points. MRS. STEFFAN-I kept track of a couple of things you said. There’s a couple of items in the Staff notes, one of the general questions was on hours. During our last discussion, you said 11 o’clock at night, and here apparently on the new submission it’s midnight? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. MOGREN-Well, I think we’re a little flexible. I thought we agreed on midnight the last time, but Vance, what do you think? MR. COHEN-If we can keep it midnight. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I had noted 11, so, okay. MRS. BRUNO-Are you still trying to purchase the property north of this property? I’ve noticed that you’re renting it now. MR. COHEN-I’m renting it. I believe it’s under contract already. MRS. BRUNO-With someone else? MR. COHEN-Right. MRS. BRUNO-So you may end up losing that. You’re going to pull all that merchandise back into your new building? MR. COHEN-Right. We’re hoping to be able to build the building at the same time. MRS. BRUNO-As this as all happening, okay. MR. VOLLARO-We do have a public hearing tonight. I think the public has heard a good deal on this. So I’m going to ask anybody in the audience if they want to come up and speak to this application for Vance Cohen, his Special Use Permit and a site plan review at the same time. Yes, this gentleman in the back. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-Good evening. My name is David Kenny. I happen to own the property across the street. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that property being what, David? MR. KENNY-I own the Days Inn. I also own the Reebok, where Reebok is, which is directly across the street. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. KENNY-I don’t really have any concern with the project. My concern is with the stormwater, probably parking, and that stream. What’s happened over the last five to ten years is, there’s no easement on my property that I’ve been able to discover, but the State just dumps all the water on my property. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if the State does, that’s something. MR. KENNY-Well, what happens is the culvert system from the State, so all the water, it was flooded out, and quite frankly the water, I think that culvert that was put in, possibly 40, 50 years ago, whenever, when they just decided, here’s a good place to run a culvert, there’s woods there, and they dug it up and put it in. It come out behind the back of the Reebok building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. KENNY-And it floods that whole parking lot out. This past week, this last storm we had flooded the whole road out, it just backed up. I mean, that stormwater system coming down Route 9 doesn’t go anywhere. It goes across into my property. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I noticed a good deal of the Stark material from up there. MR. KENNY-Came right down the whole road. MR. VOLLARO-Came right down the whole road. MR. KENNY-And that stream, as a little bit of history, that I don’t know a lot, but the stream was an old stream bed there that actually apparently went under the road years 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) ago when Route 9 was, I think it’s a 17 yard road or something they described it as in the old surveys, and what happened was, when they put the Northway in, they put culvert systems in and all that water happens to run into the stream that goes into Glen Lake. So my concern is when I go to develop, am I going to have a major handicap because of all this excess water I had nothing to do with? Now it’s just being dumped on our property, and our parking lot’s flooded out twice in the last year and a half, in front of the whole Reebok building. It just comes to where we have an open drain in the back and just boils up out of the ground there because it’s so much, and every time you add something, it just adds more. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s a systemic problem in Queensbury. I mean, the more we add, you know. MR. KENNY-But do they have the right to just dump it on my property without an easement or anything? Well, see, it’s really the State thing. It’s whoever put those culverts to begin with. It looks like it’s not an individual. MR. KENNY-Well, the stormwater systems there all overflow out into the road. There’s not a one of them on that side of the road. French Mountain Commons, they put that catch basin out in front, that filled up the other day and just flooded out onto the road. I mean, there’s no drainage there, on that side of the road. It’s two feet, three feet to groundwater. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the key problem. You can’t build a catch basin that’s going to do any good if you’re playing around with three feet of groundwater. It just doesn’t happen. MR. KENNY-Right. I mean, the way that property sits now, it doesn’t handle a 50 year storm, because the water runs right off onto the road. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we saw that. A 50 year storm is, I think close to five inches of rain, if I’m not mistaken. MR. KENNY-Well, we got, I think, two and a half. MR. VOLLARO-We got four. MR. KENNY-We got four? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the rain gauge that I looked at, my rain gauge was just under four inches, last night. MR. KENNY-I mean, with the effect on the stream, that’s my big concern is how does it affect us in the future? We have an 11 acre site there. We have plenty of drainage over there, but I did have a site plan approved years ago for a building on that property, and that stormwater issue came up about all the water running down on Route 9. MR. SIPP-Does that sump that’s now down the road from you, next to the Mobil station. MR. KENNY-That goes south, that water, I believe so, yes. MR. SIPP-And this takes in what comes across the road from there? MR. KENNY-Well, most of the water from the front of the Days Inn and coming across the street there and coming down from 149, when they re-did the road again, they just enlarged those catch basins along Route 9 and so that we have this old stream bed that was here we’re dumping it into and they put pipes in there and just dump it out back, and it’s, I don’t know that it’s legal in any way, shape or form, but the point is, I’ve had my attorneys look it up. There’s no easement. There’s nothing granted on my property. Now with this coming in directly across the street, that stream is a viable stream bed. That is a stream. Now it carries a lot more water now because of the Northway. I mean, all the Northway water runs down into that stream, and it, you know, you look at it, you don’t see where it’s running, but I could take you out back and show you where it’s running, out in the woods, behind my property. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there an access road behind the Reebok building? MR. KENNY-There’s a field back there. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a field, and that’s where the water runs? MR. KENNY-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KENNY-And I’ve got to do something about it when I want to develop my property, and I’m stuck bearing the brunt of it, and right now I believe the culvert under Route 9, or coming from Route 9 to the back of my property, is on a heavy storm, just can’t handle it. It was put in by the State. That’s when that stream was there, and that’s what they were culverting was that stream to go into 9. Now what they’ve done is take that and added all the stormwater coming down all the roads, the properties and everything and dumping everything into it, and without anything, and I don’t know how to address it. MRS. BRUNO-When you had your attorneys look into this, back at your previous project, had there been notice given to the State or any discussion with them, the engineers? MR. KENNY-Yes. It’s a legal problem. They’re claiming that at one time there was a natural stream bed there going back X number of years, and they have the right to dump into a natural stream bed. I don’t believe that’s the case. MR. VOLLARO-We just had the buzzer here. MR. KENNY-Okay. Well, those are my concerns, and the other concern I would have also is parking, and stormwater to me is something I don’t want to just, I don’t care about it, I’m happy with the project, but I’m just concerned if they’re going to dump more water on my property, how do I alleviate my problem. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I heard you talk about a wastewater absorption system on the site. MR. VOLLARO-On this site? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. We have a municipal sewer along Route 9, and it was put up there particularly for these problems we have with water, and is there any reason why this facility, as it expands, can’t be on that wastewater system? MR. VOLLARO-It is. MRS. STEFFAN-It is. MR. SALVADOR-Then what’s the absorption field for? MR. VOLLARO-There isn’t any, that I know of, John. MR. MOGREN-The discussion was that the absorption field was removed a year ago, and the disturbance from that was what we were talking about. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. So they’re on the municipal sewer. Good. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re on municipal sewer. Okay. All right. We have one other thing I wanted to talk about here. We’re talking about, so that you know what we’re talking about, there are three different types of Special Use Permits in the Code. One is a permanent permit. It’s a specific use to continue indefinitely until the specific uses ceases, in other words it ceases to become a track. There’s another temporary permit, specific use to continue until a specific date at which time the permit shall automatically terminate. We don’t want that. There’s a renewable permit. Renewable permit permits the specific use to continue until a specific date, unless renewed or extended by the Planning Board for an additional period of time. That’s going to take an administrative thing, and I don’t think we want that. So we’re going to, I think, going to ask the Board. I’m leaning toward a permanent permit, a specific use to continue indefinitely until the specific use ceases for any reason for a period of 12 consecutive months. In other words, if 12 months go by and you’re not running your track, the Special Use Permit is 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) discontinued, and that’s what we’ll go with, with Number One. Now, under Special Use Permits, as a condition of approval of a Special Use Permit, the Planning Board may require a performance bond or letter of credit guaranteeing satisfactory performance of the required improvements, and the improvements in this case are really building a track, doing the stormwater management that you’ve proposed to do, and we’re looking for, you’re going to be tabled anyway. We’re looking for a number, I’m having somebody else look at the number for you, but I want you to come up with a number that gives us an idea what the performance bond ought to be written for. MR. MOGREN-You’re talking about a cost estimate for the site work and the building addition? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And we’re having somebody else do that as well. So you should be able to get pretty close to that, and that’s a condition of Special Use Permit. Okay. We’ve got FAR calculation. I don’t see anything else we’re asking them to do. Lighting is good. The color that he specified we ought to ensure that the color. MR. MOGREN-Hunter Green shingles, brown trim. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’re coming up with our tabling motion, and we just want to make sure that when you supply this next time, you give us that verbally, you know, or, if you want, you can either write the color description or you can give us a picture that shows exactly what kind of colors you’re talking about. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, Vance, Tanya just reminded me. You’ve had some used cars for sale out on the side yard between your business and Basketville. MR. COHEN-I have a couple of trucks that I drive around and use, and I have a For Sale sign in the window. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, is that an allowed use within the Highway Commercial? MRS. BARDEN-It may be an allowable use in Highway Commercial, but whether or not it’s an allowable use on his approved site plan, probably not. MR. VOLLARO-If you want to sell the truck, for example, I don’t think that this site plan is going to give you side permission to use the site as a sales. MR. COHEN-I have one unregistered vehicle on the property. The rest of them that have a For Sale sign on them, they’re all registered vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make any difference. It’s the use we’re talking about. We’re giving you a Special Use Permit for the track. MR. COHEN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That Special Use Permit doesn’t extend to selling an automobile on site or having a couple of For Sale signs on a car. MR. COHEN-I mean, these are working vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-I know that, but they can be used for working vehicles on the site. There’s nothing wrong with that, but as soon as you put a For Sale sign on them, it’s a totally different story. MRS. STEFFAN-If you were doing it in your yard at home it would be a different situation, but because you have a business, I believe it’s a different situation. MR. COHEN-I mean, it’s a business truck. I just happen to be looking to sell it at this. MRS. STEFFAN-But you’re not in the car dealership business. MR. COHEN-I can’t sell my own vehicle? MR. VOLLARO-Not on that property. You can sell it any place. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. COHEN-I can’t have a For Sale sign my vehicle while I’m there at work and stuff? MR. VOLLARO-So that when you’re riding on the road somebody looks at the sign? MR. COHEN-Yes. I have it right in the windshield of the vehicle. It says For Sale. MRS. STEFFAN-There were four of them. When we did our drive around I think there were three or four of them, For Sale signs. MR. COHEN-There’s three of them. I have a box truck. I have a dump truck and a plow truck. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re trying to sell all three of those? MR. COHEN-Yes. I mean, they are working vehicles. They’re registered, working vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t make any difference whether they’re registered or not. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the use, actually in the back of the zoning book there is a description of allowable uses in different areas, and you really need to check with the Zoning Administrator on that, because I don’t think it’s an allowed use. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We can send somebody around and talk to you about it, because in my view, looking at the Special Use Permit we’re trying to put together for you here, that just doesn’t fit. I’m not going to argue with you. I’m telling you I don’t think it fits. We’ll find out. MR. COHEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’m going to make a motion to table Special Use Permit No. 8- 2006. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 8-2006 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, a special use permit has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes an approximately 2,934 sq. ft. expansion of the existing retail use on the site as well as the construction of a 1,710 sq. ft. roof structure, installation of a go-kart track and associated site work. Amusement Center uses in the HC-Int zone require review as a Special Use Permit by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/25/06 tabled to 6/27/06; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is hereby TABLED: And the fourth paragraph, Whereas, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, 179, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal currently does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that this application is tabled for the following conditions: 1.A 20 foot buffer would be shown on the western end of the property. 2.The stormwater report revised May 15, 2006. We want to check with C.T. Male with respect to the analysis. Starting on Page Two of that report and going on to Page Three. So it would be Page Two, 3.1 Overview. Page Two 3.2 Watershed Data. Page Three, 3.3 would be watershed data proposed conditions, and we want C.T. Male to check that out. Also, on Page Four, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) Summary of the Existing Versus the Proposed. And this is all related to 179- 6-080, and that refers to the 50 year storm. 3.In accordance with 179-10-030, we want the FAR calculation. 4.The Special Use Permit issued, we’re going to propose to issue that, and that would be when we come in with the final, but that would be for a permanent permit. 5.We need the cut sheets on the lighting. I guess they’re from Lithonia. 6.Color rendition so it’s accurate. 7.Give us a performance bond estimate. 8.The flags should be out there to identify the no cut zone as well. 9.C.T. Male signoff. 10.Tabled to August 22, 2006. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Color rendition. Let’s try to get the color rendition so it’s accurate. You can do it in words, but I’d like to see a picture. MR. MOGREN-If I do it in words, does that show up on the coversheet or something, or is that in a letter that I would give you? MR. VOLLARO-You can put it on the drawing if you want. Is that what you want to do? MR. MOGREN-Well, I’d like to get a color representation, you know, representative. So I’m going to call the guy who did that and try to get that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, try to get it as close as possible, because that’s what we’re going to make the decision on mostly. Words are okay, but I’d like to see, we did that with Outback and we had, they put the wrong stuff on, and they had to go out and they had to take it off the roof and all of that. The rendition tells an awful lot about what goes on out there. So get an accurate color rendition. Flags should be out there to identify the no cut zone as well. MR. MOGREN-You want that flagged? It’s 20 foot off the back. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we want to show it, there’s construction material that’s used to define the outline of the no cut limit. MR. MOGREN-Orange plastic fence? MR. VOLLARO-The orange plastic fence. That’s what our guy goes out and looks at. MR. MOGREN-Okay. So you want that put in the field? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so when he goes out he sees where the cut limits are. MR. MOGREN-Now, we show it on the plans, and does that happen the same time, or does that happen? MR. VOLLARO-Well, what he’ll have are the plans, that he comes out and inspects the site for, and on the plan it’ll say the material is there, and he’ll go looking for that. MR. MOGREN-So the material on site actually shows up when the construction begins? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-When something is on a plan, then it becomes enforceable. MR. MOGREN-Right. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to keep the public hearing and table it to a specific date in the future? th MR. VOLLARO-We can table it to a specific date in the future. 7/17, July 17, is the date that you need your application, all this material in by, July 17, and we’ll table this application to August 22. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to leave the public hearing open, since you’re going to be coming back. MR. MOGREN-All right. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 SEQR TYPE II MARTHA SCHMULBACH AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R JIM MOONEY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 96 SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 609 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 20- 06, SP 31-90, AV 27-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-12 SECTION 179-4-030 STEPHANIE BITTER & JIM MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Stephanie you realize what’s happening up here with only four of us? MS. BITTER-Yes, thank you, Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The applicant always has the ability, when they look at only four of a seven man Board to decide what they’re going to do. MS. BITTER-Yes, absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MS. BITTER-Chairman, do you usually read in Staff notes, or do you want me to start the presentation? MR. VOLLARO-Usually the Staff notes are fairly brief. If Staff would like to read them over on Schmulbach, by all means. You might want to abbreviate these, if you think, or you might want to read the whole thing. Normally I always consider that you’ve read them all, and we’ve read them all, and when the audience hears it, they don’t know what we’re talking about. MS. BITTER-Okay. My name’s Stephanie DiLallo-Bitter, for the record. I’m here this evening with Martha Schmulbach, the applicant, as well as Jim Mooney, who is the construction project manager. I realize that this was before you last month and I have had an opportunity to read the minutes. So I hope I’m up to date as to the happenings of this application. As you’re aware, we’re here tonight to modify the existing nonconforming structure. Mrs. Schmulbach is proposing to add a second floor which will maintain one bedroom and a full bath. Re-designing the first floor is all incorporated in the plan which would maintain the first floor as having one bedroom, one study, and one th and a half bathrooms. On March 29, we obtained the necessary variances in order to move forward with this application. As this Board is aware, this is just a vertical expansion. The footprint is not changing. It’s just moving upwards. The applicant essentially sold her Clifton Park residence and is interested in making this her permanent residence. She wants to maintain the first floor as her living space and have the second floor available in the event that guests do arrive, which does happen. The second story would only be a half story or only be half the length of the existing structure, and it would only be 22 feet in height, which is less than the maximum allowed, which is 28. At the prior Board meeting, there were a number of items that you were looking for us to supplement, which I’d like to just go through them in the fashion which we’ve had. There 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) is a stamped survey that was provided to this Board. I talked to Ms. Barden after her Staff comments, and I believe that you have what’s necessary. The well and water source is identified. The property actually obtains its water both from the lake as well as from a well, and I do have a well drilling contract, just in case that’s needed for the record. MRS. STEFFAN-I couldn’t find the well on this property. MR. VOLLARO-The well is not on here. What’s been put on is the. MS. BITTER-Is the water source from the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Is the water source, but the well is still missing, and it’s important with respect to the approximate location of that septic system. MS. BITTER-Okay. We can have that revised if necessary, but like I said, I do have it for the well drilling purposes. The completion of the Floor Area Ratio, I can honest to God say I was confused. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to drill a well? MS. BITTER-No, the well was already drilled. MR. VOLLARO-It’s already drilled. Okay. MS. BITTER-Yes, it’s existing on the property since I believe 1989. The completion of the Floor Area Ratio I was honestly a bit confused from the minutes, but when I reviewed the minutes, I took it to mean that there was confusion with the calculation as to the square footage identified on the survey and the acreage represented, but the way I calculated it, I didn’t go backwards, but I went that if you divide 7,961.39, which is the square footage represented, by the 43,560 number which is necessary for the acreage, it comes out to be .182, which is just that it was rounded down, which could be the reason for the confusion at the last meeting. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a little different set of math here. I’ll go through it if you like. MS. BITTER-Right. I just did it the other way in order to come out with .182, as opposed to .18 flat. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what happens is in looking at the ZBA, when the ZBA did their granting of a variance, there was some words in there that talked about the deck was not on the previous submission, and they talked about making sure that the deck did not appear, and I think it was a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals that made that statement, and that was made by, I believe it was Mr. Bryant that made the statement. MS. BITTER-So you were hoping to have all the numbers changed? I guess that’s where I was confused. MR. VOLLARO-What happens is apparently the porch on the front was a deck. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And now that deck goes away and the porch, the word porch is in its place, and it turns out to be 153 square feet, by my scale of 1 to 20. Now, as soon as I see that, when I said that the remaining area to be developed under the FAR was 61 square feet. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-If the porch goes into that equation, it goes over than 61 square feet. So we’ve got to take a look at re-doing that FAR so it’s accurate. MS. BITTER-But it still maintains that it’s within the Code compliance numbers. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MS. BITTER-If it’s been removed, though. Because they’ve been removed. That’s what was presented at the Zoning Board. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-The porch in the front is gone? MS. BITTER-No, the porch in front is maintained as a deck, but the deck on the, I believe it’s the west side, that was removed as well as the walkway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s out, but this drawing shows it in. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The stamp drawing from Matt Steves, if you look at that drawing, it’s still in there, and it should not be, according to what I understand, that that’s been removed. So the drawing is not an accurate depiction of what’s going to be on the site. That’s how I look at it anyway. I put a note on that deck was not previously in the submission. I think what Mr. Bryant said in there is the ZBA stated it should not be re-introduced into the site plan review. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That was his statement. MS. BITTER-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m sorry that I interrupted. MS. BITTER-That’s okay. The road was located on the plan, pursuant to your request. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MS. BITTER-The elevation drawings were received. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we have those. MS. BITTER-And the septic system is identified on the plan, and in speaking to Susan Barden, we did, the application for the septic renovation is on file in the Town of Queensbury, as is the building permit which was located. That was something that was missing for a period of time. MR. VOLLARO-That was a 1990, however. MS. BITTER-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-And so that’s a 16 year old permit. MS. BITTER-Right, but the septic system’s also been inspected, last year, by Condon, which we have certification of that inspection, demonstrating that both the tank as well as the field is functioning. MR. VOLLARO-Nobody from the Town of Queensbury did any inspection on that. MS. BITTER-No, because I don’t think it was required at the time. If it’s something that you’re looking to see of it inspected, obviously we could incorporate that as a condition, but we do have evidence that it was inspected last year by a septic company, by Condon. MR. VOLLARO-And is there any documentation? MS. BITTER-Yes, I can pass that out to you. This is the application. MR. VOLLARO-That I have. MS. BITTER-This is the permit, and this is the well drilling that I had mentioned to you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MS. BITTER-And then this is the Condon. All right. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. So Condon gave this thing a clean bill of health. Okay. Well, if you read this pretty carefully, he doesn’t make a representation in here. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MS. BITTER-I was looking in the middle, Mr. Chairman, the septic evaluation tank, okay, yes, fields, yes, normal. Testing of flushing toilet, yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 16 year old systems are sometimes a little tricky. MS. BITTER-But we have this relationship with Condon, and it also identifies at the bottom that she’s willing to, they’re going to remind her with regard to re-pumping in three years, which she’s willing to move forward with. As for the construction debris, I think that was the last item that was on the list. Mr. Mooney is actually here and discuss the fact that the debris was removed from that off site. This wasn’t actually on the Schmulbach parcel. This was on a site down the street that was brought up at the last meeting, but pictures I had e-mailed to Susan Barden. I’m not sure if she received them, but I also have copies of them demonstrating that the debris is no longer on the site. MR. VOLLARO-I have a note here in my own notes that disposal of construction debris now flagged as a possible enforcement action. Is that enforcement action still valid, or where are we on that? MRS. BARDEN-Bruce Frank was on site today. There is some fill that was brought in today. The site is stable. Construction debris was removed. So there is no enforcement action on this property right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I just picked up that enforcement action off your Staff notes, basically, that’s where that came. There’s a letter here in amongst all of this stuff from th the Water Keeper and it’s his June 14 letter, and he had a previous letter that he issued on this particular site, previous to that. nd MS. BITTER-Right, May 22. nd MR. VOLLARO-On May 22. What I underlined it here, the completion of erosion and sediment control should be installed immediately to prevent any additional sediment to the Holiday Point area. I haven’t been up there. I haven’t looked at that. I mean, I’m just getting this from his letter. MS. BITTER-There’s a silt fence that exists in the front of the parcel. MR. VOLLARO-He adds a photograph, I can’t discern much from the photograph, frankly. MS. BITTER-That’s from the adjacent site. That’s not from Schmulbach’s property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Where is Schmulbach’s property, where the boat is anchored? MS. BITTER-No, it’s not on the lake. It’s 480 feet from the lake on the opposite side of Seeley Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I don’t know exactly what this depiction means. I’ve got a note, my own note that says it needs more clarity for me to understand what he’s talking about here. MS. BITTER-I believe he’s talking about the property. MR. MOONEY-Chairman, this down here you’re looking at? MR. VOLLARO-No. I was looking at the pictures just above that, the boats. MR. MOONEY-That’s across the road on the lake. I don’t know what he’s talking about. MR. VOLLARO-You’re off the lake, is that correct? MR. MOONEY-Yes, we’re across Seeley Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MOONEY-The bottom pictures are the site that we removed the debris is about these pictures, down the road. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s been removed? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and we just got that from Staff, that our guy was up there today? MR. MOONEY-Yes. Bruce Frank was up there today. MRS. BARDEN-We do have, these are all pictures from today that Bruce Frank took. MR. VOLLARO-I have a note here on my, hold that picture right where it is for a second. My note says, what is the current status of this project. Now, it looks like, is that a new foundation that the building is on? MRS. BARDEN-Correct. MR. MOONEY-It is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So my next statement was, has the work started prior to this application, and apparently it has. MS. BITTER-Because of the basement. That was a building permit that was issued in January. MR. MOONEY-The permit’s on the house, you can see it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what the permit is for? MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In 136, this is our Wastewater Code, under Article Three, it talks about pre-existing system, and in the pre-existing system, I’ll just read it to you, it says, Pre-existing individual sewage disposal systems must conform with this Part I, if it is used in connection with an existing structure located in WR-1A. Waterfront Residential Zoning Districts in which the floor area of the structure is increased. So they must conform with this part if it is used in connection with existing structure or the Waterfront District in which the floor area ratio has been increased. In this particular area, the floor area ratio would be increased from that building to what you’re coming up with now. So we’ve got to take a look at Article III in continuation. MS. BITTER-And, Chairman, I talked to Susan about this because when I reviewed this Ordinance, the way I review it is that as long as your system is not failing or there’s no evidence of it failing, then it’s deemed compliant, but if someone could tell me otherwise, then that would be very helpful, because I couldn’t find an area in which determines when the septic system is not deemed compliant. Because as I mentioned, we do have Condon’s inspection showing it is functioning. MR. VOLLARO-The only time it would be compliant is when it was deemed in failure, it seems to me that’s a non-compliant system. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But you’ve got something evidenced here from somebody that’s in the business like Condon that says it’s operating satisfactorily. MS. BITTER-Right, and we have a permit that shows that when it was installed, it was installed under Town of Queensbury’s Code and with their inspections. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, when I looked at when it was installed, 16 years on a septic system is a long time. MS. BITTER-Right, and that’s why we’re willing to obviously have Condon help us out, if necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what it says, a pre-existing individual sewage disposal system must conform with this Part I, and I would have to, you know, this Part I, there’s a lot in this Part I. I’m going to take it then, in this particular instance, if Condon has come in and the system seems to be functioning properly, and it’s not in failure, or hasn’t been deemed to be in failure, that then I think that it’s probably okay. I don’t see anything in Part I that we could do, other than put dye in it and see if it’s running correctly or not, and in putting dye in, in this case it’s not Waterfront property, so that’s not going to help any. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) Okay. On the ZBA comment, it’s interesting, I looked at that. The ZBA comments on the deck by the shed is not going to be re-introduced later on. The deck by the shed on the stamped drawing by Matt Steves shows the shed and the deck. Which deck, I was a little bit confused as to what deck they were talking about. Is that the deck right onto the shed, or is that the deck that’s connected to the house? I’m not sure what’s happening here. MR. MOONEY-The deck that’s in front of the shed, that’s gone. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the one that’s out. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-The deck that’s adjacent to the house. MR. MOONEY-It’s all one deck. It’s like a triangle shape there. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a triangle shape, and it looks like your septic tank is right under the deck, is that right? MR. MOONEY-Right, and the deck or walkway is gone also. MR. VOLLARO-The walkway is gone. Okay. That’s what they talked about in there. Now, in front of the house, the proposed second story, that porch, what’s the story with that porch? MR. MOONEY-He’s called that the wrong name. That, you can see on the ground there that wooden structure, that’s a deck. It’s going to go back on the house on the ground. MR. VOLLARO-On the ground, it’s not a porch. MR. MOONEY-He shouldn’t have called it a porch. MR. VOLLARO-That was confusing, because if it was a porch, I would have to add that to the FAR. MR. MOONEY-I think the last time he did change it to a deck. MR. VOLLARO-The old drawing says deck. The new drawing says porch. MR. MOONEY-Well, you can see it there in black and white. It’s a deck. MR. VOLLARO-But when I looked at it, I said the porch was 153 square feet, as I scaled it off. MR. MOONEY-I knew you were confused about that. That’s what it is right there. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s really a deck laid on the ground. MR. MOONEY-Right, and that was a permitted deck back in 1992 or something. MR. VOLLARO-This drawing doesn’t really reflect, it doesn’t talk to you too well. MR. MOONEY-Are you clear on that now? MR. VOLLARO-I understand that now. That means the floor area ratio does not have to change. MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And it means that you’ve got 68 square feet to go before you hit the limit. Okay. MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now the well on the property should definitely be shown, and it’s not. There is a well. You’ve got a well somewhere on that property? MS. BITTER-Right. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-And that well should be shown only because I need to know if there’s 100 feet from that approximate septic system. This is where you’ve got your leach lines out, parallel to the road. That well’s got to be 100 feet from there. I need it on the drawing. MR. MOONEY-I understand that. MS. BITTER-We can amend the plans so that it identifies the well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, the plan would have to be amended to do that. I mean, I don’t know whether we’re going to get to a close here tonight on this. MS. BITTER-We’d be willing to make those changes as a condition of the approval. It’s an existing well as well as an existing septic system, which we’re not modifying either. MR. VOLLARO-Right. The well is existing. MS. BITTER-Right, that’s why the drilling contract. MR. VOLLARO-Can you represent to me, honestly, that the well is 100 feet away from, because that’s the big thing for me, that that well has got to be 100 feet away from that field. MR. MOONEY-Yes, sir, and if you can see where that man is standing to the left, some bushes right there, in front of the deck, the well is in that. The septic system’s on the other side of the house. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That deck that’s on the ground is going to be positioned right under that door. MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And your septic system is basically on the other side of the house? MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. SIPP-On this map it would be where it says existing, printed on the map where it says existing house? The well would be in that area. MR. MOONEY-Yes, sir. It’s way over in that point. MR. VOLLARO-So chances are that looks like, well, I don’t know, this is a one to twenty. I’m not even sure, now, that it’s 100 feet away. Have you scaled it off? MRS. BRUNO-I wouldn’t say it is. The approximate septic would have to be five. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to get where the D box, do you see where that little D box is right there in the corner, that’s a Distribution Box. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, it would have to be five inches, which would bring it. MR. VOLLARO-Is that still connected to your potable water system? In other words, is that well usable as potable water? MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It is. Then it’s got to be 100 feet away from this septic system, leach field. I think Tanya has scaled it off that it’s got to be five inches and where would that put that five? MRS. BRUNO-Almost at the property line, about an inch below the cast iron rod. So I’m not sure where he would be, right here, and the five inches is to about right there. I’m guessing that the bushes that they’re talking about are probably right here. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to get us a depiction on the drawing the location of the well, because if it’s used for potable water, it’s got to be 100 feet away. MR. MOONEY-I believe it is, sir, because this was the approximate location. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well she just scaled it off. We tried to get where you were on the bushes. Now it’s hard to get depth perception out of a 2-D photograph, but where the bushes are, what we’ve done is we’ve taken the scale at 1 to 20, which is the drawing scale, and we’ve drawn a line, she has, right through the house, up to where we think those bushes might be, and it’s five inches up. It’s very, very close to the property line is where the well would have to be, and it doesn’t look like it’s there. It looks like it’s a good deal away, but it makes no difference. We’re playing with supposition here. We need to know where the well is on the property. MS. BITTER-I guess I’m confused because the well’s not changing, nor is the septic system. So wherever they are, that’s going to be their location with the development. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t want a potable water supply close to a septic system. You might be using it now, but it’s an absolute no, no. MRS. BRUNO-Right. What was the date on the drilling of the well? MS. BITTER-I think it was 1988. MRS. BRUNO-’88. MS. BITTER-And it’s 400 feet deep. MR. VOLLARO-So the depth is, we’re talking about the distance away from the, and this says approximate location of the septic system. You haven’t really nailed it down. We’ll accept that, for the approximate location of the laterals, but we need to know exactly where that potable water source is. MR. SIPP-Is this a shallow well? MS. BITTER-Four hundred feet. MR. SIPP-Because I notice the depth to ground water is seven feet on this. What I’m concerned about is that now you’re going to make this a year round dwelling, that septic system being in there for 16 years, in a clay soil, I’m afraid that you may have some problems there, because of the extra water you’re going to be putting through this system, if you’re going to make it a year round house. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what they’ve portraying here is that they’ve got, this obviously Condon came in a did a couple of, they flushed the toilet and he said yes, I mean, I know how that’s done. He’s in and he’s out and he’s got $150. MR. SIPP-I would like to see some soil samples taken here, too, just to give an idea of what, in the past week, with the amount of rain that we’ve had, what happened with all that rain water? MR. MOONEY-Well, I can say one thing. With all the rain we’ve had, there’s not a fisher on the property. There’s no water in the basement. Nothing. So, I mean, I don’t see how that could be a problem if it’s going into the ground. MR. SIPP-It’s just that on this application for septic system permit in 1990, you’ve got the soil nature as clay, and that just gives me the idea that you’ve got poor drainage. MARTHA SCHMULBACH MRS. SCHMULBACH-The builder of the septic system took this into consideration and there is a lot of gravel and there is a lot of sand around the drainage field. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they put that in, probably. They probably put that material in when they built the system 16 years ago. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But 16 years, what Mr. Sipp is saying, that if the soil around that system is a clay based soil, those, you know, the sands are probably pretty well saturated by now. You’re going to be taking the risk. I just want to make sure that the septic system and the well has got a 100 foot separation. That’s my concern. You’ve got a document from Condon that says your system is working. It’s going to be your risk if it’s not. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) There’s nothing in here that, your system’s not failing. You haven’t talked about a failing system, and I don’t see anything in the Code that says that I have to do a check on the system at all. I mean, it talks that the system has to meet all of the parts of Part I, if the floor area ratio is being expanded. To me, if your system is operating, it’s meeting Part I, but I don’t know how long it’ll do that, because it’s a 16 year old system. The system is really, that’s a 1,000 gallon tank, right? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-1,000 gallon, and I’ve got to assume that for the two bedrooms that are going to remain, you’re going to only have two bedrooms, no matter what happens? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. MS. BITTER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-The house was originally two bedrooms. MS. BITTER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So the laterals that were put in for that septic system has to match the two bedrooms, and I’ve got to make an assumption that they do, because it doesn’t say anything other than that on the drawing. It says approximate location of the septic system. So I’m making an assumption that it’s got sufficient amount of laterals to handle the two bedrooms, and that’s the best assumption I can make on this, other than making sure that the well is 100 feet away from it. That’s an absolute, I need to know that. You should want to know that as well. I mean, you don’t want to be taking potable water from a well that’s less than 100 feet away. It’s just not a good idea. Okay. Where are we, folks? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the notes on the site plan said that the plan shows the location of the auxiliary road but does not show the access to the lot from the road and where cars are parked. Can you address that? That’s in our notes. MRS. SCHMULBACH-We park the cars on the grass in the back of the house. MR. VOLLARO-I think we asked you that question last time because this road wasn’t there. The driveway was missing. So we didn’t know what was going on, but I think Mrs. Schmulbach said the last time that they parked them on the grass behind the house. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, one of the things, if you do park your car there, you recognize that you could be parking right over your septic system. That really isn’t a good idea either. MRS. SCHMULBACH-I do try to pull it up near the shed so that I’m not on the septic system. I’m aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So long as you know where those are, it’s probably not a good idea to drive over them. Okay. The disposal of the stuff has been removed. The Water Keeper’s letter does not seem to hold water to me, or doesn’t seem valid. After looking at this, it’s not even on their property. They’re not lakeside. We do need, the FAR that’s presently been submitted, as far as the record is concerned, needs to be changed, or it needs to be cleaned up, because now it’s got all my little squiggles on it, in red. You’re going to have to do that. You should come out, where it says remaining area potentially developable, should come out to be 61 square feet, or close to that. I think we’ve got the shed and the deck pretty much taken care of. Okay. Now we’ve been through all of this, if there’s anybody here that wants to speak, I know there’s somebody here that wants to talk to this application, I’m sure, wants to come up for the public hearing, and the public hearing is now open, if you’d like to come up to the microphone and speak to this, you can. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SHANAHAN MR. SHANAHAN-Can I distribute these amongst you? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. SHANAHAN-This is the Bay. This is the lawn, right beside their home. This is the paint spill their contractor chose to do a year ago that nobody could catch. All this goes on in April. MS. BITTER-Mr. Chairman, could we have a copy of the pictures? MR. SHANAHAN-If you could put up some of those, this that I gave you, please. We have had a nightmare going on, and the only person interested. Let me start off properly. My name is John Shanahan. We used to be 18 Seeley Road. Now we’re 11 Holiday Point Road with the new street signs we have. This house is part of an Association. They were all camps. These camps are now two or three of them have been turned into substantial homes. They all dump into Warner Bay, and we have such a problem. I have a water filter here if you’d like to just take a look at it. It’s been in for four days. There’s no possible way we can drink our water. I hope Mrs. Schmulbach’s well is deep enough. She put it in years ago, because Pete Collins, he used to run the water system for the Association, was going to Florida in the winter, and he’d shut the water off. She chose to come up in the winter a few times, so she had to put a well in, because the common water system they all share. MR. VOLLARO-Is from the lake. MR. SHANAHAN-Is from the lake. MR. VOLLARO-So when the lake is frozen you’ve had it. Right? MR. SHANAHAN-This is a filter that I’ve had in for five days. If you’d like to look at it. I would have brought you a glass of water, but I don’t think you’d care to drink it. What’s happening, Mr. Mooney has been developing this property. Those paint spills you see came from the last house he did. MR. VOLLARO-This is not from the Schmulbach’s house? MR. SHANAHAN-No, not from the Schmulbach’s house. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SHANAHAN-That one he did previous to that they were actually pumping paint right into the Bay, but that was a year ago and it was early in the Spring and nobody was around and I just happened to see the whole Bay turn white one day. I can’t even tell you why I was here, because ours is a summer place as well, but our Bay and our water has become so silted, we cannot use it to drink. I’m glad she does have a well. I hope it’s not too close to her septic, as you said. MR. VOLLARO-Is your source of potable water only the lake? MR. SHANAHAN-Correct. I never had a filter until last year, and the filter, obviously, is not sufficient. It only lasts about four or five days. MR. VOLLARO-I happen to use one of these filters myself, but it’s much bigger than this. It’s a household filter. MR. SHANAHAN-Well, that’s cut in half. MR. VOLLARO-That’s cut in half. MR. SHANAHAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. SHANAHAN-I did that so you could see. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. MR. SHANAHAN-But that’s five days of one, I was here by myself, for five days to do that. Chris Navitsky was supposed to be here tonight. He’s been to our site four times. He’s the only one that responses. The LGA, the Park Commission, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on, honestly. They came the day the paint was being dumped in the lake. Told me to get off the property I was trespassing on Rowlandson’s property. I 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) was sent home and nothing ever came of that. Now if I tossed a beer can out of my boat, I know I’d get a summons. Here someone messed up an entire Bay. Nothing happens. I have nothing against Mrs. Schmulbach. She’s a wonderful lady. She’s a neighbor of mine. I don’t enjoy coming here beating on neighbors. I gave her a bunch of books last year to read because she enjoyed it. We have common political opinions and I said, here, have a ball. I’ve sat on her deck and had drinks with her. This is not an easy thing to do, but if you ruin the lake, my wife and I and our four sons have no further reason to be here, and right now we have growth in our Bay that you cannot imagine. We never had it before. I have to rake it before company comes. My neighbors, Mahoney’s, have been known to come over and use my Bay, with my permission. I mean, any neighbor can use it, the O’Keefe’s behind me, I have no problem, because the community Bay that Mrs. Schmulbach uses is about three, four hundred yards away. It’s part of the community down by the five mile an hour zone near the Castaway Marina. So whatever she dumps in our area from her home, everybody puts a foundation, kicks the house way up. Of course the foundations are dry. They’re halfway out of the ground, but then it just runs over Seeley Road and us down on the waterfront who are paying big taxes, we’re getting all the mess. MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re property is a waterfront property. You’re on waterfront. MR. SHANAHAN-Correct, and we pay considerably for that. MR. VOLLARO-Now do you, on the common system that they’re using for water, are you on that common system? MR. SHANAHAN-No. We always came directly out of the lake, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-And it comes through this filter? MR. SHANAHAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SHANAHAN-I have to buy one, I have to buy some exotic system. I don’t know what kind, but your secretary, I gave her three different disks. If you just run them by. We have a very serious problem. What that man addressed earlier about the previous case, about the water runoff, I can appreciate what he was saying, but it doesn’t compare to what we’re doing here, because if you ruin our little water area, if you silt it up, then we’re gone, and the property will not sell well. There was a time you could drop a dime in there, in fact a shirt collar button, I could tell you if it was right side up or upside down from the end of the dock, through about seven feet of water. You can’t do that anymore. If the children jump in now, the cloud of silt comes up to their bathing suit. That did not happen two years ago, and I was startled that the LGA and the Park Commission do not care about what’s going on here. The road department’s going to put a drain in. They were going to do that a year ago. They have the money. I’ve been there and spoken to them. They’re very pleasant. They say, yes, Mr. Shanahan, we’re coming. We’re going to do it. Nothing happens, and the houses keep getting built bigger and bigger and bigger. MR. VOLLARO-What is that? MR. SHANAHAN-That’s a sinkhole from this most recent storm. They piped a natural stream from behind that Association down past two of those homes, right under Seeley Road, and it blew out right in the middle of the lawn behind Jack McKeon’s house, and when he sees the back of his house, I don’t know why his daughter and he are not here right now. I don’t know where they are, but the water was just gushing up out of there like a broken fire hydrant. He’s got standing water right behind his house, and he’s got the original cabin, which all the Associations were at one time, but now all of a sudden everybody doesn’t want a cabin. They want little mini castles back there. MR. VOLLARO-One of the problems. I can appreciate the problems that you’re showing me here. I guess I have a little difference of opinion now that you’ve talked to me with what the Water Keeper was trying to say. However, I’m trying to tie these photographs to this application. None of what I see here so far, I don’t see where what they’re doing right now shows, because you’ve got pictures here other than her house. You’ve got some other photographs here of a different home. MR. SHANAHAN-That’s right behind her house. That’s right behind the Association where they run all that water. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know whether she has, in any way. MR. SHANAHAN-She’s just going to add to it. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. She hasn’t contributed solely to what you’re seeing here. MR. SHANAHAN-Not solely, no. She’s the third party, three strikes you’re out. What they have done, and it’s not hard to understand, her house was a cabin just sitting on the ground. So water could perc underneath it. Now we put a big cement box down there. That’s that much less permeable area, and that water’s all going to run around. Even though I don’t care if she makes an Empire State building, the roof size is the same, the cellar. MR. VOLLARO-It’s displacement of water is what you’re talking about. MR. SHANAHAN-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. SHANAHAN-The water quality is our biggest complaint, that and the elevated foundations. Everybody’s got a foundation elevated. If you come out on Seeley Road and take a look, they’re all jacking them up. I have a handshake agreement with my neighbor behind me. As long as we’re there, we will never build out to the east, which would block his view of the lake. The O’Keefe family lives behind me, and Sue Hewlett lived there prior, and that was my deal with Sue, just a gentleman’s agreement. MR. VOLLARO-What is this note, soil barrier, Bruce Frank? He’s got his phone number here, I recognize that, age of the tank and cabin. Is this Bruce Frank’s writing? MR. SHANAHAN-No. That was things he asked me at the time, to find out the age of the septic tank system, and why there was no soil barrier there in the beginning. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 16 years old. We know that now. MR. SHANAHAN-Nothing happened until it got here. Because the soil went right down to a wetlands area, because nobody was paying attention and somebody had caught on and of course it got cleaned up today, and (lost words) oil tanks and everything gets cleaned up when you start to look, but when you’re not looking. It’s solely a water displacement issue, to the point that our water is no longer drinkable. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ve got pretty much what you’ve had to say. I’m going to think a little bit about it. We have a couple of other people who’d like to speak here tonight. MR. SHANAHAN-Thank you very much for your patience and understanding. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Mr. Shanahan. MR. SHANAHAN-If you like you can keep all those photos. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll make them part of the record. Thank you very much. MR. SHANAHAN-Thank you, sir. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, the agent needs a copy of those pictures. They don’t have them. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-I am Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association, and I do want to go on the record that we care very deeply about what development is doing and the impacts to the lake. We are a not for profit conservation organization that has no regulatory authority at all, and I did review this project, and I don’t know if you have my letter. You didn’t reference it at all. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see one from you. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MS. BOZONY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a letter? MS. BOZONY-We received it today, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Would you like me to read it into the record? MS. BOZONY-That would be good. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MS. BOZONY-Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-This is dated June 21, 2006, to the Community Development Office, comments regarding SP 22-2006, Martha Schmulbach, 96 Seeley Road, Cleverdale. “The construction of a 2400 sq. ft. home on .18 acres (7961 sq. ft.) must have been recognized by the Zoning Board of Appeals as appropriate, responsible density on this nd small parcel, as the variance application was approved on 3/29/06. On the 2 Floor Plan there are no windows drawn in the attic/storage area, but on the Right Elevations there are windows located in this room (does this suggest that the space will be a bedroom vs. a storage area and was this room included in the FAR calculation?). Are there any outbuildings proposed for this parcel in addition to the 154 sq. ft. existing shed? As of 6/19/06, documents requested by the Planning Board on 5/22/06 (with a 6/1/06 deadline) did not appear to be in the file; therefore I was unable to review well location and whether a new compliant septic system would be installed. How many bedrooms are proposed with the 2 ½ baths and will the septic be designed to accommodate? This non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area should not only be reviewed by the Planning Board, but also scrutinized for the cumulative impacts that are triggered in this densely populated area. Thank you for your continued responsible attention to each proposed application. Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator Lake George Association” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MS. BOZONY-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-On the septic system, looking at the 136 Code, which generates that, I can’t find anything in there where it says on this condition that we have to re-build or replace the system. MS. BOZONY-Unless there’s an increase in bedroom potentially. MR. VOLLARO-And I asked that question. The original house was two bedrooms. This house is being purported to be two bedrooms. MS. BOZONY-Do you see my discrepancy on the elevations versus the site plan drawings? MR. VOLLARO-I see that, but you know I also have testimony from the applicant that there’s going to be two, and if we find that it’s other than two, we’re going to have a real problem, but right now they’re saying that it’s only two bedrooms. I looked at it and said, well, you know, when all this is said and done, it might be three, but we deal with that on the lake all the time. I don’t know how to stop that. It constantly goes on. We get drawings in that depict what the applicant says, in good faith hopefully, this is what we’re going to do. This is all over. In a year or so, bang, bang, bang, they’ve got themselves a new bedroom, on the same system. MS. BOZONY-Yes, and I’m just concerned that there is such a discrepancy that’s very obvious in these drawings. So know Frost has a good reputation, and, no, these may not be Frost, I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re Dreamscape or something like that, I believe. MS. BOZONY-Yes, but there are some big discrepancies which I think should be questioned. So if the septic does not need to be expanded, does it need something 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) other, because this is new construction? You’ve got new foundation. You’ve got a new second floor. You’ve got changes on the first floor, or is it going to be the exact building? MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be expanded. MS. BOZONY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, if you look at the Floor Area Ratio, the first floor was 901 square feet before, the building that we saw up here. The second floor being put on is 600 square feet. So there’s a 600 square foot addition in living space here, in the second floor. MS. BOZONY-Plus the basement was added, which you’re not calling living space because it doesn’t have two egresses. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t have two egresses. That’s correct, but who knows. When this is all said and done, you cannot tell what’s going to happen internally. MRS. STEFFAN-And one of the first floor bedrooms will become a study. MS. BOZONY-Yes, that’s my only question, how many bedrooms does this have. The applicant says it has two bedrooms. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the applicant says, and they’re doing that, I guess, you know, they’re on the record saying two, and if it turns out to be more than two at some later date, it just turns out to be more than two. I mean, I don’t know, we don’t know how to, all we can do is go on what’s in front of us, in terms of the documentation that’s been presented. MS. BOZONY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-For us to speculate on the future growth, which is probably good speculation, but something that we shouldn’t be doing. MS. BOZONY-I just wanted to emphasize the fact of the cumulative impacts of septic systems that don’t function the way they’re designed to, and we all have that responsibility, not you, but all of us have that for the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Everybody does, especially up around the lake area. MS. BOZONY-And Mr. Shanahan, you know, obviously has his concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Well, from the pictures we see there, that’s really a very disturbing set of photographs, super disturbing set of photographs. MS. BOZONY-Yes, it certainly is. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t think all of that relates to the applicant. It’s something that’s been done over time. I do know that, in my own mind I can say that perhaps the contractor who’s been doing this work has not been too careful about how he’s doing it, and that’s a problem. MS. BOZONY-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Does the Association do any dye tests? MS. BOZONY-No, we don’t. It’s the Lake George Park Commission that would be doing dye tests, and like Mr. Vollaro had mentioned, it’s not really that effective unless you’re testing to see whether or not the effluent is going directly into the lake. Otherwise if you’ve got seepage into your septic, it doesn’t really give you a good test, and that’s the unfortunate part. The Park Commission says the system isn’t, is fine unless it fails. Well once it fails, it’s really too late. So that’s really an unfortunate thing, and I think throughout the lake we need to come up with, re-address that whole issue of on site wastewater treatment and look at systems. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got two things on the lake. We’ve got, I’m just studying 147. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I was doing as well. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Right. So that’s stormwater, and then we’ve got the wastewater problem to look at. So we’re trying to put two things together here, particularly on the lake. I think this whole thing, that we have, my colleague here is a member of the PORC Committee, which is the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, and hopefully they are looking at this as a systemic problem that we have up on the lake, and it’s got to be corrected. I go up on Rockhurst and take a look at what’s going on at Rockhurst, it just blows my mind. You’ve got maybe, what, 40 houses on Rockhurst, 50 houses there. Each one has a septic system on them. I mean, it makes no sense at all that we allow this kind of thing to happen, regulatory wise or whatever. MS. BOZONY-I mean, those original houses were intended to be small seasonal camps with one bedroom. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Salvador, who’s in the audience right now, has provided this Board with a subdivision going back to 1950, and it shows that right on Rockhurst it was all summer camps, and these have been slowly expanded into bigger houses, and the lake just can’t sustain, and that’s a problem. MS. BOZONY-You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got to do something about it. MS. BOZONY-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether we put a special task force out to do this. MS. BOZONY-And it needs to be lake wide. Queensbury is more progressive than most of the. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’d think that the Lake George Park Commission would really take a grab onto this thing and they’re not. They’re not doing, in my opinion, they’re not doing their job. I’m going to call Mike White and just talk to him about it, but I don’t think they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing. MS. BOZONY-Yes. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-You understand the problem? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Stephanie, do you want to come back up again. I’m sure we can’t tie all of these problems to Mrs. Schmulbach. MS. BITTER-No, obviously not. MR. VOLLARO-Obviously not. MS. BITTER-And her foundation obviously was the subject of the building permit that was issued in January, and what we’re talking about tonight is the elevation or the expansion, the vertical expansion of the second floor. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MS. BITTER-So we’re not changing the footprint by any means, and I realize that this problem could exist through this whole Bay, but Mrs. Schmulbach hasn’t, in any way, contributed to that problem, at least none that’s been demonstrated. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that what happens is it’s an iterative process that’s going on up there, and every little bit of increased permanent living in that area, I think Mr. Sipp has said, and I agree with him, when a house is used a seasonal home, and people leave on Labor Day and don’t come back until July or Memorial Day, that system has had a chance to recoup a little bit and rest and try to do what it does, and then it carries on from July, August and September, but once you start to go into full time use of that system, that’s been in the ground for 16 years, somebody comes in, like Condon and says, it’s working, and charged you $150 for that, by the way. I saw that on there. He’ll tell you, he flushes the toilet and he goes, yes, it’s not backing up, but that doesn’t mean it’s working well, and that’s something you’re going to have to consider as you go into the 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) house, whether or not you want to do something with that system or not, but I don’t have anything in the Code that says I have to, right now, not failed, and I don’t have to re-build a new system there. MR. MOONEY-Sir, if I may say something about what Mr. Shanahan said, their problem is not coming from Mrs. Schmulbach’s property. MR. VOLLARO-I know that. MR. MOONEY-There’s been an ongoing dispute about a stream, up stream, and Warren County has been there, Warren County Soil and Water, the Park Commission, and the stream runs way in back of the property, down through, across the road into the lake, and the Town, since Dennis Brower was here, was supposed to replace that stormwater drain there. It’s a tin can, and it bubbles up over the road, it goes across the road, and drags all the junk with it. That’s part of the problem. The Warren County Soil and Water gave a plan to put a water retention pond up stream, okay, on private property, okay, and we went through this with the Rowlandson application, and then spent fortunes, and they were going to build it themselves, okay, they were going to pay for it, and then Houston came back and said we don’t need it. Your engineer. Now if your engineer came back and told you something that you don’t have to do, would you do it anyway? MR. VOLLARO-No. I have to rely on what he said. MR. MOONEY-We went by the rules. We did what they told us to do. It was okay by the Town. I’m sorry they’ve had a problem down stream, but I can’t help it. Water runs downhill. The other day there were streams where there shouldn’t have been streams. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m looking at is the overall problem at the lake right now, has nothing to do with Mrs. Schmulbach at all, but we’ve got a serious problem up there, not just here but all over, with the kind of building that’s going on up on the lake. Something has to be done to protect that lake. People have got to get serious about it. Let’s get back to this application. We have to table it because I want to know where the well is versus the septic system. MS. BITTER-Is there any way, I mean, I understand the well’s location is something that’s of a concern. MR. VOLLARO-It’s very much of a concern, really. MS. BITTER-But the well’s location is the well’s location, because it’s not mobile. We can’t change it, but if it’s within 100 feet, what’s going to happen, as opposed to if it’s not? MR. VOLLARO-If it’s not further than 100 feet, that’s a violation, really. MS. BITTER-But a violation of what, because they’re both existing. I mean, that’s my question, because I know that there’s camps all over that obviously have these septic systems that aren’t within, that are closer than 100 feet closer to a well, but this is a well on her own property. MRS. BRUNO-What we’ve talked about recently is how any review of the site for whatever reasons kind of opens up if you have a can of worms that perhaps we can look at the entire site and I think maybe that’s what the Chairman is referring to. MS. BITTER-Right, and I appreciate that, but I mean, if the well is within 100 feet of the septic, that would be something that she would have to put in a system to clarify the well or to make the water more, you know, to make sure that there’s testing done or whatever should be done to purify it, because she’s not moving the septic or the well in this development. I mean, that’s essentially what’s being proposed. MR. VOLLARO-What I would do in that case is say that the well is no longer a source of potable water, and use it only for watering ground or whatever. She’s making a mistake, really, from a health point of view to do that. It doesn’t make any sense. MS. BITTER-I appreciate that. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a person in the audience that would like to speak, and I asked you, John, if you wanted to come up. You’ve got to get on the mic, John. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador, again. This issue of separation distance comes up frequently, and it’s required that they go to the local Board of Health and get a variance. That’s required. If you’re not compliant, you’ve got to get a variance. Otherwise you don’t operate. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, John. Thank you. MS. BITTER-I guess, again, my question is about the fact that it’s an existing structure, but I understand. I guess what I would suggest is if possible, since right now this would be Mrs. Schmulbach’s permanent residence, and she’s kind of our of her residence right now, and that’s her concern with continuing to table the application, but I understand where we’re coming from, but if it’s possible if we can demonstrate that it’s farther than 100 feet, then this would be something that would be approved, but if we can’t demonstrate then that we can return? Since obviously this is something that we’re not sure if it isn’t further than 100 feet. MR. VOLLARO-It’s something we’ve really got to be sure of, though, I really have to be, I, personally, and I’ll talk to the rest of the Board now. How do you all feel about this 100 foot setback? It’s got to be determined whether it is or it is not. It depends on how you feel. MR. SIPP-Yes. It has to be determined. MS. BITTER-We can show that it’s 100 feet further, than, obviously. MR. SIPP-If it’s 101 feet, you’re in business. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Excuse me. What part of the septic system does it have to be 100 feet from? MR. VOLLARO-Let me answer your question. It has to be 100 feet away from your drain field, and when I look at the drawing here, the way the drain field is depicted, and I’m accepting that, but it says approximate septic location. We’re getting down to some nuts and bolts here, and I’m surprised that Matthew Steves, who I happen to know really, fairly well, would not take the time to find out exactly where that was. I mean, you probably know where it is, but he certainly should when he puts it on the drawing. MRS. BRUNO-You were starting to say that at the time the septic or the well, I was curious what you were going to say. MR. VOLLARO-Mrs. Schmulbach was asking me what part of the well has to be 100 feet from the septic system. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. I thought that the, when it said you have to be far from the septic system, there is nothing that leaks out of the concrete tank. MR. VOLLARO-Not the tank. Not the tank. It’s the septic field that actually percs and puts water into the ground, and that water is supposed to purify the system as it goes. MR. MOONEY-Sir, if we can prove that it’s 100 feet or more from the D Box to the well, is that sufficient? MR. VOLLARO-One hundred feet or more from the D Box to the well is sufficient, yes. MR. MOONEY-This woman’s waited four months for this thing. She’s living in an apartment. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to tell you. I’m not responsible for the material that comes in front of me. MR. MOONEY-No, I know sir, but if we can prove, just bring it in to the. MR. VOLLARO-I want to know. I want to see a drawing that says that. I’m sorry. It’s one of the things I just won’t back down on. It’s a thing with me that I. MR. MOONEY-She has to wait six more weeks for a well drawing. MR. VOLLARO-No, she’s got a well. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. MOONEY-No, I mean, to come back here again. MS. BITTER-Well, is it possible, could we get on the July agenda? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the answer is yes. I can get you on the July agenda, and I think, from what I see here and all of the stuff that we’ve looked at, if you’ve got a non, supposing you find it’s 90 feet, then you’ve got to do what Mr. Salvador said. MS. BITTER-And go to the Town Board for the. MR. VOLLARO-The Town Board turns their hat around and becomes the local Board of Health. MS. BITTER-The local Board of Health. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Is that who the local Board is, the Town Board? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So I think we’re going to have to table this, and we’ll table it a date in July, and if you find out that it’s not compliant, then you’ve got to go get your variance. MS. BITTER-And is it possible to be heard in July with the condition that we get our variance, obviously that the approval is conditioned? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can make the representation and tell you that based on what we’ve seen here tonight, if you can come up with that, I will get you on the July, even if we’ve got to do, instead of seven items a night, put you on first, give us the representation from wherever that you’ve got that distance, we’ll put you on in July. We’ll put you on on 7/18, and that you would have to get that representation in by 6/15, though. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s already passed. MS. BITTER-That’s already passed. MR. VOLLARO-So they’re only going to have some testimony or some document that says, yes, the well is 101 feet. That can come in when? MRS. STEFFAN-They also have to have drawings revised between now and then. MS. BITTER-Right, the map. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Matt’s got to do a little better job than that. I think when he stuck the stamp on there he figured I was going to buy some of that. th MRS. BARDEN-A week before the 18 is probably sufficient. th MR. VOLLARO-How about the 11 of July, that’s exactly a week before. MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine. MS. BITTER-We will make sure it’s enough time. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody gets out there and checks that septic out, the distance out, and that’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to just table it for that. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-So you want the well shown on the map, the drawing has to show. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they have to certify what the separation distance is, and then Matt would do that on the drawing. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a 609 sq. ft. second story addition onto existing 900 sq. ft. residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/22/06 tabled to 6/27/06; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. On Paragraph Four, does not comply. Paragraph Five is not appropriate because it is a Type II SEQRA, and it’s tabled to July thth 18 with a submission deadline of July 11, with the following conditions: 1.The well needs to be denoted on the drawing, 2.The separation distance from the well to the septic needs to be certified, 3.The porch notation needs to be changed to a deck, as described, 4.The walkway needs to be eliminated from the drawing, 5.The deck needs to be eliminated from the shed on the drawing, and 6.We need an updated Floor Area Ratio sheet. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Sorry about that. MRS. BRUNO-You may actually end up finding that they had thought they put the well on. Sometimes when you work on the computer, it could be on what’s called a frozen or no print layer. He might have that already in the computer and unfortunately that may have been a little printing. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to amend that motion for the inclusion of an updated FAR. MRS. STEFFAN-Floor Area Ratio worksheet. MR. VOLLARO-And with that amendment, are we all in agreement that we’re a yes on that? MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Say the surveyor puts this on the survey. Who is it that certifies it? The surveyor does? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s got to locate two things. He’s got to locate them rather positively, and it’s not hard to do, if he’s done it before. I’ve done it, located that kind of stuff, and I’m not a surveyor, but he can go out and he can locate, he’s going to have to do a little digging, but he can find out where the D Box is. Once he knows where that is, he’s established Point A. Then he’s got to go to your well head and establish Point B, tape it. If he comes in over 100 feet, you’re home. If it comes under 100 feet, you’ve got to go to the. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. SIPP-Board of Health. MRS. STEFFAN-But once he notes it on the plan, you’ll notice on the drawing, Matthew Steves is a licensed Land Surveyor. So once he puts that on your drawing and stamps it that certifies that it is true and correct based on his licensure. MRS. SCHMULBACH-And it’s just the D Box, the junction box? MR. VOLLARO-It’s the junction box. It’s what’s called a Distribution Box. That’s why they say a D Box. It’s a box that comes and distributes the effluent equally to the laterals. That’s what it does. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Okay. But his certification is a certification? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, what happens, the certification on that turns out to be right there. MRS. STEFFAN-His stamp. MR. VOLLARO-When he puts that stamp on it, and says that that is less than or more than 100 feet, we buy that. MRS. STEFFAN-He’s licensed by the State of New York. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So that certification stamp tells us that he’s followed all the rules. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RIDGEWOOD HOMES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FREDA MEYER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 1548 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 7.85 ACRE PARCEL RESULTING IN LOTS SIZED APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE EACH. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE 2/28/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK YES LOT SIZE 7.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-73 SECTION A-183 TOM NACE, BOB WALL & KEVIN GILFOIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You are, for the record? MR. NACE-Tom Nace from Nace Engineering, Bob Wall and Kevin Gilfoil. MR. VOLLARO-And these two gentlemen? MR. NACE-Are the developers. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-They are Ridgewood Homes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Nace. MR. NACE-Okay. Very briefly, this is Preliminary phase for a seven lot subdivision, on the east side of Ridge Road, north of Route 149. We were I guess a month or two ago for concept. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve been out to the site as well. MR. NACE-And I guess, would you like me to address engineering issues or Staff issues? MRS. STEFFAN-I think Staff issues first, because they’re first in our package. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. NACE-Okay. I guess the first comment Staff had was road name. We will, when we submit Final, have a road name available. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. Staff noted that test pits and perc test information is shown. They were witnessed by Mike Shaw and (lost word) from DOH. Generally the soils on the site are relatively deep sands. There are two what I call open drainage ways that you’ll see noted on this site. They are not streams. They’re not even intermittent streams. I do have some pictures, or you guys have been to the site. I do have some pictures here of those drainage ways. MRS. STEFFAN-Because we didn’t get out and walk. We visited it, but we didn’t get out and walk. MR. NACE-I’ll pass these around. These were taken last Friday. The pictures are numbered, and those numbers correspond with what you probably can’t read from where you sit. Here’s Ridge Road, subdivision road. Number One was taken in this northern drainage way looking back toward the west. Number Two was taken from approximately the same point looking south/southeast. Number Three was taken actually off the property to the rear of the property, and I’ll explain that the general slope of the property follows from the road down through this drainage way. This back line is higher than that. So everything drains to that drainage way, and the same along the south. Everything drains into these drainage ways and heads back off site at about this point over in the southeast corner. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the pre-existing? MR. NACE-This is pre-existing, okay, and Photograph Number Three was taken outside the site from that low area looking to the east, the way the drainage goes. Now if you’ll look at those photographs, this drainage way is not a ditch. It’s not a stream. It’s just a very gentle, low swale, all grass. Photograph Number Four was taken back on the property looking to the west, up along the southern drainage way, and Photograph Number Five was taken further up, looking toward where there’s a culvert that crosses Ridge Road. There are two culverts, one here and one here that sort of define the beginning of these drainage ways. The slope on the culverts is to the east, but as you can see from the pictures, there’s no sign of any evidence of water having run in those. In fact, during the height of the storm, yesterday, mid-afternoon, I went to the site and there was no evidence of any water coming through these culverts, and I think yesterday was a fairly good test. MR. VOLLARO-You’re getting pretty close to a 50 year there, yesterday, four inches. What’s it, five for a 50 year, isn’t it? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-When were these taken, before the storm? MR. NACE-Those were taken Friday afternoon, Friday late afternoon. MR. VOLLARO-So it looks reasonably dry in that area. MR. NACE-It was, like I say, yesterday I looked, I got out and looked at both of those drainage or both of those culvert locations and there was no water coming through those culverts. MR. VOLLARO-Now both of those drainage ways go and flow off site to the east? MR. NACE-Both of them flow off site to the east. The reason I put the notes on here, even though it doesn’t look like in normal periods during the summer that there’s any water that comes through those, since it is a low spot, I said, you know, if we have a storm like last winter with the ground frozen and a couple of inches of rain, water has to have somewhere to go. So I just want to make sure that any of these lots that have grading done or driveways put in honor those drainage ways so that water is able to follow its natural course. That’s the only reason I identified those. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t want to disturb the drainage way because that’s the pre- existing condition essentially. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. NACE-Okay. The next issue that Staff had was with the CEA. We are, in fact, in the Lake George drainage basin, however, I took a look to see how far we are away from any of the wetlands. As Staff noted, there’s a wetland, maybe it wasn’t Staff, it may be the Lake George Water Keeper noted there’s a wetland that goes up and crosses, flows to the north across Clements Road. Here is an aerial photograph of the site that shows the site outlined, and the wetland that crosses Clements is here, comes down and is wet into approximately there. I walked back through the tree farm and back up into here, and it’s somewhere up in here it starts to get a little wet, but as you can see, that’s, at least by the way drainage goes, which is this way, and around and back up, it’s quite a ways from our property to that wetland. So it’s borderline. If you want to classify it as adjacent to the CEA, I don’t think it would make any difference in the way we do the stormwater, but that’s what it is. MR. VOLLARO-While we’re on the subject, I was looking at 147, our stormwater, on 147, and I’m not familiar with this document enough yet to really understand it as well as I should. I’m beginning to, we’ve had Staff give us copies, all of us, of 147. In looking at it, I do not believe that this is subject to 147, based on what I read. When they talk about project classification. Are you familiar with this document at all? MR. NACE-Yes. It’s modeled after the Lake George basin regulations we use in other communities. MR. VOLLARO-It talks about major projects and it says any project not expressly exempted from regulation or defined as a minor project shall be a major project. Major projects are any projects not expressly exempted from regulation as defined as a minor project shall be a major project, then the following may be considered to be major projects. Now any part of the activity in 147 A 8, 1, 2 & 3, which I just read, and then talk about soils of high potential for overland or through soil pollution transport, and areas with slopes of 15% or greater when measured in any direction over a distance of 100 feet, and areas with soil percolation slower than 60. None of those seem to apply to this property, that I see. So I don’t think that this comes under 147. MR. NACE-Even if it did, we meet or exceed the requirements for a major project under 147 by the way we’ve designed our stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t see that that applies. I think if I read 147 correctly, I’m not an expert on it, but if I read it correctly, I don’t think this project applies to that anyway that’s my, after having studied the thing for a few hours. I think we have to respond to C.T. Male’s June 22 letter. MR. NACE-Yes, we have responded, and Staff has a copy, that was done, actually, over the weekend. Staff should have a copy of the response, and we also received, from Craig Brown, a copy of an e-mail today from C.T. Male saying, in response to our June 22, 2006 comment letter regarding the above referenced project, we have received a th submittal of information via fax from the applicant’s consultant dated June 25. The responses address the comments raised in our letter. We are prepared to issue a signoff letter once requested by the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. That goes along with discussions I’ve had with Craig Brown. We’ve had sort of an agreement with the Zoning Administrator that if there’s no major disconnects between C.T. Male and ourselves, in other words a letter like that would be sufficient. We have to go to Final anyway. That letter would be submitted at Final, and that’ll be the end of that. So I don’t have any comments with C.T. Male. You’re going to name the road? MR. NACE-We will name the road. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and verify the drainage in terms of the wetland. I think that there’s no jurisdiction. I had some notes DEC, APA, or Army Corps, but I don’t think there’s any jurisdictional input from that area, from what I can see. MR. NACE-No, there’s certainly no wetlands on the property. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody said have you looked at a cluster alternative. I don’t know. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. STEFFAN-I brought that comment up. That’s in the Staff notes, but I brought it up at the last meeting. I was unsupported by the rest of the Board. MR. NACE-It’s kind of out of character with the rest of the community for one thing, and I’m not sure that you could really save anything to speak of, in the way of infrastructure by doing it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I looked at. I know what Mrs. Steffan is looking for. You’re looking for sort of a conservation easement here, not easement, conservation subdivision, but I don’t know that this is big enough to do it. The only good one I’ve seen so far in Queensbury is the one that’s being done off of Corinth Road. MR. NACE-Sutton Place. MR. VOLLARO-By the Michaels Group, back in there. That to me is a true, as close as we’ve gotten in Queensbury to a conservation subdivision. I don’t think there’s enough room here to do that. MR. NACE-It’s really not big enough. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s just one person’s view. I don’t know how the rest of the Board members feel. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I’m a firm believer that any design that you try to work on, you sit with it long enough and massage it, you can get it to work and if we’re looking at the Town to start thinking about a conservation subdivision, perhaps now’s the time. There’s no better time than the current. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s certainly true. If somebody can give me a look at what it might look like as a conservation subdivision and how you would do that, I just, looking at this square piece of land and where it’s going to be up on Ridge, where most houses are fairly well separated up on Ridge Road. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I think you’re going to find that everywhere, and I’ve noticed that in other comments, as other conversations have gone on, and they’re in meeting minutes, that if we keep going back to what’s here currently, then it’s not going to fit in. I think we’re going to run into that with the next application tonight as well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s a big one. That’s a lot more, 40 some odd acres, I think. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, they’re a lot more lots. So that, perhaps, is easier to look at and to see the benefit. I’m responding mostly to Mrs. Steffan because she felt that there wasn’t immediate support when she brought it up last time, and maybe it’s something we really should talk about a little bit more. MR. NACE-In reality, with the topography in there, we really do need the area of each lot in order to get septic and well and house situated to fit in with the topography. If we were to go in and do a clustered, fairly dense, smaller area, we’d end up, I’m afraid, really totally changing the landscape or the topography of that area we were working in, in order to get that kind of density. MR. VOLLARO-This is not going to be a homeowners association in here, this is private ownership. MR. NACE-No, this is just a small Town road. MR. VOLLARO-And the only way you could do that, in a cluster subdivision, in my mind, if you wanted to go that route on a piece of property like this, you’d probably have a common septic of some kind, because I don’t think there’d be enough room to put it. MR. NACE-That’s, actually with the common septic right now is becoming a real issue because DOH is requiring a, not just a homeowners association, but a transportation for each of those, and I’m not sure that’s something the Town wants to underwrite. MR. VOLLARO-I know that there is, I think the Hayes brothers have put in for a transportation up on West Mountain. MR. NACE-Correct. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-On those 13 units that are going to be homeowners association there. MRS. BRUNO-I notice in your drawings that you have two phases set aside, the first being to take down the wood house and put in the road. Then you’ve got the second phase, which I think includes two new houses. Are you planning to, are you doing all the building in all of this and then selling, or are you selling the lots? MR. NACE-Okay. The plan that you’re looking at that names the phases is the soil erosion control plan, and that’s just done to signify that the road needs to get constructed and stabilized before we go in and tear up lots to build houses. So we’ve minimized the amount of ground that’s opened at any one time and susceptible to erosion. So that’s not a project phasing for the housing building, but just, it’s meant that, two houses in phase two are meant to show typical lot configurations for erosion control purposes only. MR. VOLLARO-The builders are planning to build houses. In other words, you’re going to do this subdivision, you’re going to build. MR. WALL-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ll have somebody out there selling them or you’ll sell them yourself or whatever. MR. WALL-Yes. We’ll have a real estate department that will be selling for us. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that Mrs. Bruno has a point that’s true. I think if we really wanted to do something in a cluster here we could probably get to it. I, personally, the thing I like about it the way it is now, is that the cul de sac is fairly short. How big an area are we talking about here acreage wise? Where are we? MR. NACE-Just under eight acres. To fit septic and well on the lot, even if you had a level piece of ground, you’re still looking at half an acre per lot. So there’s not a great opportunity to squeeze this down to leaving a big opening. MR. VOLLARO-What size homes are you planning to build in terms of square footage, where are you, roughly? MR. WALL-Between 25 and 2800 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve got a fairly good sized house going in here. MR. WALL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is not something you’d fit on a half acre, because I’m not sure your Floor Area Ratio would work. MR. NACE-These are also going to be custom houses. If you’ve seen the land, the topography lends some interest to it. So they’re going to be designed, each lot, to fit in with the topography, and to adapt to the land. MR. VOLLARO-Your septics are going to be standard septic systems? MR. NACE-There’s nothing fancy. MR. VOLLARO-Right. The perc? MR. NACE-I don’t have it in front of me. I think they were two to three minutes, but I don’t recall offhand. MR. VOLLARO-The perc should be fairly good. MR. SIPP-It’s a sandy soil. MR. NACE-I don’t remember. It’s been a while since that was done. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t like them to perc too fast. MR. NACE-True. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reasons why I suggested the conservation subdivision in that area is because on Ridge Road there are lots of open spaces, wide open spaces, nice fields, and I thought that if the front part of this property could be left green, you know, and a wildflower field, with a cluster in the back, that it could be very picturesque and could actually fit in real well. So that’s one of the reasons why. MR. NACE-Twice as much property and a little wider configuration or a little different configuration, I would agree with you, but with just seven lots, it’s really tough to do. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to get the message out to designers, builders, and things like that that we’re looking for, there are places in Massachusetts, Connecticut and so on that have been going with this approach, and a lot of people would say, well, I don’t want to live on a half acre, but you’d be surprised what’s going on. A lot of people don’t want to mow, like I mow probably 12,000 square feet of ground. A lot of people don’t want to do that. They’ll like a bigger house on a smaller plot, and they’ll pay for that, if they’ve got some amenities to go with them, like an open field or whatever. So in the construction business, all of you folks in that business have got to start putting your hats on and think about doing it that way. There’s a lot of really good ideas out there. We’ve been used to saying, okay, we want an acre, we want to build this house and we’re going to put a septic in, and hopefully we can sell it. MRS. BRUNO-I have to say I do appreciate that you didn’t come forward, that you didn’t come forward and ask for a variance for a bunch more of smaller lots. That’s definitely appreciated that you’re not looking at a residential one acre and you’re asking for three quarter acre, you know. MR. WALL-That was really our whole objective, really, in looking at. As you can see it’s a pretty square piece of property. It’s laid out extremely well. We had enough frontage on Ridge Road to accommodate even the homes facing the two lots that are adjacent to Ridge Road facing the road and stuff, and we thought, aesthetically, it would look much, much better having them set back off Ridge Road. We’re going to push the houses off Ridge as much as we possibly could, and the back lots lay out extremely well with the topography and stuff. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve got almost 80 feet off the road, with the way you’re looking at it right now. MR. WALL-Right. MRS. BRUNO-Are we intending this forested, the current forested areas around the outskirts to remain as a no cut area? MR. NACE-There’s really not that much forested. There is on the south. That’s the only. MRS. BRUNO-Right. That’s really what I’m just thinking of, because as you said, it all lends to the current topography. MR. WALL-Right. Yes, definitely on the south side we’re going to maintain what’s there. We have no plans whatsoever of taking any of that vegetation out or anything. It’s a real nice backdrop. The topography actually comes back up probably five, six foot I would say, and it screens the house to the south that was probably built a few years ago or so. So it makes a great backdrop for the homes and especially those two lots, the first two lots coming in on the south side. So that’ll remain. Obviously the back is wooded and will remain, and to the north side it’s a little open. There’s a long drive going in, and our plans were to hopefully be able to move some of those big pines and strategically place them where the second lot on the north side is, to give a little screening to the north side lot, and just aesthetically make this development very, very unique. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got good sight distances. That was one of my questions, but now that I look at your photograph, the sight distances are infinitely much. MR. NACE-It’s 1,000, it’s to the intersection both ways. MR. VOLLARO-On clearing limits, would you put some construction material around those clearing limits so they can be defined? I didn’t see it. Maybe you do have it. I’m talking about construction material that goes around to define clearing limits. The clearing limits are on there, but. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. NACE-It says disturbance limits during construction of subdivision infrastructure, erect orange construction fence. MR. VOLLARO-I see it. Okay. It’s right on Lot Two, okay. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. Mr. Sipp, was there something that you wanted to say? Did I cut you off? MR. SIPP-Well, I agree with Tanya in that you’ve got to start someplace, but I don’t think this is the place to start. It’s just too small, and once you start crowding these, pushing these houses together, your septic and well systems, I think, are going to suffer, and suffer badly because even though it is a sandy soil, that sand only extends so far down, I think it’s six feet, and then you’re into mottling, a mottling type soil, which is, could be bad news for septic systems. So I agree and I disagree. I think you’ve done the best you can. One thing I’m interested in, this Number Three. I see a bunch of red spruce have been planted and it looks like Christmas Tree row here. MR. NACE-Okay. Here, Number Three was taken out in here, looking down this way. This is our property line through here, was looking down this way, and these, I think this is an old, much older photograph, but this Christmas Tree farm is in here, that shows up there, the Norways. It’s not our property, no, but somebody needs to get out there and prune those Norway if they’re going to be Christmas Trees. MR. SIPP-That would be my objection, is that when you start squeezing up, you’ve got a septic system that’s going to have to perc very well, or you’re going to have to be on a sewer system. MR. NACE-I don’t think we’re going to get sewers out there for a long time. MR. VOLLARO-Not for a while. There’s a percolation rate here of two minutes, thirty- four seconds. Some place in the back of my head it says that if a percolation rate is less than three minutes, the base has, you have to bring in some soil to make it a little bit better. MR. NACE-That’s Adirondack Park Agency, and it’s if you’re within so many feet of a surface water it has to be three minutes or more. MR. VOLLARO-Like a lake or a stream or something like that? MR. NACE-Right. The Health Department is one minute, okay, anything faster than one minute has to be modified soil. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-The Park Agency, if I remember right, says that if you’re within so many feet of surface water, you have to be more than three minutes. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think the 100 foot separation between the well and the septic probably is sufficient to take care of, hopefully, when you’re looking at that lot, at test pit number five, is it Lot Three? Okay. When the septic goes in on Lot Three, in order to get as much separation between, because you’re percing pretty fast there, get as much separation between your well and your drain field. MR. NACE-Yes. Bear in mind, the Health Department allows 100 feet with a one minute perc. MR. VOLLARO-It does, 100 feet with one minute? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m not up to speed on Health Department stuff. We’re getting design manuals, you know, the green book or the red book, as it’s called. MR. NACE-The red book? Okay. Good. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Because it looks like most of the people who come before us are designing to the DOH design handbook, as opposed to our 136 Code. You’re probably sticking with 136. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. NACE-Well, we’ve got to kind of juggle them all. You’ve got to do the most restrictive. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know. Okay. Before I open the public hearing, when you come in with your final drawing, and hopefully tonight we can get to where you can come in with a Final and go, make sure you’ve got a stamp on there, your stamp. All right. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have a public hearing tonight, and I think we’ve gotten enough information up here to understand the project, and if somebody would like to talk to this application, come right up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROSEANNE CURRAN MRS. CURRAN-Good evening. My name is Roseanne Curran. My husband John and myself, we border the property to the south. MR. VOLLARO-To the south of this lot? MRS. CURRAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. CURRAN-We own 2.7 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the long thin guy right here? MRS. CURRAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it. MRS. CURRAN-We’ve lived in Queensbury for 28 years, and prior to moving to this location, we lived over on Reservoir Drive, in a neighborhood, and raised our family, got tired of that neighborhood, and all that nonsense and noise, and decided we wanted to move out to the country. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I hear what’s coming. MRS. CURRAN-We found this beautiful piece of property with deer running, wild turkey, and all sorts of wildlife. I can’t tell you how much I enjoy living where I live and the thought of that piece and quiet and the wilderness disappearing, after we’ve built our dream home is heartbreaking, and my concerns are the noise, the dogs barking, the kids screaming, and myself and my husband’s peace being disturbed, after all we’ve put into our beautiful home, and as you can see, we have disturbed very little of that acreage for our home. We’ve left it wild for the wildlife. That’s what’s important to us. I know that may not be important to the Board and other people. MR. VOLLARO-We try to be sensitive to that kind of stuff. MRS. CURRAN-It is something that is very, very important to us. Yes, legally they have all the rights in the world to put seven houses on that piece of property, but should they? I can see three. I can see maybe even four. I can’t see seven. When I moved into the area and about the piece of property, our neighbors, the Meyers, stopped at the edge of the road and said, what’s going on, and I said well, we’re going to buy the property and we’re going to build a beautiful home, and their concerns were that we had a dog, and that perhaps we would allow our dog to run free and chase their deer. I put their mind at ease and said that that’s not anything that we would allow, and it never happened. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. CURRAN-And the deer, last year we had three babies, three triplets that we watched grow up. Those are the things that are important to myself and my husband, and I would think that they would be a concern to all the people here in Queensbury. Thank you. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. I think you’ll find you’re going to get some good, probably have good neighbors there as well, though. Okay. Anybody else? JOHN CURRAN MR. CURRAN-I’m John Curran. As you’ve heard, we’re the property to the south. You also have a letter from one of our neighbors. I hope you’ll be reading that into the record, too. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a letter from the neighbors? MRS. BARDEN-Is your neighbor Ben Aronson? MR. CURRAN-Yes. That will go into the record? MRS. BARDEN-I will read it, yes. MR. CURRAN-Okay. I have two concerns with the project. First of all, this stormwater report. I believe there is a series of drywells on the property, which, if they overflow, flow into a drainage ditch, at least at one point, on Lot Five, between Lots Four and Five. MR. VOLLARO-There is a drainage ditch now? We just looked at the swales up there. MR. CURRAN-Right here. MR. VOLLARO-I think Mr. Nace described those as a drainage way that exists even today. MR. CURRAN-I believe that’s stated as being, it will be 30 feet wide and will be deeded to the Town of Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a 30 foot drainage easement to the Town. That’s correct. MR. CURRAN-That’s correct. In the stormwater report, there are two lines that say in an extreme case, the natural drainage of the property may be overwhelmed and flooding can occur. We had one of these extreme cases. MR. VOLLARO-Yesterday. th MR. CURRAN-No, on the 13 of March 2006. It describes an extreme event as a rainstorm on frozen soil, and as long as we’re handing out pictures, these are the th pictures I took on the 13 of March this year right after a thunderstorm. MR. VOLLARO-The ground was probably pretty well frozen at that time. MR. CURRAN-All these pictures were taken in this area, right here. It shows eight to ten inches of standing groundwater on my property and on Lot Five. It also shows, which doesn’t exist today and didn’t exist yesterday, a brook running down the property line and onto Lot Five and onto me, which also, this is in this area right here. My concern is this was called an extreme event. Well, it rains a lot in February and March when the ground’s frozen. My concern is that my property at that point is lower, and that I’m going to become the catch basin for Lots Four, Five and Six, for the stormwater coming off the roofs of the houses and out of the driveways, and if that 30 foot wide drainage ditch is frozen and the drywells are overwhelmed, that could be coming down that side of the property, too. MR. VOLLARO-So these pictures are taken in the natural state, you’re saying? MR. CURRAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And what you’re saying, if you put a whole bunch of it, roof impervious area up just north of you, that you’ll catch all that runoff. MR. CURRAN-If we have a rainstorm, when the ground is frozen, and you see the pictures there of the flooding both on Five and my property, and that’s in its natural state. When I have roofs and driveways and patios, I could have a problem, and at that point, I think if the drainage ditch has been deeded to the Town of Queensbury, we have a problem, if it fails. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-We’ll get an answer from Mr. Nace on that and ask him just how does he, what happens with this 30 foot drainage easement. Is it going to be, that’s just going to run off the property. That’s what it looks like to me. There doesn’t seem to be a catch basin there, but we’ll talk to him about that. MR. CURRAN-No, there is a, that portion of my property right there is very low, and this is natural flooding, obviously, it was an act of God. I don’t care about it, but I am worried that when there’s impervious surfaces there, I’m going to get more water. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll have him come up and answer that question. MR. CURRAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-He’ll address is certainly. MR. CURRAN-Okay, and my last concern would be the aesthetics, which my wife alluded to, and you’ve talked about the conservation easements. Right now we’re going to have a Monopoly board. We’re going to have buy a square, buy a house, and we’re going to drive a road right down the middle of it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not so sure that on this size property a conservation house, easement, it depends on how you look at it. It becomes almost, you know, it’s a controversial thing. You get a conservation, people say, well, you mean to tell me you’re going to cluster houses to that effect, or because I like to see the wide open spaces so you get houses that are nicely separated. Haven’t found a nice middle ground yet. MR. CURRAN-Well, I realize it’s zoned for one acre, but you could drop a couple of lots, but lacking that, I do have another suggestion that I would like to see implemented and the contractor did allude to it. The wooded area to my north and their south, I would like to see that maintained as a natural buffer, and I would like it designated to be no cut. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand. MR. CURRAN-And there was a comment made they would develop a six foot grade. Well, if that’s a six foot grade on Lot Seven and Six, it’s more like twelve lots. So I would like to see the buffer maintained and be maintained as no cut. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no problem, they will be putting a no cut zone on their southern property line. MR. CURRAN-Thank you. MRS. CURRAN-And could that be deeded? MR. VOLLARO-It’s best to be on the drawing, as opposed to on the deed, because the drawing would be able to be enforced. The inspector would be able to work to the drawing. MRS. STEFFAN-When notations are made on drawings, they are enforceable. When notations are made on deeds, they are enforceable only if a neighbor complains about them. MRS. CURRAN-If, down the road, my neighbors decide that they want to enlarge their back yard and cut those trees down, and remove those buffers, what recourse do I have? MR. VOLLARO-They can’t do it. The recourse is on the subdivision that’s filed at the County. The one that’s filed at the County would show a no cut zone. MRS. CURRAN-Nothing I can do when they’ve cut the trees down. I can’t grow them back. MR. VOLLARO-If you’ve got somebody coming in there as a road, and doesn’t care. MRS. CURRAN-No, I’m just saying that if my neighbor decides, five years down the road, they want to enlarge their back yard, and they want to cut those trees down and they hire Dick Sears or whomever to come in and cut those trees down, and I come home, after being on vacation, and I’ve got wide open space, what re-course do I have? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you what we’ve done in the Town of Queensbury when that’s happened. We’ve made them reforest it. Believe me, we did it on Moon Hill. It cost the contractor a bundle to put trees in of the caliper size we asked him to put it. Reforested it, believe it or not. MRS. CURRAN-Okay. How much in lawyers fees is it going to cost me to do that, to fight it? MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t cost you anything. MRS. STEFFAN-Because if it’s on the plat or the drawing, then it’s enforceable by the Town, but unfortunately if you took a big tree down, you’re not going to be able to replace that with the same caliper tree. MRS. CURRAN-Exactly. That’s my worry. That’s my concern over that. MRS. STEFFAN-We see your point. MR. VOLLARO-The best we can do for you is give you a no cut zone along that line and if anything was to happen, we’d get back to the contractors and they’d reforest, if somebody cuts. Now, if your neighbor cuts, we’ve got to take him to civil court. Nothing you can do about it. Now it becomes between you and your neighbor. If the contractor sells you a house, he guarantees the house to be good for so many years, I think it’s four or five years, but he can’t, once he’s sold it and somebody buys it, and you’ve got a rogue neighbor who comes out with a chainsaw in the middle of the night, it’s a civil issue. MRS. CURRAN-Now, I have to sue them to get them to replace those trees. MR. VOLLARO-It becomes a civil matter. If the contractor cuts them down. MRS. CURRAN-That’s just not right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the law. I don’t know what to do for you. I really don’t. MRS. CURRAN-Make it three or four lots, and give a 50 foot buffer to the south. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else want to talk to this application? th MRS. BARDEN-I do have this one written comment. This is dated June 27, attention Planning and Zoning, Town of Queensbury. “My name is Ben Aronson. My wife and I, Sharon, reside at 1516 Ridge Road and have since 1966. Our property line is 150 feet south of the proposed seven lot subdivision. When we purchased our property, which consisted of two lots, the original owner wisely put in deed restrictions that only one home per lot was allowed to be built. This amounted to one home for three acres, give or take. This restriction made our property desirable at the time, as the next lot up from us also had the same restriction, and this assured us of the atmosphere of a rural setting. We are disappointed that the original owner, the late Mrs. Laura Hughes, did not also restrict the overdevelopment on the property now occupied and owned by her niece Freda Meyer. We are convinced the wise decisions made by Laura Hughes regarding our properties were to keep the area from overdevelopment. Hopefully the powers to be along with Freda Meyer, will go along with Mrs. Hughes, the Hughes wishes, and allow no more than three homes on the seven acres. This is actually more than what was originally planned by the original owner. Ben and Sharon Aronson” MRS. BRUNO-Am I understanding it correctly, then, that this piece of property was included in, way back when, in this agreement? Or it’s just suggested that it’s because it’s in the neighborhood? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct, and I did actually, after reading this today, check the deed, and there are intending deed restrictions on this piece of property itself. MRS. BRUNO-And that’s two down. That’s next to the Currans. MR. CURRAN-Yes. We also have a deed restriction, one house per lot. MRS. BRUNO-And they’re south of you. MRS. CURRAN-Yes. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I’m just getting my bearings. MR. VOLLARO-And how big is your lot? MR. CURRAN-It’s almost three acres. MR. VOLLARO-Almost three. Okay. I guess the first question is, is this gentlemen wants to get some idea of what happens to that easement, that drainage easement there. MR. NACE-Sure. The drainage is taken care of on the site by drywells along the road. There are two up on the road, straight portion, and then four more back at the cul de sac. The drainage easement and the overflow from one of the drywells is simply a worst case, you know, give it some place to go in case everything else fails. It’s not anticipated in the storm report, even with a 100 year storm, that that would see any more water than what the 100 year storm would produce off site now. MR. VOLLARO-So essentially what you’re saying is he wouldn’t get any more water than what’s in the natural state that he’s seeing today? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Where the photographs are. MR. NACE-And in the other scenario, with the ground frozen, if you look at this with the ground frozen conditions, the whole thing’s an impervious surface. It doesn’t matter whether we have roofs and driveways and asphalt there or not. So everything runs off. So in that worst case scenario of what he’s shown you from this past winter, it would be no different whether there were houses there or not. Every drop of rain that hits the ground on that ice is going to run off. So the other issue was this drainage way, where does it go. From my walk out there, and I think you’ve got a picture up here, it appears to me that in the topography that the surveyors picked up indicates that the drainage all comes off down here in the low point and runs along this whole path. It looks like maybe at one time it was a woods road of some sort, back toward the back of this adjacent property. I didn’t see anything that looked like there was runoff coming this direction. In fact, the topography shows that it’s a couple of feet higher here than it is here. So that’s, I think that addresses the drainage. On the buffer, I think we could probably live with a 40 or 50 foot buffer along this property line that would maintain most of the tree cover, would actually maintain it looks like this is maybe 40 foot from this edge of trees here now to the property line. So, I think that would probably maintain at least what’s there now. MR. SIPP-The southeast corner, your buffer narrows down. MR. NACE-Well, okay, now what I’m saying, with the natural existing buffer narrows down to about 20 feet there, and we would certainly maintain everything that’s there. If you had a 40 or 50 foot no cut zone buffer it would certainly maintain what’s existing. MR. SIPP-Is that area now grass? MR. NACE-Do I have a photograph that shows that? It may show up in Photograph Two if you look if you look at the far end of Photograph Two. MRS. CURRAN-The deer come down from this area which is north. It’s high ground. MR. NACE-That’s on up the hill, yes. MRS. CURRAN-They come down through here, and run out into the field here and run across over through here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we’re talking about, where the water runs as opposed to where the deer run. MRS. CURRAN-Well, the water runs in the same area. MRS. STEFFAN-Deer will take the path of least resistance. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. NACE-From what I could see, any water that leaves the site, leaves right there at the back end of the lot line between Lot Four and Lot Five. MR. CURRAN-I go on the property, I don’t see how it can drain out towards Three. MR. NACE-Toward Picture Three? MR. CURRAN-Yes, towards Picture Three, because if you look at one of his picture’s, you’ll see standing water down through here. MR. NACE-The topography shows that as 69 here, versus 71 over on this property line, and I’ve got to believe the surveyors. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to go with a 50 foot buffer along that southern line, when this gets stamped as a drawing in the County. Okay. MR. NACE--We were just looking among ourselves to see where the 50 foot really was. My concern with the 50 foot. MR.WALL-What I was asking Tom is, that the topography actually goes up towards the Curran’s property, and we wanted to leave most of that vegetation and that there, but I was asking him what is actually the width of that as that slopes up. So where that comes back and flattens out into an area, if we left that whole tree line there, I think would be sufficient, because the Currans also have, you know, they’re treed on their property line also, and that’s what I was asking, and I don’t know what that dimension is to where the topography starts sloping back up to the Currans’ property. MR. VOLLARO-You put the marker on there? MR. NACE-As a compromise, what about a 40 foot absolute no cut, 50 foot leave anything over six inches? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re talking about basal? MR. NACE-I’m talking about caliper, chest height, yes. MR. WALL-And I’d be happy to walk it with the Currans and we could denote and mark anything that’s of substantial size and we’ll leave that. My biggest concern is on that second lot in, when Tom actually did the design, I don’t like the drive actually coming in on the circles. See how the house is orientated? So I wanted to turn that house so it sat parallel to the straight section of the road, and in doing that, I think aesthetically it would be much, much more pleasing. So in doing that, we’re going to push that house back some. So my concern would be with the 50 foot buffer there we may be a little close because Tom may have to do something with relocation of this septic itself. So that was my concern on there. MRS. CURRAN-And that house is the one that would be closest to our house. It backs right up to it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’ve got what we were looking for here. We’ll look at this. You’re going to do a 40 foot buffer, and 10 foot of it will be subject to what? You’re going to go to 50. Forty is absolute no cut. MR. WALL-Forty absolute no cut, and then the additional 10 foot of the 50 we’ll go six inch in diameter. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. WALL-Is that fair enough? MR. VOLLARO-You won’t take any trees out that are greater than six inches? MR. WALL-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. Now that would be a notation on the drawing. I’m trying to draw this up so that when you come back with a final drawing, you know, on Final we’d just look at it and make sure that drawing covers it, and we’ve done that before, and so you know where we’re going with this. Okay. One of the things you want 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) to bring in on Final if you can for the record that we have a deed for the property. I didn’t see that. You need the deed for it. MRS. BARDEN-We have a deed. MR. VOLLARO-You do? I didn’t see it with mine. MRS. BARDEN-They’re only required to submit one copy. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have it in the record, fine. MRS. BARDEN-I do. MR. VOLLARO-Good enough. Are we doing a SEQRA tonight, or do we do it at Final? MR. NACE-I think you’ve got to do it tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If we’ve got to do it tonight, there’s apparently a change on Part I of the pre-ap. It’s a slight change, but I notice Staff put it in. It’s on Section A, Number 19. Is the site located or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article Eight of the ECL & NYCRR 617, is it? MR. NACE-It’s borderline. As the crow flies, it’s probably close to 500 feet from the wetland. MRS. BARDEN-We have the CEA line going directly through the middle of the property. I can show it to you if you’d like. MR. VOLLARO-That’s from the GIS? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. There’s the CEA line. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It looks like that’s got to be yes, instead of a no. We’ll make that correction. It shows the Critical Environmental Area right through the middle of it. MR. NACE-All it means is you’ve got to look more closely at SEQRA when you do it. Well, what we’ll do is we’ll go into SEQRA knowing that. There isn’t very much we’re going to be able to do with that, other than. MRS. BARDEN-Right. The point was just to identify it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, on Part I. MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So it’s identified on Part I. Let’s go through, start the Part II SEQRA, then. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Chairman, couldn’t that end up affecting, you know, your under 147, potentially the minor projects to be treated as major projects, because of the expanse? MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that, and I looked at, I read over 147 the best I could, and I noticed that there are three things that put you into a major project, and the three things that they say go into making a minor project a major project, a minor project being over 15,000 square feet, soils of high potential for overload or through soil pollutant transport, area with a slope of 15% or greater when measured in any direction over 100 feet from the center, an area where the soil percolation rate is slower than 60 minutes per inch. MRS. BRUNO-That’s a major, you’re describing a major project, but then the way that they talk about the minor projects to be treated as major projects, I’m just thinking in terms of what Mr. Seguljic was saying the other night, any minor project may be treated as a major project if such treatment is desirable due to specific site limitations or constraints, anticipated environmental impacts, or the need or advisability of additional public notice and comment. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know that this subdivision rises to that level or not. MR. NACE-As I said before, even if it does, we’ve exceeded the requirements of that with the stormwater management system, that that Section requires peak flow 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) attenuation to 25 years. We’ve done it to 100 years, and peak quantity attenuation to 10 years, and we’ve actually done that to 100 years as well. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Frankly, in looking at 147, I’ve got to study this document more before I can talk with any degree of authority on it. I don’t understand it. We just got it and I’ve got to sit down and really understand it before I can use it as a control document for something like this. To be perfectly honest with you, I couldn’t make a decision like, I know one thing, if somebody gave me a test tonight on 147, I’d sign my name to the paper and leave, you know. That’s what would happen, to be very honest with you. MRS. STEFFAN-But that sounds to me like we would be doing SEQRA prematurely, if that is the issue. MR. VOLLARO-What do you mean? MRS. STEFFAN-If we don’t understand it. MRS. BRUNO-If we don’t understand it, we can’t really be. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know, what do we do in lieu of that? I think what Tom has said is what he has designed, and I can’t testify to that, based on 147, I mean, I don’t know, but he’s testifying as an engineer, stamped engineer, that his design exceeds what’s required in the minor project on 147. Do you say, well, we don’t believe you and we’re going to go home and study this document? MRS. STEFFAN-No, you said minor project, but the discussion that you’re having is it a major project or a minor project? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that because it’s over 15,000 square feet it turns into a major project, and then it talks about when you bring it into the major project area, that’s very clear there. MR. NACE-And what I’m saying is we exceed the major, the standards I referred to were major project. MRS. STEFFAN-Major project. MR. NACE-A minor project is something that you do cookbook analysis and say I’ve got 1,000 square feet of impermeable. I take a gallon and a half per square foot, and I’ve got to provide that much storage for it. It’s a very simplistic analysis for small sites. MR. VOLLARO-So I wouldn’t bring 147 into this, in my own view. Other than that, I don’t know whether we can say to the applicant, okay, look, we don’t understand 147, so when we’re all ready to do it, you come back. MRS. BRUNO-Just brainstorming, the way that my thinking is going right now, and I have complete respect for engineers, I’m probably shooting myself in the foot because I refer to the structural engineer that I work with a lot, but I’m finding as I’m sitting on the Board longer that sometimes I’m wondering if commonsense sometimes might override the numbers, and like I said, I’m just thinking out loud here, and what I’m thinking is, is that perhaps because of the commonsense on what’s kind of outlined in this 147 document is perhaps we should be looking more at the conservation subdivision or a smaller subdivision or something, for what it’s worth. MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying reduce the number of houses on that property, is that what you’re getting at? MRS. BRUNO-I’m talking about, I guess, showing respect to the Critical Environmental Area. Now I understand that you’ve done that in terms of exceeding what is required for your major storm. MR. NACE-Beyond that, I think I would almost take exception, if it got down to nuts and bolts, I’d take exception to the CEA map that is on GIS. Your CEA, the legal definition of it, goes back to your definition of so far from a wetland or water body within the Lake George basin, and I think if you go back to that, you, I don’t think, meet those standards, but you’re very close, and I’m willing to say that we are in a CEA, but, boy, it’s just, from my looking at the existing wetland, the only portion of the property that would even be 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) close to being within the CEA would be the very northeastern corner here, because the wetlands come up into here. See, they’ve mapped, this is really, I think, based on a contour. The actual wetland. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, it’s right here. MR. NACE-It’s right here. Okay. So I think it’s just wee little piece here that’s really within that 500 feet of the water body. MR. VOLLARO-If that’s the case then it really isn’t in a CEA. It’s just a tiny corner of the property that touches it, you’re saying. MR. NACE-It’s very close. We’re willing to say, yes, go ahead and assume that it is a CEA, but I don’t think it warrants. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to, I think in the interest of moving t his thing along, we’ve got to get into SEQRA and see where we go with the SEQRA thing. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s a physical change, but it’s minor. MR. SIPP-It does, but again, as Bob said, it’s a minor change. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the proposed action affect any non-protected, existing, or new body of water?” And the examples, A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. MRS. BRUNO-No. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. VOLLARO-I guess in looking at the way it was described, they described the pre- development runoff as being almost equal. So that answer to that question, I would say, is no. MR. SIPP-I’ll go with no. MR. VOLLARO-The whole idea is to not get anymore water off that property than was originally going off in its natural state. MRS. STEFFAN-The examples, Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. MR. VOLLARO-No. There is no floodway there at all, as a floodway is defined. So the answer to that is no. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species?” MR. VOLLARO-It won’t threaten them. I mean, I’ve got deer in my back yard and we’re in a 10 lot subdivision and I get them every morning, and the turkeys and a fox that fights with the cat next door. So I’ve got the same condition and I’m in a subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?” MR. SIPP-No. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think it impacts it. The fact that the CEA goes right across the corner of the lot. I don’t think so. MRS. BRUNO-Doesn’t it make you wonder why they’ve marked it there, though? I mean, if it’s really that far from the wetland? MR. NACE-GIS mapping is not an exact science. If you compare that with a contour map, somebody took a contour map and just followed one of the contours, whether it meant anything or not. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know how George gets the CEA overlays, where that data actually comes from, to trace the data source for getting it into the computer. Do you know how he does that? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t. Again, I think the description is 500 feet from any wetland that drains into Lake George, and Tom might be right. It may just be following the same contour, but I’m not sure where it’s derived from. MR. VOLLARO-So the answer to that is no. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential environmental impacts?” MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see a whole room full of folks, I see a couple, and they’re interested parties, and I certainly understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t see a tremendous outcry from the folks in that neighborhood coming in on this subdivision. So I would say no. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RIDGEWOOD HOMES, 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 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. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to be coming in with Final here. The Final’s got to have the engineering stamp on the Final drawing. Was there an NOI supplied with this? MR. NACE-No, there hasn’t been yet. I will provide that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re going to have to put a Notice of Intent in there. The clearing limits, with the construction fencing. MR. NACE-The construction fencing is there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. A deed to the property is in the file. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Sight distances, I think, are very, very ample. We’ve corrected MR. NACE-They’re on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve corrected Part I in Section A, Number 19 to a yes. We had discussed the cluster alternatives, and I don’t know whether there’s unanimity on this Board or not on the cluster, but I think we’ve touched on that. We verified the open drainage way in terms of the wetland. There’s no jurisdictional DEC, APA or Army Corps Engineer information on this lot. The name of the road will have to appear on the Final. You have to close out the response to C.T. Male for June 22. You’ve already done that. That will be submitted with Final, and that’s all I have. Does anybody else have any comment that they want to put into this before they come back with a Final on this Preliminary? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t want to make the motion because I want a cluster subdivision. MRS. BARDEN-Will you close the public hearing before you make your motion, please. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I will. Is there anybody else that wants to talk to this? No? So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 RIDGEWOOD HOMES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, a preliminary subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 7-lot residential subdivision of a 7.85 acre parcel resulting in lots sized approximately 1 acre each. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/27/2006 and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Whereas the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter A-183 entitled Subdivision of Land. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find this Preliminary application to be: approved and is subject to the following conditions going into Final: 1.An engineering stamp would appear on the Final drawing submitted. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) 2.Notice of Intent. 3.Clearing limits and construction fencing. 4.A no cut zone on the southern property line of 40 feet of absolute no cut. The next 10 feet of the 50 feet would be to cut nothing that is above six inches in caliper of a tree. 5.The deed to the property is already in file. 6.The sight distance north and south is adequate. 7.Part I, Section A, Number 19 of the SEQRA application form of Part I has been changed from a no to a yes. 8.The road name should be on the final drawing. 9.A response to C.T. Male’s June 22, 2006 comments have been responded to by the applicant and will be present at the Final submission. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-Unfortunately it doesn’t pass. I’ve given you that indication before that we’re only four people here, and we need four votes. So it didn’t make it, and I think it didn’t make it because there wasn’t a good look at the cluster subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Conservation subdivisions. MR. VOLLARO-Conservation subdivision. So I don’t know where we go from here. You can, I don’t know how to handle the no on this, but each Board member has to vote its conscience. MR. NACE-Can we handle it as a tabling until next month? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. I think that’s what we’ll have to do, to table this application until you folks have had a chance to look at a proposal at least for a conservation subdivision. Is that where you would be coming from, at least a proposal? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, for a conservation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So we will table this application to, if you can come in by, well, we can try to put you on for 7/25. MRS. STEFFAN-The deadline we did for the last people. MR. VOLLARO-Was a week before that. th MRS. STEFFAN-That would be the 18. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-What was the day? th MR. VOLLARO-25, and we’d need information in by the 18. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. th MR. NACE-By the 18? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-In the event that we are able to get a Preliminary approval on the 7/18, can th we go ahead and submit Final by July 15, to see if we can get Final? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’re hoping there’d be a seven member Board at that time. MR. NACE-Or that we’ve satisfied your curiosity by coming up with some method of at least allowing you to see what a conservation subdivision would look like. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that’s what Mrs. Steffan has in mind, to see what we could do with that and how we could approach that. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. NACE-You would go ahead and accept our application for Final, pending approval of Preliminary? MR. VOLLARO-I’m not following you. MR. NACE-I would like to not lose a month, if we possibly can, by submitting Final in July, in early July, by the submittal date, for August Final approval or Final review, assuming, or conditioned upon our being able to get Preliminary approval in July. MR. VOLLARO-That would be the 7/25 date. MR. NACE-No, what I’m saying is, I’ll go ahead, in two or three days, and submit a Final application, okay, based on these conditions that you just had in your motion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. Would you accept that for placement on July, or on August agenda, if th we get Preliminary approval on the July 25 meeting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, you’re saying about basically making a good faith effort in taking a good look at the conservation subdivision see what it would look like. MR. NACE-Exactly. I’m not sure we can make a reasonable solution with that, but we could certainly come up with some ways of trying and seeing if it makes sense. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I mean, I think that’s what you’re looking for. So, okay. That’s the chances you take when you come up before a four man Board. You could have just said I’m going to pull out. MR. NACE-At this point at least we have all your comments and we know what you’re looking for, assuming it goes ahead in this venue. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, and in good conscience, I’ve been on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee for almost two years now, and with some of the new proposed zoning that we’ve been talking about, I know that it’s not in place right now, but we’ve talked a lot about conservation subdivisions and the direction of the Town is that way. MR. NACE-We’ve done them, and we agree with you, in concept. We find it very difficult in the smaller ones to make it something that’s workable, but we’re going to take a try at it. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, are you going to make a formal tabling motion? MR. VOLLARO-Do we need have to make a formal tabling motion? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, please. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2006 RIDGEWOOD HOMES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to July 25, 2006, with information being received by July 18, 2006. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2006 REVISED SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TRA- TOM DEV. AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR- 1A LOCATION COUNTY LINE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 41-LOT SUBDIVISION, RESULTING IN 40 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.46 – 1.70 ACRES RESPECTIVELY AND 23.86 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. SB 1-04 9/27/05 SKETCH LOT SIZE 54.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.1-22.222 SECTION A-183 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are, for the record? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I’m Dennis MacElroy, from Environmental Design, representing Tra-Tom Development on this subdivision application, here for Sketch Plan conference. MR. VOLLARO-Is anybody here from the applicant at all? MR. MAC ELROY-No. I would explain that normally the project attorney Don Zee would be here, but he has had a recent health issue, a heart bypass, so he’ll be here at future meetings. I’m flying solo here. I’ll cut right to the chase. You actually have seen a Sketch Plan application for this property back in September. For a couple of reasons, primarily you weren’t real happy with the clustering concept at that time, but then also because of negotiations that have been going on with the County, regarding easements and their interest in the property, whether it would take the form of an easement or some type of property purchase, the project has evolved. So we’re back tonight with this layout, as you see in the application package, four drawings in your set, the first being the overall hundred scale layout of the project, which is also represented in the presentation plan, Sheets Two & Three, which are at 50 scale as required by the Ordinance for the subdivision, and Sheet Four, a representation of the conventional layout. This is for a cluster subdivision, or a conservation subdivision, as we will like to call it, 54 acre lot. The conventional layout provided information, a road system and infrastructure that would support 45 lots. It is one acre zoning in that area. The clustering plan shows 40 residential lots, ranging in size from just under a half an acre to 1.7 acres. The road system and the associated utility infrastructure is less than what the conventional layout provided. There is obviously a provision of open space, of over 23 acres, and there’s a protection and preservation of natural features on the property, most significantly the wetland area that has been delineated and field located, actually by a wetland consultant, but the Army Corps delineation hasn’t been confirmed, but as we proceed we’ll be doing that next step. MR. VOLLARO-The D’s on there are the flag sets, D-17, D-, these are all flags? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-That provides information about the wetland area, and I can point that out. There’s an area through here, an area in this location and let me orient you, this is County Line Road. Heading north, this is on the westerly side of County Line Road. It’s about 1200 feet north of the intersection with Hicks Road. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s on the other side of the old Tribune Media, Jim West building, on the corner? There’s Angio Dynamics on one part of the intersection, then there’s Hicks Road. MR. MAC ELROY-And then there’s 1200 feet, and then there is this 1200 feet of frontage, and associated depth, 54 acres. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. That’s where we thought it was, but we weren’t sure. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, did you say that the wetland delineation is still approximate, that hasn’t actually been? MR. MAC ELROY-It hasn’t been confirmed by Army Corps, but it has been delineated by, actually it was the prior owner’s consultant, wetlands consultant. So it’s all just part of the process. Once we get the next step, we will seek Army Corps. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-That will probably come under a national permit. The national permit would probably cover this, I would think. This isn’t something where Army Corp’s going to issue a separate permit for this. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, the disturbance proposed would fall under the Nationwide Permit of less than a tenth of an acre disturbance where the road crossings are, and I think that was a question that Susan had asked MR. VOLLARO-One of the questions I have, where does that cul de sac really start? You know we’ve got a 1,000 foot limit on this cul de sac, in the Code, and I’m just wondering where do we start interpreting where that cul de sac really starts from, from that intersection where I would think. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, what’s the distance, do you know, roughly, from that intersection over to the cul de sac itself? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s 60 scale, that’s 720 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-So we’re going to be right in the, actually it’s going to be over 1,000 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-As shown there. MR. VOLLARO-So we’d have to get a waiver on that 1,000 foot. I know you won’t get a waiver from, if Mr. Hunsinger is sitting on this Board, you won’t get a waiver from one member anyway. He’s very adamant about the 1,000 foot. So, anyway, I don’t know whether you could shorten that up a little bit. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think it’s sort of a function or a drawback from the clustering situation. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a little difficult to move, because what he’s doing, he’s running that road so it doesn’t interfere with the wetlands. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Wetlands here, wetlands there. MR. VOLLARO-Take that curb and lessen that curb just a hair, so that you just make 1,000 foot connection there, but to do that, some of those lots are going to touch that wetland, up in that corner, but that would be one way to get around the 1,000 foot, by moving that over. Now, I don’t know, you might want to, can you re-configure that lot in some way, so that it doesn’t touch your wetland right there at that corner? MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly potentially I can say that, standing here, that there’s always several ways of re-configuring things, but. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the whole idea of doing this kind of an exercise. We get to interchange ideas here. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and hopefully the purpose of the Sketch Plan in this particular case, too, is to walk away with an acknowledgement that the cluster design, the conservation subdivision is. MR. VOLLARO-Is preferred over what you have on the last, I know what we did here, and I don’t particular think, when I look at this, it’s cookie cutter. MRS. STEFFAN-I was Xing out the ones that weren’t even considerable. MR. VOLLARO-The answer to your question is we’d prefer it this way. Now we massage the clay a little bit and maybe see what we come up with, but it’s this kind of a subdivision that we’d be looking at. MRS. STEFFAN-Is this property in any kind of a floodway, floodplain, any of that? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. MAC ELROY-No. MRS. STEFFAN-There are wetlands on the property, but no designated floodplains. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s my understanding. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Two things I would point out, just to clarify. This project in this configuration is dependent upon the extension of existing sewer and water districts. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got the comments from Mike Shaw and from the Water Department here, yes. MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, that’s obviously a critical point of this proceeding. MR. VOLLARO-How have you proceeded on that? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, we did have a meeting with the Town Board in a Workshop Session back in July. There was some concern about the use of the capacity for residential purposes, but I think that actually Ralph VanDusen was still around and made the explanation of the purpose of that sewer district and the capacities that were available, and that the excess capacity within that sewer district is for out of district users. So it wasn’t defined and required for industrial, because the industrial is provided for in all the capacity that’s there. My understanding is that every piece of the pie there, Town of Queensbury, Kingsbury, Washington County, all have the allocation that they fully expect to require, and then beyond that is an excess capacity that Queensbury has control over. st MR. VOLLARO-Via the Glens Falls. It says, this is Mike Shaw’s comment on June 1. This subdivision is outside the Town Sanitary Sewer District. We know that. Sewer service would be available from Kingsbury or Warren County. The use of sanitary sewer capacities may need the approval of Warren County and Washington County, Queensbury and Kingsbury. It sounds like an interesting set of affairs here. See also US E.D.A grant money. I’m not sure who they are. Who is US E.D.A? MR. MAC ELROY-E.D.A. or I.D.A? MR. VOLLARO-E.D.A., US E.D.A. I don’t know who they are, was used to construct the sanitary sewers that this property wants to connect to. The US E.D.A may need to approve the residential use of the sanitary sewer. It sounds like something that’s got to happen before that can happen. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. We did have a series of meetings with the various parties, not US E.D.A., but Warren County, Washington County, Queensbury, to try to determine the best point of connection, and the way that it is proposed, the way our thinking is, based on all that input, is that a connection to the Warren County sewer district, which is in a manhole in the driveway of Angio Dynamics, which then flows across the street, technically, into the Washington County sewer district, which then flows by gravity, we’re not involving any of their pump station or capacities, but then south in Washington County’s line to the point that it crosses over to the Queensbury pump station. So Queensbury is the provider of the service. The conveyance is happening through technically Warren County and Washington County. MR. VOLLARO-What does Mike Shaw say about the capacity of that pump to handle that flow, is he okay with that? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and in fact, remember that capacity is built in to the design of that district. We’re not adding any capacity. We’re working within what is available in excess capacity. So that’s the plan. MR. VOLLARO-So, really what we’re saying is that this cluster or conservation subdivision is that it’s dependent on getting municipal sewer. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. SIPP-How about the water? MR. MAC ELROY-The current district includes this property just to the south. It ends right at this corner. So that extension is, well, procedurally, it’s still that administrative action requiring approval, it’s right there on the doorstep. MR. SIPP-Would you be willing to foot the cost of that? MR. MAC ELROY-The applicant? Yes. MR. SIPP-Now that pump station that you’ve got marked on there is for the sewer? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s our pump station. That’s Queensbury pump station. So Mike Shaw has to look at that. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know that that necessarily will be the case. That’s not my recollection, that this would be a private line to the point of the Warren County Sewer District. MR. SIPP-Private line? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not talking about being a contract user now, are you? MR. MAC ELROY-No, it’s an outside user. I don’t want to confuse the issue, but my recollection is that Queensbury would not own that pump station. I’ll have to clarify that. MR. VOLLARO-When you come back on the Preliminary for this subdivision. MR. MAC ELROY-We’ll have those details. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll have those, by that time you’ve got to have the answers, otherwise we’ll be at sixes and sevens here trying to figure this out. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask the rest of the Board. Conceptually, it doesn’t look bad. Looking at the outside perimeter of that lot, and trying to put something in there, how many houses are we talking about here? MR. MAC ELROY-There’s 40 residential lots. MR. VOLLARO-There’d be 40, and what’s the school district? MR. MAC ELROY-Queensbury. MRS. BRUNO-What size houses do you think will? MR. MAC ELROY-Three bedroom, it may be typically a footprint of 2,000 feet, now they no doubt would be two story houses, some of them, so they may range to perhaps 4,000 square feet, but it would certainly fit within the setbacks established for the conservation subdivision lot. MR. VOLLARO-I think what would happen here, the lots would begin to dictate, there’s a couple of 1.7’s, there’s a 1.5. So the lots would begin to dictate the size of the house. MRS. STEFFAN-Somewhere in the documents here it talked about affordable housing. So just, they can’t be too big. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Otherwise they’re not going to be affordable. MR. MAC ELROY-And primarily, right, primarily the lot size are in the half acre range. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Where you might be able to build a bigger house, and it might, if you don’t have them all the same, you get a little bit of things that look a little better if you get some mix there. MRS. BRUNO-Like I had asked the previous applicant, is this something that this developer is just going in and doing the subdivision and then will be selling the lots? MR. MAC ELROY-No. He is a builder, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Most of what’s happening today in the building world is a builder comes out and hires a real estate person to handle this, like a Susan Balfour. MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, there would be a continuity of design and architecture within the project. MRS. STEFFAN-The Lots 14, 15, and 16, those three pie shaped lots, I would rather see that two lots than three. Those pie shaped configurations are very weird for the homeowner. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about these right here? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-These pies? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, as part of our consideration with subdivisions and they have to be marketable. Those are very odd lots for somebody to own and maintain. MR. VOLLARO-So are you saying that rather than have a half acre lot, you have two one acres in there? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Well, two three-quarter acre lots. MR. MAC ELROY-Or a different configuration. MRS. STEFFAN-Or a different configuration. Because that pie shape is odd. MR. SIPP-Have you done any preliminary on stormwater? MR. MAC ELROY-No, other than identifying conceptual areas. From an engineering standpoint, that is probably going to be the challenge of the project. MR. VOLLARO-Retaining this, as much area, not getting any more off than, because you’re putting a lot of impervious surfaces on there, and it’s got to go somewhere. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we would certainly comply with all the regulations, but it’s the form of that management. How do you control that rate of runoff, your post development versus pre-development conditions. Drywells or grass retention basins may not be the answer to the situation here. MR. VOLLARO-Depending upon the height of your groundwater. You don’t know where you are. MR. MAC ELROY-Exactly. I mean, it’s, that will be the challenge, as far as from the engineering standpoint. One thing that I should just point out, and I don’t want to open up a can of worms, but there is, we discussed it previously, and Bob, you were, I think, fairly versed in the avigation easement that comes off of the runway, and our plans do indicate that. There is an easement nearing finality between the County and the applicant. I think it’s just a matter of signatures and what not. So that, and as Marshall Stevens said to me today, that easement protects that interests that the County has in this area, and basically as you leave the runway, there’s a horizontal easement, horizontal area, but it’s affected by a vertical plane as you rise away. So that the County, the FAA, doesn’t want anything that would protrude through that vertical plane, as you’re leaving the runway, and this area, as shown by lines that are on the plans, is within that flight zone, and the easement, that vertical plane that rises as you go north, you just have to make sure that houses, even vegetation falls underneath that plane. The County obviously doesn’t want to run into trouble in the future in the easements that would be part of anyone’s deed, have that all in writing that you’re buying a house in the flight path, and all the noise and associated come with it. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s been a purchase of a couple of biz jets out there at the airport. There’s a G-3 out there and there’s a big Falcon out there. So I’m familiar with both of those, and they make a little noise going up, especially if they’re loaded with fuel for a long run. Anyway, that’s past life stuff for me. MRS. BRUNO-There still have been no test pits done? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-What we’re really looking for here is conceptual idea of this plan, subdivision wise, and then when we get into the Preliminary, then is when he’ll come in with sort of what Tom Nace did tonight. MR. MAC ELROY-More of the nuts and bolts. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just going through the previous meeting minutes and things that popped out to me that I thought I’d try to address. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things we want to try and do is shorten up that cul de sac. I think you can maneuver that around, though. You’re not far off that 1,000 foot mark. You should be able to handle that without too much trouble. Just put a mark on there. Make it a forcing function. That’s where you’ve got to go. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll be very interested to see how the area percs, though, just to see if, you know, something like this is being built, whether it’s got sewer, you know, municipal services or not, I mean, if the water’s going to sit on people’s property, that’s obviously not going to be a feature or benefit. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he said about the challenge. I mean, supposing you’ve got groundwater at three feet, or four feet. You’ve got to have X number of feet below the bottom of your catch basin in order for it to work. So that’s going to be the challenge. MR. MAC ELROY-For infiltration, if you’re relying on infiltration. I mean, there are other means of controlling that volume so that you’re not increasing the rate of discharge. That’s the key. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve seen some developments come through here where they’ve got underground storage, that does exactly that. It filters it off at a given rate, and that might be something you’ve got to think about here. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SIPP-Some of these buildings or conceptual buildings are within 50 feet of some wetlands. MR. MAC ELROY-No, they’re all outside of 75 feet, which is the shoreline setback. MR. SIPP-Well, what about those two? MR. MAC ELROY-This is just a vegetated area in green. The wetlands you may not see as well as in a darker line, but the placement of all the lots and the developed area within the lot is all outside of 75 feet, the design criteria, shoreline setback, as it’s referred to in the Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t have any objections to the way it looks right now, as long as you get that 1,000 foot in there. MR. MAC ELROY-And deal with the pie shaped lots. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and get the pie shaped lots out of there. I think just looking at the way that lot goes, it’s a little trapezoidal, and there’s not much you’re going to be able to do with it, and get the kind of density that you’re looking for from a sales point of view. Any time you look at one of these, the builder is sitting down, and he’s multiplying what he’s going to get out of these houses in terms of property versus what he’s going to put in to develop this thing. It’s a regular formula that he uses. He wants to walk out of this thing with a profit. So as soon as you start pulling his density down he gets a little nervous. That’s understandable. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-As I mentioned before, I know that we’re talking about municipal services here, but there are a couple of areas in the Town that are extremely wet. One Bob is very familiar with, and the water never drains off this property, and so the density would really depend on whether the ground can really support a lawn with outstanding water in it. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think that the land has been used agriculturally over the years, it’s not impervious, certainly. There are heavier soils. It’s not the sands of the western part of Town, but it’s not something that is totally impervious either, but I understand what you’re saying, and I would reiterate that the stormwater management is a key part of the puzzle here. MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing that can’t be engineered to do that. It’s just how much money does he want to spend to do it. I mean, it always gets down to that. If you start putting underground infiltration that slowly slows down the rate of flow, it may become a little bit expensive, and they’ve got to be maintained, too. There’s a maintenance problem that goes with it. The thing begins to cascade up, but I understand where you’re coming from, in terms of it’s going to be a difficult engineering problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’ve had other projects where they, you know, proposed putting berms in and all these other kinds of things to contain stormwater and stuff like that, to keep water away from houses. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll digress for a minute. Since John is here, he understands. I sat in to a Town Board workshop last night, just a workshop, where we were talking about this sort of thing, the fact that why do we see what we’re seeing with the storm we just had, which doesn’t even approach the 50 year storm for residential, which is in our design manual, which turns out to be five inches, I believe in a 24 hour period. We’re just short of that. I had four inches on my rain gauge, but anyway, we see a tremendous amount of flooding down around Homer Avenue where they’re building Amedore Homes, just south of Quaker, and what are we doing? Are we designing wrong? Is there something wrong with the way we’re doing the engineering stormwater design that we’ve got that much flooding in the area? That’s something, it was put on the table, why are we seeing that. It’s a concern. It really is. So we’ve got to really think really well about how we retain this stuff. We may be getting near the edge of properties that will develop without problems. It could happen. We’ve got the camel and the straw thing going here, I think. Conceptually, I, personally, don’t have any problems with this layout and the way it looks. MRS. BRUNO-It’s definitely getting better. I asked for the whole file to be pulled, just so that I could see, since I hadn’t been sitting on the Board at that time, and it’s definitely getting better. I do find the second entrance still a bit long and I don’t know how you get around that. Like you had said, and I had said earlier, I think if you keep working something and you’re getting in that direction. MR. VOLLARO-You would want to limit the two entrances there to one? MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure that you can. MR. MAC ELROY-No. I don’t think you can. As a matter of fact, Susan and I had this conversation previously, and based on the number of lots and then the length. If we can’t have 1,000 feet here then we’re not going anywhere off of County Line. MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering where she was coming, I happen to like this approach. MRS. BRUNO-I was thinking in terms of, you know, it cuts across the wetland and all that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you know, I’ve talked to people about that. I talked to DEC about that, not too long ago, because of what we were doing on an application that you folks are familiar with, and I’ll mention the name because it’s in front of us anyway, but it’s Jeffrey Kilburn, and that road traverses a wetland, crosses the wetland. MRS. BRUNO-That one is a Critical Environmental Area, though, as well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MRS. BRUNO-Which this isn’t in that category. MR. VOLLARO-When I talked to DEC, what he said to me was we allow road crossings through DEC wetlands. So that’s just another road crossing through the wetland. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Yes, and it doesn’t eliminate the function of the wetland. It’s provided for in the passage of water through that area and you’re not blocking anything off, but the effort would be to minimize the disturbance to actually lessen the tenth of an acre in those two locations. MR. VOLLARO-The only other thing you could do to improve this is to probably lessen the density, that would be one way you could start to manipulate the surroundings. MRS. BRUNO-You probably wouldn’t have to lessen it by many. I think, like Mrs. Steffan was saying, get rid of, cut those three lots down into two. If you take off the corner of that intersection you might need to end up shifting one of those over and losing that lot. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I think in just trying to affect the tail here, that’s going to create a reconfiguration of some lots. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. Is the applicant hung up on the number of lots he wants, or houses he wants? Has he done any kind of calculations in that area yet? MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know that for sure. MR. VOLLARO-Is this Tom Farone? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it is. This is the design that we came up with, based on the configuration that we thought was workable. MR. VOLLARO-I think the design, fundamentally, doesn’t look bad, I don’t think. Considering the shape of that lot, I think this is reasonable approach to it, and there’s certainly a lot of retained open space. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, almost 24 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t know what people are going to do with that 24 acres, but it’s within the subdivision. It’ll be classified as green space. MRS. STEFFAN-If there are kids, they’ll find a way to use it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m sure. I don’t have very much more to say about it. I think fundamentally it doesn’t look bad. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I appreciate the input, and I’ll take this back to the drawing board and we’ll prepare a Preliminary application. MR. VOLLARO-Your biggest struggle is going to be make sure you’ve got your sewer and water lined up properly with all the normal requirements. MR. MAC ELROY-Again, this was back in July, the Town Board had indicated that they wanted the project to go to the Planning Board to get some feedback, obviously. I think that there wasn’t, there was some questioning, as I mentioned before, about that residential use of that capacity, but I think that that was explained by Town officials at that point that it was an appropriate use of that capacity, but obviously there still is that process of getting the approval, and at what point is that, obviously it’s necessary before Final. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. As long as you can get a Preliminary and allude to where you are in the process of getting your water and sewer plugged in, and then everything, you know, that the capacity’s been acknowledged and what pump station you’re going to use and who belongs to the pump station when you start using it. That’s all. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the other thing with a subdivision of this size, I would certainly be looking for sidewalks in this subdivision. With the amount of property that’s here and the amount of units, people are going to want to walk here, and so we’ve been talking about it Town wide, but this subdivision certainly lends itself to sidewalks. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would agree with that. It’s not, I’d have big disagreements with sidewalks going nowhere, you know, building a sidewalk like so and there’s nothing here and nothing there, but here a sidewalk would provide a real amenity, I think, to this subdivision. That’s a good point. MRS. BRUNO-You could even loop it around from the main road access perhaps trails for some of those areas that don’t have the houses. MR. MAC ELROY-Good. Thank you. MR. SIPP-I think you ought to know if the school district will access this with a bus. They’re going to have to go all the way in to go around the cul de sac and come back out, whether they would do that or, well, they could take the short way, I guess, come in one entrance and go down south and then cut across east. It would be interesting to know if the school district would consider. MR. VOLLARO-The more I look at stuff like this, and it has nothing to do with this subdivision, but when I look at the build out analysis that was done by Chazen almost a year ago now, I wonder if subdivisions like this were plugged in to that analysis. MR. SIPP-I know. That’s where sidewalks would be helpful if the bus either uses County Line Road as a pick up or they have another pick up area within the subdivision. MR. MAC ELROY-Has it been your experience that the school district would indicate whether, what the pick up would be, what the transportation would be, that they would enter a subdivision like this? MR. VOLLARO-No. We don’t usually get into that, from this Board’s perspective, unless we invite them in to talk about it. I mean, that’s something, but you might also want to have some discussion with the district itself, probably the superintendent and start off with that and say, hey, how are you going to access a community like this with your bus. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I don’t have, I’m not certain about this, but my recollection is that there’s a formula that they use, you know, of how far the kids can walk. So there is a formula that exists. MR. MAC ELROY-And if there’s nice sidewalks to walk on, they’ll be able to pick up out at the County Line Road intersection. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think, doesn’t it have to do with age? Does age make a difference? MR. SIPP-Grade in school. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SIPP-Kindergarten is one. Elementary is another. High School is another. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I get you. So there’s three levels. MR. SIPP-Very few districts adhere to it. They don’t make the kids walk, high school kids, make them walk the two miles. Lake George picks them up at the door. MR. VOLLARO-I know when I go down Upper Sherman, I stop every 20 feet for a school bus. They don’t want the kids to walk along Upper Sherman. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the whole story is. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Well, thank you very much for the input. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t think there’s anything else we can give you. It looks pretty good from here. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you for staying late. MR. VOLLARO-It’s so interesting. One of the things I keep saying to myself is we owe the applicants due process. We really do, and when people want to talk, like that couple 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/27/06) did, trying to make sure that they were protecting what they had, you’ve got to stay with it. You just can’t say, okay, that’s enough, we quit. Now, I am going to read a proposal and I’m going to read it into the record, and I’ll read it slowly. This is a proposed resolution. MOTION FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: RESOLVED: The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby recommends to the Town Board that at their next regular meeting they consider an amendment to the Zoning Code, Chapter 179, Town of Queensbury, Article 9, Entitled Site Plan Review, as follows: All new construction, single family, multi-family, condominium, apartments and modifications to existing structures proposed in any of the designated Critical Environmental Areas located within the Town of Queensbury shall be subject to a full site plan review per Article 9 of Chapter 179 of the Zoning Code. The site plan review shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any of the type of residences described above. The designated members of the Planning Department shall be responsible for notifying builders and contractors of their obligation to submit an application for site plan review and receive an approval or denial from the Planning Board. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, we, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approve forwarding this resolution to the Town Board of Queensbury for their action. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-You’ll get it, John. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro 69