Loading...
2007-04-17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 11-2007 Kevin & Annie Dineen 2. Tax Map No. 289.16-1-46 Site Plan No. 2-2007 The Michaels Group 12. Tax Map No. 296.8-1-8.1 Site Plan No. 10-2007 Cardiac Realty, LLC 36. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-16.14, 16.15, 16.16 Subdivision No. 15-2006 Legacy Land Holding 40. REVISED SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28 Subdivision No. 8-2007 Sherwood Acres Construction Corp. 46. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.1, 30 Site Plan No. 14-2007 Redbud Dev. 50. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Site Plan No. 42-2005 Reliable Racing Supply 59. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.11-1-2 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 04/17/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to modify our agenda a little bit, and the first item is we’re going to go into Executive Session. The purpose of the Executive Session is to discuss a pending lawsuit against the Planning Board, and I think rather than have the audience get up and move, I think that the Board will actually move into the other room. Would someone like to make a resolution to that effect. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-So, members of the public, you can just stay here and be comfortable, and we’ll be back in a few minutes. I’d like to thank the audience’s indulgence. We need a motion to come out of Executive Session. Would someone like to make that motion? MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2007 February 27, 2007 th MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 20 th and 27. Do we have a motion? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 20 TH AND 27, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN AGENT(S) TODD SMITH OF MANDY SPRING FARM NURSERY OWNER(S) KEVIN DINEEN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 149 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RETAINING WALLS, PATIO, WALKS AND STEP SYSTEM. SITE PLAN FOR FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKE. ALSO SITE PLAN FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL WITHIN 35 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-92, SP 37-92, AV 29-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.16-1-46 SECTION 179-6-060 TODD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Most recently this application for the removal of 761 square feet of existing hard surfaced area, including patio, walks, steps and retaining walls, and construction of 804 square feet of reconfigured same, as well as removal of one living nd pine tree, all within 50 feet of the shoreline, was tabled at the March 22 meeting for the applicant to provide a stormwater plan, a full landscaping plan with enhanced shoreline plantings, and a sedimentation plan for the construction phases. Staff has concerns regarding the placement of proposed structures and landscaping off of the property. A th comment letter from the Town Engineer dated April 13 has been submitted for Board review. The public hearing remains open on this application, and this is a SEQRA Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-I was reminded by Staff to speak clearly into the microphone and make sure the microphone is on. I guess there was some minutes from the last meeting that Staff couldn’t hear when they were transcribing them. Could you state your name for the record? MR. SMITH-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Todd Smith. I am with Mandy Spring Nursery. I’m here tonight on behalf of Kevin and Annie Dineen. I first want to nd thank you all for your patience with me on the 22, and for getting us back on the agenda so quickly, and we’re here tonight to review those plans that we’ve submitted for the stormwater management, the enhanced landscaping plan, the sedimentation and erosion control plan, and other questions that were brought up, I think, by Vision. th MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get a copy of the April 13 comment letter? MR. SMITH-Yes, I did. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any specific comments relative to that? MR. SMITH-No, I’m sorry. I don’t have it in front of me. Which letter, how does that start? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a series of seven items that Vision Engineering commented on, ranging from site sketches to the EAF. MR. SMITH-Yes, I got a copy of that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SMITH-No specific, I’m ready for any questions. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board, questions or comments to the applicant? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the biggest ones that came up in the Staff Notes is that the eastern retaining wall vegetation is off the property. MR. SMITH-It would appear, both the one structure and the landscaping. The structure was a drawing mistake, and I did submit to the Town, I have copies to Susan, I have copies for you if you’d like to see that, so that the one, there’s a small retaining wall that appears in the original drawings to be a foot and a half across the property line. Of course that’s not the case, and we actually re-drew that and re-submitted that to Susan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SMITH-And the landscaping was part of an agreement with the neighbor to the east, and we do have a letter from Mr. Frejborg, as Staff requested, stating that he’s amenable with the solution of the plantings, and that he has an agreement with the homeowner, and that he would just like us to locate the plants with him, and he would like to be involved in the landscaping of that portion, because the property is so tight there, he agreed originally, when the project was started, before it was stopped, to have that portion re-landscaped. So we do have a letter from him now. MRS. STEFFAN-And he was also here at the public hearing last time. MR. SMITH-I think he’s very much in favor of the project. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. He did state that on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-You have a number of drywells used for stormwater control. MR. SMITH-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Were any test pits dug on site? MR. SMITH-No, we did not do any test pits. MR. SEGULJIC-Then how do we know the drywells will function properly? MR. SMITH-I don’t know. I’ve submitted it to Dan with the understanding that they, because they are, we know the soils, and the test pits were not done, but the soils are extremely porous there, or they will. I think Dan must have taken that into consideration when he made the comment that the measures were satisfactory. MRS. STEFFAN-Are you also bringing in fill, or just using the soil that’s on the site? MR. SMITH-The quantities are as follows. Just briefly, we are planning on excavating for the construction, removing 435, replacing 304. So it’s a net loss of fill to the lakeside. MR. SIPP-Now what’s the present soil type that you’ve got there now? Is this a sandy soil? MR. SMITH-It’s sandy cobbles, it’s sand gravel, sandy gravelly. MR. SIPP-All right, now, when we were there Saturday, if you stood on the deck, on the right hand side of the house, and turned to the east, you’ve got a, on the steep slope there, there’s non-vegetated. MR. SMITH-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-Completely bare. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. SIPP-That belongs to the neighbor? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. SMITH-Immediate, the house? Yes, that’s steep slope. Did you see the property pin on there, Donald? There’s a property line. The property line is in the middle of that slope. MR. SIPP-Now what are your plans for vegetating that? MR. SMITH-I don’t remember the exact planting plan, but I believe there’s, I believe it’s high bush blueberry, periwinkle, Vinca minor and other perennial ground covers. I could cheat. MR. SIPP-What would you estimate the percent of slope on that bank? MR. SMITH-It’s 50%. That bank would be 50. MR. SIPP-Well, I would say 60, but, is this going to hold that bank in a severe rainstorm? I hate to look at it now after this weekend to see where that soil is. MR. SMITH-I was there at four o’clock. Nothing’s in the lake. So it’s good still, but it is holding right now, and I believe that with the, Don, with the way the wall system will come up, because most of that steep bank will be retained by the applicant’s retaining walls, I believe that that will be much less severe and I do believe that the plantings will hold. I know the plantings will hold the slope with bark mulching and proper slope type plantings. MR. SIPP-Would you consider something like crown vetch? MR. SMITH-It’s shady there and crown vetch probably would not do that well. I want to cheat and look at what my. MR. SIPP-Crown vetch grows any place. MR. SMITH-Crown vetch really wants full sun. Periwinkle, Vinca minor, is one of the ground covers we used, and that would be much more amenable to a shady situation. MR. SIPP-The landscaping plan also shows on the lake itself. You have a sod area, and then you have some small plantings between the sod and the lake, just to the right of the dock area. MR. SMITH-That’s correct. Okay. MR. SIPP-In some cases this is probably two feet wide. MR. SMITH-Yes, sir, yes, two to three feet wide it looks like to my scale, those are a combination of the periwinkle, the Vinca minor, low bush blueberries and the ajuga, which is a ground cover. MR. SIPP-Now, this sod, you’re going to use sod to establish a lawn in this area? MR. SMITH-Yes. Most of it’s still there, but obviously you saw on Saturday some of it’s demolished. MR. SIPP-And you’re going to use fertilizer? MR. SMITH-I think we talked about not, I think we could require the homeowner, I think they’ve never used fertilizer at the property at all, that I can tell. MR. SIPP-That’s good. MR. SMITH-I think they’re amenable to not using any fertilizer. MR. SIPP-Would you be amenable, would they be amendable, to a more, a wider buffer area between that piece of sod and in fact across the whole lakefront there, would they be looking for a much better buffering area of native plants? MR. SMITH-Did you have a native plant in mind? Were you thinking of like Gaultheria or something? The space is precious, Don, for them, because that’s their little area where they can get into the lake. So as long as they could walk on it, I’m sure they would consider that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got a pathway going through there now. Semi-circular pathway comes out to the east end of the dock. MR. SMITH-I think if it helped the Board members feel better about the project, I’m sure the homeowners would agree. I think I speak for the homeowners. They would rather have. MR. SIPP-I can give you a list which is basically for Lake George, but it would be the same kind of thing. MR. SMITH-Okay. MR. SIPP-In this area, and I would definitely push for this kind of thing because your slope that you’ve got there to hold back the erosion possibility, the use of fertilizer, if it ever is used, so that none of it gets into the lake. MR. SMITH-Yes, sir. MR. SIPP-Glen Lake is pretty tenuous right now about algae bloom and so forth. MR. SMITH-It’s a closed system there, yes. MR. SIPP-And anything that is added to that lake is not going to make it any better. So I would definitely, and I’ll give you a copy of what I’ve got, that would be a much wider buffer area than what you’ve got, to the height of three feet. There you’ve got a better root system to soak up nutrients that would be going towards the lake. I definitely would like to see that. Are you going to replace the trees that were cut? MR. SMITH-We obviously can’t replace the one large pine tree. So I think we’ve, we have four clump birch planned to go back in, and five Canadian Hemlocks, and the clump birch would be 18 to 24 foot tall, no, I’m sorry, 12 to 14 is what the specifications say. MR. FORD-How about the Hemlocks? MR. SMITH-Four to six footers, six foot Hemlock. MR. SEGULJIC-As planted. MR. SMITH-As planted, yes, not including the bulb. The customer is amenable to whatever size you would prefer. Within reason, they would like a larger tree, if available. So they would be amenable to a size upgrade. MR. FORD-Since our last meeting, has there been any further cutting or damage to any of the vegetation there, plants or trees or shrubs? MR. SMITH-No. I know there was a question from Staff, and I tried to review by photographs from before any work started in the Fall, and it really was a two, from what I can tell, there was some unkempt landscaping bushes that had been removed when the work first started, and otherwise there was just the two diseased birch trees. They had, the birch trees were used to nail in like railings the conifer. So we have done no work there until yesterday. We started to move, as Craig said we could, we started to remove some of the fill from the upper part of the site. MR. SEGULJIC-I just have concerns, once again, regarding stormwater. I believe your drywells are seven feet in depth, six feet at least? I think they’re 72 inches. MR. SMITH-Yes. I think six feet, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would like to see test pits to make sure they’re going to function as designed. Number One. Number Two, in looking at your plans, I can’t tell if you’re capturing all the stormwater or not. MR. SMITH-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And Number Three, I forget the figures. You’re taking off site 400 cubic yards of soil and bringing on site 300? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. SMITH-The breakdown of that, would you like, the breakdown of that was 181 cubic yards of the riprap for the gabion walls. Seventy-two cubic yards of topsoil for the plantings, fifty-one cubic yards of fill back, it would just be the site fill that came off there. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d be using 51 cubic yards of existing fill for the site, from the site? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m concerned about is you’re bringing in, you’re probably getting rid of bad soil and bringing in nutrient rich soil. MR. SMITH-Except for the topsoil, that’s not true. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s what I wanted to clarify. So you’re bringing in 70 cubic yards. MR. SMITH-Really I’m bringing no soil onto the site, except for what topsoil we’d need, and I think it, I mean the high end estimate was 72 yards of topsoil to reestablish the planting areas. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’d really like to see you just leave native soil there. I mean, that’s the problem we have, people bringing in nutrient rich soils into these areas. MR. SMITH-Okay. We could do that. MR. SEGULJIC-The soil doesn’t grow anything, right? MR. SMITH-The soils on the site, though they be gravelly, sandy, gravelly soils with stones, they will grow, the plants that we specified, will grow in those soils. So if that is a preference of yours, we can agree to that. That would be fine. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s better that way. MR. SMITH-That would be fine. MR. SEGULJIC-And also I’d like clarification on how the stormwater system’s going to work, because I really. MR. SMITH-Would it help you if I gave you a verbal clarification? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SMITH-Starting up at the bottom of the page, which is the top of the property, Thomas. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Which drawing are you looking at? MR. SMITH-The last drawing called clarification of stormwater mitigation measures? MR. SEGULJIC-Gotcha. MR. SMITH-The surface you see first at the very bottom of the page is a paved driveway, and that all pitches from Birdsall Road to the first drywell, and the garage of 967 square feet has gutters on both sides. Both of the gutter downspouts would be piped to the infiltrator units at the base of the driveway. So those infiltrator units will be covered or there’ll be fabric underneath the infiltrator units, and there’ll be course crushed stone put around the infiltrator units. So any water coming down, sheeting down the driveway will be caught by that collection system. That’s the first drywell. If you were on site, Thomas, going down, or toward the top of the page, the next arrow, the next two arrows, designate the flow of traffic on an old walkway/pathway. It looks like maybe once upon a time it was a driveway, or, you know, the used to get down to the house. It’s grass now, with stepping stones in it. That all pitches, or will be pitched, so that no water can escape that, and that will flow down to the same type of collection system at the corner of the house in Drywell Number Two. Again, a water bar there, a collection point with infiltrators, course crushed stone, and then the gutters from the home will, it looks like the gutters from the home flow into Drywell Number Three and Four are behind the walls, and the gutters, they’ll collect water from the gutters and from any rainfall that falls on the dry laid stone patio. The stone patio is laid up in stone, in clean, crushed stone. So 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) there’s no, that’s really permeable, actually. Water will go through that, and I think it was Thomas, Mr. Ford, I think you wanted to make sure that the steps have drainage system on them, and so we put another smaller drywell at the bottom. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SMITH-And that will just catch, the only water that will catch is any water that might come down those stone slab steps. MR. FORD-That’s Drywell Number Five? MR. SMITH-You’re right, Drywell Number Five. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anymore questions, Tom? MR. SMITH-Tom, we could definitely dig those pits for you before we construct, we started construction of the system, and if you would approve contingent upon that, we could dig those and do a test and submit it to Vision or to Craig, before we went forward with, before we went forward with the stormwater mitigation portion. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it makes sense to have the Town Engineer there to witness those. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be appropriate, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m especially concerned about the one right along the lake that’s supposed to be four feet. MR. HUNSINGER-What are we asking the Town Engineer to witness? MR. SEGULJIC-The test pits for the drywell and stormwater management system. MR. SMITH-Which we can work with him at that point, figure out how many we need, how many test pits he’d like. MR. SEGULJIC-He should work through Staff to make those arrangements, correct? nd MR. SMITH-Okay, yes. After the 22 I go through Susan first. I’m learning. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that had comments to the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Does the Board feel comfortable enough in moving forward with SEQRA and/or any sort of conditional approval? I’ve got to be honest with you. After being at the site again, last weekend, I am concerned about the site being left open the way it is, with the potential for erosion. I know the silt fence was up very, and it looked very intact when we were there, but there is some, you know, potential for problems there. Did you have a comment, Don? MR. SEGULJIC-Don was just asking about the septic system location relative to the drywell, and I think there’s, what, a 20 foot separation requirement, which I think is the problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on that, please. MRS. STEFFAN-I believe the septic was above the house and it’s untouched and unchanged. MR. SMITH-That’s correct. The septic is unchanged, but if there was, Don, if there was a problem with that, the specific, we have a little room on the specific location of that Drywell Number One. We could shift that westwardly and solve that problem for you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. SIPP-I’m not concerned with One because that’s fairly level. I’m worried about Two because there’s almost a straight channel drainage or the septic field to Drywell Number Two. It’s all downhill. When you take these test pits, how deep are you going? MR. SMITH-Normally we’re 30 inches on a test pit. That’s a normal test pit. That’s what I’ve done with engineers before. MR. SIPP-The soil map shows a sandy soil, but I’ve got to believe that somewhere down there at a depth of seven, eight feet, there’s some clay. What’s going to hold the water in the lake if there wasn’t a barrier to prevent it? That can’t all be glacial outwash. There’s got to be some clay in the bottom of that. MR. SMITH-I have not seen clay over, like when we have worked on the lake, I haven’t seen clay there, but I don’t know the answer to that. MR. SIPP-Well, I think we definitely need test pits, data. MR. SMITH-We could do them deeper. MR. SIPP-And I’d also like more contours put into this, so we can see the, so the slope, the amount of slope can be shown here easily. We’re not guessing at it. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it’s projects like this that lead to the lake being in the condition it’s in. That’s my overall problem, but then you also say the property owner can do what they want. MR. SMITH-No, I think they want to, and they’re not here to defend themselves, they really want to make it better. They want to do it right, and I know they, if your recommendation is that they do test pits, they’re very amenable to that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I’d really like to see test pits before I go forward with this, because some of these drywells go down six or seven feet. We should have at least two feet above water or bedrock. You need at least nine feet. I don’t know if they have that. MR. HUNSINGER-You wouldn’t feel comfortable having the Town Engineer verify that the test pits will be adequate for the stormwater management that’s been designed? MR. SEGULJIC-No, because it’s right on the lake, and he is in a CEA I believe also. MR. HUNSINGER-No, he is. MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s a sensitive project. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-I think they’re really trying to do a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And there’s going to be a lot of stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MRS. BRUNO-So, Tom, clarify what it is that you’re proposing, then, if you’re not comfortable. MR. SEGULJIC-That they get the test pit data to show that their drywells will work as designed, before we give approval, instead of giving them conditional approval to get the test pit data. They need test pits, their drywells are six or seven feet deep they’re calling for. They should have at least two feet between a drywell and the groundwater or the bedrock. I don’t think they’re going to have it. I don’t know. So it could change their whole design. MRS. BRUNO-Right. I agree. I’d rather see the results before giving a contingent approval, and I’m trying to remember, I was trying to find it, if someone on the rest of the Board could remind me. Was there a note somewhere that said we need to consider if there be a future septic upgrade, that that should be located on the plans now, or was that another project? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was another project. MRS. BRUNO-Sorry about that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m reluctant to let it go another month or two in its present condition. The site is ripped apart, and I think the lake would be more compromised by leaving it the way it is than finishing the project. The comments from Vision Engineering were very specific, and the project engineer was satisfied with the package, the presentation of the package, and so obviously there were a couple of conditions, and so my opinion is it’s not prudent to put it out a month or two, because, can we get them on the agenda again next month? Well, then that’s a whole other bumping issue, and I don’t think the site should be exposed. I think it should be wrapped up. MS. ALTER-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to remind you that Dan Ryan from Vision Engineering is here. MR. HUNSINGER-We hadn’t met so I didn’t know. Thank you for the heads up. Would you like to come up on the mic. I had forgotten that we had asked you to be here. So my apology. MR. RYAN-Yes, that’s okay. I can’t speak to existing soil conditions. My assumption was that, based on historical data, I’ve done quite a few septic pits in the area. Six to eight feet deep is the normal test pit depth, and it’s typically sand and gravel. I have never seen clay in the area. I think that the stormwater design itself, considering we’re talking about roof runoff and some surface patios, is probably conservative, if anything. It’s trapping 100% of the storm volume. So I think it’s conservative in nature, but I agree, the test pits certainly would be an acceptable testing to be done prior to approval. MR. SEGULJIC-And, excuse me, is it, they should have two feet of differential? MR. RYAN-Two feet of differential between groundwater and any design element, essentially. MR. SEGULJIC-So we need eight feet at least. MR. RYAN-If there’s a six foot drywell, you’d need eight feet, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’re at that, right about where you say you typically see there. MR. RYAN-Well, I have never seen water at six or eight feet. That’s typically the depth that we test, a deep test hole. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RYAN-But normally if you have a proposed system that’s six feet deep, you would do a deep test pit that’s at least two or three feet below that. MR. FORD-Okay, and you make reference to having done others of these in this area. Are you talking about this area including this close to Glen Lake? MR. RYAN-Within 100 feet of the lakeshore. This one’s obviously right on top of the shoreline. I would suspect if we had groundwater coming out of the banks, then we would have a groundwater issue, but if you have 20 feet of grade within 50 feet, and there’s no water coming out of your side slope, then it’s difficult to say that there could be groundwater there. MR. FORD-So you’ve not been involved in a project of this magnitude this close to the lake? MR. RYAN-Not directly, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions for Dan? MR. SEGULJIC-That answers my question. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. TRAVER-There was a question raised in the Staff Notes regarding DEC, if they had been contacted with regard to possibly alteration to the shoreline, whether a permit would be required. MR. RYAN-Yes, Stephen, I did talk to them on Friday. Mark Migliore at the Warrensburg office, and their jurisdiction ends at the, that’s what he told me, at the mean high water mark, and I believe our silt fences would be at the, we’re really not going into the lake at all there. So we’re really not going to alter the shoreline whatsoever, other than putting the silt fences up, which we’ve done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. RYAN-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward on SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to have the test pit data first. MR. HUNSINGER-Dan, have you been to the site? MR. RYAN-I have not been to the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because one of the concerns that some of us have is, one of the pictures with the steam shovel in the background kind of showed, the bank has been opened up, and that’s probably the best picture, and when we were there Saturday, I think there is, you know, some potential for erosion, and, you know, I agree with Gretchen. I think waiting could pose greater risks. MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean, the only alternative would be to apply a temporary mulching barrier or something in the meantime, to prevent erosion. You could certainly blanket the slopes with a geo textile or some other type of netting or fabric to prevent erosion in the meantime, as an alternative? MR. SEGULJIC-And remember how this got here in the first place, they didn’t start properly. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, they started the project without approval. MR. SEGULJIC-They started the project without approvals, and I think what we’re asking for is very reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I think what Dan is recommending is to make an effort to prevent the erosion and get the pit information. MR. HUNSINGER-How quickly could you schedule test pits? MR. SMITH-We could do test pits tomorrow, if Dan’s free. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SMITH-But that doesn’t, you know, obviously if you table this until, you know, that’ll put us off. It seems like we could not do any work on the project if you approved it with conditions. Obviously, if we couldn’t meet the conditions, we couldn’t start the project, but if we could meet the conditions, then it seems like no work would start until we met the conditions. It seems like that would both satisfy Tom’s concerns as well as others, as well as the environmental concerns. It seems like we would satisfy both, certainly nothing’s happening until we meet these conditions, if that’s the way you were to proceed tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-There are landscaping mats which could go on that slope that would hold that until the completion or until you do get around to planting something on some of those slopes. MR. SMITH-Yes, Don, yes, we could. If we could proceed with the work within three or four days, all the slopes, the majority of the slopes would be gone. We could complete 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) the remaining retaining walls within a week, let’s say, and then there really will be very little slopes left, and then it’s just a matter of building the stormwater basins then, the stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern would be is your test pit, you don’t have adequate depth for your test pits as designed, your drywells as designed. That could change other designs. MR. SMITH-I think at this point, Tom, the homeowner would probably do, put tanks in at that point, if the test pits didn’t work, rather than change the design of the walls, because we’re fairly well committed to those. Because of the way the project started with them not applying for a permit, then I think rather, the work that would be done first to mitigate the slopes, to the walls, would be sort of separate from the stormwater system, and then if that stormwater system didn’t work we would know that, of course, right away, and of course if we didn’t meet the requirements we wouldn’t do any work anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you’d have to be back here to get a modification. MR. SMITH-Yes, that is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So it makes sense to me to do it properly. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a machine on site that can do that in five minutes, can’t you? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. SIPP-The machine we saw there last Saturday would certainly dig a test pit very quickly. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. SIPP-All you’d need to do is get it witnessed. MR. SMITH-Yes. I think my concern for the environment for the client would be more along the lines of that still would be another month before we were back here to get approval. Where, there’s a, I would say, from what I’ve seen from the site, and what I’m hearing from Dan at Vision here, is it seems like the possibility is much greater that the test pits will succeed. That’s all. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’m going to direct this to Blanche. Is there any way that, Mr. Smith just identified he could get those test pits done very quickly. We have two Planning Board meetings done next week, you know, we have two Planning Board meetings next week. Although it is highly unusual, because of the environmental issues here, could we turn this around in a week, so we could put it on next week’s agenda? MR. HUNSINGER-I would recommend Thursday night if we were to do that. MR. FORD-Yes, Thursday rather than Tuesday. It’s really up to the applicant and the engineer. MS. ALTER-Dan, can you do that? MR. RYAN-I could accommodate that. MR. SMITH-We can accommodate that for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Put them first on the agenda, you know, provided the test results come back as expected. MR. SMITH-Yes, no, I’d be happy to accommodate whatever schedule. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, however they come back. Don, how quickly could you provide the applicant, or to Staff to give the applicant, the native species list? You have it in your hand. There you go. MR. SIPP-I carry this with me for all Lake George and Glen Lake property. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I have my personal copy in my briefcase, but I didn’t want to give away my only copy. Okay. We did leave the public hearing open. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. SIPP-In using that, let’s look at at least five feet, and preferably ten foot wide. Because this being a Critical Environmental Area, I would rather see more than less. MR. SMITH-Don, a quick review shows me we can work with this. We can work with this. There’s some good species here. MR. SIPP-The approved one is what you want to work with, because that’s a sandy, these things will grow in a wide variety of soil conditions and moisture conditions, so that they are adaptable, and because of their height, they’ve got a good root system. MS. ALTER-Todd, would you be kind enough to make a copy of that and give it to Dan when he gets to the test pits? MR. SMITH-Absolutely. Yes, I can do that. MS. ALTER-Thanks. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’d like to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2007 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Table this to the April 26 Planning Board meeting, which will be the third Planning Board meeting of the month. This is tabled so that the applicant can address outstanding items identified in the Staff Notes and Vision Engineering comment letter of th April 13. The applicant will arrange for test pits to be dug for drywell stormwater controls, witnessed by the Town Engineer. The purpose of this is to verify adequacy of the test pits for drywells. The applicant will also provide an enhanced waterfront or shoreline re-vegetation plan with native species. This is plan correction. The applicant will also identify in their drawings no fertilizers to be used on landscaping. Also to identify on the drawings no new soils will be brought onto the site. th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN- Also to identify on the drawings no new soils will be brought onto the site, except for topsoil used for finish work. MR. FORD-No. MR. SMITH-Yes. I think we agreed to not bring any new soil. MR. FORD-No new soil. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Strike the topsoil comment. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SMITH-Thank you all. See you next week. MR. FORD-See you next week. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S) JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING P.U.D. LOCATION MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 6,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW USES IN THE PUD ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE PUD SP 44-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 13.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-8.1 SECTION 179-12 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. BARDEN-Most recently, this application proposing a 6,000 square foot office th building and associated site work was tabled at the March 27 meeting for the applicant to consider providing a buffer along the wetland and to have the Town Engineer present to discuss the wetland issues. No new information was submitted on this application. The public hearing remains open, and this is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller. I’m the project landscape architect for The Michaels Group, and with me is Eric Wilson of The Michaels Group, and we’re here tonight, you know, we had extensive discussions last meeting about stormwater management and stormwater runoff. So we’re here tonight to hear what Dan Ryan’s report is regarding this project and the drainage in this area. So without taking more time from the Board, unless you have any questions, we’re anxious to hear what Mr. Ryan has to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board of the applicant? MR. SEGULJIC-No questions at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-No questions? I guess, Dan, you’re on the hot seat again. DAN RYAN MR. RYAN-Can I wait until after the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, absolutely. Okay. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I can see there’s a lot of people from the neighbors that are anxious to make comments to the Board. I would ask, if you could, to try to limit your comments to three minutes, since there are so many people that want to speak. That would give everyone a chance, and just please, when you address the Board, to make sure you state your name and your address clearly into the mic so that we can get it on the record. Who would like to go first? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD BESTHOFF MR. BESTHOFF-My name is Richard Besthoff, and I live at Waverly Place. I hope that the members of the Town Planning Board had the opportunity to visit the worksite, to observe the problem that exists with stormwater management. I’m not speaking of a 100 year storm. I’m not speaking of an isolated case. This is an ongoing problem, and the more building that goes on, without a comprehensive plan for the future, can be catastrophic. I would like to review a few facts from the last meeting. Two young ladies that work at The Glen expressed their views about their cars hydroplaning down Meadowbrook Road as they were leaving to go home after work. Doug Coon, who owns the property just south of the proposed site spoke of the terrible water problem at the east end of his land right up to Meadowbrook Road. I would venture to guess that the flooding covers acres of that property. We had individuals from Waverly Place speak of water in their basements and poor drainage. It must be pointed out that our homes were built on clay, and that absorption quality of clay is nil. Homes north of the Scout camp and on the east side of Meadowbrook Road, the owners as of this morning, can fish out their windows because the water flows under the bridge, over the banks of Halfway Brook and floods their side yards and their back yards. On the northeast corner, I have another problem. On the northeast corner of the existing Meadowbrook Road, I say existing Meadowbrook Road, Amedore Homes are now being built. It is believed that because the new Meadowbrook Road at that point would be four to five feet higher. You can see that by looking at the sewers, where the sewers are and where the new road is going to be, five feet higher. The concern is the runoff that can find its way through the existing culvert under Meadowbrook Road and onto the Waverly common grounds and then to the wetlands. I understand that post construction runoff shall not exceed the prior runoff. I hope this is indeed the case. The entire Meadowbrook Road corridor needs to be evaluated. No one is against The Michaels Group, but each and every bit of new construction has its own impact on the area. I believe a detailed study and a Comprehensive Plan should be in place first before anyone breaks ground. I have some photos here that I put on a disk to clearly show the water situation along Meadowbrook Road, and after this disk, these pictures here, could you go back to the first one, please, Susan. There are more photos here than I had last time, and there’s another disk that shows, I think, just something that was either taken yesterday or the day before. Okay. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) This is Picture Number One. This shows the knoll where the new building, the proposed site is supposed to be, and you can see in the back the wetlands, how it’s already started to flood back there. If we look at Picture Two, this is a catch basin/wetlands right behind the Waverly homes. That goes right around, right behind the worksite that’s been proposed. This here, this Photo Number Three, this is just an enlarged view of the wetlands right behind the knoll where they want to put that building, showing how the flooding is, and this is a month ago. I’m sure the later photos will show much more flooding. This picture here, I was just trying to put it into perspective where The Michaels Group want to build, there’s their sign right along the road and there are the Waverly houses in the back, and you can see the wetlands right in that area. This here, if you can see in the upper left hand corner, there’s the sign from the Waverly, for the new site, and if you take a look, this is, like I say, the wetlands/catch basin that comes back, comes down from Waverly right along behind where they’re going to build, and the concern of the Waverly residents is that the drainage from that property up there on top of that little knoll is going to drain down into that catch basin, and we already have people that have water backing up into their basements because of this catch basin here, and if it floods more, we’re going to have more problems. This is just an enlarged view showing, like I said, I’d call it a knoll, that mountain over there where they plan to build, showing the water and the catch basin and the water in the back in the wetlands. This here is another view showing the wetlands. These are the trees in the back of where they want to build, and those are the houses. Those are Waverly homes. Now, this here is the horseman and the farmer, Doug Coon’s property. That’s his house and his barn back there, and this is the water that is almost, at that spot here it’s not all the way up to the road, but future photos you’ll see that the water has flooded acres of his property there. Again, this is another view, and that’s his house or his barn back there showing the heavy water, the flooding of the water in those, let’s say wetlands. Again, another shot from the road showing the water in there and his property is all the way back on the right hand side. We’re heading south, going south down from where they want to build. This, again, is his farmhouse and this is the water, showing how that’s all flooded, and I’m taking these photos right from the road. He’s got waterfront property. Again, there’s his fence in his back yard. This is the water. This is the water. This photo was taken from the road. MR. FORD-May I interrupt for just a moment. Could you reinforce when you took these pictures, please. MR. BESTHOFF-These were taken, I believe, a month ago, March, it’s on the top here. MR. HUNSINGER-These were the pictures you showed us last month. th MR. BESTHOFF-These were taken March 15, but there’s a few more photos in here than I presented last time. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BESTHOFF-And if you got a chance to take a look at this, the last two days, forget about it, how bad it is. Next photo, please. Just another shot showing the same thing. There’s flood of water here in the low area right off the road. This comes right up to, you know, almost up to the shoulder of the road. It’s just absurd. Again, another picture from another angle. There’s the farmhouse. There’s his fence, and that’s the property, all flooded, and that all works its way down. Now, this picture I didn’t show you last time. This here is the creek. This is the little brook that goes, little, it’s wide over here now, that goes under this bridge, and the next photo. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re now down in the Girl Scout property. MR. BESTHOFF-We are just north of the Girl Scout property. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s Halfway Brook. MR. BESTHOFF-Now we go across the road. Now this here, this stream is usually maybe two or three foot across at that point. Here I guess it’s maybe 10 or 12 feet, but as of this past day or two, this house here, I said they can fish right out their windows because the water is right up to the top, and that’s from the runoff. I think that’s all, but if you just want to breeze through the other one. I haven’t seen these, but it could probably shed a little bit more light on it, because these were taken I guess yesterday or today. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m sorry, who took these pictures now? MRS. BARDEN-Bruce Frank. MR. HUNSINGER-Bruce Frank? Okay. MR. BESTHOFF-Okay. You could just go through these. MRS. BARDEN-He has these pictures, and he also has some from Mr. Coon’s property as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask Mr. Miller one question? Could we go back one photo, there? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Those trees in the middle of. MR. MILLER-Were you asking where they are? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, where are those trees on the site plan? MR. MILLER-Well, you know, I don’t think they show on our survey. MR. SEGULJIC-Are they where the building’s going to be? MR. MILLER-No. Those, that wet area that you see there is part of this wetland that we have mapped, and I suspect those trees are probably right in this area and that water you’re seeing is actually that wetland area on the map. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was that all the pictures, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-I have some from the neighbor’s property if you’d like to see those as well. MR. BESTHOFF-Okay. We can see the flooding back there on that property, and that’s right from the road, and I believe these were taken yesterday. Is that correct, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-I think they were taken yesterday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BESTHOFF-Okay. I have just one other thing. I believe I heard that with this, if this was approved, they were going to have 24 parking spots, and I also heard that they plan that if there’s an overflow of cars, that they were going to park these cars alongside the road on the shoulder. Now I just heard that, and you tell me, I don’t know if that’s a fact or not, but that road is not wide enough to put cars on the shoulder. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll clarify that with the applicant. MR. BESTHOFF-And even to clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no plan for on-street parking. MR. BESTHOFF-Okay, well if there should be, then maybe, I don’t know if this is the right place or the right forum for it, that we can put up no parking signs along there because that’s a speedway. People, we have the police there all the time catching speeders, catching guys on their motorcycles doing wheelies. I mean, that’s a tough area, and if you’re going to have parking on the side, we have people walk their dogs along there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Zoning Code of the Town requires all parking to be on site. We do not allow on-street parking. MR. BESTHOFF-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re welcome. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. FORD-And the deputy was there giving good police protection today. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anyone else have comments? Yes, sir. DOUG COON MR. COON-Doug Coon. I just live south. I’m the one with the farm. I was here last time. The only thing, I just have a couple of more comments in addition to what I had said before. I think Mr. Miller did say that he would continue the landscaping plan around the south end of that building if it’s approved, and I just want to put that in the record because it ended right the front facing Meadowbrook, and it never did continue on the south end, which he said he would do. As far as the flooding goes, it is a problem, and it’s been a problem more so recently with all the build up there. I mean all the projects that have gone on that mainly what you see on my property is flooded from the stream that goes across it. That stream builds up. It floods its banks, and the culvert under Meadowbrook Road can’t handle it, and that’s the problem, and then Meadowbrook Road itself floods. So that’s a continual problem, and it happens a lot more frequently now than it did say 10 years ago when this was just purchased by Gary Bowen and really nothing was built on it at that point. So it is, it’s a lot more prevalent, and Rich had a good point really. I think, I’m not against this building at all. I’m not against the office building at all, but what makes complete sense is that some sort of a study should be done of this area because it’s flooding on a regular basis, and then a comprehensive plan to deal with it should be put in place. I mean, it’s not something that happens once or twice a year. That used to be the case. It happens a lot. I mean, these pictures that were just taken a few days ago show that as well. So, I mean, really, that’s, Tom said, on the last applicant, that was the right way to do it was to do those test pits. I mean, if you don’t have the test pits, you really don’t have a project, or you have to go back to the drawing board. Really right here you should take a look at this flooding, and really have a study done with that. I mean, my land does get flooded. Acres of it, and it’s not just me, it’s the whole area and the road, and Waverly Place, too, and then the people at The Glen. I mean, they had water in their dining room. So, I mean, that would be my suggestion. Rather than make a bad situation worse, in order to alleviate the problem, a proper study would be in order, I think, in order to find out what can be done, what can be built, have the water somehow directed to that culvert or make some recommendations on how to capture it. I guess that’s it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Who else? Any other takers? Yes, Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. Tonight I’ve heard testimony that people are experiencing flooded cellars. The land is flooding. With regard to flooded cellars, these are recently built buildings. If the cellars are flooding, it’s a condition of foundation failure. Usually if foundations fail, it’s a problem with differential settlement, and differential settlement comes about by building on poor soils. I would like to quote a few paragraphs from the Building Code of the State of New York. There’s been talk here tonight about the need for a study. I think it’s required, and I think the study should include a soil and foundation report, and that is something that’s required in Chapter 18 of the Building Code. It says where required, the Code Enforcement Officer, that refers to the Building Inspector, where required by the Building Code Enforcement official, the classification and investigation of soils shall be made by a registered design professional. The owner or applicant shall submit a foundation and soils investigation to the Code Enforcement Official where required according to sections mentioned here. Where are these? When is a soils investigation and classification required? I’ll read from paragraph, I’ll skip ahead here. Mud, organic silt, organic clays, peat or unprepared fill shall not be assumed to have a presumptive load bearing capacity unless data to substantiate the use of such a value is submitted. That data is what we call a soils and foundation investigation report. What we’re dealing with is a subject called expansive soils. In areas likely to have expansive soil, the Code Enforcement Official shall require soil tests to determine where such soils do exist, and of course the result of the foundation and soil report is a recommended soil bearing value at a given depth for the site conditions, and that’s what these buildings should be designed to. Now frequently, on sites like this where you have poor soils, it is really cost prohibitive to develop, because the foundation work that has to be done to ensure a stable foundation, that’s one that’s not going to crack, is just too cost prohibitive. Frequently in areas like this the foundation’s got to be piled. That’s a very costly undertaking. There is an exception offered in the Code. It says a presumptive load bearing capacity is permitted to be used where the Code Enforcement Official deems the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) load bearing capacity of mud, organic silt or unprepared fill to be adequate for the support of lightweight and temporary structures. These are hardly lightweight and temporary structures. So I submit that if any study is undertaken, or even if this project is allowed to proceed, that a foundation and soil investigation report be prepared with recommended soil bearing values. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. GILDA SIEGEL MRS. SIEGEL-Thank you. My name is Gilda Siegel. I was out of town when you first had your initial hearing, and I appreciate everything that was sent to us regarding the hearing. I live at the south end of Waverly Place, on a cul de sac which is Chelsea Place, and we do face what is supposedly forever wild and the nice little stream that bubbles past in the summer and bubbles forth in the Spring. My concerns have been expressed very aptly by Mr. Besthoff and Mr. Coon, and I appreciate the concerns of all the people in the area, and they’re rightfully concerned. We all are. I believe the study that was performed originally was in 1987, and it’s been 20 years, and a lot has happened in the area. It was farmland. It’s been developed. We’re very happy that it’s been developed. We’re very happy to see what’s going on in the area for Queensbury. We have become involved in the center and involved in the community, as you can see. We’re concerned citizens. We would like to see the right thing done. We’re not against development, but we don’t want our homes flooded out, and we don’t want to have to deal with something that is poorly planned. We ask you to review the project again. It’s 20 years. For every action, there’s a reaction, and you’re asking us to deal with impermeable surfaces that can’t absorb water. What will you do with all the water after you’ve paved? I thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. FORD-I have a question for Mrs. Siegel. MRS. SEIGEL-Yes. MR. FORD-Could you describe the water difficulty that you have in your basement currently? MRS. SIEGEL-Currently I don’t have a water problem. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. SIEGEL-You’re welcome. BARB HEWITT MRS. HEWITT-Good evening. I’m Barb Hewitt. I live at Waverly Place, and this is my neighbor Jack Hayes. JACK HAYES MR. HAYES-Jack Hayes. MRS. HEWITT-Mr. Ford, you asked Mrs. Siegel if she had a water problem in her basement. I purchased my house in 2001. By March, I closed in January. By March I was aware that there was a drainage problem. I addressed my concerns. It took me several months to have them lay drainage pipe so water did not come in my basement. MR. FORD-By them, you’re referring to? MRS. HEWITT-The Michaels Group. MR. FORD-The Michaels Group. MRS. HEWITT-I think Mr. Coons and Mr. Besthoff said it best. When I drive down Meadowbrook Road every day, there seems to be a serious problem. There is numerous water laying on the ground, and a lot of it has to do with the soil conditions out there. I would agree. A test is necessary to determine how much further development this area can handle. Where is the water to go? The soil is not soil that will absorb it. We keep on taking away the land that can hold it. I just have concerns. Like Mr. Coon 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) said, I guess I’m not against development, but I think we have to preserve the quality of what is already, and obviously the Town agreed my property was not as valuable as I thought it was when I bought it on Grievance Day. I won a grievance that my back yard was not usable and water was coming in my basement. MR. TRAVER-Ma’am, may I ask a question? MRS. HEWITT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, you can finish what you’re going to say. MRS. HEWITT-I have some pictures. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that there was modifications to the house or to the basement to handle a water problem. Could you tell us specifically, as best you know, what was done? MRS. HEWITT-A pipe was laid across the back of the lot, and a commercial size drain was put there. A smaller drain was put over to the side, between Jack’s house and mine. My gutters were directed down directly into this drainage system, and I believe that drainage system takes the water out to Meadowbrook Road. MR. TRAVER-So that piping and so on that you’re describing was outside of the house? In other words, this was not done in the basement? MRS. HEWITT-No. MR. TRAVER-This was done like in your back yard. MRS. HEWITT-In my back yard. MR. TRAVER-And did you experience water coming in your basement? MRS. HEWITT-Yes, I did. MR. TRAVER-And how did you handle that situation? MRS. HEWITT-I called The Michaels Group and said the water was coming in, and I had addressed concerns with the grading from the beginning, and the first Spring it was apparent that my house sat very low, and the way the grading was done, everything moved down to my house. My basement windows are very close to the ground. So if you have frozen ground and it rains or there’s melting snow and a lot of it, it did not take much to put the water above the window level, and water would come in. MR. TRAVER-So that’s where the water, the water that you ended up with in your basement was coming in through the window you believe? MRS. HEWITT-Yes, I have a picture here. It’s not a very good one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Has that problem been addressed or not? MRS. HEWITT-Yes. The Michaels Group did correct it. MR. FORD-You no longer have that water problem? MRS. HEWITT-I no longer have it. It remains a worry, because the water is always there in my back yard. When it rains, everything flows down. MR. TRAVER-And, ma’am, could you tell me, are you on Chelsea Place also? MRS. HEWITT-No, I’m not. I’m on 6 Waverly Place. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-I’m Jack Hayes. I live at 10 Waverly Place. I am concerned with the new building. I’m concerned with the drainage. What Barb said, that her house is right next to mine, at 10 Waverly, and the water will run right down through the back of the house, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) and if it does get high, which it did with Barbara’s house, it could come in. It didn’t come in my house because I’m a little bit higher, but I have some pictures here to show that I’d like to pass around, and Barbara has some pictures, too. The other man that spoke before mentioned about stabilization of soils and water and so on. That water that we have is surface water, top water. It lays on the top and proceeds around the buildings, in the drive areas. It runs off of Meadowbrook, and then into Waverly Place on the south end. I’ve got two pictures here I’d like to show you. This is not runoff like Richard’s from let’s say seasonal or Spring. This is in the summertime with a thunderstorm, and I would say we probably got a few inches of rain at that time. I’d like to pass these around so you people can look at them, and Barbara has. The clay soil, we all know, there’s no absorption in that. MR. FULLER-Mr. Chairman just make sure that any photos, that they realize that those are going to be submitted for the record. MR. TRAVER-Ma’am, excuse me. You discovered this problem in 2001 did you say? MRS. HEWITT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Sir, I think we’ll need to hold on to these. If we’re looking at them, they’ll need to be submitted into the record. MR. HAYES-Some information when you see those pictures, what I’m concerned with the building down there, the people have to egress the site into the parking lot from Meadowbrook Road. The water runs right down Meadowbrook Road. It washes out, and the Town has replaced the shoulders many times, and you’ll see in this picture, when it gets to you, where it runs into our area in the south end. The north end it runs very little in there, but the south end comes down. If a future development such as this building, the water will run right into that parking lot. Maybe they’ll have a dip or a culvert pipe underneath. I don’t know that. I didn’t review the drawings, but the water, if it runs in there, it’s going to impact it. It’s going to actually act as a funnel there, and what I heard the last time with the small drains at the end of the retaining wall, or the curbed area where the parking lot will be, in the wintertime that could become an ice skating rink. Because they will plug up, freeze up, I suspect, and that would be another problem for the tenant there, but any future development on Meadowbrook, if you widen that, put a bike lane in, you’ll compound the area of water that is not absorbed in the stone area along the perimeter of the road. It will actually be sheeted off into the adjacent properties as it runs down and collects. MR. SIPP-Can I ask, when this road, when Meadowbrook is plowed, who plows it, the Town or the County? MR. HAYES-I believe the County does the road. The Town does the, the Town does our Waverly Place. MR. SIPP-But Meadowbrook itself is plowed by the County? County truck plows the road? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a Town road. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a Town road. MR. HAYES-It’s a Town road. MR. SIPP-It’s a Town road? MR. HAYES-Yes, sorry. MR. SIPP-But the County is building the new section of that road. MR. HAYES-I’m not aware of that. So the new section will be built by Queensbury, but what we’re saying is the water all comes down to us, and you can see in those pictures, if you see there, this was two years ago. What The Michaels Group did in the back of Barbara’s house, and the back of Number Four, they tried to take the surface water, put it into the storm sewer, which it went into, which is along our road on the south side of the road, and this collects and then goes into the wetland which Richard showed, and by the picture, if you got to it, that I took through my window, that that water still comes in 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) there. It didn’t take it. The water, it still overpowers the system, and then it lays there for a period of time until it can go through into the storm lines. So this is not just now, the cold or the end of the season. This is going on all the time, but I think that the new building proposed, you really have to address the water situation there like we’re all expressing. MRS. HEWITT-And I do think that is the main thing. I’m not pointing fingers at the builder or the developer. I just feel that the land is saturated with development and has soil that does not absorb water. Hindsight is wonderful. Buying a home I would now know to ask what kind of soil is my house going to be built on. MR. FORD-Barb, could I ask, I just want to make sure I’m clear on this. The problem with the water in the basement, regardless of how it got there, was addressed in 2001? MRS. HEWITT-No. It took probably a year and a half. MR. FORD-Okay. In 2003 then? MRS. HEWITT-Probably. MR. FORD-So, in the last four years, have you had a problem with the water in the basement? MRS. HEWITT-No. MR. FORD-Okay. MRS. HEWITT-Okay. I have a letter here that I did send The Michaels Group, August th 29, 2005, expressing the concern that the rainstorm of August 16, the drains that were in place might not have been sufficient, and this was more in regards to warranty on the work that was done. I had been told that because of it being extremely wet a particular season, that this was unusual. It continued, and finally we came to an agreement that the problem would be fixed, but I went a couple of years addressing the water that pooled on my lot just because of the grading, which I felt was not correct to begin with. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did anyone else want to comment? Yes. ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-Roger Boor. Hi, folks. I’m going to refrain from commenting on this particular project that’s in front of you, because as a Town Board member I’m not sure of the appropriateness. You’re a Board of your own. We try to keep an arms length distance, and certainly I’m not here to sway you one way or the other. However, the woman who spoke before me said some things that are of a serious concern to me, and it appears that a site plan modification was done without your approval on her house, and if I’m to believe her, and I have no reason not to, apparently stormwater was diverted from her property, off of her property, which we know is not allowed. So, irrelevant of the application that’s in front of you tonight, I would ask that you investigate if this has happened more than once, and even if this is an isolated incident, I think you’re all aware that that’s inappropriate. It’s not allowed, and I certainly don’t want to think that this happens on a regular basis. So I would caution you, when you provide an applicant with an approval, that they understand that they can’t, after the fact, come by and change things without your authorization. So, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. PHIL MITCHELL MR. MITCHELL-I’m Phil Mitchell. I live on Moon Hill Road. Moon Hill Road, nowhere near here, but anyway, that brook is a nice little brook there, and I used to see people fishing out of it. Is there any concerns about that and that water runoff and how that impacts that brook and fish and the stock in it and things like that? That’s been addressed by the applicant? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a concern, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not been addressed. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. MITCHELL-It’s not been addressed. Okay. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. If the applicant and our engineer want to come up to the table. I don’t know if you have any comments to the Board after listening to the public comments? MR. MILLER-No, I don’t think so. I think, you know, I agree with all the comments that we’ve heard. We addressed this at the previous meetings. This is a low area that comes down, you know, one thing I would like to explain is that this water shed that comes down, this brook that’s behind Waverly and comes down around and actually it comes behind our property here, and it crosses in front of Mr. Coon’s property, that’s this brook behind us goes underneath Meadowbrook heading south, then goes down behind Rich Schermerhorn’s apartments where it flows into Halfway Brook. The other pictures that we saw in the stream that was discussed about fishing is Halfway Brook, which as you know is down by the Girl Scouts. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MILLER-So, you know, they’re a little bit different watersheds, and this flooding is, you know, if you look at the topography in this area, this is a drainage area that comes down. It comes from the golf course, you know, Hiland Golf Course comes down across Haviland down through here, and if you look at the topography, what everybody is saying the soils are clay soils, but if you also look at the topography, you see this whole area is very flat, and, you know, so what happens when you get a storm and the snow melts, it drains into this low area, and these areas are all wetlands for a reason, because this is what they do, and so I don’t disagree with any of that. What our proposal is, is similar to what’s happened, if you look at Mr. Coon’s house, it’s built on a high property, the high ground, and you look at the Waverly houses, they’re built on a higher portion, and, you know, Rich Schermerhorn’s project, all this is built on the high grounds around this wetland area, and, you know, I share everybody’s concerns. Our proposal is to utilize the piece of high ground at the south end of Waverly. What The Michaels Group did in their master plan for this project is they looked at three parcels that they went before the Town Board with, and the center portion was the Waverly Place, which has been constructed, and on the master plan it identified this parcel as an office building and it identified additional housing on the parcel to the north, and all the land that was comprised of the wetlands was, and the drainage areas, was all included in the common lands, and that was the intent, is that those areas would be held commonly and would be undeveloped and the other parcels around it would be allowed to be developed. I think, you know, with that, you know, I’m anxious to hear what Dan Ryan’s investigations have resulted in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I guess you’re up, Mr. Ryan. Thanks, again, for coming. MR. RYAN-Yes. For the record, I’m Dan Ryan, acting Town Engineer. Basically I guess I’d like to start with a couple of different issues. I’d like to kind of separate them into the different categories you seem to be hearing on a recurring basis here. There seem to be three separate themes that I feel are critical for this particular project, one being stormwater hydraulics or hydrology, the other being sensitivity to wetlands, and then the third recurring topic seems to be flooding or groundwater issues in basements. I’d like to touch on the easy one, at least in my impression, would be flooding in basements. I did venture out to the site yesterday to research the flooding that was ongoing, based on the recent storm. It seems that a couple of the residences at Waverly Place were built too low into the ground, maybe even by only a foot or so. It seems that all of the Waverly Place buildings have gravity discharging foundation drains which outlet to the wetlands to the rear of that particular development. Most of them were free flowing and actually in good condition. The one that seems to be having the most complaints regarding flooding, the outlet was actually submerged in the stormwater basin that was created for Waverly Place. So that is not relevant, I guess, to the actually flooding in the wetlands that you’re seeing in the pictures. The outlet of the foundation drain that floods is in the stormwater basin of Waverly Place. So I’d just like to separate that particular issue. I feel that that is really not relevant to the actual flooding conditions that exist in the wetlands. I think that’s more of the actual construction conditions, and probably the 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) placement of the buildings and their relationship to the actual grades in the perimeter of the buildings. Has anybody got any questions regarding that in particular? MR. TRAVER-Is there any practical way to mediate that in any way? MR. RYAN-Yes. I mean, oftentimes I research a lot of basements with flooding. Oftentimes speculative solutions are taken care of, and it sounds like they did some surface grading and then drainage conditions to help mitigate runoff that was basically directing towards their house which obviously typically would not be a good idea. Sumps are usually the correct answer, and in this particular instance they do have gravity foundation drains which don’t require electricity or sumps. They’re intended to gravity drain to the lower areas behind them, and it seems that most of them are actually doing that. Anything else from that? I see some funny looks. MR. FORD-Just a question on the gravity, use of gravity. That must be based upon an assumption that that water and gravity will continue to take that water away, but if the water reaches a certain level, gravity will not take it away. MR. RYAN-At the outlet? Yes. If the outlet condition is flooded, then, no, you’re exactly right. The reverse happens, where the floodplain travels into the basement. MR. FORD-Exactly. MR. RYAN-So I guess what I’m saying, though, is the one particular residence that floods in the basement currently via underground water is actually because the outlet is in the storm basin. The storm basin is a couple of feet higher. I don’t know if it’s in one of those pictures. Maybe, Susan, you can go back to the rear of Waverly Place. MR. HUNSINGER-So you could visually see the outlets of these gravity foundation drains? MR. RYAN-Yes, they’re free flowing. A couple of them were covered, were backfilled with dirt right over the top of them. So the water’s coming out of the grade. So they should probably be maintained in probably a better outlet condition should be installed. Have you got that CD? MR. SIPP-What would be your estimate of what would happen when the road, the Meadowbrook Road is, the new portion is constructed and drainage put in there? MR. RYAN-Well, I haven’t had a chance, I mean, I’m in the process of doing a more in- depth study of the area. I have not seen all the proposed plans for that. So I don’t know for sure. That will eventually have a report on that particular topic. MR. SIPP-If that is considered to be four, five foot higher, and the sewage drains for that road, is that going to basically affect Waverly? MR. RYAN-Well, I don’t know the drainage paths that are proposed. I think that they’re proposing to continue the existing drainage path, which is along Waverly Place’s northern boundary, I think. Outlets at both the north and south of their property, but okay, as you can see here, there’s, where you see the water, towards the bottom of the picture, and you see some cattails there, and then you see the hump just immediately behind that of snow, and then there’s a stormwater basin on the opposite side of that, which was constructed to accept stormwater from the roads of Waverly Place. Number One, that stormwater basin should be maintained and should not be allowed to fill with vegetation. The culverts are actually plugging and the stormwater basin is probably not going to function like it’s supposed to in the future, if it’s not maintained properly, but in any event, that stormwater basin is a couple of feet higher than the water that you see there in that picture, and that stormwater basin is where the outlet of that foundation drain occurs. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, I have a question. You said the culverts from the storm drains from Waverly Place are plugged. Who’s responsibility is it to keep those clean? MR. RYAN-Yes. I believe it’s the Homeowners Association is responsible for stormwater. I’m not 100% sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I don’t know who is responsible for that. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-But it should be maintained, just as a side note. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RYAN-So I guess all in all, the fact that there are basement issues is probably more along the lines of a construction problem, rather than a development problem. The other part of that is if we have, we’ve heard recurring statements of impervious soils, groundwater cannot move very well, or it does very slowly in impervious soils. Most of the water on this site is runoff. So you should take that into consideration as well. I think if you dig a foundation hole in clay and don’t outlet that hole properly, it fills up with water. The second issue I’d like to talk about is the hydraulics of this project. There’s been a couple of questions regarding increased runoff from the site. Obviously that’s a legitimate concern for any development. In general, development will certainly reduce any infiltration that’s potentially existing on the site, thereby increasing runoff from the site. The purpose of the hydraulic requirements of the Code and New York State, for that matter, require very specific guidelines for mitigation of stormwater. Number One, basically we’re required to have a water quality volume analysis, which treats, basically the purpose of that is to allow treatment of the water that would be coming from paved surfaces or surfaces with potential pollutants. Part of that requirement has been met by providing for a retention on site in a stormwater basin, allowing pollutants to settle out prior to discharge from the site. Second component of the regulations is over bank flood control. The purpose of that is to prevent your project from increasing discharges that could exceed the capacity of any stream, adjacent or tributary to this particular project. That requirement has also been met by the applicant, assuming their proposed basin is constructed properly and designed properly. Another requirement of the regulations is extreme flood control, and again the mathematics and hydraulics in the report indicate that that has been met, and that’s holding a 100 year storm to pre-development rates, so that discharge is not exceeded from pre-development, and saying that, obviously it is evident across the Town, I work extensively with the Town Board on drainage issues, that I guess if all developments reduced discharge to pre-development rates, I guess our streams would be getting less not more, which isn’t occurring. So, in saying that, there is obviously all calculations there’s hypothetical parameters that have been extensively studied that are used. So there’s obviously some assumptions there, and secondly, the actual construction of these basins has to follow strict guidelines as far as it being in accordance with the calculations to make sure they match. Subsequent to construction projects, a lot of times things are changed, and that also has a significant impact on how the drainage course of the project can work, and I’ve seen that on recent studies. Obviously, you know, you have to take into consideration, another point here is the fact that, you know, the flooding is an existing condition. It’s not going to go away with the development, without a certain study or mitigation taken to address it. To put this storm or the flooding in the pictures you’ve seen today into perspective, that was 1.8 inches of rain in the last two or three days. I don’t even think that’s a two year design storm. So that flooding occurs probably on a regular basis where there’s at least two inches of rain, which is probably quite common throughout the summertime, I would imagine, and saying that, you know, this project has a decent design for hydraulics, and I feel that, based on the analysis, it seems that the discharges from this site will be comparable to the pre-development rates. Currently with zero infiltration, or a small percentage of infiltration, in the clay soils, most of this water is running off to the ground. The third topic here of interest is wetlands. I’m not going to claim to be a wetland expert, and I think if you want a wetlands expert, you need to consult one, because I’m certainly not going to give you everything you need to know for that, but I do have a couple of notes that I took regarding the wetlands here. Currently, you know, there’s two agencies that regulate wetlands. We have the Army Corps of Engineers and New York State DEC. I think the wetlands for this particular project at least that are closest to this project, are Army Corps of Engineer wetlands, which coincidentally do not have any specific buffer zones required currently. Typically wetland delineation, and it appears that a wetland delineation was done at some point for this project. There’s several factors that go into that, when field delineating wetlands. The three particular parameters are vegetation, soils and hydrology. Vegetation has to have, the type of vegetation and wetlands has to have the ability to persist in an anaerobic condition, and anaerobic conditions basically are saturated conditions that have minimal oxygen availability. Soils, basically wetland soils are typically hydric, and again, they’re saturated and typically promote the anaerobic conditions present for the vegetation, and thirdly hydrology is an important feature of wetlands, in that basically an area that’s inundated permanently or periodically could supply the adequate saturation or water necessary for a wetlands to exist. It is evident, I think, by the pictures and the delineations on the map, that there’s certainly 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) quite a bit of wetland area surrounding this project. Some of it seems to be just drainage courses where the water is pooled into depressions, and other it’s underlying lowlands that are basically flat, probably inundated by the over bank floods of the stream. Certainly this project could impact wetlands. Again, I’m not a wetland expert, and I haven’t been in the field, and I’m not able to delineate myself. I think the delineation for these wetlands were done, I believe it says on the map in 2000, and obviously I was not present at that, but I guess if there’s a concern, you know, for wetlands and this project, to me the safest course of action would be to make sure that delineation is accurate, since it has been several years since the most recent delineation. If there’s concern for wetlands, I think that’s probably an appropriate thing to do, to make sure that the project doesn’t infringe on those. I work extensively with the Town Board on lots of different drainage issues. I think certainly this area is sensitive to that, and I think, knowing what I know about all the different areas of the Town that have problems, I know certain individuals would probably consider taking, you know, action on different projects relating to stormwater issues, and I think that that should be also taken into consideration, that there is the possibility here that, you know, if we have a stormwater study that’s currently ongoing and there’s projects currently being submitted for those areas, that they should, probably either special action or delayed action should be taken to make sure that the two coincide together, and that has been a recommendation, obviously, by many of the neighborhood people. Any other questions? MRS. BRUNO-You mentioned that you were starting to study the area at large. Was that one of the projects that the Town Board asked? MR. RYAN-That is something I am going to be beginning. I am in the initial stages of looking at the entire Meadowbrook watershed area, particularly related to, you know, the area from the Girl Scouts north, basically where most of the flooding occurs. This watershed, you know, coincidentally this watershed is not overly developed. The stream culvert that backs up now just south of this project most of the watershed occurs between Meadowbrook and Bay Road, and north of Haviland, a relatively wooded area. So I mean this flooding occurs really without a predominantly large amount of development. So I guess, you know, to say that the problems are going to go away with more development obviously would be misconception. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that I heard from Staff, based on your comments this evening, I misunderstood, because I heard a comment about some culverts that weren’t working properly. I assumed that that was the culvert that goes underneath Meadowbrook Road just south of this site. Did you look at that culvert at all? MR. RYAN-I have been to the site, and I’ve been to that culvert several times. Basically what we have in that particular area is two very flat, large expanses that range in elevation by not more than a foot, and that occurs on both sides of the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RYAN-So the culvert was 10 times that road, I think the floodplain would just expand to both sides of the road, rather than basically be contained on the east side, which it does currently. Certainly the culvert promotes more flooding to the east than the west, and the west side might currently be more conducive to have flooding because there’s less going on on that side, but it’s basically two very large flat areas that very slowly attenuate peak flows from upland areas. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you were to, I don’t know if the culvert’s currently fully operating, but if you were to make sure that that culvert was fully cleared or enlarged, all you do is shift the flooding problem to the other side of the road. MR. RYAN-Yes, which, you know, I don’t know if anything will ever be proposed on the other side of the road, but again, yes, you’re basically, it’s so flat that that’s, I’ve got to believe that the area would just redistribute itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern deals with the wetlands and the fact that there’s no, as it’s proposed, there is no buffer between the mapped wetlands and the bank. MR. RYAN-Of the property. MR. SEGULJIC-Of the property. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. RYAN-Yes. I think we had talked about this briefly. I think I read in the minutes it was briefly touched on at the last meeting. Basically the question came up as how much fill, since this project does have substantial fill, how much of that impacts the current flood zone, so to speak, of the area, and as you can see, it floods relatively close to this project. I did read your minutes from the last meeting, and I actually looked into that slightly. The proposed project currently as it stands, with the fill requirements that they’re showing, I think the flooding is basically that we’re seeing based on walking the site, not necessarily from a survey, but walking the site, the flooding seems to predominantly occur around Elevation 301-ish. I don’t have a map in front of me, so I’m not sure. I think that’s 301. The area that, the wetland just to the, I guess it would be to the south/southwest, that’s Elevation 301. Okay. So I think it’s Elevation 302, actually. So it seems to me that with two inches of rain we can reasonably expect floodplain to extend into the 301, 302 Elevation, okay, based on the site plan I’m looking at here. The proposed amount of fill in less than Elevation 302 currently is about 160 or so cubic yards of fill. That’s how much would impact below the current 302 Elevation, okay. So you could reasonably say, with two inches of rain, we would have 160 cubic yards of volume less for floodplain issues, and that probably amounts to about 1200 gallons, I think, thereabouts. Now when you go from Elevation 302 to 304, and again, I don’t know what a 25 or 50 year flood zone would be in this particular area. A two inch rain is not nearly a 25 year or 50 year storm. So I guess we could reasonably assume that the floodplain would reach a higher elevation than 302, but currently it looks like there’s probably on the range of 550 to 600 cubic yards of fill between Elevation’s 302 and 304. I don’t have my calculator so I can’t convert that. So that’s basically the impacts between, for less than Elevation 302, which is probably the current flood stage, and then between 302 and 304 is between 550 and 600 cubic yards. So there is, I guess to answer your question, there is potential impact on the flood zone itself if it were to extend up to those elevations. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense to bring the tow of the slope, tow of the development slope back to give the wetland area more room to breath? MR. RYAN-For a buffer basically you’re speaking? I mean, certainly it’s a legitimate requirement. I often have seen where they’ve installed retaining walls, rather than grading a three to one slope, putting in retaining walls so that you get a lot more buffer that way. Obviously you may not want to see concrete walls. It looks like a bunker, you know, surrounding a building, but it is an option, like you said, moving the zones, moving the areas back. MR. SEGULJIC-So they could move the slope back, put a stone retaining wall there? MR. RYAN-Because you could gain three feet of elevation or so with a stone wall, yes. You would certainly increase or decrease that impact, for sure. MR. SEGULJIC-That would give it more room. Another thing is if the Association cleans out their stormwater retention basin, that would also help. MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean, that basin appears to be a wetland now, but it really should be maintained regularly. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’ll give you more capacity upstream. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-That was one question I had for you generally is with past applications that have large wetland basins, have you imposed or had agreements for the maintenance of those basins? Because you’re going to start seeing. MR. RYAN-I think most projects now, in the future, require a maintenance plan. Historically that probably wasn’t the case. So it’s really enforcement at that point. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I hear you saying is it would make sense to give it more breathing room. The way we could accomplish that is probably by having a vertical wall instead of a slope. MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean, to answer your question, the fill does impact the potential flood zone. I don’t know what the flood zone is based on, you know, I haven’t done a full study, and eventually we may know that number, but we may not know it in the 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) immediate future, but certainly it’s a mitigating measure to allow more breathing room and to put less fill in a potential flood area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That answers my question. MRS. BRUNO-Don’t forget, though, Tom, that we have in our Code, and it was something that looks like it was overlooked for quite a while, that the height of the neighboring retaining walls have to be lower than we see in many areas of Town, and that is in our Code, and I think it was just overlooked for quite some time, and most likely so that we don’t get that bunker wall look, and I think that’s important aesthetically. MR. RYAN-Yes. Certainly there’s more decorative terracing and things that could be done that maybe would be more conducive to the area. It depends on the tradeoffs essentially, what you gain. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, what I think we should do is have the wetlands delineated and request to have a retaining wall type structure that would give it more breathing room. What would make sense to me is if we had the wetlands re-delineated, because I understand that they were in 2000 or so. MR. RYAN-Seven years. Things can change, obviously. MR. SEGULJIC-I would request that, and then, Number Two, instead of having a slope, have it more of a vertical retaining wall to bring the wall back further. MR. RYAN-Yes. I think if they were going to go to the extent of delineating wetlands, they may have good reason to stake the building out and maybe provide some better information in the field. It seems like there’s a lot of question as to where is this tree, where is the site, where is that actual building, and if that was actually staked out, it would probably certainly help with everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions for Mr. Ryan from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I just wanted to clarify something, because I had asked a question, when last we discussed this project, of Mr. Miller apparently, that essentially asking for his response to the question of whether or not this project would result in a net increase in the total volume of water, and at that time, he did not feel that it would. It sounds as though your testimony tonight is that in fact it would. MR. RYAN-I don’t have the stormwater report with me. I probably would have checked that. I don’t recall. I can certainly look into that, for sure. MR. TRAVER-I guess what I’m referring to is when you’re talking about the number of yards of fill. MR. RYAN-Number of yards of fill? MR. TRAVER-Right. In other words, the net result of this project. MR. RYAN-Of impact in the flood area. MR. TRAVER-It would effectively reduce the total volume available for? MR. RYAN-Yes, there would be a reduction. MR. TRAVER-Okay, thank you. MR. RYAN-And I haven’t converted those cubic yards to gallons or some other parameter that’s easier to define. MR. FORD-Could you delineate a little more, Dan, please, this watershed analysis that you have initiated and the extent of that and how long this is going to take? MR. RYAN-I guess I suspect, you know, a five to six or eight week study time is probably reasonable, so you’re looking at a month or two. A lot of it’s gathering data. Part of my objectives for this area is to review all the past developments along Meadowbrook and their stormwater designs to make sure they’re functioning properly or installed properly 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) and to make sure they address downstream issues when they were designed, and so that will be part of that, and, you know, maybe something could be, some cause and effect there could also be included. So that’s part of it. The other part of it is to figure out how much, you know, what is the total watershed, and is that single culvert under Meadowbrook Road, should it be twice that size? Even though that will help the flooding on the east, I think like we stated before, it would redistribute the flooding, but still to have the ability to attenuate a 50 year storm would certainly be a requirement. MR. FORD-Will you go so far as to make recommendations relative to development along that road? MR. RYAN-I’m not sure I would venture into there. I think what I would rather do is probably provide factual data and information for consideration. MR. FORD-Which then could be interpreted. MR. RYAN-By the Town Board or Planning Board, yes. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. RYAN-Yes, absolutely. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other questions for Mr. Ryan? Thank you very much. MR. RYAN-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any additional comments based on what you just heard? MR. MILLER-Yes. There was an awful lot of information there, and basically I agree with everything Mr. Ryan said. There was a couple of things, though, that I’d like to point out. One of his comments talked about this last rainfall being a 1.8 inch rainfall. I think what you’ve got to take into account a lot of times is not just the amount of rain you get but the circumstances, and we have a situation where you have frost in the ground, which, there’s no leaves out. There’s no vegetation, which provides a lot more runoff from that rain than you would get, say, during the summer storm, and the other condition we had snow on the ground. So that 1.8 inches, with everything else considered, may have been equivalent to a three inch storm. So, you know, I think it was more significant than that. The other thing, there’s been talk about floodplains. One thing to be clear of here is this area that we’re looking at is not a mapped floodplain. It floods, obviously, but, you know, the floodplain in this area is basically along the channel of Halfway Brook, which is far to the east and the south of us. As a matter of fact, that one home that was shown, the gray home where they said they could fish out the window, that’s right in the floodplain. So that’s where the floodplain is. This particular area is a floodway for this stream, but it’s not a mapped floodplain, and one of the things that was talked about also was the flooding in this area, and the wetlands, wetlands are created by the presence of water that can be about anything, and the area, in the back here, where the stream runs, this is a stream that runs from north to south, and this is the one that goes to the culvert in front of Mr. Coon’s property, and this is the way the DEC wetland is mapped, and this is also the stream where the majority of the deep flooding you saw in the photos was occurring to the south of us, where this stream hits Meadowbrook, and where Dan was talking about that culvert is probably creating some damming in that area. So we do have a floodway that comes down through here. I think in looking at the site, and I think it’s evident in the, see that’s looking at our site looking south. So that’s right where that stream crosses down there. So that’s where the floodplain actually is back there and mostly to the south, but what happens here is the wetland behind our property and the wetland to the north, as a matter of fact, Susan, you had that picture showing that wetland basin there that Dan was referring to. This is the wetland, this is the stormwater basin that’s at Waverly, and that was the dike that we’re showing that contains that. This section of wetland here is a drainage corridor. This is not, in my opinion, it’s not related to the flooding that occurs from the stream. There’s the 36 inch culvert under Meadowbrook at this point that flows from east to west, that’s coming from the Glen at Hiland, and that drainage way comes down through here into that stream, and there’s probably only a couple foot of drop across that entire distance there. So that’s why this area is a wetland. So this really isn’t part of the floodplain. I think if Dan goes into this and studies where the flooding occurs and which drainage, is this is a drainage swale that flows straight to the back, and this section of wetland, you know, where our site is, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) it’s a mounded area that drains down towards that tree that Tom was asking about in the back. Our site predominantly drains this way, and what happens is this section of wetland is created where the runoff from our site hits that lower flat area, and again, you know, we have impeded drainage. So that’s created there. So I think, you know, there’s some different discussions here about flooding versus wetland drainage channels, and I believe that these areas are drainage channels, and that’s why we have that wetland condition, and the flooding is really somewhat removed from that. I understand what Mr. Seguljic is saying about having more space there, but I think, you know, as this study goes forward, you’re going to find that there’s less flooding from that stream up into this 302 area than we’re thinking occurs. The other thing to remember about this watershed, if you look at how much it floods, it’s so flat and it’s very expansive that, you know, the difference between a 50 year storm and a 100 year storm may only be six inches difference in the flood level in that area, only because of the expanse of it. So it may not be something where it floods from Elevation 303 up to 305. It may only go from 302 to 302.5 or something like that. So, you know, I don’t disagree with anything that’s been said, and I think that, you know, our project as we’ve designed it, and I think as Mr. Ryan said, is sensitive to these drainage conditions that surround us, but I’m not sure where we are now. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just about to ask. What’s the will of the Board? Who wants to go first? MR. FORD-I’ve been listening intently, and I realize that Dan currently is working on a project that is going to provide the Town Board and the Planning Board with a great deal of information, information that will be able to be interpreted and analyzed to give us guidance with the development along this road. We understand that we’ve got commitments to a modification in Meadowbrook Drive. We’ve got a commitment to the Amedore construction, construction across Haviland Road, and in addition to that, there also is The Michaels Group building to the north of the current project. MRS. STEFFAN-And the potential change in road. I just want to add that. MR. FORD-And the change in the structure of the road, and the potential for elevating that up to five feet or so. Personally, I see nothing that can be gained by making a decision at this time that would provide a hazard to anybody if we were to delay any further consideration of approval of any development along this road until we’ve had an opportunity to receive and analyze this watershed analysis. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make that in the form of a motion? MR. FORD-I wasn’t prepared to do that, but you wanted some information, reactions to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-When is that report expected? MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ryan said it would take five or six weeks. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. MR. RYAN-Yes, like a couple of months, to get it, receive it, analyze it. MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of months. MR. MILLER-What are you asking, that we be tabled until that report? MR. SEGULJIC-Until we get that information. ERIC WILSON MR. WILSON-Eric Wilson with The Michaels Group. First let me just for the record, and I had said it last time, so I’ll say it again, in reference to a lot of the comments that were heard tonight. It is to my knowledge, and I welcome anybody behind me to correct me if I’m wrong, but within, and I’ll say it conservatively, within the last two years, The Michaels Group does not know of any flooding basements, any water flooding a basement in that area. I don’t know of any. I would ask them if they have it to please contact us. I’m sure it might be greater than two years, but I’ll say two years for the record. To answer your question, obviously we have a contract pending for this building to be built, and it has time constraints like most contracts, of which we were teetering, as of last month, when it was tabled. So anything past tonight unfortunately, to say that there’s no impact would be incorrect because we will lose our contract. Now, you know, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) again, I mean, obviously, I know that may not effect anybody here, but it is an impact to our company. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate you telling us that. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’m kind of on the fence, based on the comments by our Town Engineer, Mr. Ryan. Yes, on my notes, certainly after Mr. Salvador came up, he gave me a remedy that I’ve been considering, and I didn’t know that there was a contract for a study of the Meadowbrook Road flooding. We’ve had some discussions on the Planning Board in some of our continuing education programs about floodplains, and we know that there was a floodplain issue on a PUD on the golf course, and when we had an in- service education by Dave Hatin, he explained to us that that floodplain had not been delineated, the delineation of that floodplain is several years old, and the government won’t get to re-evaluating that floodplain delineation for at least 10 years. So just as, you know, we’ve talked about delineating the wetland boundaries of this particular parcel, there are other issues that we need to consider. Certainly times have changed. We’ve looked at several subdivisions in the area, and there is one that comes to mind that was on Ridge Road, and there were several folks from Meadowbrook Road who came and talked during the public hearing portion of that application and talked about the significant increase in water in their yards over the past several years of development, and the applicant at that point had argued that that was irrelevant to their project and obviously wanted approval. This is an ongoing concern. We keep hearing from folks on Meadowbrook. I’ve been on the Planning Board for three years, you know, and we keep hearing this feedback. So I’m glad that we’ve contracted for a study, and certainly Mr. Salvador provided some information on soil foundation reports along with soil bearing values, and I would certainly want, as a Planning Board member, some potential remedies, because information is one thing, but recommendations for fixes is another. Looking at this area, I also think that one of my feelings here is that I think that the Planning Board needs to request that the Town Board re-open SEQRA on this PUD. We’ve had a couple of applications that we’ve reviewed, and there’ll be a couple of more coming in front of us, and we don’t have to do SEQRA on these plans because there was a SEQRA done as part of the original PUD, but, you know, there’s an area specifically in SEQRA, will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff, and certainly if we review this application from that criteria, you know, there’d be one area that would be of concern, and yes you have provided information in your stormwater report that identifies that the problems can be mitigated, but then when we go back to, are the wetlands properly delineated, it’s a question mark. So that’s a recommendation I have, to request that the Town Board re-open the SEQRA on the Planned Unit Development. I certainly think that we need to recommend to Blanche, as Councilman Boor brought up, and a couple of us were thinking during the conversation, that if there was a modification to the Waverly Place subdivision, then Code Enforcement has to look into that, and so those are some of my feelings on where we are right now. Do we table this? I don’t know. The engineer said that we should have the wetlands delineated. However, it’s not going to change the runoff patterns on that site, not the runoff patterns, but the volume of stormwater that will come off that site will not be changed. So I don’t know whether tabling it is the absolute right solution or not. MR. FULLER-Just to give you one quick comment on that. I don’t know that the door is completely closed under SEQRA for the Planning Board. We’re going to look into that and get you an answer. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FULLER-Historically thinking from my applicant side, I thought the Planning Board still had SEQRA, and I think it was somewhat generic at the PUD level, because as all these developments come back, they go back to the Town Board for a general compliance with that PUD, and I don’t know that the initial SEQRA review of the entire PUD foreclosed all future SEQRA review. I don’t know that it got that detailed. We’ll look into that. MS. ALTER-I think there’s sufficient new information that the Town Board could, if they wish, open it, or this Board, open it on the basis of drainage, because you have wetlands that were delineated a very long time ago. The Town mandates under MS-4 are different. I’ve drafted new stormwater and wetland regs that the Town Board will be reviewing shortly, and they may wish to, I think it was a good suggestion on your part, Gretchen, to suggest to the Town Board that they may want to re-open SEQRA. We certainly have a lot of testimony about stormwater and other issues that things have changed over the period of time when this PUD was first approved. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. STEFFAN-And I certainly think, you know, as well look at this area, and I thought this with the application I talked about a little earlier, you know, should we allow continued development with a potential consequence of flooding existing properties? I know we have to work within some of the Codes that are available to us in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but it just seems very unfair to me to allow people who have been living in their homes for some time and have been paying taxes on those properties, to allow them to be flooded, and further submerged underwater when we can’t explain why. I think that that’s unfair. MR. SEGULJIC-And especially if we acknowledge that there’s going to be a report done shortly. I guess the question is, can you guys slow down and can you speed up? Seriously. MR. WILSON-I guess my question to you would be, who’s calling for the report? When is it due? And, you know, how long are we asking? They just found out tonight. I don’t even know who’s asking for the review or when it was established, and where the report is going, who’s it going to. I mean, it’s the first time we heard about it also. RICHARD SANFORD MR. SANFORD-Richard Sanford, Queensbury. I know you closed, I think, the public comment. So I appreciate having the opportunity to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we left it open. MR. SANFORD-Okay. As you know, I’m the Councilman for Ward Two, and I’m very active with the flooding issues that have taken place in Ward Two. We, as a Town Board, have been discussing it, and last night discussed it even more in Town Board discussions, and are moving forward with a comprehensive study on Meadowbrook Road that you’ve heard about, and we were hoping that the Planning Board would take the kind of action that I’m hearing tonight, so that we can get this study done before you move forward. We looked, also, into passing a local law to do this, but the preference that I had would be that if the Planning Board could see their way to table this, then perhaps we wouldn’t have to take the action of the local law to do this comprehensive study, because you could do it, I checked with Counsel. You could do it by way of your role as Planning Board. So if you think it’s a good idea to table this while this study gets completed, then that’s totally acceptable. In the absence of which, the Planning Board could, or the Town Board, excuse me, could take action to pass a local law to do it, and we wouldn’t have a problem doing it, but again, it would be our preference for that to be pretty much your recommendation to us that this happens in this sequencing. So I just wanted to let you know a little of the history. It’s obvious to me, I mean, again, the kind of calls I get all the time from the Meadowbrook area and also the Cronin Road area and also Garrison Road and also Homer Avenue and the whole sequencing of how water flows from basically Glens Falls across Quaker Road, all throughout this area, and there’s a long history, and I’m sure you’re aware of it. So my suggestion, and I do speak for, I believe, all of the Town Board, sometimes I don’t always, but last night there seemed to be a consensus that everybody embrace the concept of this comprehensive study, which would re-delineate the wetlands, as Gretchen said, and also look at other material conditions and impacts that might need remedy. In addition, what we didn’t contemplate, but which I think is another excellent idea, is what Gretchen just mentioned, about a referral or a recommendation from the Planning Board back to the Town Board, to re-open SEQRA on this PUD. We didn’t discuss that. Didn’t occur to us, but based on what Gretchen said, especially if, in fact, in the course of this process, the wetland delineation is materially different than what is represented to be, that would certainly make a lot of sense. So that would be something that, again, I’m not here to tell you your business, but it would be, speaking for myself on that issue, I would be receptive of that, and so I don’t know if that provides you with any background. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure I understand. So the Town Board, did you actually pass a resolution last night to engage someone to undertake this study, or was it just a discussion that had no conclusion? MR. SANFORD-Prior to the Town Board, I had engaged Mr. Ryan to do a comprehensive study. Actually it’s complicated. It kicked off, actually, even before February, but in February we met with concerned people on Garrison Avenue, North Road area, where they’re having increased water table issues. I’ve been working with people on Homer Avenue who are having concerns about the clogged culverts that run across from the Adelphia property off of Homer and go a few hundred feet to Quaker and then flow under Quaker Road and then travel in a couple of different directions up to 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) Cronin Road and along Meadowbrook, and so it’s actually been a lengthy process of trying to analyze and understand what the problems are. Well, a while back, a couple of weeks back, it became obvious that we needed to really step up the pace and formalize this in a more comprehensive way. Now, that whole system needs to be looked at, and we were talking with Mr. Wick of Warren County Soil and Water about it, and he’s done some work on it, and there’s been a lot of work done on the Halfway Brook itself, and that’s even a bigger project, but in understanding what the immediate concerns here are, I received a consensus of opinion of the Town Board to give Dan Ryan authorization, if you will, to move forward in a comprehensive manner from essentially, I guess we’d say the Girl Scout camp up to Haviland Road, and to analyze all of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you did actually engage, that was really what I wanted to know. You actually did engage Mr. Ryan to do that study? MR. SANFORD-Yes, and the engagement we’ve discussed at the Town Board level, it’s not as, we don’t need to do a resolution from the Town Board to do it. The relationship that we have at the Town Board level with Mr. Ryan is that essentially any Town Board member with a concern can seek out his assistance and engage him to do this kind of work. He’s done it before in Tim Brewer’s Ward on a study, and I met with people at Garrison Road, and he’s doing a similar study over there on some of the concerns that they have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-And, yes, he’s been engaged and he’s going to be doing this. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I mean obviously the timing would be very different. If you’re just, you know, last night made a decision to move forward and you still have to go out and do an RFP and negotiate a contract, you’re talking about months before you even have a contract in place. MR. SANFORD-No, he’s done some work. No, good question, in fact, you may have picked up from some of his comments when he was talking to you, a while back, that he was mentioning some of the things he’s done. That was all part of it in a preliminary sense, okay, and so what we need to do, though, I mean, in addition to the work he can do, we need to obviously bring in third parties to do the delineation, but, you know, part of it came about, I mean, I ran into DEC who, in a different area, was doing a delineation, and I was talking to the field people, and this woman who was heading it up said to me, what do you know about this? I said virtually nothing. She said you know how we delineate. People think we’re digging with shovels all the time. We really don’t do it that way. It’s really a matter of us looking at the vegetation and identifying it that way, and then doing some other types of things, and then she went around and she was showing me how to do it, and I was scratching my head and it was amazing. Cattails are completely indicative of a wetland. The site that is in question is filled with cattails. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you might remember from when you were on the Planning Board before, that we would talk about the differences of definitions from the Army Corps to DEC to APA. They use different definitions. They look at different things. MR. SANFORD-Right. It’s very confusing. MR. HUNSINGER-DEC primarily looks at vegetation. MR. SANFORD-Right, and this lady was showing me how she was doing it, and it was incredible because she did it in a rather prompt manner. It was a small parcel of property that she was doing it. So at any rate, just to sum it up, I would like, you know, I agree, before I came to this table, with what Gretchen was saying and Tom was saying, and I would like to suggest or encourage the Board to do these two things. A, table this pending the study that you’re talking about, that we’re talking about here, and I think two months would be ample time, and then, B, I would encourage you to put together I guess a resolution is what you would do, or referral, the referral resolution to the Town Board requesting consideration for the Town Board to re-visit SEQRA, because just like Gretchen said, this is becoming a very repetitive dialogue. MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to consider tabling this, how would you feel if we did make, did set a definitive date that would then, you know, put some pressure back on Mr. Ryan and the Town Board to get this study done? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. SANFORD-I wouldn’t have a problem, provided that Mr. Ryan set the window, because, I mean, if I told you two months, and he said, you know, we should allow a little more, I would prefer for you to go with his advice on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he said he thought it would take five or six weeks. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And then you just said two months. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but he also said he wouldn’t be doing all the work himself because some of it’s outside of his area, and that’s why I thought, you know, we wanted to make sure. If he’s still here we could ask him what the right amount of time is, Chris. I’m not dug in on that. I just want to make sure that the Planning Board addresses this in a comprehensive manner. It may very well be, you know, that in re-examining the SEQRA, based on the new information, it changes the complexion of the project moving forward. MR. HUNSINGER-It may, yes. I just want to add for the record, and I really want to do this. I’ve mentioned to Gretchen a number of times. I was the only member of the Planning Board that wanted to re-open SEQRA on the Hiland PUD way back when. The vote was six to one. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but anyway, if there’s no further questions, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I’ll just ask the question of Mr. Ryan, now, and I’m just sort of following Mr. Seguljic’s comment, you know. Maybe the applicant can slow down a little and maybe we can speed up. MR. RYAN-Yes, I guess you have to have time to receive the study, analyze it and figure how it incorporates the project. MR. FORD-Right, how it applies. MR. RYAN-And again, that fitting in with the timeline of having enough time prior to a meeting or whatever agenda date is set, you know, then working backwards, you know, I said five to six, but obviously six to eight is that much better. There’s a lot of data to collect. There’s a decent size watershed to collect some data on, and I want to make sure, obviously, that everything is as accurate as possible, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just thinking it would give the applicant a little more comfort to know there’s a definitive date. MR. RYAN-I don’t have a problem with it. I mean, let’s work backwards. I mean, what are the deadlines and the months you’re thinking of considering this, and how much time do we need to let it sink in and figure out how it impacts the projects? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess there’s a couple of issues. One is, and I need to ask the Board of this, to ask the Board if there’s other information that we may need from the applicant, and there very well may be, but that would be on a different schedule than what the report from yourself would be. MR. RYAN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we could receive the report from you, you know, a week or so before our meeting and have time to digest it and discuss it at the meeting. MR. RYAN-And then discuss it at the meeting. The negative of that is if we’re discussing a report at the meeting and determining how it impacts at the meeting, then obviously if there is an impact, would be delayed another month or two for that purpose. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. MR. RYAN-So does it make sense to somehow incorporate some kind of combined, I don’t know if it means that we get together ahead of time? Of course I don’t know how that can work with the Planning Board, obviously. th MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty is if we tabled this to July 17, as an example, that’s with th your six or eight week window, their submission deadline for a July 17 meeting would th be June of the month before, the 15. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. RYAN-And does that include potential impacts that I’ve noted, you know? MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and if they didn’t have access to the report. MR. RYAN-Before that. MR. TRAVER-I have a question as well. One of the things that came up in the public hearing was the, it was suggested that we take a look at doing a foundations and soils report. Would that typically be part of your? MR. RYAN-I’m not aware of any structural foundation problems over there. So I would say no. MR. MILLER-That’s a Building Code issue that Dave Hatin handles, when drawings are submitted with foundation designs. That’s his call whether that information is required. MRS. STEFFAN-How do you determine soil bearing values is the question? I’m not an engineer. MR. RYAN-Well, there’s certain site testing that could be done for that. MR. TRAVER-That was my question. Would such testing be part of the report that you’re going to be going to be conducting? MR. RYAN-No, normally, I mean, these are existing buildings. If there were problems that were consistent with settlement issues, I think the homeowners would be aware of them. MR. TRAVER-But I think part of the reason for commissioning your study is in the context of possible future development, correct? MR. MILLER-But that’s foundation design. I mean, each building is different. So, you know, the foundation has to be designed specifically to the building. MR. RYAN-Yes, each building normally would be designed with consideration for the foundation of analyzing existing site conditions for that design. Bearing pressures, there’s a lot of variables, obviously, one of them being the actual load induced by the building itself. MR. FORD-Chris, I believe that the importance of this research has such, has the potential for such great impact on so many of our decisions that we make, and I am very sensitive to the applicant and the timeline. There are some times, however, when the greater good and the greater need of a community would cause an applicant to have to realize we’re going to have to put this on hold until we have the latest and the best information that we’ve got available that will help us make the right decision. Therefore I’m prepared to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2007 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Until such time as the comprehensive watershed analysis has been completed, presented, and analyzed by this Board. We would like new wetland delineation on this th project. Also a request for enhanced landscaping. Tabled to the July 17 meeting with th an application deadline of June 15. th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to include the SEQRA recommendation? MR. FORD-I think that’s a second one. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a second motion. The other thing is, do we want to put a date on that? MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is that we had identified that we want new wetland delineation on this project. That’s what we had discussed. I don’t know if you wanted to include that in your motion, Tom? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. BRUNO-Blanche, is that something that we would have DEC do or would we commission somebody? MR. MILLER-You would have to have, you know, DEC will not delineate Army Corps wetlands, so, I mean, typically what we’ve done, and Army Corps it’s hard to get them to delineate. They will verify delineation. So typically we use a private consultant to do the delineation, then it’s submitted to the Army Corps and DEC. That way it’s delineated to both criteria. MR. FORD-Gretchen, I would entertain an amendment, if you want to add that. MRS. STEFFAN-That was based on our discussion and the recommendation of our Town Engineer. I think that would be prudent, and do we want to table it to a specific meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-I would like to see us do that if we can. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we should. Just so everyone has an idea of what’s going on. th MRS. STEFFAN-My recommendation would be July 17 meeting, with an application th deadline of June 15. MR. FORD-I can agree to that, as long as we do not in any way impact the quality of the report, the extent to which we have an opportunity to analyze and really understand it and apply it. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the benefit of the applicant, in thinking through the reason for the July date, if the report takes five to six weeks, that gives you time to see how the report may impact your project site and to prepare new information if needed to get to the Board in time for us to review it, in time to hear your project, because I think we’d be doing you a huge disservice if we table this to June, only to say, now that we’ve got this new report, you need to modify your site plan. You’re coming back in July anyway. MR. MILLER-Yes. I would assume, though, if the report was available sooner, and we could make an earlier submission, that would be? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be acceptable, sure. MR. MILLER-Okay. The other thing that I would offer, I would assume during a study like this there’s going to be some workshop meetings and things with the Staff and the Town Engineer, and we would certainly be interested and willing to sit in on any of those meetings as information is gathered. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wouldn’t rule out a workshop about this specific issue. MRS. STEFFAN-At the Town Board level. MR. HUNSINGER-Or at the Planning Board level. MR. SEGULJIC-And then one last amendment, and that is the request of the enhanced landscaping to the. MR. MILLER-Yes, we’ve agreed to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought they had already agreed to do that. MR. MILLER-So, we hadn’t had time. I went on vacation. So we couldn’t do anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was left open. When we do hear this application again, there will be another opportunity for public comment. I would imagine at that time you may want to review whatever the report is and make your comments based on how you feel the report may or may not impact the proposed project. May I make a comment to the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, as long as it’s brief. I commend the Board on being diligent and for listening to all of us tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Why thank you. I appreciate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, we have the other motion with regards to the SEQRA recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now is it a motion or a recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-No, this would be a recommendation, and it would be a recommendation to the Town Board that they reconsider the SEQRA Findings Statement for the Hiland Planned Unit Development. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m not sure, do we want to maybe say in light of the coming study? MR. FULLER-And the recent issues that have come to light. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes, and you would want to give a reason, and I that’s what you’re getting at, is if you’re going to make that recommendation you would do it by resolution, and include the resolutions why you’re getting to that recommendation, the stormwater, the wetlands issues, the changes in the development of the PUD in general could certainly be three very distinct reasons why they should re-visit that SEQRA decision. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Blanche, I’m sorry. I think I jumped ahead too quickly there. What I was actually asking was, was Dan had mentioned something about the comprehensive study would re-delineate the wetlands. Is that something that we would look to DEC for, or would we hire? MS. ALTER-We can hire an outside consultant, or we can ask the applicant to do it and have the consultant check it. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I’m talking as a whole, as what Dan is doing. MS. ALTER-As a general study? That would be something that the Town Board would hire a consultant for. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MS. ALTER-I can give them three names and speed up an RFP so we don’t hold up the study. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’d like to make a motion, please. MOTION TO REQUEST THAT THE TOWN BOARD RE-CONSIDER THE SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT ON THE HILAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, DUE TO RECENT ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN REGARDING STORMWATER, WETLANDS, AND FLOODING. THIS WILL BE IN CONCERT WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ANALYSIS OF THE MEADOWBROOK ROAD CORRIDOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CARDIAC REALTY, LLC AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING; B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN DREPS ZONING HC- MOD LOCATION BY ROAD, NORTH OF STEWARTS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 19,660 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE USES IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 6-2007; SB 17-04, PZ WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 1.21, 1.0, 1.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-16.14, 16.15, 16.16 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, BOB HATCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Most recently, this application for a 19,660 square foot medical office th building and associated site work was tabled at the March 27 meeting, for the applicant to address engineering comments, provide a sign detail, and additional analysis th regarding the lighting plan. Subsequent to a meeting on April 5, with the applicant’s design team and Community Development Staff, the applicants responded to the tabling th dated April 6. Vision Engineering has essentially issued a signoff for the project dated th April 13. The public hearing remains open, and this is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. A Short Form has been submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the project architect, Bob Hatch, and project engineer, Tom Nace. As Susan indicated, since the last meeting, we’ve addressed the technical issues. We had a project meeting with Staff and the Town Engineer, which was very helpful. We have a signoff letter from the Town Engineer, and we’ve submitted two additional architectural drawings for the Bay Road façade, in response to the Board’s concerns that that façade should be changed, and we’re hoping tonight that we can receive final approval and start constructing, and that the Board will pick one of the choices for the façade, and we’re happy to build whichever one you approve, in terms of the building design. There were a couple of other issues in Staff Notes, the sign and the lighting. Tom, would you like to talk about that? MR. NACE-Since I haven’t seen Staff Notes, let me just, the lighting as Staff noted, 1.3 foot candles for the main lot, and 1.0 for the employee lot, slightly above your 1.0 for the office parking lots. However, it has been reduced significantly from what we had originally. We feel that the 1.3 is certainly justified in light of the use of the facility, the patients is what I was trying to say, and as far as the sign, we’ve submitted a typical sign detail that fits in with the façade of the building. We used materials that match, and fit with the building façade. MR. LAPPER-Bob, would you like to talk about the façade drawings? MR. HATCH-I think you have, from the last package, the changes that we were going through. MR. FORD-Before you get started, may I just offer a personal reaction? MR. HATCH-Sure. MR. FORD-Seeing as how I was one of the at least two that was interested, particularly in that western elevation. We didn’t specify or come up with a strong recommendation, but you did listen to us. You heard us, and I thank you for that, because we have a lot of applicants who come before us and sometimes they don’t even follow the mandates, let alone the recommendation, and what you did here is appreciated, thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Being the second person that Tom referred to, I appreciate that, too. I really wasn’t sure if you’d come back, and I have to say, I was reading the notes and I 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) was chuckling at how inarticulate I was at that meeting, since I think it was about midnight, but it was nice to see that you did listen, because like Tom said, not everyone comes back with additional suggestions. I really figured we’d end up just talking about stormwater tonight. So, thank you. MR. HATCH-You’re welcome. What we’re showing in the three elevations, on the Bay Road side, this is the original, and this roof feature at the end, and what you had asked was that you would like to see some more shape on the Bay Road side. So we tried to liven it up, and the second we’ve taken this same gable shape and brought it across and used that to break up and give it more of a roof structure around the (lost words) give it two roof structures on the Bay Road side, and then the third one what we’ve done is taken that second gabled space and then dropped another gable in front of it to try and reduce the scale of it. So we were talking, last time, about trying to get somewhat of a residential with the shape. That was our attempt to first introduce a gabled end and then introduce another gable on that gabled end. If you’re asking which we would prefer, we looked at all three, I mean, as architects we’ll do many different designs for every building. There’s not just one single component that’s going to work for us. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments from the Board? I would echo the comments made by my fellow members. I was pleasantly surprised and pleased with the revisions. MRS. BRUNO-Would you hold up the other board, please, so that we can just see the other elevations? My initial reaction, personally, was that the middle one, the second or alternate one, becomes almost a little too symmetrical. MR. FORD-It is less symmetrical and it does add interest, and that was the word that you picked up on. I like that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-And I understand again, and I thank the applicants, because I understand this also is costly. It’s money. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add before I open it up for questions? Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. SIPP-Landscaping, Sugar Maple out near the road. How close? MR. NACE-That’s a ways back from the road because there’s that extra shoulder along Bay Road. MR. SIPP-I meant to look today. There’s no sidewalk there is there? MR. NACE-No. Well, there’s the bike lane on that side. MR. SIPP-The bike lane. All right. MR. NACE-This is 30 scale. Those maples are 15 to 20 feet off the edge of the pavement, which puts them another 10 feet off the edge of the actual travel lane on the road, and the road is closed drainage there. So the bike lane slopes back to the drainage basins along the edge of the travel lane. MR. SIPP-My only concern is that sugar maple and salt do not get along, and there’s a lot of salt used on Bay Road, when they plow, wings are 10 feet back from the edge of the road. Are we going to have them? MR. NACE-I don’t think so. We’ve used the same thing, and that’s why we’ve tried to keep continuity with the medical office park on up the road, and although it’s only been a few years, they do seem to have survived adequately in that location. MR. SIPP-All right. Now when these trees grow in 10 years, are they going to block the front of this building to a point where you won’t be able to see it? MR. NACE-No, you mean the view of the building itself? No, the under story will be open enough, you know, the canopy will be up high enough that you’ll see under them. MR. SIPP-The sign will be lit from where? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. NACE-From indirect light on the sign. MR. FORD-Ground level, at an angle. MR. NACE-Ground level, external. MR. FORD-Not to exceed 45, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Forty watts, yes. MR. FORD-Forty. MR. NACE-Whatever the Town Code is, obviously. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s included in the Staff Notes. MR. SIPP-The idea on the cul de sac is to provide entrance to that back triangular lot? MR. NACE-Well, originally this was a five lot subdivision, and four of the lots had access off of the cul de sac. This facility is purchasing and using three of those lots. So there is still one lot in back of the cul de sac that’s available. MRS. STEFFAN-That odd little pie shaped thing that we debated forever. MR. LAPPER-But it’s a way to reduce curb cuts on Bay Road. MRS. STEFFAN-I like it. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Well, we did have Mr. Ryan, we did ask Mr. Ryan to be here specifically if there were any stormwater questions. I just wanted to make sure that we take that opportunity while he’s here. MRS. STEFFAN-As long as he signed off on it. Because we know that that particular subdivision has had standing water in some of the drainage areas for as long as the road. MR. NACE-Well, that’s the way that pond is designed. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. NACE-It’s designed in accordance with DEC regulations as a wet pond. MRS. STEFFAN-So as long as our engineer signed off on it, I’m through with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that has comments or questions to the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Just one question. In the Staff Notes it talked about proposing that the 128 additional spaces be developed at some time in the future. MR. LAPPER-And the answer for that, we went through this with the Zoning Board when we sought the variance for additional spaces, that BBL’s done a very comprehensive parking study, in terms of the number of spaces that they need, and they feel that for this practice that if they didn’t need them, we’d say, sure, we’ll hold off on 20 and build them 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) later, but they need them all now. They’re spending the money for parking only because they need it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But it doesn’t hurt to ask. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Are we ready to do SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION NO. 10-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CARDIAC REALTY, LLC, 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 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2007 CARDIAC REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a 19,660 sq. ft. medical office building and associated site work. Office uses in the HC-Mod zone require Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/27/07 tabled to 4/17/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2007 CARDIAC REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Nine, not applicable. A condition is that the Planning Board has selected Alternate Two of the three options presented for design standard, west elevation. th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Thank you all very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. Good luck. Nice project. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-A good result is always worth waiting for. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 REVISED SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A LEGACY LAND HOLDING AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 26 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.44 ACRES TO 1.96 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 12.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-28 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is a revised Sketch Plan application for a proposed 16 lot commercial subdivision on Bay Road. This is in response to dissatisfaction voice by the Zoning Board with regard to the subdivision layout and to the Area Variances requested for setbacks from Walker Lane. This is Sketch Plan stage. So no public hearing and no SEQRA review at this time. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening, gentlemen. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos, for the applicant, Legacy Land Holdings. I’m here with Dan Valente, the principle on that, and Tom Jarrett, the engineer. You may remember that we were here in November with the earlier Sketch Plan that had a cul de sac design to it. When we approached the Zoning Board to talk about the variance for those two lots, we had two front yard setback issues. They were less than receptive to that concept and they found a lot of fault with the cul de sac design. I think one of their primary concerns was the number of driveways on the cul de sac in close proximity to each other. We took that criticism and decided rather than remove a lot or two, or reduce the amount of area to be developed on those lots, we took a fresh approach and a fresh look at it and came up with this revised plan that you see that’s been submitted as Drawing SK-2B I think is probably the easiest one to look at. On there you’ll see that there’s been a provision to keep the streetscape on Walker Lane with the front of the building. So you’re going to see all frontal views of these buildings along Walker Lane, yet have no access. So that serves two purposes. It restricts the traffic on Walker, and it improves the aesthetics of those residents who are driving on Walker or living on the other side of it. You also have the same effect on Baybridge Drive, as you come through the proposed subdivision. With the shared parking, we’re also eliminating that Town road cul de sac with all the inherent difficulties with the Highway Department in maintaining that and plowing it, where to put the snow, how to maintain that center area, what are the aesthetics of that. So we think there’s a lot of benefits to this approach, and certainly as we’ve talked about, both in November, and I think the last applicant had the same type of an issue. We don’t know who the potential buyers for these are. They’re all going to come in with their own site plan review in the future, and we want to make these lots attractive to as many potential buyers as we can, to enable the smaller professional offices to come in, but also allow a larger professional office complex to come in who might buy up three, four, or other multiples of lots. I’ll let Tom Jarrett address some of the other engineering aspects now, and then we’ll ask you for any questions. MR. JARRETT-You’ve pretty well covered it. I’ll open it up to discussion with the Board. Dan wants to point out that what we’ve shown here is the max build out, max theoretical build out of the subdivision, and it may or may not happen that way, and obviously you would have approval authority over each of the lots through a site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a preference over which one is considered? Because, I mean, I appreciate the number of alternatives that you’ve provided, but is there on in particular that? MR. JARRETT-I think we’ve reached a consensus amongst ourselves. I think we prefer the new alternative. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is the SK-2B? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The reason I like it is that it provides an architectural front on Walker Lane, gets rid of roadway, and provides shared parking, and we can expand the parking as needed, only build what’s needed for the actual development that occurs out there. I think there’s a lot of advantages to it. It minimizes the driveway entrances as well. MR. BORGOS-And it’s going to be private maintenance of those parking lots. So the Town’s not maintaining that additional roadway area. So it’s going to be incumbent about those property owners to maintain it. So it relieves the burden on the Town. MR. JARRETT-We’re in kind of a predicament here between the two Boards. So we’re really kind of coming to you with hat in hand and hoping that you’ll agree with us. DAN VALENTE 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. VALENTE-We just need to have a clear direction in which to head. I’ve been bouncing back and forth here with this subdivision for quite some time, and before we move forward, spend the time and energy in it, I just want to make sure I have a clear direction. So I prefer this layout over the other. It’s a little more efficient, obviously, use of the property. I think you don’t have those odd shaped lots. Like you kind of have one lingering on that last subdivision that was in, kind of off to the end, that’s going to kind of be there in no man’s land for a while. So we eliminate that scenario here. So, I think it’s pretty nice, but we wanted to get your thoughts. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to jump in? I really like that one the best as well, for all the reasons that you stated. My only concern is you just heard the last applicant. They had a four lot subdivision, and the project that we just approved used three lots. If you were to begin to accumulate more than say two lots for a project, my fear is that it might compromise this plan that you have. Although I think you could accommodate a larger building to the south of Walker Lane. I just was wondering what your feeling was on that, if you have any sense for what the market is right now, and how these might be developed? MR. BORGOS-Well, this land has been available for sale for at least four years, a couple of years. So there haven’t been any large scale developers, business consumers out there who’ve come forward. This is shown at maximum build out. So if there is somebody who’s going to be interested, they would have to buy a sufficient number of lots to accommodate their building. So it’s not going to be any larger than what you see here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I guess what I was saying is, you know, looking at the plan and specifically Buildings One through Twelve, you know, we’re all kind of saying we like that concept with the shared parking and the buildings fronting Walker Lane and the other buildings fronting Baybridge Drive. If you were to begin to put a larger footprint, you know, you could combine One and Two and put a building there without compromising this plan. You could even maybe consolidate One, Two, Seven, and Eight. MR. JARRETT-I think that’s where we would be headed is each of those modular blocks with four lots, we’d probably configure those together and put a larger building there. MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, maybe Three, Four, Nine and Ten you’d probably, you know, maybe you could do two together, but no more. I guess that’s what, you know, I was asking. MR. VALENTE-I personally feel that the market right now is definitely leaning towards a smaller office space would be a more salable item. I don’t think that there’s a lot of people out there looking for these ten, twelve thousand square foot buildings. I just don’t see it. The market’s going the other way. I think there’s a need for the smaller space that’s not available to them right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and some of the job growth, as far as economic development goes, one of the reasons why I like the second plan, SK-2B, is because you’ve got 16 lots and there are opportunities for 16 small office buildings. We don’t have a lot of professional office or light industrial in the area. So this provides a good opportunity for job development, and as we saw with the last project, if somebody came in and wanted to consolidate a lot, then there are opportunities for that. So there are lots of options. I certainly, we talked about sidewalks before, and I know that’s in here somewhere, but, you know, really nice landscaping on this. This could be a very beautiful office park. It could be a real nice addition to Bay Road. MRS. BRUNO-I wasn’t at the November meeting, and so I was kind of catch up on everything as I was reading through all of the notes, and I could agree with a number of things that the Zoning Board had said, that some things just seemed kind of awkward, and it’s nice to see design, I frequently say that design isn’t pushed far enough, that you can kind of keep tweaking it until it feels right, and I think you guys have gone to the next level with this, especially because, as you saw with the previous application, facing a nice elevation to the roads is important. I have one question, in terms of the number of parking spaces that you came up with for this scenario, were you basing it just strictly on a, say a professional office? MR. JARRETT-Professional Office, yes. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. BRUNO-And they’re all counted out. I didn’t take the time to count them out or anything. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s based on what we believe is ultimate build out, but obviously we’ve got to come back and show that to you. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. JARRETT-And demonstrate that to you, when we come back with each lot, development for each lot. MRS. BRUNO-I have a feeling that what the fellow Board members are saying, that you probably will end up with, you know, maybe one or two companies coming in wanting more than just one of these smaller buildings. I think the park like atmosphere will really work. I’d like to see definitely I noticed there was some mention in some of the notes that some of the designs of the buildings, if they can be altered a bit, you know, so each one is more unique, rather than the original way back when cookie cutter idea, and I just hope that you’re sticking to that, that there’ll be some uniqueness in each place, and I understand that this is very schematic, and it is just showing the potential, the build out potential, but I like this one much better, too. I think you would have ended up with a plowing nightmare, and the funny pie-shaped, you know, piece of property, especially with that 50 foot setback. MRS. STEFFAN-Tanya, you mentioned some of the differences in design. I’m on the fence in that regard, because I look at the office complex right across the street, and we’ve got varying sized lots with varying sized buildings of different color, you know, different facades, different sizing, and my opinion, when I drive through that is, it’s not aesthetically pleasing. There’s not a lot of symmetry when you drive past it on Bay or on Bloody Pond, and then when you drive through it, there’s just not a lot of symmetry, and it has a quality, I refer to it as visual spaghetti. There’s just a lot going on and, you know, there’s all these design elements that are competing for your attention. So when it comes to design standards, we’ve got new design standards that we’re proposing in the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and so you might want to pay attention to some of those, as you move forward with the design of this particular park. There is an office building up near Sokol’s Market on Aviation Road, which many of us like the building that’s closest to the road, I think it’s Whittemore, Dowen Accountants and we like the building that’s close to the road, but one of my concerns is the building that’s set back from the road, there’s a parking lot between the two. This is a similar situation that you’ve got represented here, and it’s kind of a no man’s land with the parking lot, and I know that you’ve provided some interior landscape, and I know this is Sketch, but one of the things that I would like to see is a really nice landscaping plan to make this park like, to try to circumvent some of this mass parking space. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we really haven’t applied a lot of creativity to the landscaping plan yet. I think we were just trying to show that it would be landscaped. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but I just want to put that out there. I think that this is kind of a flat piece, and obviously you’ve going to be starting from scratch, and so I would really like to see a very nice landscaping plan for this, to enhance it’s beauty on Bay Road corridor. MRS. BRUNO-And, Gretchen, I appreciate what you say, and I guess what I need to do is just clarify a little bit more. I agree with you that when, I believe across the street there were a number of different developers and different owners. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I think in this setting we’ll have the ability, you’ll have the ability to make a consistent, I think you know what I’m getting at, where everything goes and flows together, but each one does have a little bit of a unique character. That they coordinate. There we go. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe what they’re suggesting is maybe some design standards that are specific to the property, to your project, and you could probably model them from some of the things that are being looked at on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee. MRS. BRUNO-One thing, along that same line. I think there was a mention of the lighting. Someone had asked about lighting and who’s responsibility that would be, and 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) that would be for each individual purchaser. I think maybe if, again, kind of a guideline could be determined. MR. JARRETT-We plan on giving you those standards. We’re going to spot those lights and give you those standards during the subdivision process. They would be installed with development, and then the power would be paid by the individual lot owners, that’s all. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Good. Because I think that’ll really help that, the landscape. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We have those actually designed and we’ll give that to you at Preliminary. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Great. Thanks. MR. SIPP-I have a couple of questions and then I’ll give you my thoughts on which alternative I’d like. This cul de sac is built in such a way emergency vehicles can access it easily. In other words, a fire engine can make the turn off of the? MR. JARRETT-Yes, well, it’s a cul de sac that meets Town standards, yes. MR. SIPP-Now, I see what I consider to be another road. If you go to the left side of either one, where it says Baybridge Drive, and just below that, is that a single lane road? MR. JARRETT-That’s a bike path, or a multi-use path. MR. SIPP-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yeah. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-It looks like a divided highway, but it’s actually just a multi-use path. MR. SIPP-Now, I was the one in November who questioned the use of the size of some of these lots off of a cul de sac, and yet when I came to look at this, I decided, my thoughts are that Alternative One, because you have different size buildings, you should have different facades, different colorations. When you get into Alternate Two, you’ve got square buildings, cookie cutter type. MR. JARRETT-Well, again, we’ve shown max build out, and that doesn’t necessarily have to be what the ultimate. MR. SIPP-Well, I just, and don’t take these figures as the word of any mathematician but in Number One you’ve got 72,000 square feet of building footprint, and Alternate Two you’ve got 96,000. So you’ve got more building. MR. JARRETT-There is a little more development area on the second alternative. We lose that cul de sac, so it gives us quite a bit more room. MR. SIPP-You’ve got paved area for Number One is 67,000 and something square feet. I didn’t do it for Two, but the green space works out so that there is much more green space with Alternate One, 79,000 for One, square feet, to 43,000 square feet, and I was going to go back and check those figures because that doesn’t seem right either when I do it now. The permeability is just about the same, either one, 68% to 71, 70%. So what I, I would go with Number One because I think you can get different sized buildings, make them look different, give the area a little more class than strictly square looking buildings that have no class at all, in my estimation. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think at this point it is Sketch Plan, and there are cubes there, but obviously they’ll be different when you finally figure out what it’s going to start to look like. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, any other comments? MR. FORD-Just one very briefly, because it is getting late, but I hope you realize the precision you’re causing hot air balloon pilots to have in landing there. I’ve landed in this site before, and it’s a fine open space, and I’m going to have to really drill it if it land there now. Thanks. MRS. STEFFAN-No, Tom, you can’t ask for a landing pad in the site development. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. JARRETT-We have some wetlands to the south that will still be available. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that I would like to make, and it’s a little kind of off the wall, but I’d just ask you to kind of take into consideration and try to use your imagination a little bit. One of the things that we’ve been talking about a lot at the Planning Ordinance Review Committee is providing mixed uses and providing the ability for people to walk to work, and there are a number of residences on Walker Lane. So I’d like you to look at maybe an opportunity to put in a walkway that would connect the project to Walker Lane somehow. I mean, like I said, just take it into consideration. MR. JARRETT-It’s a good idea, actually. MR. HUNSINGER-I know there’s no sidewalk on Walker Lane. So it may actually be a sidewalk to nowhere. MR. FORD-But there are walkers and runners. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there definitely is. MR. JARRETT-I think we certainly could take that into consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-And there certainly is a wide shoulder on Bay that people use to walk and bike. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that’s a really good idea. Because there’s a lot of apartment units back there. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was thinking. MR. BORGOS-And that could easily be incorporated into our landscape plan that you mentioned. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-It doesn’t necessarily have to be a regular concrete walkway, either. It could be something more winding, with turns to accommodate that landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. BRUNO-Have you had any professionals already approach you? MR. VALENTE-Yes, we’ve had a couple of dentists, local dentists that are looking to upgrade their offices. We have had some interest, yes, but again, those are smaller, you know, they’re looking 2500, 3,000 square feet, small, nice buildings. There’s a big need for that, I think, at this stage. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely, and the jobs they create are not minimum wage. MR. BORGOS-Well, thank you very much for your input. We appreciate that, and we’ll come back with more of a Preliminary plan for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you’re welcome. Okay. Mr. Sears, if you want to make a comment, you need to come up on the mic, please. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name’s Bob Sears. I’m a realtor involved with the project. Is it appropriate to ask the Board to just reach a consensus as which plan you prefer, as far as Sketch Plan goes? I know you’ve talked about it, but could it be formalized a little bit do you think? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I hate to single out Don, but he seemed to be the only one that preferred the other one. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. VALENTE-I’ve had experience in the past where I got the Preliminary, after I went through Sketch, and then I was shot down at that stage. So I’d rather get shot down now for one or the other. MR. SEARS-Just in general terms. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not, the whole cul de sac and the odd shaped lots are just very awkward to deal with I think, and so I like the SK-2B plan, personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom and Tom? MR. FORD-SK-2B. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the 2B. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think it’ll end up being as static as it kind of appears this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. MR. VALENTE-Right. We tried to give you worst case scenario. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 SKETCH SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION BARBER & HALL ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 12.74 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 3.01 AC., 3.17 AC., 3.04 AC., & 3.11 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. DEEP HOLE TEST PITS DONE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 12.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.1, 30 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is a subdivision application at Sketch Plan stage for four residential lots. Just a couple of things to note from Staff comments. Primarily concerns about the density. The map provides information concerning slopes greater than 25% on this property totaling 2.71 acres. When calculating allowable residential density for the proposed subdivision, it appears that after subtracting the areas of steep slope there is 10.03 acres of developable land. Therefore the allowable residential density provides for three lots. With that, Area Variances from the minimum lot size requirement will need to be requested prior to Preliminary Stage review. There is no public hearing, and no SEQRA review at Sketch Plan stage. MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to go on the record that the property to the north, the landowners are Edward and Britta Schadwell. That’s my sister and brother-in-law. So I just want to go on the record that I have a relationship with an adjoining landowner. MR. O'CONNOR-We hope it’s a good relationship. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of the record, I’m Michael O’Connor. I’m representing the developer, and Dan Barber is the principle, the developer, he’s the one to the far right. Tom Hutchins is the engineer for the project and Matt Steves is the surveyor for the project. We have been coming here for a long time. I think we started this in 2002, and when we started it in 2002, I’ll just give you a little history, we had the survey done, and we found out that Hall Road was not constructed where Hall Road had been dedicated. So it took us a year or better to get a boundary line agreement with the Town of Queensbury, so that we relocated the road to where it’s been constructed, and the road is now properly owned by the Town, and the lands on each side of it are once again properly owned by the developer. We then went through a process where I believe, and I still believe, that this property, at least the property on the south side of the road, was applicable, or would comply with the requirements for a two lot subdivision, administrative two lot subdivision, and we went through that process, and Craig Brown differed with me because for tax map purposes they had flagged a piece of the property on the north side of road, and said that because that parcel was flagged onto the lower parcel of the road, we would, in fact, have three lots, and you can only have an 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) administrative subdivision with two lots. I don’t know where the Board stands on flagging of lots or if you understand what I’m talking about, land hooked across, whether it actually is part of the parcel or not part of the parcel, and I think part of the calculations that Staff made now were to the contrary, because if you see the little piece of the property that’s .59 acres, and it’s on the far left hand side, that’s part of this holding, and it is a flag lot, and it goes over to the land that’s on the north side, but it’s not included in their calculations. Let me step back from that. We’re trying to get direction as to where we’re going, and we have no problem going to the Zoning Board and asking for a variance, and probably we’d follow up with a second suggestion that the Staff has made and change the entrance way to Lot C. Instead of coming all the way from Glen Lake or Hall Road, over to the building site, we would come in from the back side, which is a Town road, Reardon Road. We probably would have to apply for a variance there because the frontage of that lot on Hall Road is 34.6 feet, or Reardon Road, instead of the 40 feet. So we would apply for a variance for that. We would change the driveway so that the driveway came in on the flatter part of the lot and went to that house, and we would eliminate that curb cut or driveway that goes out to Hall Road. We have done quite a bit of work. We’ve done test pits. We actually have designed septics. There is no problem with having the houses and the septics located on areas that are flat, that are not part of the excessive grades. I think part of the intention here with removing from design calculations excessive grades was so that houses would not be crowded onto those areas or built on those areas, and we’re not doing that in this instance. If you take a look at the immediate area surrounding this, these would be three acre lots. They’re bigger than most of the lots in that area. Most of the lots in that area are much smaller than that, and that’s basically, we’ve looked at the comments by Staff. We would make application to the, unless the Board had some strong feelings, we would go forward with those comments. We would make an application to the Zoning Board for the variances. Matt, do you want to? MR. STEVES-Just one thing is the comment that Mike made, for the record, Matt Steves, on Lot C, I think the Staff said it was 2.4 acres. It’s actually 3.04 acres, because of the small parcel that is located to the west over there, that is land hooked by now across the unimproved road being Reardon Road. So the total of that lot is 3.04 acres. That was the discrepancy in there. What you end up with, an average is of 2.51 acres of buildable area outside of the 25% slopes on each lot, and we do understand that the three acres is required, but we’re saying that they all are three acre lots. You subtract the steep slope analysis, you end up with 2.51 acres of buildable area on each lot. like I say, the reasoning for, in my estimation, the three acre zone was because of the steep slopes. That if you, you know, subtract those steep slopes when they went in and created the three acre zoning was to show that, hey, you know, you may not have room on a one acre lot if you remove steep slopes and actually be able to build a house, but obviously if you build it on a flatter site of under 15%, if you have a three acre lot, most likely you would have room to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions and comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Have test pits actually been done? MR. STEVES-There were four test pits done, two before the requirement of viewing by the Town Engineer and two being reviewed by the Town Engineer, and Tom could speak to those. He’s done all four of those. MR. FORD-Thank you. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they’ve been done. The soils are sandy granular in nature. There was no evidence of water. There’s plenty of room for septic systems. All of these are easy septic systems. MR. FORD-How deep did you go? MR. HUTCHINS-Sixty-six inches, seventy-two inches, eighty-nine inches, eighty-four inches. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know where the paved area of Reardon Road ends now relative to this development? We drove in both ways when we went on site visits. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. STEVES-If you come in from the north on Reardon Road, I believe Schadwell’s driveway enters off the end of the paved portion and swings into his entrance road, which is that strip that is shown that’s about 30 foot wide, just to the north of us. I believe the actual end of the pavement’s about another 30 foot north of that, just before the swing into his driveway, if I’m not mistaken. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d have to actually extend the pavement a little bit, put gravel down or something, yes. MR. STEVES-Come right out the end of it like he did. It is a Town street, as far as paving. Will the road ever be built there? As you can see, you’d be crossing slopes of 25%. It would never be built across. It is a Town road on paper. Just like Schadwell has done, we would access that same area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town actually owns the bed of that. So that if the Zoning Board wanted us to extend it a little bit past where our driveway would go in, we probably would have no objections to doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-I did see that it said on here that it was a Town road by deed. MR. STEVES-Yes, it was deeded back in the 60’s, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-I like that option better for Lot C, because that was one of our concerns when we did site visits Saturday is that the steepness of that hill, and you’d end up taking out a lot of trees, and it would be difficult. MR. STEVES-We wholeheartedly agree. We had that shown originally, just so that this Board understands. We had that originally shown from up there, and the Zoning Administrator said just if you show it there be aware that you, you know, go in front of the Board, they may say that you don’t meet the minimum lot width requirement, and we said that’s not a problem. We could show it either way. We would prefer to enter from up there as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have anything to add? MRS. STEFFAN-When we went on site visits, and this is kind of an odd comment for me, just because, you know, as I identified, my relatives live on the other side of this. So I’m kind of in a strange situation, but, Matt, you’ve been around me long enough to know that I’m always concerned when there’s developments on slopes, and some of it has to do with runoff, and certainly we have houses being built on slopes all the time, but in those situations, I like to see a really beefed up stormwater management plan on the driveways, because we’ve got a lot of situations in the Town where the stormwater is running off into the road and causing hazardous conditions during the wintertime, and so certainly with, you know, I know that we just talked about moving that driveway, but there’s also a slope on Lot D. So I’d want to see beefed up stormwater plans for the driveway on those properties. The other thing I’m concerned about is that on both Lot D and Lot C, when we drove along Hall Road, that, obviously the hill’s been there for a long time. How much, you know, I guess we would need to have clearing limits defined because the tops, you know, the tops of those hills are going to come off and there’s a neighborhood character issue that is related to that. Anybody who drives to their properties on Glen Lake is going to be going down Hall Road, going. MR. STEVES-Understood. We would definitely, you know, knowing that this Board is in agreement with us with the location of the driveway on C, we would do a detailed grading plan and stormwater plan, and the clearing limits and I also understand, we hardly understand as well the stormwater and in this instance here you have, you know, extremely perfect soils for the conditions. If you want to get rid of stormwater, these are the soils to use, and they’re nice gravel, sandy gravel soils, but we will definitely take all that into consideration when we come back with Preliminary. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing which we’d call to your attention and ask for your approval, we exacerbate, a little bit, this dimensional thing, because we would like to give a sliver of land to the adjoining property owner, and we’ve marked it off of our map as though we did not own it. We did not include it in our calculations. Charles and Caroline Barber, their house and garage and driveway was built a lot closer to the property line 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) than they probably thought they were building it, and what we’ve done is taken a sliver off of the east side of our property and we are going to convey that to them, as a boundary line adjustment. It just makes better planning, makes more sense, from our point of view. MRS. BRUNO-It makes better neighbors. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and actually, this whole, and that Lot B, everything is actually almost like a natural divide because of that grading. Everything is really on the other side of that grading. This piece toward their house counts in our calculation, but probably won’t be counted in the usage of that lot, or it won’t be practically part of that lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there any wetland on Lot B? MR. O'CONNOR-This is all hill and dry. MR. HUNSINGER-There is sort of like a swale, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Is it behind, maybe the log cabin? MR. STEVES-There’s no question there’s a swale that runs east/west about a third of the way up, just above the old road there, the old pathway, but there’s no wetlands, no. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I mean, we were driving around, everything was wet. MR. STEVES-Well, if you have a little bit of organic material and the frost, something will sit on top of the ground, and as soon as the frost goes out, it’ll disappear. No, there’s no wetlands over there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I had a question when I saw our test pits and everything else. I didn’t want that to become an issue later on. We have two test pits that were done in ’05, and then we have two test pits that were done in ’07 by the Town Engineer, witnessed by the Town Engineer. I think they show the same results. They show very consistent soil, and that’s the same soil that’s throughout that whole side of Glen Lake, the south side of Glen Lake. So we shouldn’t find any surprises, but I don’t want somebody to come back and say, wait a minute, you know, maybe we want to have that done or not re-done. I don’t know. MR. HUTCHINS-As I said before, I think these are great soils for septic systems. They’re sand and gravel. I highly doubt anywhere on these we’re going to have any groundwater issues of significance. I’m confident with what we have there. MR. STEVES-Two of the lots that we’re proposing have had test pits witnessed by your engineer and two have not, but they’re in the same general area and they were the same basic data from all four pits. Would you want to see new pits witnessed by your engineer before we come back at Preliminary, or are you comfortable with what we have? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m personally comfortable, if there’s no wetlands on Lot A or B. There certainly wouldn’t be any wetlands on Lot C or D, but as long as there’s no wetlands, I’m okay with those test pits. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that okay across the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone else okay? MR. FORD-I just have a question on the location of, why was the word, is it just a matter of timing? Because you have location of proposed Test Pit Four. MR. O'CONNOR-Where are you reading, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Where are you reading that? MR. FORD-On Lot D. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUTCHINS-Do you know why that’s there? Because that’s what I put on there to the request I sent to Mr. Hatin’s office to arrange for a Town Engineer to witness with me, and after I did the test hole, I didn’t change the text on the drawing. MR. FORD-That’s what I thought. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, you’re right. You got me. Did I do it up here, too? MR. HUNSINGER-No, just on D. I don’t know if you saw this aerial that Staff provided. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s very helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, particularly when you made the comments about how the proposed lots are bigger than all the neighboring lots. It’s pretty telling with this map here. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t want to confuse the issue, but I always do. I tried like heck to get the people along the lake to buy this piece here, to move their septic systems back and I haven’t been successful doing that. Those are very small lots that are out there, and I think you could do one or two septic systems on that piece that would be very beneficial. I’ll say this, let’s go through the process for four lots, and then if I can get those people to perk up a little bit, although I think unfortunately one fellow has already recently built a new septic system. MR. FORD-So he made his commitment. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. So I don’t know if he’s going to come. Anything else? Can we be on next month’s agenda? MR. HUNSINGER-I wish I could tell you yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thank you. I will get up. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEV. AGENT(S) REDBUD DEV. OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS AT THE SHORE OF LAKE GEORGE, BLUE STONE PATIOS, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FILLING/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-92, AV 59-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1- 7 SECTION 179-4- GEFF REDICK & JEFF GOOLACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This site plan application is for construction of new retaining walls along the shoreline. In addition, a 230 square foot patio is also proposed. Stormwater management controls and landscaping are also proposed. Warren County Planning Board, at their April meeting, recommended No County Impact for this project. Vision th Engineering submitted a comment letter dated April 13. One comment on the stormwater from Staff Notes is the stormwater management plan indicates that 2600 square feet of new, impervious surface area will be directed to two drywells. The remaining combined 2,030 square feet will be direct through existing vegetative buffer. How is it determined that this method will accommodate the 3,045 gallons of stormwater runoff? This is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. A Short Form has been submitted, and a public hearing was advertised for tonight’s meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. REDICK-Good evening. I’m Geff Redick from Redbud Development. MR. GOOLACK-Jeff Goolack, Creststone Construction. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. REDICK-As already described, essentially the overall vision for the project is first off we took every effort to design the project within the Planning Board and the Town of Queensbury Building Department regulations. We’ve worked hard with the Building office in general to fit in all the requirements per the project in general, and if I might, I’ll just go through a brief overview of what the project is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. Thank you. MR. REDICK-Essentially what we have now is an existing residence, an existing boathouse, existing dock, existing deck here, and the driveway you might note on your plan actually comes in at a dotted hatch pattern in here, which actually cuts across the neighboring property as an easement. So the overall goal of the project initially is to construct a new garage, covered walk leading into the house, remove the entire existing driveway and construct a new driveway to, one, remove the easement from the neighbor’s property, and give the client access to their own property through their property. From that, after these areas would be developed, we’re proposing a walkway through, one obviously connecting to the covered walk leading into the house, and then additional patio space here associated with an existing screened porch in the existing house, and off of the back of the garage we’re proposing a covered space where we could put an outdoor barbecue. Leading from this area here, we would access a lower patio, recessed into the landscaping, and again, this area, all of the patio work we’re proposing is dry laid blue stone, over a gravel base, and then associated landscaping within these areas, and then finally leading out to the front of the property, we have an existing retaining wall that’s in very poor condition, which I think you can see on the pictures that we supplied. It’s not this wall here. I’m sorry. If you can keep going further, further. I’m not sure if you have pictures of the wall from the lakeside. There it is. This wall here is a wall that we’re proposing to remove and re-build, which is out in this area. We’re also proposing, which is difficult to see, but there’s an existing wall here that we’d like to remove and re-build which is basically falling over already, and there’s another existing wall here that we’d like to leave in place. There’s no other issues with it. So sort of to start in reverse, kind of work my way back through again, we’re in current discussions with Department of Environmental Conservation on the construction of this wall. As per this current proposal that I’m showing you now, the DEC is requesting that we actually take the wall that we’re proposing to build and build it behind the existing wall, which requires the removal of two large existing hemlocks, which you can see one in the corner of this picture here. Because they don’t want us, obviously, to move into the lakeshore, but I couldn’t obviously make that decision because I understand that’s the Town of Queensbury Planning Board’s decision to tell me whether or not we can remove these trees. I think it’s fairly evident with the condition of the existing wall that it can’t remain, and there’s really no way to design a wall that we could build behind this without compromising the existing trees, nor can we remove the existing wall and build a new wall in its place because we’re very fearful that we’re going to undermine these root systems of these trees and they’re going to fall toward the house. That’s the way they’re already leaning, and it should also be noted that some time within the past five to seven years, construction, renovation was done on the house, and a tree somewhere in this general area has actually fallen after construction was complete and damaged a corner of the house, and the client is very fearful of any of that kind of that scenario happening again. So essentially our proposal of this area is we have, we’ve presented several options to DEC in conjunction with putting together our proposal for Town of Queensbury, and DEC likes our third option best, which is essentially to build a wall approximately 18 inches behind the current wall, put that wall in place, which obviously again requires the approval to remove the trees. After that wall is constructed, we can take down the existing wall and then supply additional riprap as per engineering requirements to protect that current wall. We also have proposed landscaping on top of the wall, and then we’re proposing a small dry laid blue stone patio here, that we can tie together essentially with this deck in here, and we have adequate stormwater management for this particular patio, and working out through, essentially, that’s sort of the crux of what we’re proposing is an overall site plan. We meet all of our setbacks. We meet our height restrictions and what not for the garage. These are a few of the elevations of the proposed garage and covered walk. So with that, I might open things up for questions from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-When you take down the trees, as proposed in your plan, are you planning on replacing those with some other vegetation when the project is completed? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. REDICK-Absolutely. Again, the current proposal that’s in front of you is based on an old design for the wall, and we hadn’t considered removing the trees at that time, but when the trees, if so approved, we would definitely replace with something else. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m having a hard time getting my hands around it because it just seems so odd to me to build a wall inside of the wall, and then take the other one off. Isn’t that what you were explaining, from the boathouse over to the existing deck? MR. REDICK-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You take the trees out, you excavate down, put in a wall, before you can take the other wall off. MRS. BRUNO-It sounds like they’re trying to use that almost as a stormwater remediation, or a silt fence. MR. REDICK-To some degree it would be a minimal barrier. We wouldn’t rely on that solely by any stretch. MR. GOOLACK-That is a good point. I’ve dealt with one of these, and one of the reasons that they don’t want you to take it down and then build another one is the erosion issue, in the interim. So you get almost a stop gap measure, a dam, if you will, for a temporary, you build a new one and then take the old one down, very quickly install the riprap, as they discussed, and prevent that erosion problem. MRS. BRUNO-I’m wondering about the structural issues, though. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to ask, exactly. MRS. BRUNO-Because I’m sure that that wall. MR. FORD-The existing wall. MRS. BRUNO-Right. You’ll have to shore it up considerably in order to work in behind it. MR. REDICK-I think part of the scenario here is we’re working in conjunction with an engineer. Now that we have an understanding of where DEC wants us to go with this wall, we can now further refine the engineering behind this wall and really start to understand what our true dimensions of the footings and what not are going to be. Frankly at this point we were just really looking from a how and where can we put this that makes the most sense for everybody, and we didn’t want to put a lot of effort into engineering the wall until we knew what kind of approvals we were going to get from different entities, but we definitely agree, and we wouldn’t rely solely on the wall to be any kind of an erosion control measure to prevent anything from getting into the lake anyway, because we have no guarantees that that wall’s going to stay in place. So we would install additional erosion control measures, where necessary, depending on the final design. MR. FORD-Could it be possible that you would start to eliminate some of the top of that wall, as you were working behind it? MR. REDICK-Absolutely, and that’s just sort of a logical scenario, is the typical scenario would be to cut the trees down, start excavating behind the wall and peeling the top off a little bit so that as you’re, the top of that existing wall would always be slightly above what you’re working with, and that’s sort of best case scenario, but there’s, we have no understanding of how the wall was ultimately built in the first place. We don’t know if it’s sitting on any kind of a footing or what the true construction of that wall was. We’re not even sure the age of the wall. We’re under the impression that it was built somewhere back in the 20’s or 30’s, but we really don’t know. So there’s a lot of variables out there that we just have no answers to, and it becomes a difficult scenario. So instead our approach would be to provide additional measures to protect the lake, before construction begins, rather than try and start going through it and saying, well, we have to start adding something else additional after the fact. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you in receipt of the comment letter from our engineer dated April th 13? MR. REDICK-Yes. As a matter of fact, I had similar conversations with the engineer, I think it was yesterday, maybe the day before. Honestly I can’t remember. It was within 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) the last couple of days, and obviously Question Number One inadvertently left blank. It’s essentially around 10,500 square feet of effected area. Question Number Two, in our discussions, I’m going to supply additional plan materials to him so that he understands truly how the grading and everything works, just as he’s asked for. Question Number Three, the on-site sewage system, we discussed that that area in here in general would be left open for additional sewage if so necessary. We have no plans, there’s no plans for any other additions. The garage is not going to be any kind of a habitable space. So the expansion of a septic system as we understand it now, is not necessary, but as I understand from the engineer, it’s something that’s probably going to, that’s required for potential future buyers or if the homeowner decides he wants to make additional changes to the house at some point in the future. So, this area here would be reserved and noted on the plans that it would have to be left open for potential septic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. REDICK-That also leads directly into Question Four. We’d like to use that same area for construction access and stockpiling of materials, add additional siltation fencing and what not around that to protect that area. It’s not noted on the plans, but we do have an understanding that the two properties in Question Five, the property to the north is about 80 feet set back from the shoreline, and the property to the south is somewhere about 60 feet. So we have an average of approximately 70 feet for a setback to the proposed structures, and right now we’re somewhere within about 100 feet to the proposed structures. So again, we’ve worked hard to try and set everything up so that it’s well within the limits that are defined. The stormwater management design, in our discussions we made provisions and I’ll obviously note those on the plans as well. We want to add an additional drywell in to accommodate the areas for the garage, the roof runoff from the garage and the covered walk, the covered area off the back of the garage, and with some additional modifications to the patios, we’ll be able to accommodate 100% of the stormwater runoff directly within the site without having to use any overland flow, which is, in my original design, we were trying to utilize some of the overland flow to accommodate some of the stormwater runoff, but in our conversations, it’s an easy thing to do, and the client’s very amenable to doing whatever they have to do to try and get the approval of the Board. Number Seven, I know that you’ve talked several times tonight already about site testing for the stormwater management for the drywells. We have not done any testing on the site as yet, but Mr. Ryan suggested that if we add a note on the drawings that site testing prior to construction with field inspection by him would be approved, as long as it’s directed by him. So with the Board’s approval, we can easily add that note, and then have him out there during our installation of these drywells. Our drywells are proposed to essentially happen just parallel to the garage. So we’re, again, well, we’re probably about 130 to 140 feet possibly from the lakeshore. Significantly far away, and it’s my understanding from the client, who’s actually had the property in their family for several generation’s now, that the property’s essentially all a loamy material. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone okay with that? MR. SEGULJIC-No. We’re in a Critical Environmental Area, and I think we have to see that information. MR. FORD-I’d like to have us be consistent. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. REDICK-Okay. MR. SIPP-I would like to see some elevations on this plot plan, or give me the slope between the house and the water. I’d like to have some, well, the elevations go all the way along. I don’t agree that this is a minor project, and I can see that this is much bigger than one and a half gallons of water, that garage roof and the overhead walkway as one. I would rather consider this a major project. Is there any idea of moving the septic system? MR. REDICK-Moving the septic system? MR. SIPP-Or improving or upgrading the septic system? MR. REDICK-There has been no discussion of that as of yet. The other thing I’d like to note for the Board, too, is that currently the existing driveway, I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, but we’re reducing the overall existing driveway by a significant 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) amount. We’re still well within the suggested guidelines for development of the property in general, and that was part of the goal of the client as well that, you know, when they did the renovation of the house, they wanted to reduce the overall size of what they have for current asphalt pavement, etc., and even with the addition of the garage, the covered walk, and the patios, we’re still reducing the overall square footage of impermeable material on the lot. MR. SEGULJIC-But I’d just like to point out a few things. The total land disturbance, according to your form, is 7700 square feet, which then puts you into 147, which is the stormwater regulations for Lake George basin, and once you look at 147, you’re defined as a major project, a minor project, however, unless you’re in a Critical Environmental Area, and then you become a major project, and the rules change. Under a minor project, you have to control one and a half gallons for infiltration. Once you go into a major project, the rules change. MR. REDICK-To? MR. SEGULJIC-They talk about using the rational method, which, to be honest with you, is beyond me. There’s a number of other requirements. You actually have to have a whole stormwater plan in place. Are you familiar with 147? MR. REDICK-Not thoroughly, not enough to talk about it currently. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s available on the website, I believe, and what happens, if, you know, you’re in the Lake George basin, which you are, it takes you out of the regular Code and puts you into 147. MR. REDICK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then 147 further defines the minor and major project. Mr. Sipp pointed out he thinks you’re a major project. I would agree with him, and it defines what you need to do. It talks about infiltration and all the drainage issues. So I think you have to look at 147 and re-design the stormwater controls. MR. REDICK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Would the Board agree they’re a major project? MR. SIPP-I do. MR. SEGULJIC-Based on the fact they’re in a CEA. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, technically you did not design this to a minor project standard either. MR. REDICK-Understood, but we were also under the impression, through the discussions with the engineer, that they were easy solutions to get it to be compliant with a minor project. MR. SEGULJIC-But I believe, if I’m understanding this Board correctly, we going to consider you a major project. So you have to look at 147 in light of a major project, which means you have to have all stormwater plans in place. The other issue I have is there’s a lot of erosion controls that are required under 147, and I don’t see those addressed anywhere, I mean, it’s beyond putting up silt fences. It talks about any areas where you’ve cleared you have to have, any area of land from which the natural vegetation cover has been either partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activities shall be re-vegetated within 10 days. In other words, we want to make sure any potential for runoff is minimized. So, I really think you have to go back and look at 147, which is available on the website, in light of a major project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the Town’s Engineer gets into some of that on Item Eight as well, where he talks about erosion and sediment control measures need to be clarified. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, he did, but he didn’t go into it in a lot of detail, because I believe he says he used the urban. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. He just says that it needs to be designed to include the following. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the regulation goes into detail about what has to be done, and your timeframes by when you need to do things. MR. SIPP-Continuing, what is in front of the residence to the shoreline is all grass, all right. MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. SIPP-Is that grass fertilized? MR. REDICK-I do not know. I don’t believe so, but I can’t answer that. MR. SIPP-It looked pretty good. So I would imagine that there was fertilizer being used there. The grass itself was pretty thick. What kind of trees are you going to replace these hemlocks with? Where will they be located? MR. REDICK-It would ultimately depend on the true design of the wall, but I would think within general location of what’s there now. I hadn’t put a lot of thought into the actual trees that would go back, but I’m imaging some sort of a medium size flowering tree or possibly a larger deciduous style tree. MR. SIPP-Well, all right. The buffer that you show in the landscaping design here is very thin. I would like to see a much thicker buffer using indigenous plants. MR. REDNICK-Would you, by chance, have a list of that for me? MR. SIPP-Yes. I’ve got you one out here someplace. It needs to be much thicker than that. Just as I envision it, walking over it, you’ve got a seven, eight percent, or maybe up to a ten percent slope from the house down to the water, and that’s, unless you’ve got something with stability, and those little flowers that you’ve got penciled in here are not going to do it. With this wall, I don’t know as we’ve got the 10 yet, the retaining wall, and sea under that I think is fairly important, because without weep holes, you’re going to have a problem with erosion or pressure being, water pressure being applied to the back side of this, and I think you’re going to be in trouble. Riprap, as it says here, should be added to this as to what you’re going to do between the wall and the riprap. This septic system is not in compliance to begin with. You can’t do much about that now. I would like to see more trees along this edge here, deep roots are going to hold the soil and use up. I’d like to see no fertilizer used on this grass, and that may mean, in order to get a decent sized buffer of five to ten feet in thickness, these patios may have to be moved backwards, away from the edge, or else you’re going to have runoff. MR. REDICK-Well, we have proposed for that particular patio that’s closest to the shoreline, stormwater runoff directly associated with the patio itself. Right off of the edge of that patio would be stormwater runoff that would accommodate all of the material, even more so than what we might be getting, and also that patio is a dry laid patio. MR. SIPP-Is this the one to the west? MR. REDICK-Nearest the existing dock, near the wall that we’re proposing to replace. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. REDICK-And if I might ask, when you’re talking about that buffer, is that buffer being measured from the existing walls or from the shoreline? Where are we looking? MR. SIPP-On the shoreline. MR. REDICK-Okay. MR. SIPP-And the thicker the better, because the deep roots will take up the minerals and excess wash off of the slope that you’ve got there and divert it from going into the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, what we’re getting at here is Lake George water quality is going downhill. I think it’s directly related to development along the lake. So what we’re trying 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) to do is re-vegetate the buffer along the lake, reduce any stormwater that runs into the lake. Hopefully we can at least stop the degradation. MR. REDICK-Okay. We have obviously no issues at all with applying those methods. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and a lot of them are going to be in 147, under major projects. MR. SIPP-Now, just as a point of interest in my case, what the heck is back there buried on three sides, that you’ve got a set of garage doors into a hillside, up near the entrance road? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a different one. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a different project. MR. SIPP-That was a different one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Why are you leaving the slab from the existing shed? MR. REDICK-The proposal at that point, the client would like to add possibly a generator for the house, as back up, because it’s not a primary residence, but now they’re also in discussions of potentially removing that depending upon how the project moves forward. Still in the hopes of putting a slab back in that general area for adding a generator to the site, but again, that would essentially meet all setback restrictions and what not as well. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. FULLER-I had one quick note for you, on the minor versus major. I would recommend that you make that determination to treat it as major subdivision, because it is permissive. You would make a motion, and the last part of it is that the applicant is required to get that in writing, that it’s being treated as a major, and Mr. Seguljic is right. One of the reasons you can treat it as a major project is because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. So it’s not a mandatory trigger, it’s a permissive trigger, but I would just recommend that you do that, memorialize that. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we do that in a tabling motion? MR. FULLER-Yes. Just to keep that on the radar. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be an affirmative vote of the Planning Board. MR. FULLER-To treat it as a major project under 147, because of those reasons, it’s in a Critical Environmental Area, close to the lake, potential impacts on the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. ALTER-Did you open the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we did not get there yet. Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR. FORD-No, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Any comments, questions that you have? MR. REDICK-One question that I’d like to know if I can get clarification on is if I could get approval to have those trees removed as part of the project, contingent upon ultimate approval? Because I need to know which way to start moving forward with the design of the wall at the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I have to ask a silly question. You can’t repair the wall? MR. REDICK-No, and if you could go back to the pictures of the wall. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the obvious question. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. BRUNO-Do you have anything in writing from DEC at this point? MR. REDICK-No, I do not. This has been in conversations several times back and forth, but they said they could supply us writing. They had to start reviewing the application. MR. FORD-Has any DEC representative been on site to your knowledge? MR. REDICK-No, not to my knowledge. They have seen pictures. They have seen the same pictures that you’re essentially looking at right now, the same drawings, but to the best of my knowledge, they have not been on site. Essentially, there’s, we don’t know what we’re working with trying to repair the wall. There’s no stable foundation, and the wall height there is maybe a little bit difficult to appreciate, but it’s approximately eight feet tall, and from an engineering perspective, I can’t see how you could possibly replace that wall, just the way that it is, and hope that it’s going to stand the test of time. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if the trees come down, personally what I’d like to see is some re- vegetation of, obviously we can’t have like kind, because those are older trees, but some attempt at that. MR. REDICK-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Because once again, the trees are what hold the soil in place. MR. REDICK-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-And most of the problems that you have with the lake is that the, you know, the soils getting into the lake, which allows a place for weeds to take, as people use fertilizers on their lawn and bring in outside. If you have an experience with trying to grow anything near the lake, you can’t. Because the soil’s really bad. So what do people do? They bring in good soil that’s full of nutrients. So we’re just trying to stop that from happening. MR. REDICK-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we answer your question about the trees? MR. REDICK-I’m not sure if you have. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not really sure what you’re asking us, either, because, I mean, basically your site plan, part of your site plan is to remove those trees. So, you know, when we act on your site plan then you would have that definitive answer. If you’re asking if it’s okay for you to remove those trees, I don’t think we’re in a position to do that. MR. REDICK-No. I’m not asking to remove them now by any stretch. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. REDICK-I’m asking if I can, essentially contingent upon approval of the entire site plan that obviously has to be re-done, can we design the wall in such a way that it requires the removal of those trees? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think what we’re hearing is it’s a necessity. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d rather not have you do it, but. MR. REDICK-Trust me, neither would I, but there’s a lot of mitigating circumstances on this particular project that drives that decision. MRS. STEFFAN-And once you get the trees out of there, you have to get the stumps out of there. MR. REDICK-I know. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll be even worse. Okay. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. BARDEN-Could I ask something, because I just noticed it? What is that pipe that goes through from the boathouse through the wall? MR. REDICK-I’m not sure. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think that’s a pipe. I think that’s a branch, or a stick. MRS. BARDEN-No, it’s definitely a pipe. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, they do say they get water out of the lake. MR. REDICK-That on top is electric. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I know there’s electric in the boathouse. MR. REDICK-Yes, there’s actually right above that, and that’s why there’s a small deck on top that gives access to the meter. So the meter’s just above that. MR. TRAVER-The other one could be an air line, too, for a bubbler system. I don’t know. We were there over the weekend, and I don’t recall seeing that, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, we couldn’t see it because we were above the wall. MR. TRAVER-Right, but we did, we were over, I guess it would be to the right of those trees. MR. REDICK-I think if you actually, and one of the other photographs that was taken from the other angle may actually show that, but I’m certain it’s the electric meter. It’s the electric feeding the meter. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will leave the public hearing open, and then I would like to put forth a motion to table this application. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEV., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: thth Tabled to June 19, with a submission deadline of May 15. First, the Planning Board will treat this as a major project under Section 147 of the Town Code, due to the inclusion of the project in a CEA and the associated work that’s along the shore of Lake George. The tabling is pending the submission of the following: 1.A revised landscaping plan that would include native plants for buffering of the lake. This landscaping plan shall show more trees than currently provided, and include a provision for no fertilizer. 2.Submission of revised plans for the wall. 3.The applicant shall address the engineering comments in the letter from th Vision Engineering dated April 13. 4.That appropriate test pit data be witnessed by the Town Engineer. 5.That the applicant provide base elevations that would show the slope from the house down to the water. 6.That the revised plan include all appropriate erosion controls that are relevant under Section 147. 7.Documentation from DEC that shows their approval of the proposed wall reconstruction. th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MRS. BRUNO-What about the documentation from DEC that that is what they are suggesting? Do we need to have that? MR. TRAVER-Detailing the wall construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I did mention revised plans for the wall. What will you receive from DEC? MR. REDICK-What will I receive? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, are they going to provide you something in writing? MR. REDICK-Essentially where we’re at now is we’ve submitted for a permit, and we submitted based on, not this design, but the design I’ve described to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. REDICK-So, based on approval, they’ll give us a permit. MR. HUNSINGER-So you would have a permit that you could present to us? MR. REDICK-Theoretically, hopefully it will be done by then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. REDICK-But if not, at minimum, I think I could get a letter from DEC stating what we’re, stating their. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then why don’t I just say documentation from DEC that shows their approval of the proposed wall reconstruction. MR. REDICK-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that we should include? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that covers it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. REDICK-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY AGENT(S) MICHAEL S. BORGOS, ESQ. OWNER(S) T & M JACOBS ZONING HC- INT. LOCATION 643 UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT REQUESTS MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE INCORRECT PLACEMENT OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WAREHOUSE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 5.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-2 SECTION 179-4 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-This is a site plan modification for the incorrect placement of a warehouse building. An Area Variance was granted on November 15, 2006. The Board reviewed and approved an application for a 3,024 square foot commercial storage building on July 19, 2005. The proposed was to be located 20 feet from the southern property line to be compliant with the minimum 20 foot side setback requirement. Subsequently, a building permit was issued and the structure was built. When the as built survey was submitted to the Building Department, it revealed that the property line had been incorrectly identified, and the building was built over the property line. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action and a public hearing was noticed for tonight’s meeting. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) MR. BORGOS-Good evening, Michael Borgos for the record, on behalf of Reliable Racing. I think that one word sums it up. Oops. My client contacted me a little over a year ago, let me know that they had discovered this error when the as built survey was done, and they went to get their final CO. As I detailed in my narrative, in the cover letter, there’s a long history here, but we’ve made it through. The City of Glens Falls cooperated with us, granted us the easement. Based upon that, the Zoning Board granted us the variance for the setback relief, and the Zoning Administrator notified us that we needed to come before this Board for site plan modification. We looked for the original file, and I think, they say it’s still missing somewhere. We don’t know quite where it is, but we’ve put together the best that we could from what my client had in terms of records for what this Board approved back two years ago almost. The upshot of it all is that there really is no impact for the site plan, as far as we can see, except in a positive way from the site plan review standpoint. There is now more area available on the site than was previously thought. We’ve taken it from the neighbor, and from that setback. MR. HUNSINGER-From the City, yes. MR. BORGOS-They’ve approved it. Normally you’d look to say how do we mitigate that error. In this case it’s really impossible to do so because there’s no land left to use to mitigate it, but the good news is if you’ve been out there on the site, you can see, hopefully and understand, where the error was made. There is that existing vegetative buffer between the YMCA and this property, and the pole lines that run through there were always thought to be the boundary line. In essence it turns out it was roughly 20 feet to the north, and that’s where the measurements were taken from. So that’s why we have this result in discrepancy, but because that vegetative buffer was not disturbed, because it was believed to be beneficial and part of the setback originally, there really is nothing else that we can do to improve that. Everybody’s okay with it as it is, and now we’re just looking for this Board’s blessing for approval of this modification of site plan to say that what is on the as built survey is acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The Zoning Board variance was specific about if the building burns down, or whatever, they have to make it right. MR. BORGOS-That’s right. The easement actually has that language in it, that if there is any destruction of the building, that it’s going to be built at a compliant location in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing, and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We do typically do SEQRA on a modification. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I guess you could do consistency or you could. MR. BORGOS-You could just make a review or finding that it has no impact on the prior SEQRA determination. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 42-2005 RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant requests modification to the previously approved site plan to allow for the incorrect placement of the previously approved warehouse building. Modifications to previously approved plans require Planning Board approval 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/17/07; 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 42-2005 RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One, Two, and Three apply. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five does not comply. Paragraph Six applies. Paragraph Seven applies. Eight applies. Nine does not apply. Ten does not apply. I’ll include in this motion language from the ZBA determination, the applicant understands that should something catastrophic happen to this building, a fire or something else that basically destroys it, it would be constructed in a compliant location, as previously approved by the Planning Board on July 19, 2005. th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I have is if we want the same language that the Zoning Board used in our resolution, but it was commented that it’s already in the title. MRS. BARDEN-No, I would go ahead and add it. MR. FULLER-Yes. You might even consider the note that if that situation happens, that it would be constructed within your prior approval, that way they wouldn’t have to come back for another approval in the event of destruction. If you leave it open ended, then someone could say later that now you’ve got to come back again to modify the modification of the approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize for the late hour. If I had noticed the agenda, we would have put you on a little earlier, to get you out of here. MR. BORGOS-Well, I appreciate that you eliminated the public from the room, having it at this hour. It was great. We didn’t have any comment. If I could just make a 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/07) clarification for the record. I just found the date. I think that the prior approval from the Planning Board was July 19, 2005. I think you might have just referenced September. So if that can be corrected in the actual resolution as it’s typed. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I believe the actual Planning Board approval was July 19, not th September 29. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any further business? MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, what is this in regards to? MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Board amendment for Top of the World. MR. SEGULJIC-Top of the World amendment. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they coming in for site plan? MR. SIPP-I think they have a public hearing. MS. ALTER-I think they’re doing a public hearing next. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s kind of a heads up that it’s coming before us? MS. ALTER-They’re eliminating the eastern access road between Lockhart Mountain Road and Phase II A of the project, and they’re breaking Phase II B and II C down into smaller construction projects so there’ll be less. MR. HUNSINGER-We need to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 62