Loading...
2007-08-28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 3-2007 Vance Cohen 1. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2 Site Plan No. 20-2007 Agnus J. Vincze-Rosen 11. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-49.1 Site Plan No. 39-2007 Brett R. & Pamela T. West 21. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Site Plan No. 40-2007 Baywest Associates 29. Tax Map No. 289.20-1-5 Site Plan No. 41-2007 Mike Brandt/Mike Barbone 32. West Mt. Ski Center Tax Map No. 124-2-1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 Site Plan No. 43-2007 Takundewide Homeowners Association 36. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-13 Site Plan No. 4-2006 David R. Kelly MD & Sally N. Kelly 69. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-3 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 08/28/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE COHEN AGENT(S) RON MOGREN SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) DR. MITCHELL COHEN ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1159-1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 18,000 SQ. FT. PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY. PARKING FACILITIES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2007 NOA 4-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/14/07 LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020 RON MOGREN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Yes. This is a revision to a Site Plan previously heard by the Board. The Board had some concerns before about street landscaping and overall site landscaping. The applicant has revised the plans to increase the amount of landscaping on site. The applicant has returned to the Warren County Planning Board and the Warren County Planning Board issued a recommendation of approval with the condition that documentation be provided that signage is allowed in the right of way. As a result, the parking spaces have decreased from 53 to 42, and it appears that no changes to the lighting and stormwater plans are proposed as part of the modifications to the landscaping plan. That’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MOGREN-Ron Mogren from the Saratoga Associates. This is Vance Cohen. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOGREN-I just have a couple of comments about the Vision Engineering letter, then I’ll turn it over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead. MR. MOGREN-It looks like everything’s okay until we get down to Number 22 on the letter. I just want to read this here. The applicant has stated that due to limited options they’re requesting a variance from the separation requirement. As you might recall, he suggested that we have two feet of separation for the infiltration basins and we’re allowed to have just one. Given some of our site constraints, you know, we’re just not able to raise the site up like they did at The Great Escape because we’ve got that existing structure there. So, as he goes on and says the variance for the separation requirement should only be considered if adequate storage is provided in the storm basin, assuming limited or no bottom infiltration due to high groundwater. Now I do agree with that statement, and what we’ve done in there, shown both on the plans and in the report, is that we’ve used an infiltration rate of one inch in six minutes. Now I was out 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) there and I witnessed the infiltration, the perc test, and that soil was sand and gravel, and that was percing out at about one inch in 65 seconds, okay. So we’re contending that the adequate storage, like I say, (lost words) limited there, but we’re using a design infiltration rate almost five times greater than what the actual infiltration rate was. So I think that should give us a bit of a cushion regarding the size of the pond. Because he goes on to say that it’s possible to reduce the number of parking spaces to make a wider basin, but that isn’t an option for us now. We’re down to the bottom of the parking, and we can’t afford to really lose anymore parking spaces for infiltration, especially given that we’re using an infiltration rate that’s almost five to six times slower than the actual infiltration rate. MR. FORD-Could you clarify you’re down to the bottom of the parking? MR. MOGREN-Pardon me? MR. FORD-What do you mean by you’re down to the bottom of the parking? MR. MOGREN-We’re at 43 spaces now. That’s as low as we can go to make it a profitable operation. Okay. We’ve cut down, I think, 11 spaces since we’ve started. So we can’t really, the last sentence then again, comment, the infiltration basin should also include an inlet structure below frost depth to promote winter infiltration, and I don’t really have a problem with that, and we would be willing to put in a couple of drains at the bottom of each of those basins to do exactly that, okay. Then on the last page, Item Number 23, we are, I’m not really sure what kind of comment this is, but he goes on to say that the applicant has entered a direct entry for the TC of six minutes, and that’s true. In our proposed conditions, again stated in the report, we’re using the time of concentration of six minutes. Actually, the actual time of concentration is a little bit less than that, but TR-55, and I’ve got some guidelines here, use six minutes as a minimum time of concentration. So we’re using a six minute for the proposed conditions, and then we have a 7.8 minute for the existing conditions. So I’m trying to understand what he’s trying to say here. This should be updated to reflect sheet flow and shallow concentrated flow over pavement, which we’ve done that. We’re very confident in our time of concentration. Then goes on to say previously, the pre-development/post-development TC’s were the same, and then the post should have been different. That’s true, and we did change that. So, again, we’re using a time of concentration of six minutes for our proposed conditions and 7.8 minutes for our existing conditions. MR. FORD-And when and where was that change made. MR. MOGREN-Well, it was certainly made for the last submittal, which this reflects. So, again, I’m not fully clear on the engineer’s comment there, but right now, I can assure you, you know, I can show you in the report that those are the time of concentrations that we figured all of our infiltration basins to be, and again, I just want to emphasize, if you’re familiar with this site, it’s really not a lot of new impervious area we’re adding. We’re removing the building. We’re removing a lot of pavement in the right of way. We are adding some asphalt. I’ve been out there. I’ve seen the stuff. I’ve seen the sand and gravel. Hydrolic soil group, perc rate of 65 seconds, and I just don’t feel that the infiltration there, in five years that Vance owned that property, he’s never seen any ponding in the back yet. So, we feel that the plans are, as designed, are going to be adequate for the stormwater management. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add? Okay. I’ll open it up for questions and comments from members of the Board. MR. FORD-I have a question, because I raised it initially when you first came before us, and that is about accessing the facility across the street and any efforts that have been made to utilize the ramp and the walkway over Route 9. Have any efforts been made there to approach The Great Escape and utilize that facility? MR. MOGREN-Well, we’ve, we considered, I remember your discussion about the chain link fence out front. We considered that. When we put in a hedgerow, there’s a hedgerow out there now that we thought sufficed as a barrier to keep people from doing that, and then as we’ve had in the past we’ve got signage directing people to go down to that pedestrian bridge. So those are the measures that we’ve taken to, we’re trying to steer our people down to the bridge. MR. FORD-Have you approached the management at The Great Escape to determine if, in fact, you could access that through, by providing a gate through the fence? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) VANCE COHEN MR. COHEN-I had spoken with the previous General Manager there, and at the time they said they weren’t interested in putting a gate connecting the two properties, side by side. That’s why they put a public access on the sidewalk, so that you can access it from the sidewalk. You walk up to the bridge, and then you can cross over the road that way. MR. SIPP-But you did put a sign that directs them to the overhead bridge? MR. MOGREN-Yes, that’s shown on the layout plan. MR. COHEN-And we put a sidewalk on the northern side of the property, which guides them to the sidewalk. MR. FORD-And there is currently signage, or signage planned? MR. COHEN-No, there is signage planned. MR. FORD-Because I was there today and I didn’t see the signage. MR. MOGREN-I’m talking about the signage to direct people down to the bridge. We haven’t made any improvements out there, so that’s part of the improvements that we’re hoping to make. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re looking at L-3, I assume? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And where, note where the signs are proposed. MR. MOGREN-The north side, the sidewalk as it goes up to the existing concrete sidewalk, exterior signage seven over L-6, Pedestrian Bridge. Do you see that, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I apologize. I’m not seeing it. Exterior signage to pedestrian bridge. MR. MOGREN-So we’re hoping that the hedgerow, the planting buffer along Route 9, will help guide the users down to that sidewalk on the north end, and then they’ll migrate up and head on down to the bridge. MR. COHEN-And the parking attendant also informs people when they park there to use the sidewalk to get to the bridge. MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of questions. One’s for Staff. Regarding the landscaping around the perimeter, it says it has to be a minimum of five feet wide and one tree every 250 square feet. I don’t see any trees to the north or south. MR. HILTON-Right. I think if you add up the numbers, that it comes out to one per every 250. It’s just where they’re located. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re able to bank them, shall we say? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HILTON-If the Board, though to have them put them on the north side of the property or in other areas. Certainly you could consider that, but in looking at the numbers, it appears that they’ve met the one to two fifty. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The other issue is the stormwater and retention basin on the north side of the property. So, as I’m understanding this, correct me if I’m wrong, our engineer has indicated that in his opinion, as it’s designed now, it’s not adequate? MR. MOGREN-I don’t believe he’s worded it that way. MR. HILTON-What comment are you referring to? MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-two. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HILTON-Twenty-two. MR. MOGREN-Again, he’s looking at ways to, assuming that we have some limited infiltration, he’s looking at some ways to mitigate that, so to speak. What I’m trying to tell you people is that the design infiltration rate that we used is much slower than what’s really out there, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So you mean the design infiltration rate you used, but that’s dictated by the soils that are there. Correct? MR. MOGREN-No, no. Again, the perc rate that I did out there, it went down one inch in sixty-five seconds. That was the perc rate for the one, for the test pit. Our design rate is one inch in six minutes. Okay. So that’s what we use to design and size these things. So there’s almost like five times safety factor from what we designed to to what the actual percolation rate is in soils, and all you’ve got to do is go out there and dig and you’ll see sand and gravel. Okay. So that is a safety factor that. MR. SEGULJIC-Was that brought up to the engineer in your discussions? MR. MOGREN-I have not talked to the engineer at all. I’ve tried to call him, but I don’t get any response from him. So, it was on the plans and this is what he came back with. That’s all I can say to that. I don’t discuss things with the engineer. I have a very hard time communicating with him. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-When was the one foot groundwater level observed? Do you remember what month that you had taken that? MR. MOGREN-Yes. The soil testing was on L-4, and so actually the base, the soil th testing was performed on May 15. So, you know, again, that’s kind of when, the table’s generally higher then. So I think it’s close to a worst case scenario, and the water table drops down quite a bit in the Fall, but, to answer your question, it was performed on May thth 15, and we went back on June 15 and did the percolation tests. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Not that I want to spend a lot of time on semantics, but he said that the applicant is requesting a variance. I haven’t seen a variance request. MR. MOGREN-There is no variance. He’s saying it’s a variance from this two foot separation requirement, but I’m not sure, I don’t think it’s in your Code that you have to have that two foot separation requirement and he’s the one that came up with that first off. So it’s a variance from his own, you know, I’m not aware of anything in your Code that says you have to have that two foot separation. So he used the word variance, but that’s certainly not the word I would use. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think he means a variance from the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, he says requesting a variance from the separation requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t want to get caught up in semantics, but what exactly? MR. MOGREN-Yes, because what I did, when I wrote the letter to him, I just said I don’t want a variance, and he said we should have two feet of separation, so I just said, you know, I want a request from that. We can’t do that. It’s physically impossible. MR. SEGULJIC-I hope you can appreciate. I’m just a little uncomfortable with this. We have an engineer on this side saying it could be an issue, and I really think it’s something you need to hash out, because what you’re saying makes sense, but I’m not seeing this th in his latest comment letter which is dated August 24. MR. MOGREN-Yes, he came up with the solution to take out more parking. MR. SEGULJIC-And we are adjacent to Glen Lake also, which is an issue. The whole area is developed, but. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. MOGREN-The water does go down to the wetland that goes into Glen Lake, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and then also you did increase the amount of asphalt on this site, if I’m correct. MR. MOGREN-Somewhat, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-five, thirty percent at least I would say. MR. MOGREN-I’m probably on board with that statement, yes. MR. COHEN-I guess part of what we’re looking for is a little bit of leeway also, considering that we’ve been kind of barricaded in on that property from our nature drainage. It does drain. There’s not been any buildup of any water back there, and then all the rains that we’ve had. I guess we’re just looking for a little bit of leeway like that. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s kind of tough because we have this comment from our engineer, and we’re not, if something does happen, someone could come back and say your engineer pointed this out to you. Why didn’t you do anything? MR. FORD-And we can’t ignore it. MR. SEGULJIC-We can’t. I don’t think we can ignore his comment. I wish he was here to clarify it for us. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Mogren, when you tried to get in touch with our engineer, has that been through the office, through the Planning Office, or directly to Dan? MR. MOGREN-No, directly to him. Just leaving a message and not getting a return call. MRS. BRUNO-Because I know when he was first appointed the position, which was just at the beginning of this past year, I know that there were a few times that we had let applicants know that they needed to go through the office. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t let you know that the reason why he wasn’t calling you back was just because of technicalities, but you might want to just try that route, just in case. It’s just unusual for him to not return calls. I don’t think we’ve run into that. So I’m not making excuses. I’m just saying perhaps it was just a technicality of who to go through. Maybe you’ve just got to ask the Planning Department to, you know, the red tape. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. FORD-How many cars, approximately, were parked there today? MR. COHEN-I’m not sure, maybe 25, 26. I don’t have the official numbers. MR. FORD-And there is no signage directing them down to the appropriate walkway across. Correct? MR. COHEN-Currently the attendants tell everybody. MR. FORD-Do they pretty much follow those directions? MR. COHEN-For the most part, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Is the only outstanding issue the infiltration basin and that comment from the engineer? MR. SEGULJIC-As Tom has indicated, I’m just also uncomfortable with the fact that people will be crossing the street here. I mean, from what I’m understanding, you can assure us, you’re going to do everything you can to have people walk down the sidewalk. Please make me comfortable. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. COHEN-I actually think that we do more than The Great Escape does with their lots that are further south of us, because, as you know, on their busy days, they fill up past Martha’s, and all those people walk across the road. They cross the road up by Martha’s, walking on The Great Escape side of the road. Sometimes, they walk to the bottom of the hill, cross right in front of our place, and then sometimes they continue to walk down to the bridge, but we direct our customers to go right to the bridge. MR. SEGULJIC-And is there any way you can throw me a bone and give me a couple of trees along the north and south side for landscaping? MR. COHEN-For the purpose of? I mean, I have lilacs that line the whole south side of the property right now. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m talking about the south side here where you have nothing. MR. MOGREN-Yes, but adjacent to that is just an another lighted parking lot from the Great Escape. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s what I’m looking to break up. If I had known then what I know now, things would be different, but you’re here now, I mean, you’re driving by a sea of asphalt. People come to the Adirondacks. MR. COHEN-I’m just saying, suggesting something as well. The next time, perhaps, the park is in front, you can ask the same of our neighbors. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, absolutely. More knowledgeable every day. MR. COHEN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-If we can put trees in there, I don’t see, I don’t have a problem with that. MR. MOGREN-How many do you want? MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s take three along the south side and three along the north. MR. COHEN-Okay. MR. SIPP-Three to four inch caliper. MR. MOGREN-If we use the same size, I think that’s what I’ve got on the plant list, yes, the same size, same materials. Three inch caliper. MRS. BRUNO-What did you call out for species? MR. MOGREN-We’re using some red maples, some red oaks, some summit ash and some thornless honey locusts. If you’re up and around playing with the infiltration basins, you’d probably want to go with the red maples. They’re often called the swamp maples. So they can suck that up. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, red maples. MR. MOGREN-Now, if you throw us a bone, then. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to turn to the Board on that. MR. MOGREN-How about giving me some kind of condition on that Item Number 22 working that out with your engineer? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s where we’re at, yes. MR. MOGREN-Okay, and just again, there was a comment by the Warren County Planning Board, we do have to submit a highway work permit with DOT, for the removals and stuff like that. So that issue with the Warren County Planning Board about that sign would be flushed out during the permit process there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-A good faith effort, I believe, and we’re rapidly approaching the end of the season, but it seems to me that pedestrian flow is critical. This has been my bone of 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) contention from the very beginning of this project, and I think that there ought to be signage there right away. MR. COHEN-I can put something up. I actually had a tenant that was in the ice cream shop, but I previously had signs all over those windows, which I can put back up. That’s not a problem. MR. MOGREN-So you’re asking for additional signage where, again? MR. COHEN-Just now. MR. SIPP-Right now, yes. MR. TRAVER-Interim signage before. MR. FORD-Yes. If you share our concern about pedestrian safety, crossing Route 9, then I think there needs to be something out there, in addition to, and I appreciate that effort, but out close to the sidewalk location where that will be directing people with signage, out near the road. MR. COHEN-The Town may also want to consider putting some along Route 9 there, you know, where there’s maybe street signs that recommend people stay to crosswalks and such. Because there’s people that walk all the way up to Suttons from us, and they’ve got to cross somewhere to get to Suttons. MRS. BRUNO-I agree with you. I’ve come across some people coming up through the fences and everything else. MR. COHEN-Even up by Suttons and going over to Agway, checking the plants over there. People walk across the road. They’re parked on one side. MR. FORD-I saw two people trying to get through the fence today. MR. COHEN-The Great Escape always has people jumping their fence. It’s amazing, a six foot fence and they’re trying to jump it. MR. FORD-Not over it, through it. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Mr. Chairman, I guess what we’re going to say is that the applicant and the Town Engineer should get together and work this out, and if they can convince the Town Engineer that their design’s going to work, because what he’s saying is your design is six times over, is 600% designed, I guess. MR. MOGREN-Yes, I think we’ve got a safety factor worked into the report. MR. SEGULJIC-And if they can’t work it out, it requires a Site Plan change. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s kind of where we’re at. Let’s rehash the Item 23 issue, though. I guess I’m really not sure, I guess you think if you have a communication with the engineer that you can resolve that? MR. MOGREN-Well, yes. I’m totally confident that our time of concentration of six minutes is an appropriate time of concentration. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOGREN-And I’ll discuss that with the engineer also. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. It sounds like members are comfortable in moving forward. Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. Is it a Long Form or a Short Form? Short Form? MR. TRAVER-Didn’t we already do SEQRA? About six months ago, maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SEGULJIC-You know what, I think you may be correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. Because we’ve continued to table the project since May. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, March, and I believe. I think you actually submitted a Long Form. MR. MOGREN-I do recall that Sue had called up and I believe she did ask me to re- submit a Long Form, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you submitted a Long Form. So we have to do the Long Form. We approved the SEQRA in March? Okay. I’m going to lean on Staff a little bit here. Mrs. Bruno just showed, we did do SEQRA back in March for the Area Variance. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that apply to the Site Plan as well, or do we do it, typically I think we do a separate SEQRA for the Site Plan. We did do SEQRA in March for the Area Variance. MR. HILTON-It would apply to the Site Plan as well. What was going on there was a th coordinated review. The Planning Board accepted Lead Agency Status on March 27, and a Negative Declaration as well for the Area Variance and the Site Plan was passed th by this Board on March 27 as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the applicant is correct. We are all set with SEQRA. MR. HILTON-The SEQRA has been done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOGREN-I remember now. Yes, you passed SEQRA and you made a motion to recommend to the ZBA disapproval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Your memory is better than mine. Okay. Since we already did SEQRA, would anyone like to entertain a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we have three conditions that I see. One is the posting of the sign, and what do we want to say about that? I don’t think we can say immediately. How much time would you need? MR. COHEN-I could probably get something up tomorrow at some point. MR. HUNSINGER-Prior to Labor Day weekend, then. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s that date? I guess we should put a date in here, right? MR. FORD-Give them until Thursday evening. st MR. SEGULJIC-Which is, what, August 31? th MR. HUNSINGER-August 30. th MR. SEGULJIC-August 30. st MR. HUNSINGER-Well, how are you going to word it by, by August 31. MR. COHEN-I’m pretty sure I have the sign still at the shop. So I’ll just go put it down in the windows. MR. SEGULJIC-And then we’re going to request we plant three, three to four inch caliper red maple trees along the north and south boundary, and then the last condition is a tough one. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he did agree to provide the inlet structure below the frost depth to promote winter infiltration. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And that satisfies engineer’s comment number 22, but engineer’s comment number 23 is unresolved. So I think we need a final signoff from Vision Engineering on Item 23. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t think the installation of the inlet below the frost line addresses 22. It’s one of those things that says it should be done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-As I read it. So we’ll say that you’re going to install the inlet below the frost line, and then meet with the engineer to address the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but you mentioned signage in the window, and that really wasn’t what I had in mind to direct pedestrian traffic up to the pedestrian bridge. I think we need something of a freestanding nature that would be out closer to where the eventual sidewalk will be, so they will encounter that as they leave their vehicles and head toward Route 9. They will encounter that sign. MR. COHEN-Everybody walks by the ice cream shop and they’ll be able to see it right there, and that’s where the attendant is, and we’ll mention it. We point to the sign. That’s how we did it when it was there before. It’s big. It fills up the windows, and then I’m going to go through, if I do anything else on the property I’d have to get sign permits. Right? Unless it’s in the window. MRS. BRUNO-How big were your original signs that were in the window? MR. COHEN-Maybe two by two, two to three inch lettering. You could clearly read it from sitting in the car. It said for safety, I don’t know the exact wording, to use the pedestrian bridge, to safely cross the road, use the pedestrian bridge, something along those lines. I’m not sure of the exact wording at this point. We definitely get the message cross, and everybody heads right to the bridge. Because we tell them that’s the only way to get into the Park is use the bridge. MR. FORD-Is that the signage that you’re anticipating in the final product? MR. MOGREN-No. There’s a detail for the final product on the plans is what we would use, a freestanding sign. Are yours weatherproofed? MR. COHEN-Well, it’s inside the window. MR. MOGREN-I know, but I’m just, he’s still wondering if you could get something outside right away. MR. COHEN-I probably could put something up. I can put like a triangular, you know, one of those sandwich signs, pointing with an arrow. MR. FORD-There was one that had been knocked over today. MR. COHEN-It was a parking sign. MR. FORD-Right, and so you could have parking on one side and pedestrian directions on the other. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So how should we word that? MR. COHEN-Use pedestrian bridge to cross the road. MR. SEGULJIC-Post a freestanding sign. MR. COHEN-To pedestrian bridge, with an arrow. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to do anything with the County? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We just need a supermajority, that’s all. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes an 18,000 sq. ft. Public Parking Facility. Parking Facilities in the HC zone requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/27, 3/27, 5/15, 7/17 & 8/28/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 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 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 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five is Negative. Number Eight, letter of credit, does not apply. With the following conditions: th 1.Place a freestanding sign to direct pedestrians to the bridge by August 30. 2.Plant three on each side, 3 to 4 inch caliper red maple trees along the north and south boundaries of the site. 3.Provide inlet below frost line as directed by the Town Engineer. 4.Address engineering comments with regards to on site stormwater management, Number 22 and 23 in the engineer’s letter. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you very much. MR. COHEN-Thank you. MR. MOGREN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION; LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 262 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 1250 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH 307 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND REPLACEMENT WITH 1220 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE AND 745 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. SUNDECK/BOATHOUSE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16- 1-49.1 SECTION 179-5-050; 179-6-060 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. HUNSINGER-If you could summarize Staff Notes please, George. MR. HILTON-Really we don’t have anything to summarize. It was my understanding that we were going prepare a resolution for tabling for the Board this evening. I apologize th that that’s not in front of you. If you will recall, this item was last heard on the 17 of July. rd At that time, the application was tabled to this evening, with a deadline of August 3 for submitting additional information, and that deadline passed without receiving any new information. So we don’t have anything to comment on, and we also don’t have any comments from the Town’s consulting engineer. So I guess our position is that we’re not prepared to discuss this, based on not receiving information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m here representing the applicant. I don’t necessarily totally disagree with Staff. I partially disagree with Staff. I think a lot of the discussions, when we were here in July, had to do with what was the status of the building permit on the main house, what were the terms of that building permit, and what was in the building file. I did come up to the Town office building the next day, and I wrote a lengthy letter th on July 19, which I believe I addressed to the Planning Board, which I thought answered 90% of the questions that were asked at the July meeting, as to the issues as to the stormwater for the main house, and also some issues that were raised by Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association as to whether or not variances were required for the house construction. Jim Miller, who was the engineer for the project, believed, th erroneously believed, that we had until August 15 to amend the actual engineering plan as requested by the Town’s Engineer, and he submitted that to the Town, I believe, on th August 14. Basically, I think what he submitted to Mr. Ryan was that the storm trench provides 64 cf of storage to meet the required 63 cf for the new walkway, and the rain garden, the area of the walk below the trench, is approximately 85 square feet, which was 17 cf of required storage and the proposed rain garden is approximately 96 square feet, which would have 48 cf of storage, about three times what would be required. He also put the comments or put the stone line on the plans. They are not significant engineering issues that were raised, although I do admit that those issues were not th addressed prior to the submittal on August 14 and when I checked with Staff the other day, they had not heard back from Mr. Ryan as to whether those comments satisfied his issues. If you’re going to table it, you can table it. I know how busy your agenda is. I don’t know, really, what’s to be accomplished by tabling it. I would like to have one issue, which I wrote yesterday on also addressed, and that’s at your last meeting Kathy Bozony suggested that we look at using flexi pave, which is a combination of stone and tires, for that walkway, because it’s a porous material. We’ve stopped up here. We’ve tlaked to Craig Brown. We’ve asked, is that hard surfacing, and he has not given us an answer. I’m not sure how that’s going to come down. We have no problem using this material. If you actually look at the brochure, have you folks seen the brochure? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I have not. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. They hold a piece of material up with the running water above it, and the water runs right through it. So it doesn’t impede drainage, and it’s something that we’re willing to use, but I don’t want to get into the box, or vicious cycle of, even if you table this, you have everything from the engineer at this point, and it’s for a brick walkway. If you’re going to table it to next month’s meeting, and I come in and tell you, we can use that material, I don’t want to start over again. Some place, we’re willing to use it, and I don’t know if using it actually takes us out of the application, if it’s determined that that’s not hard surfacing. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where I thought you were going with that question, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, that’s the question that we have before him. This is not an inexpensive material to use, as well, and maybe it’ll be an incentive to people to use it if they, in fact, can use it within the 50 feet of the lake. From an engineering point, it sounds like you can. The rainwater is not impeded. The rainwater goes through it. They show that it’s stood up for five years. They quit testing it after five years. Craig Brown’s initial comment was, well, will it clog? And I’m not an engineering, I don’t know if it’ll clog, but they’ve tested it for five years and it hasn’t clogged. So it appears to be a good solution to an issue that we’ve been trying to deal with. th MR. HUNSINGER-So the applicant’s engineer submitted new materials on August 14? th MR. O'CONNOR-August 14. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And it had, basically, those three issues on it, that was the cover letter that I read from, from Jim Miller. I think that they will satisfy Mr. Miller, or they will satisfy the Town Engineer, without any issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I do have with me, too, if you want, and I don’t know if anybody, I asked, also, Craig Brown, to write a letter saying that the stormwater permit had been th renewed when the building permit was renewed, and he wrote that letter August 14 also, and you’ve received a copy of that memo. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-That they consider the renewal of the building permit renewal of the stormwater permits. MR. HUNSINGER-We did. MR. O'CONNOR-I do have the two sheets from the Building Department file. I asked Staff to have the Building Department file here, if Board members had any particular issue, but the two sheets that I have, although I think simply so that we have a good record, one is the cover sheet for the main house, and it shows in the lower left hand corner the calculations I refer to in my letter. The main floor is 2336 square feet. The garage is 743 square feet. The second floor is 1,062 square feet. So that would be 4140 square feet. There are two other items on there. One is basement, which is 1891 square feet and crawl space, 266 square feet. I believe that when Mrs. Bozony was talking about a 6,000 square foot house, she simply added all of those, and there’s an asterisk after some of them, where there’s only a period under the first two items, and also on that sheet it shows that the lots on the lakeside are 21,064 square feet, which would give you a floor area ratio of 4634, and we’ve got 4141, and I referred to my letter that there’d be another, I think, 3400 square feet of floor area ratio available if you also brought in to the calculation the lots on the opposite site of the road which are being used for septic. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying when you combine the two lots, there’s adequate. MR. O'CONNOR-You’d have 7,000 floor area ratio, as opposed to what’s being used of 4100. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SIPP-Without combining these lots, how much distance can we have between these lots before they’re not about to be combined? MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve done it by deed and by restriction, which was the condition that was asked of us when we went to utilize that lot. I don’t know, truthfully, if there is a distance. We’ve got the opposite issue on Hal Road. You’ve got a subdivision that I brought in to you for Sherwood Acres, and you’ve got a 50 foot road there and the Town is including both sides of those roads as being one lot. So apparently separation by road is not a distinction from the Town that they are separate and distinct . MR. SIPP-Well, now, if we skip two lots and they had another lot down on the same side of the road, is that able to be combined? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because they’re not congruent. They’re not adjacent. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there’s a road in between. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve argued the other way, Mr. Sipp. I’ve argued the other way. MR. SIPP-Well, where is this stated, that’s what I’d like to know. I’ve been all through 179. MR. O'CONNOR-I have an opinion from Craig Brown in the Sherwood Acres file that’s probably about two years old at this point, and I don’t know if anybody else has the same opinion. Even without the combination, there’s still adequate area on the lakeside. th MR. SIPP-I was on the property on August 14, I took a picture, several pictures of the boathouse, and my camera screwed up and I didn’t get the house. That is, and George has got a picture over there he can give to you, and you can label this what is wrong with this picture, and we have the bales of hay which are supposed to be the line on the area of disturbance have been removed. There’s three of them out of order there, and they’ve been out of order for quite a while because the grass is starting to grow back underneath where they were. MR. O'CONNOR-Pursuant to my letter of July, I asked the Town to go do a site inspection, as to any issues of compliance. I’ve not heard anything back and I heard back through the contractor, supposedly, that they were there and had no problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn’t there an e-mail? I thought there was an e-mail? MR. HILTON-I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-That was a different issue, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a different project. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that a, I’m not trying to argue with you, but is that a silt fence behind there, the black material? MR. SIPP-Yes, but if the bales are supposed to be there to support that black plastic, why have they been removed? MR. O'CONNOR-It depends on how the black plastic is staked. That’s my understanding. Again, I don’t plan to be an engineer, but you can put up silt fence without hay bales. MR. SIPP-It’s staked right on the wall, sea wall, on the inside of the sea wall. So therefore if there is any leakage, it’s going to go right down on the inside of the sea wall. That’s just, I did not get a picture of really what I wanted. If you go to the cellar, to the basement, there are three windows facing the lake, on the east side of this building, and there are two staircases going into this basement. Is that not living area? MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding it is not living area. There are two interior stairs? MR. SIPP-Two interior staircases. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SIPP-And three windows, in the front half of this space where there’s above ground level. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, you’re back into this house business, and I don’t know what issue. MR. SIPP-Well, it’s a moot point, but I’m trying to say that. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have an answer for you, I guess. I don’t have an answer for you. It is my understanding Staff has made the calculation that it did comply with the floor area ratio requirements of the Ordinance. MR. SEGULJIC-Just looking at the building permit, I think I answered my own question. MRS. BRUNO-George, do we have the basement or foundation plan in the packet? MR. HILTON-Well, I do have the building permit file here. I’d have to go through it and see what’s in here, but I can look. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t want to belabor this point, and I also got, Craig Brown was saying that the permit was extended by (lost words), but in looking at the Site Plan, this says total disturbed area is 14,966, and then below it says disturbed area, less stormwater control, 13,606, which is what you cited in your letter. Can you explain to me how you arrived at that, that 13,606? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I took that off the plan and recited what was on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-How can you take credit for stormwater control? You have to disturb the area to get that? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Either way, it’s still under the 15,000 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re installing a new septic system, I believe, across the street. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Which you had just indicated is part of this lot. That was not, that area was not included in the area of calculation, because the area of calculation is this area between the dotted line, but they didn’t take into account the septic system, nor did they take into account the sidewalk, which puts you over 15,000 square feet of disturbance, which puts you as a major project. MR. O'CONNOR-Which we comply with at this point? MR. SEGULJIC-As a major project? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Where’s your stormwater control report? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, Tom, you’re going to go back to the house building permit. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because the house disturbs, the house impacts this area of land. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m not going to go back there. I’m here to talk about the walkway, the 361 feet of walkway. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m here to make sure you comply with the regulations. MR. O'CONNOR-If you don’t want to approve that walkway, then take your action. You tell me what you’re going to do. These decisions were made by this Building Department over a year ago. This is a year and a half, year, 15 months ago. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know if I should say this, but the Building Department has been asleep at the wheel. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t have the information at hand to necessarily answer you specifically. I know the last time when you raised issues, when I went in and did some research, I think I found fairly good answers for those. MR. SEGULJIC-For those questions correct, but now the question is, how can you take credit, subtract out the areas that use stormwater control, take credit for it as a disturbed area. You have to disturb the area to install the stormwater control. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s an engineering issue. I don’t have the answer for you. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s fairly obvious, you have to disturb an area to install stormwater control. MR. O'CONNOR-The fellow who stamped the plans did not, I am not going to second guess why he did it or didn’t do it. I can’t tell you that as I sit here. MR. SEGULJIC-Nor did they take into account the area for the septic system. As you had just alluded to, it is part of this site. The septic system alone is probably 1,000 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-The stormwater regulations that are by DEC are different than the Town zoning regulations as to sites. The APA is different. The APA recognizes parcels on opposite sides of the road as being separate parcels. The DEC, I believe, also does that for stormwater. The Town does not do that for zoning. If they’re in common ownership and they are on the same deed, and they are by restrictive covenant pledged to be together, the Town looks at it as one parcel. That I can tell you that’s the distinction, but I don’t, that’s the answer I have for that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I personally think this should be a major stormwater project, and I guess, as the Planning Board, we can make that motion. MR. O'CONNOR-The 361 foot of dock that’s before you should be a major stormwater, the 361 foot of walkway, I’m sorry, not dock. MR. SEGULJIC-The area upgradient of the area we’re looking at has the potential to disturb the area we’re looking at, if not properly designed and controlled. MR. O'CONNOR-You can do what you’re going to do. I think you’re absolutely wrong. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve come down this path at least a couple of times previous to this, and, you know, I think it’s one of those issues where our Code fails us. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I don’t think it fails us. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it does. Because the applicant is entirely correct. If he wasn’t putting in the walkway within 50 feet of the lake, he wouldn’t be here at all. He could disturb 17,000 square feet of space, and it wouldn’t require him to come before this Board. MR. SEGULJIC-It would still require a stormwater permit, however. MR. HUNSINGER-But not before this Board. MR. SEGULJIC-But it would still require a stormwater permit, and then the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, who enforces that? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the problem. There’s no enforcement. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there you go. MR. SEGULJIC-They are disturbing the area we’re looking at. This area upslope has the potential to impact our area. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I’m not going to argue with you. I think it’s an issue in our Code that fails everybody, and that’s the only point I was trying to make. I don’t think one side is right or one side is wrong. I think the Code fails us, and it is one of the issues that is being proposed for correction in the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the new Zoning Ordinances. I guess my inclination, and prior to the discussion on whether 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) it’s a major or minor project, was to ask the Board to table this, because we do have new th materials submitted on August 14 that have not been reviewed by our engineer. I think that was where, you know, my inclination was to do this evening. I don’t know, you know, how this other discussion would impact that or not impact that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as part of our tabling motion, can we direct the Zoning Administrator to look at this project in light of the fact that I believe it goes well over 15,000 square feet and is a major project and make that determination. MR. O'CONNOR-I think this Board is bound by the Code that it’s been asked to enforce. One of the provisions of that Code is that determinations by the Zoning Administrator are appealable by this Board or by any citizen if raised within 60 days of when made, and this permit was issued a long, long time ago. You’re well past that. These people have got the house up. I’m not even sure, Mr. Sipp was there, substantially up in place. I know even the boathouse is up and substantially in place. I don’t know what your ultimate would be going back, but I will stand on that Statute of Limitations also. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. I would just like to have that included in the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that? MR. SEGULJIC-That the Zoning Administrator look at the project and make a determination as to whether it’s major or minor. My opinion, once again, in some ways, I could sit here and say it’s falsely presented, because I don’t, the septic system, which you’ve said is part of this project, is not presented on these plans. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, this is the copy of the septic system plans that were submitted, that are in that file. MR. SEGULJIC-To the Building Department. MR. O'CONNOR-In the Building Department. MR. SEGULJIC-Not to the Zoning Administrator. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s, the Zoning Administrator reviews those before a building permit is issued. Am I right, Mr. Hilton? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Then I’m shocked that he wouldn’t have picked up on that. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s SP-3, Sheet Three of Three, dated October 14, 2005, and I had them make a copy of it because somebody else raised that issue the other day. I’ll submit these two pages to you, just so that they’re in your Planning Board file. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that was here to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will hold the public hearing open. MR. SIPP-Chris, I’m not carrying this on too long, but I think some of us are concerned with some of these items slipping by us. Had we not gone out there to look at that new dock and sun deck, we would have never known a thing about this project, and this project has some bad problems, as far as I can see. Big house on two small lots, overpowering house, a house that’s probably worth four to five million dollars, squeezed on the two small lots which have a lot of problems, and I think this is something that we’re trying to avoid happening again, and if we don’t get cooperation from parts of this Town, we’re going to have to do it on our own, which is what we’re trying to do right now, is to show that we’re not going to have this thing happening over and over and over again. There are other projects in the same area which have other faults which never have come before this Board, an over height building, and what I’m concerned about is protecting this lake, and you have rejected any additional buffering that was offered at the last meeting, which I wasn’t here, and I say that this is needed. You’re within, almost within 50 feet of the lake. You’ve just squeezed it in so that there’s probably two or three feet difference. There’s a slope to the lake, and you need this extra buffering to prevent damage to the lake, and I cannot see rejecting it. I don’t know about the rain garden. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) We have not had a final decision on that, and until we get a decision on what happens with the paved walkway, whether we use these pavers that will allow water to drain through or we use solid material, I think this is hanging up in the air. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, do you want me to respond? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think my problem is you can’t necessarily, I think these people have been fairly cooperative in trying to provide whatever has been requested of them from Day One, as they’ve gone through this process. They had a variance, if you’re not aware of this, to build a house on half of this property, a large house that would have been much more imposing than buying the additional lot, tearing that house down, and building what they’ve built there, but they think that they have followed the Code, and the problem, as the Chairman has indicated, is the Code is inconsistent. It’s kind of, we say that you have to come in here for Site Plan review for modification, enlargement of a nonconforming structure or a structure on a nonconforming lot. You do not have to come in here for Site Plan Review for new construction on a nonconforming lot under the present Code. It’s the same like your difference in your subdivision rules where you say that in a cluster you don’t consider sloping over, what, 25% in a standard cookie cutter subdivision, you don’t consider property for density that has over 15% slope. You should be encouraging clustering as opposed to discouraging it. There are inconsistencies in this Code, but when you have people that have spent a great deal of time and a great deal of effort to design a home and spent a great deal of money on it, they expect that the Code, for whatever it’s worth is going to be followed, and they think that they’ve followed it here, and the other point I’d make with you, the application before you is for a brick paver walkway, and the stormwater design, with the rain garden, is for that brick paver walkway, okay. They’re willing to do this, okay, which would probably eliminate even the necessity of being here. It probably would also change the storage requirements of both the walkway and the rain garden. I think you’ve got a trench on each side of the walkway and then you’ve got the rain garden. I think it would change the storage requirements significantly on that. My point to you was it’s not either/or, okay. We’d like to do this, but I’d like not to have to come back in, if you’re going to table this tonight, with a new set of drawings or get thrown into a new filing date. I’ll submit this. This is what we would propose, and we’ve already submitted a copy of this to Craig to give to the Town Engineer to get his opinion. So was that submitted as part of the th August 14 submission? MR. O'CONNOR-No, we didn’t know that we could get the material in the colors that they wanted until recently, but we have submitted it in writing to Craig, you know, and I’m just trying to figure out where to go so that we don’t put this on forever. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, you know, my inclination would be to table this until a September meeting date, seeing how there was already materials submitted, but I’m just one member of the Board, and get a clarification from Staff on how they calculated the disturbance area so that it wasn’t a major project. MR. SEGULJIC-And I agree. Could we hear from the public? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. If you could just state your name for the record, please. KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association, and I wanted to speak tonight because this is really an unfortunate situation that we are seeing repeatedly in Queensbury, and it’s unfortunate that the Rosens are caught up in this. I am also speaking because I want to set the record straight a bit. Mrs. Bruno, you’re looking at the plans right now. You can see that the third level, which happens to be the lower level, is 1891 square feet, which should be included in living space, and it is not. It is labeled an unfinished basement. Well, that does not comply with the definition of what the FAR calculation is for the Town of Queensbury. It is a moot point at this point, but I want to state for the record that the building permit was issued in November of 2005, with the combined two lots on the one side, on the lake side of the road. The lot was acquired across the road in September of 2006. So that additional land was not added into the lakeshore land at the time that the building permit was issued, which means that, if, in fact, the three stories were counted in the FAR calculation, it would have been over. Again, it’s a moot point, but I wanted it for the record, because we’ve got almost a year there in between when that FAR calculation should have been identified as to have been brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Queensbury and it was not. I 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) agree with Mr. Sipp about the fact that any additional plantings on this property will really enhance what’s happening to the lake. This land has been bare for two years now. They’ve still got a lot more stonework. It is a large house on a small lot with very little permeable surface and when I spoke with Mrs. Rosen, she was initially not agreeable to putting plantings, and then we chatted for quite a long time, and she was very, it seemed, very excited about having all these beautiful native plants all around her property, and not only do they look nice, but they really enhance what is filtered before it goes into the lake. At our last Planning Board meeting we were discussing this property and the property two doors down that had released tremendous amounts of sediment into the lake at a recent storm, and, you know, the additional vegetation, wherever we can put it on this lot, as opposed to lawn, is really going to enhance it. So I did share with you last meeting, and I made a copy and gave it to Pam Whiting, of additional locations where, regardless of what ends up getting approved when, I would like to possibly talk to Mrs. Rosen and just see if she would be agreeable to putting some vegetative plantings on the end of the driveway and this large parking pad, and just these areas where I personally think that she might be very agreeable to it, and I think it would really enhance the overall approved property. I think that vegetation should go on that site right now, before winter. Whether they put in rye grass that they can turn under, I don’t know what the solutions are, but to have that bear soil there, and they’re talking about finishing the project in 2008/2009. There’s still a lot more stonework to be done, and I believe that what’s Mr. Cifone said a couple of months ago, that it was still a long ways off, and I’m wondering if somehow we can start talking about covering that soil with something, as opposed to leaving it bear like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. BOZONY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. Did I hear you say, Mr. Seguljic, that there’s 17,000 square feet of disturbance on this project? MR. SEGULJIC-I am not sure of exactly what it is because the plans are unclear. The plans state total disturbed area 14,966, and then below it says disturbed area, less stormwater controls, 13,606. That’s the number they put on their stormwater permit, and it was designated a minor project. However, I don’t believe they included the area of disturbance for the septic system, nor did they include the area of disturbance for the sidewalks, which would put them well over 15,000 square feet, which would be a major project. MR. SALVADOR-Which is a major project. It’s not too late to demand a major project stormwater plan according to 147. Why can’t you require it? You’ve got new evidence. You’ve got new drawings, new layout, oversight. I don’t care what you call it. There’s a basis to have a major stormwater plan. That can’t be overlooked, and I refuse to accept that these are just simple oversights. These are lack of proper interpretation of the Code. This goes on all too often. It’s too repetitive to be an accident. It’s a pattern. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. O'CONNOR-Just for the record, Mrs. Bozony is completely wrong on the dates when the property was acquired. I don’t have the real estate files in front of me, but I think the property to the north was purchased some years ago. It’s been in the family for a long time. The property to the south and the lot across the street, whichever one it tagged to, occurred at the same time. The 2006 deed was a deed that was done between family members, combining everything in the husband and wife’s name. When they actually had bought the second house, they did what many people do. They kept it in separate names to preserve its individual rights, and as a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and then, at the request of the Town, they put them all in Mr. and Mrs. Rosen’s name, and that’s the second deed that she’s referring to. The issue as to whether or not the basement was included in the FAR, that’s a calculation that the Staff has made here. Under our present regulations, it is not an area that is included in the FAR calculation. I know you had some discussion earlier about whether or not that’s going to change in a future Ordinance, but I feel confident that what is there is the correct FAR ratio, and it does comply with the lot size that you have before you. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MRS. BRUNO-Excuse me, Mr. O’Connor. When you say the Staff calculated, do you recall that was specifically? Usually that is the applicant’s charge to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It is my understanding, when they review the building permit, it’s done internally by the Staff, and I’m not sure whether Hatin does it or Craig Brown does it. MR. HILTON-And again, my understanding is that with a proposal to build a home that doesn’t come before this Board, it’s reviewed by our Building Department for compliance with the Building Code and Craig, our Zoning Administrator, will sign off or review it for compliance with not only the Zoning Code but also in this case for compliance with the stormwater regulations of 147, and, you know, as has been discussed, you know, there’s a building permit file out there. There’s also a stormwater permit application that’s been signed by the Zoning Administrator, approved, accepted by the Zoning Administrator, and a letter stating that it’s been renewed as such. MRS. BRUNO-So he would have covered the FAR calculation? MR. O'CONNOR-Additionally also when we did the application for the variance for the dock, we had to do the Floor Area Ratio, and that was reviewed by someone. I don’t have that part in front of me, and I think we actually have a Floor Area Ratio calculation as part of this application as well, which is also reviewed in the pre-application meetings. MR. HILTON-But to answer your question, at the time of building permit, it’s my understanding that that would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for compliance, and if there was an issue with Floor Area Ratio, it would have been referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. MRS. BRUNO-All right. Mr. O’Connor, could I make a comment right now, or were you going to go on? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. No. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I just want to interject this regarding the FAR, and as you’ve said, it’s a point not properly addressed in the Code and that will be coming up in the further documentation all of the groups are working on. MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. Bruno, I haven’t agreed that it’s not properly addressed. I think right now you’ve crunched lakefront properties by height. You crunch them by Floor Area Ratio. You have sideline boundaries. I don’t know what other restrictions you need to put in. You include covered porches, garages, all of which don’t really contribute greatly to the areas that you’re looking at on lakes. So I don’t agree with the fact that you need to go beyond the State Building Code which says that if an area is not livable space, as defined by the State Building Code, it’s not included, which is where we are now. MRS. BRUNO-Let me clarify what I was saying, then. MR. SEGULJIC-Other than the State Building Code’s ambiguous. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought it was clear. MRS. BRUNO-Let me clarify what I was saying, then. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I was referring, specifically, to a certain point. I’m not talking about the setbacks or the heights or anything. I’m talking about specifically with basement liveability versus non-liveablity, which is part of the New York State Building Code, and that’s what I’m referring to. We’ve had numerous applications where we’ve had this exact discussion whether or not the applicant was going to finish their currently stated unfinished basement, and should that square footage be included in the FAR, but I would like to point out that in my opinion Mrs. Bozony was not eager to criticize when including the basement because in my calculations, well, in my quick calculations, the windows that are in the portion of the full height basement over eight feet, are egress windows. Curiously enough, separating that same room from the mechanical room are fiberglass sound attenuated walls which to me would indicate that you don’t want the noise from the mechanical room going into the adjoining room, which is also the room that is accessed by the full stairs. So I know that we can’t cover, really, this at this point because it’s not 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) clarified in the Code, and as George has said, Craig Brown has already reviewed this, but I just want to point out that, with a quick calculation that gives your basement livable, potentially livable space, as 960 square feet, which brings you up to 5,100, give or take, square feet, and in your letter, you’ve got 4,634 would be the maximum FAR. So I just want to point out how hairy this gets. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It is confusing, and I don’t mean to try and make progress on the confusion of it. I agree with you. I don’t know if your presumption that because they’re putting sound attenuating material around their mechanical rooms, that they intend to use that as livable space. I think the quality of construction within this dwelling would require the sound attenuation, regardless of whether they’re going to use that just for storage or not storage. This is the type house that they appear to be building. If you did add that 900 square feet, and you included the lot across the road, you still would be far below the FAR requirements of the Ordinance. You’d be at 11% as opposed to 22%. I did back off on that a little bit. Without adding the 900 feet, you’d be at 11%. If you add the 900 feet, I’m not sure exactly what you would be. I don’t have that in front of me, but you would be well underneath it. MRS. BRUNO-I wasn’t, and this is more my opinion, as well as some of the other people on the Board, that we weren’t really including the property across the street, the opinion being that the lakeside lots are saturated with the size of the structures. MR. O'CONNOR-The idea of the Rosens was that they would have a better and more pleasing septic system by putting that over there, instead of trying to preserve it as a separate building lot. Again, I think these people have gone to the greatest degree that they can to protect the lot and provide something that won’t have any impacts. There was a plan that was submitted that was approved, I believe, for a septic system on the lakeside. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I can appreciate that. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know. MRS. BRUNO-I can appreciate the efforts and your comments about the septic system being a higher quality since it is across. I just wanted to point those out. They’re points of curiosity, really. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Where are we going? MR. SEGULJIC-Can I make a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SIPP-Wait a minute, Tom. I don’t want to belabor this too much longer but taking the definitions in 179, Floor Area Ratio, relationship of building size to lot size, derived by dividing the total building square footage by lot size in square feet dealing in percentage. See building floor area. Building Floor Area. The combined area of all floor of a primary structure and covered porches as measured from the outside walls, including the basement, when three feet in height of one outside wall is exposed, and the space meets the requirements for living space as described in Sections 7-11 and 7-12 of the New York State Building Code. The whole basement becomes living space. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s never been interpreted that way, that I’m aware of. I would have to defer to the Zoning Administrator, but I don’t know that that’s the case here, Mr. Sipp. MR. SIPP-Well, that may be. I’m not belaboring you, because you’re advocating a client, I’m advocating protecting the lake, and so we meet at a point where we disagree. As you say, it’s a moot point, because the building’s there, and certainly nobody’s going to tear it down and start all over, but, this is happening more and more on the lake, and we’ve got to come to a point where we say no more. Now, if this points a finger at somebody, let’s point the finger. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Seguljic said he had a motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Tabled until September 25, with the following conditions: 1.That enhanced buffering be placed at the end of the driveway and parking pad. 2.The project, which includes the septic system, walkways and house, be considered a Major Project due to its location in CEA and the new home’s potential impact on the lakefront. 3.That rye grass be planted and stabilized in disturbed areas within two weeks. th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-I just have a question for clarification. Are you looking for some kind of comment from the Zoning Administrator on whether it’s major or minor, or are you actually making the statement that you feel it’s major? MR. SEGULJIC-The Board has the ability to make it a major project. MR. HILTON-Right. I’m just clarifying. MR. SEGULJIC-And that means the Staff has to send the applicant a letter stating that this is to be designed according to a Major Project. MR. HILTON-Okay. I just wanted to clarify. th MR. O'CONNOR-Then September the 25 is just, is useless as a date. You’re going to send this back to engineering, is what you’re saying. I don’t know whether additional engineering is required or not required. MR. SEGULJIC-October? MR. O'CONNOR-There are requirements of the Board as to findings, as to when you make a determination that a project is Major. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and one of the things that we can cite is that the project is located within a CEA. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you make your findings however you want to make them. That’ll be challenged. So I’m just telling you. MR. SEGULJIC-Potential impact upon the waters of the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-As Mr. Sipp has said, we may come to a point where we agree to disagree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-If you can’t meet the, if you wont be ready for the September Board meeting, if you could let Staff know, and then we’ll have a resolution prepared for the th September 25 meeting to table it to October. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2007 SEQR TYPE II BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT INFILL DECKING OF AN EXISTING DOCK. THE PROPOSED 419.17 SQ. FT. OF DECKING WOULD 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) INCREASE THE SURFACE AREA OF THE EXISTING DOCK TO 1,461.5 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING DOCK REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/8/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1- 17 SECTION 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Really quickly. The applicant proposes a dock expansion by placing decking on an existing dock and the dock has been and will be used for emergency services and staging and other operations and such. The applicant has submitted a copy of the Lake George Park Commission permit for the proposed construction, and the Lake George Park Commission and the ZBA, which has also approved an Area Variance related to this application, have both included similar conditions stating that the decking will be removed in the future should emergency services no longer use this dock. This would be Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Board, if in they’re in the position, or if they choose to approve this application, would consider a similar stipulation. That’s really all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purposes of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. As Staff indicated, we have been to the Lake George Park Commission with this application, to the Warren County Planning Board, and to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. All those Boards have recommended approval. There has been one condition that followed the LGA approval and the Zoning Board approval, is that if the owner of the property were to disallow the continued use of this dock for emergency purposes for the emergency squad or fire department, then he would immediately remove the deck that we’re asking for permission to infill on the existing dock, and the owner is agreeable to that. Basically there will be no change as to impact of the neighborhood, except that the operations from the dock will be in a safer manner and be safer for both members of the emergency squads and also for people that are being handled. I think so far this year they’ve had three different operations that they’ve run from this dock. It was a relationship that they had with the prior owner, the Stewarts, and the present owners have allowed the emergency people to continue it. They will use the dock when it’s not being used for emergency services for their own family purposes, but typically when the emergency people arrive, they get their family out of the way. The emergency services like this area because it’s a loop system. They can have continuous traffic. They also have some privacy, that they will have only their people, their responders that are there. They don’t have to have the public there, particularly if they’re getting somebody up out of the boat, and what they’ve been doing is getting them up out of the boat, if you went out and looked at it, onto the narrow dock way. They’d like to have a platform to do that, and that’s as simple as I can make it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Seems straightforward. MRS. BRUNO-The only thing I’d like to see, in addition to the statements that were made by the Lake George Park Commission and the ZBA, is just a small addition to, again, that statement, should the relationship between the rescue squad, etc., cease, I would just like to see added or the rescue squad/fire company need for the utilization of the dock should cease, because one thing that I could see happening, and I don’t know the applicant, I’m just speaking from potential, is that they may end up no longer needing the use of the dock. The owner doesn’t remove that portion, even though that dock is no longer being used by the emergency services, and because it’s written in here that it’s due to the, no longer having the permission of the owner, I’m not sure if I’m being clear. In other words, should it end from either direction? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, maybe this isn’t as simple as it is, then. I think you’re overly trying to punish the owner who’s willing to do this at his expense out of his pocket. He has said that he is willing to make it available to them, ad infinitum into the future, but if they do choose to do something else, say they build a rescue spot right on the lake, which is probably unlikely or something like that, that they would service that portion of 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) the lake from, as opposed to using his dock, that’s something out of his control, and it’s not that big an expansion. You’re talking 419 square feet. MRS. BRUNO-All I’m asking is that. MR. O'CONNOR-I would have problems with that condition. I have no problems with if we cause anything that says that they no longer think that they have our cooperation, assistance, and use of this thing, we will remove it, which is easy to enforce, but if they choose to go someplace else for some other reason, I think you’re being overly, you’re punishing the fellow who’s making the investment here. MR. TRAVER-Well, Staff Notes indicate the condition as stating that the decking will be removed, and I’m quoting, will be removed in the future should emergency services no longer use the dock. So if they relocate their staging, access to the lake, they will no longer be using. MR. O'CONNOR-That was not the condition that the ZBA put on it. That was not the condition that the Lake George Park Commission put on it. MRS. BRUNO-I can appreciate their willingness to invest their own money in helping out the public, and I can understand what you’re saying, that that should be an even trade for perhaps using that additional dockage/deck space, should they go somewhere else, but again, this goes back to protection of the lake, and once we set precedents for enlarged structures, where does that take us? MR. O'CONNOR-The Lake George Park Commission did not require a variance because of the 400 plus feet of frontage on this property. Under their interpretation, if you really want to get into this, their interpretation is the same rules that we have, the same language that we have, said that we did not need a variance. They go back to, I’m not sure of the date, but they say that when you’re entitled to three docks, like this property is, you’re entitled to 700 square feet on each of those, and as a cumulative thing, you’re entitled to 2100 square foot of dockage for that property. We’re no place near that. Because we already had the structure out into the water, they said we were not required to have a variance for being 40 feet beyond the mean low water mark. I forget what else Queensbury actually asks for a variance for. The same language. In fact, Queensbury, when they adopted the language for the dock regulations, parroted the language that was in the Lake George Park Commission Rules and Regulations that were then in existence. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-Did you see the language specifically from the Lake George Association. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I’m looking for, actually. MR. SEGULJIC-In the Lake George Association, it’s a special condition of their permit. It says. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I have no objection to that language. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-If you use that identical language, it’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-What I was objecting to was the addition. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how strongly do you feel about that? MRS. BRUNO-I go both ways, quite frankly, and it’s like I said, I can appreciate the tradeoff for a family that’s willing to give to the public for safety reasons and all of that, but again, my concern is, I guess actually my red flag goes up even more when Mr. O’Connor states that he really doesn’t want to put this in, because then it makes me think what really is, well, no, I don’t want to word it that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. O'CONNOR-Lawyers never want to give up options. You have to understand that, and I’ve sat here many a night and probably got in a lot of trouble because I don’t agree to conditions that I have some feeling of objection to that I just think aren’t necessary. MRS. BRUNO-My younger sister’s a lawyer, and trust me, she knows how to not give me any options. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Mr. O’Connor. I have the Lake George permit here, and I don’t see any other conditions on it. I have the permit here, and there’s no other conditions on it. MR. O'CONNOR-Other than, there’s a special condition that says it’ll be removed, some place. MR. SEGULJIC-This special condition states that should the relationship between the rescue squad, fire company, owner of the dock cease, meaning the rescue squad/fire company no longer have the permission of the owner of the premises to utilize the platform herein authorized the platform shall be removed immediately. MR. O'CONNOR-And I have no objection to that. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that’s built in to the. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Into the permit. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and I have no objection to you putting that in your approval. th MRS. BRUNO-He’s got it in his July 27 letter as well. Mr. O’Connor quoted it. MR. FORD-Let’s just go with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to make comment on this application? Mr. Salvador? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. Have you folks had an opportunity to read the Zoning Board minutes? MR. HUNSINGER-No, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Notwithstanding Mr. O’Connor’s eloquence with regard to emergency services, it is black letter law that no man can stand in the way of emergency services performing their duty. I don’t care what kind of an agreement you’ve got. If the need is there, they’re going to invade your property. They have a right to do it. That comes from the State, and as this emergency service is going to use this facility is it handicapped accessible? I think that’s a requirement. I’m glad to see, on the agenda, that we finally recognize that a project like this is in the Lake George CEA. It’s been a long time coming. It’s something like Section, or Chapter 147 of the Code. It’s only since last summer that this Town has even recognized that we have that Code. Also on the agenda, they cross reference Area Variance No. 47-2007. That’s why I asked if you had read that. This project, at various times, has been billed as infill decking of an existing dock, infill of 18 by 6 inch is proposed, that’s in the ZBA minutes. It’s a nonconforming structure. It’s decking on a dock. It’s additional decking, 23 feet by 18 feet. It’s a platform and it’s a deck area. We’re trying to regulate it as a dock. We’re not calling it a dock. We’re calling it everything else but. I would ask if the construction drawings for this have been submitted. Are there construction drawings submitted? MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll find out. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s important, it’s important, because we have a Town Code, Section 179-5-050 A(9), no dock shall be constructed unless it is first designed to withstand the forces of flowing water and wave washes. I don’t know at what elevation this is going to be above the water line, but it’s going to be exposed to snow load in the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) winter. High waves are going to produce ice on top of that. You’re going to have ice forming on the under structure. It’s got to be designed properly or it’s just going to cave in, let alone be used for emergency services. Without seeing the design, you really don’t know if they meet the intent of the Code. What is the span? I can’t tell from any of this what the span is going to be, and that’s important for the design. Mr. O’Connor mentioned the Park Commission allowed the 2100 square feet. I believe that’s based on the fact that they are allowed to have three docks of various shapes, but each one of them can only be 700 square feet in area, and I think that conforms with our Code. So it’s a nonconforming structure. We don’t want to make it more nonconforming without a variance. That’s why they went to the, now, we’re here tonight because Section 179-4- 020 requires that certain non-permitted uses require Site Plan Review. The only possible non-permitted use in a one acre zone is an accessory use structure. That’s the only possible thing, and I don’t think they got a Use Variance for this. They went and got an Area Variance, but there’s no Use Variance. The Zoning Code provides an accessory structure, it can only be that it’s a dock, a deck, a platform, an infill are considered accessory uses, then a Use Variance would be required for the following reasons. Boat docks are not an allowable use in a residential zone. I don’t know if you’ve seen the Table of Uses in our Code, but they’re not an allowable use. Further, the definition of an accessory structure is a building or structure subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal building on the same lot, on the same lot, and used for purposes customarily incidental to those of the principal building. There are many lots in the Town of Queensbury that don’t have a boat dock associated with them. So this is not a very customary use, and it’s not on the same lot. The lot is defined on the application, on the agenda here, as Tax Parcel 226.15-1-17. I further note that this is in a one acre zone, and the lot is only 0.96 acres in area, and they haven’t gotten a variance for that requirement. It’s a nonconforming lot and we’re going to do something on it that’s nonconforming, and, you know, pile the nonconformance one on top of the other. With regard to the project not being on the same lot, I have here a copy of the tax map for this area, and I think I showed you something similar to this. This is the lot 17 here. Notice the Town of Bolton on the perimeter here. Notice the Town of Bolton here. The difference in the shading has something to do with this being Lake George, this being land in the Town of Queensbury, and you see the boundary definition of the lot, okay, and so this is accessory structure is not on the same lot, and our Code requires it to be on the same lot. I brought this issue up a long time ago, before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I filed an appeal with them, and I was heard, and they rendered a decision. This is back in the Year 2000, 2000. Motion that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, in reference to Appeal No. 1-2000 John, Jr. & Kathleen Salvador, concludes that the northern limit of the WR-1A zone in the Dunham’s Bay area is the Town boundary. You can’t issue a permit beyond the Town boundary. You have no jurisdiction, and this is what they’re talking about. Further, after that, and I was relying, by the way, I was relying, in bringing that appeal, I was relying on my knowledge of State law, Section 7-A, that talks about the paramount jurisdiction of the State on navigable waters, and this issue was brought in 2003, in 2003 to the New York State Supreme Court, and in 2003, if I can find it, the Appellate Division, Third Department, our own Third Department, ruled, I’ve got it some place here, bear with me, in 1973, in 1973, the Appellate Division Second Department State of New York Supreme Court, in a case, Erpsland v. Rubin, determined that the zoning powers of the City of Rye did not extend into a navigable waterway. Now you recognize, we all recognize, that Lake George is a navigable waterway. When discussing navigable waters, the court, in Mohawk Valley Ski Club v. Town of Duansburg, a town zoning authority does not extend to those waters. Importantly, a municipality cannot regulate navigable waters under its zoning powers. That’s Rotenburg v. Edwards, Second Department 1984. Now closer to home, and after I brought the issue to the ZBA in the Year 2000, in 2003, in a case entitled Higgins v. Douglas, the court recognized that Section 32 of the New York State Navigation Law governs the location of structures in or on navigable waters, including a wharf, dock, pier, jetty, platform or other structure built on floats, temporary or permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Salvador, these are very interesting arguments. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they are. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’ve followed you so far, but I can tell you, I’ve been on this Planning Board for seven years. We have reviewed hundreds, hundreds of dock permits. So, I mean, your arguments may have validity in the court of law. This is not a court of law. This is a Town Planning Board. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, are you getting to your point, then, I guess is what I’m? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I’d like this on the record. That’s what I want. MR. HUNSINGER-It already is, yes. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Okay. You notice that in this description of the things they talk about, the court talks about something called a platform. MR. HUNSINGER-All right, as opposed to a dock, or wharf. MR. SALVADOR-As opposed to a wharf, a dock, a jetty, a pier, or other structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. My point remains, but go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-I’m getting to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. O’Connor referred to this structure in the ZBA minutes as a platform. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-That was one of his descriptions of what they’re doing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Now, the DEC has promulgated regulations, Part 608, Use and Protection of Waters, and they define all the things they’re talking about. They define a platform. A platform means a generally horizontal flat surface, located in, on or over a water body on which structures can be constructed or any activities can be conducted. So I think we’re talking about this area that they want to infill is a platform. All right. Further, it says here, permits required. Except as provided in Subdivision C of this Section, no person or public corporation may construct, reconstruct, modify, repair or change the use of any dock, pier, wharf, platform, breakwater or other structure in, on or above the navigable waters of the State. This is a platform above the navigable waters of the State. The Lake George Park Commission does not regulate platforms. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re contending they need to get a permit from DEC? MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And we have no jurisdiction. MR. HUNSINGER-I got that point, yes. Thank you. Anyone else have comments on this application? Okay. I guess I’ll look at the attorneys. I mean, I already said we review hundreds of dock permits. MR. HILTON-I’m not an attorney, but I’ll just answer a couple of questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. HILTON-Number One, I do not know if there has been a building permit issued or submitted for this construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-That’s something that I would have to investigate, and I guess that’s it for now, unless you have any questions of me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. MR. FULLER-As for the legal comment. Until a court says otherwise, this Town regulates the docks along the shores of the Town of Queensbury. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I don’t know where to begin. We did submit building plans to the Lake George Park Commission. That was part of their approval, and we will have 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) to apply to the Town for a building permit and will submit building plans to them for that. It’s going to be attached to the existing crib system that’s there, the two piers that it is the infill of. I don’t want to get into all the other that I think is really not germane at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Since there were no other commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We need to do a Short Form. I believe the applicant submitted a Short Form. MR. HILTON-It’s a Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Not necessary, it’s a Type II. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s unnecessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a motion ready? MR. SEGULJIC-I have a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2007 BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who 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 proposes to construct infill decking of an existing dock. The proposed 419.17 sq. ft. of decking would increase the surface area of the existing dock to 1,461.5 sq. ft. Expansion of a non-conforming dock requires Site Plan Review and approval by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/28/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 5. 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 6 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 7. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 8. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2007 BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: With the following condition: 1.Should emergency services no longer need the use of the deck or the rescue squad or fire company no longer have the permission of the owner to use the deck, the decking will be removed within 60 days. th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I was just commenting to Mrs. Bruno that it’s basically the same condition that the Lake George Park Commission. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MRS. BRUNO-Well, basically, but it sounds to me like it’s the addition of what I requested. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, it goes both ways. MRS. BRUNO-Right. So it is. MR. SEGULJIC-If the owner doesn’t allow use of it or the rescue squad doesn’t need it, it’s out of there. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. TRAVER-I have a question. Mr. Chairman, the enforcement issue with such a condition. Would it be feasible for us to recommend to the Park Commission who’s going to issue an annual permit for the dock, that that permit not be issued until there are letters from the fire company and the owner agreeing that the fire company, the rescue services are going to be utilizing the dock for that season? That way they won’t have a permit unless they had that understanding at the beginning of the season. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we could certainly ask that, but, you know, it’s not something we can enforce. We’re asking another jurisdiction to enforce something. MR. O'CONNOR-How we’ve handled that issue in the other discussions was that if the fire company or the rescue squad is unsatisfied, they certainly understand this condition. They were at the other two meetings, and understand that if they’re being prohibited from using it, all they’ve got to do is come down here and then immediately we’ve got to remove it. MR. TRAVER-But even if, the conditioning that we’re utilizing would also include if they, in the future, develop an alternate location. So the owner may still be saying you guys can come and use the dock if you want to. They may have no further need of the dock. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. Why don’t we send a copy of that resolution to the fire company. MR. TRAVER-And the Park Commission? MR. O'CONNOR-Sure, I don’t care. Just send a copy of the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-And, Mr. O’Connor, I’d like if you could pass on to the owners that we really do appreciate their openness and willingness and perhaps the public can show them their appreciation in other ways, but it really is not meant as a punishment. MR. O'CONNOR-They recognize the tradition that the Stewarts started and want to follow it. They’ve done same thing with the lighting that’s on the dock. I mean, they’re responsible people. It’s just funny how complicated things get when government gets in the way of something that has been done on a volunteer basis and all they’re trying to do is improve it. MRS. BRUNO-Well, we do appreciate that. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve been to three Boards. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) SITE PLAN NO. 40-2007 SEQR TYPE II BAYWEST ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING P.U.D. LOCATION 163, 169 HAVILAND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 952 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. OFFICE USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/8/07 LOT SIZE 2.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-5 SECTION 179- 4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. This is a proposal to construct a 952 square foot addition to an existing office building on Haviland Road. The construction would be behind or at the rear of an existing building. As part of the proposal, the applicant proposes to remove some pavement, convert that to green space, and as I’ve mentioned, the applicant has requested a waiver from submitting a stormwater management plan. I guess one question that I have is, is there any exterior lighting proposed as part of this expansion, and if so, what type of fixtures? If any is proposed, the lighting should be downcast cutoff lighting to conform to the Town Code, and that’s all I have at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves, representing Baywest on this application. As the Staff comments have stated, it’s a proposed addition on the end of the 163 Haviland Road, which is just down the road here from the Town Hall. It’s two buildings there, a two story white building to the east, and to the west the one story building with the garage at the end, and proposed to put an addition on, which is basically like a garage shop and storage area. No, there is no exterior lighting proposed. It’s really for file storage on portions of it, interior lighting only. There is an exterior light that is on the existing building now, and that is sufficient for this small addition. So there will be no proposed. If there was ever one in the future, it would be a cut off light, mounted next to a man door, but that would be really for daytime use only. They’re office buildings, and as far as the stormwater, there was one comment from Dan Ryan, who has basically said that he understands that there is no reason for a stormwater plan, just wanted to know whether or not the runoff was, if anybody’s ever been over to that property, it happens to be, my office happens to be in the two story building on the east side. That roof pitch on that building pitches to the east or to the west. If it goes into the catch basin in the driveway, which it currently does, it goes into the drainage system, which goes out to the drop inlet in the field, and then heads into the system that cuts across Haviland Road, and if it sheds to the west, it does the same thing. So it’s going to go where it’s going now, because it’s all asphalt now. It’s not going to go anywhere different than it has been. The only difference is that in the addition of the garage, we’re actually increasing the permeable surface by removing more asphalt than we’re asking for for building. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. FORD-I have one. If this is for file storage, how does one gain access to this from the office space? MR. STEVES-It’s for file storage for the other building. MRS. BRUNO-Your building, the building that you’re in? MR. STEVES-Yes. What is currently there, so you know, if anybody’s been in there, there is a garage at the end of that building at the far northeast corner, that is utilized by the office at 169 for equipment storage, water tanks for perc test, test pits, stakes for the survey company, stuff like that, field equipment, and the tenant that’s in that building now, Brennan and White, the attorneys are doing well and they need file storage themselves and they would like to take over that entire space. MR. FORD-Storage area for the two story office space, office building? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MRS. BRUNO-Could you clarify the square footage? Because on the plan you’ve got 10,322 square feet, gross leasable space, proposed, but then on the Site Development Data you’ve got 8,229. I’m only asking, just because of the, I’m looking at the parking spaces. MR. STEVES-It’s the 10,000. MRS. BRUNO-It’s the 10,000. MR. STEVES-Yes, because it probably didn’t take into consideration on the site development what exists is that once the garage is used as leasable space, it’s going to increase. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. With their increased number of parking spaces, they’re grandfathered in, correct, rather than needing to go to the ZBA? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, is everyone satisfied with the explanation with regard to the engineering letter? MRS. BRUNO-That’s not any sort of wetland where it’s not mowed or anything? I didn’t think so. It didn’t really look it. MR. STEVES-We mow around that building about 35 feet to the west, and in the back we actually all the way to the end of the tennis courts, all the way to the north to that second drop inlet at the end of the tennis courts. We would love to acquire, the owners there, would love to acquire the tennis courts. We’ve been trying to for a number of years, but to no avail. In negotiating with the owners of the golf course, even though the tennis courts have been unused, I think once in seven years I’ve been there. MR. FORD-But will they allow you to use them? MR. STEVES-Probably. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a time when they used to get used. MR. STEVES-Yes, and I think we’ve been there, we moved up there about seven, eight years ago. I think I’ve seen them used once, that I’ve seen them. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we ready for a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II. I guess, just for the purposes of the record, they should make a correction to the Site Development Data. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes, I’ll do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Site Development Data Sheet? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And also we’re going to grant a waiver for stormwater? Since there’s no lighting, we don’t have to grant a waiver for that, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-On the, well, there’s no heading on the page, but it’s on Page Six, it does say lighting, grading, landscaping, stormwater plans, or waiver requests. So we would need to, we can just say in the motion that the waivers requested are granted. MR. SEGULJIC-Waivers requested are granted. Okay. MR. STEVES-You had a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that had comments to the Board on this application? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And now we can consider your resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2007 BAYWEST ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 952 sq. ft. addition to existing office building. Office uses require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/28/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 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 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 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2007 BAYWEST ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: Number Four complies. Number Five, the proposed modification does not result in any new or significant impacts, and Number Eight does not apply. With the following conditions: 1.That the site data sheet will be corrected. 2.That the requested waivers be granted. th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2007 SEQR TYPE II MIKE BRANDT/MIKE BARBONE WEST MT. SKI CENTER AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC-3A LOCATION 59 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,000 SQ. FT. MAINTENANCE BUILDING FOR GROOMING AND SNOW MAKING EQUIPMENT. EXPANSION OF A SKI CENTER USE IN THE RC-3A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-96, SP 67-96 SP 3-97, SP 4-97, AV 92-02, SP 23-03, SP 16-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/8/07 LOT SIZE 366 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 124-2-1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 SECTION 179-4-030 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE BARBONE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. This application is actually a proposal to construct a 3,000 square foot maintenance building, with a private wastewater system at the West Mountain Ski Center, on the grounds of the West Mountain Ski Center, and the building would be built adjacent to an existing service road that runs to the north of the main Ski Center buildings. The site plan also includes eaves trenches for stormwater infiltration. The applicant has stated that the trenches should adequately manage the stormwater, and as a result they’ve requested a waiver from providing a stormwater management plan. The applicant has also requested waivers from providing grading, lighting and landscaping plans. The application, the plans show two wall mounted lights that will be used. No cut sheets have been provided. Again, Staff suggests a condition of any final approval that the lights be completely downcast and cut off fixtures, as required by the Town Code, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski/Hall Architecture. I’m here tonight with Mike Barbone from West Mountain Ski Center. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could tell us why you’re here. MR. HALL-We’ve submitted plans for the building that were in your package. It’s a pre- engineered metal building. It’s for the use of the groomers over at the Ski Center. The current building that they’re using is kind of a dilapidated old wood building that’s not big enough to get their groomers into, and they’re looking to make something so that in the winter they have a place to get the snow groomers inside that they work on them, for when they have problems with them or whatever, to do the maintenance on them. The building is out and around the corner. It’s on the actual service access road between West Mountain and Northwest. So it’s back around behind everything that’s out there. It’s not out in the front out by the front entrance to West Mountain or anything. I’ve looked through the comments that came from Dan Ryan. Everything there is pretty straightforward from him. The one thing that we’re going to have to take a look at, and I talked to Dan about it briefly, is the stormwater. We show on the downside of the building, currently the site has a very slight slope to it. We’ve got an upgradient eaves trench to take the water coming off that side. On the other side we’ve got an eaves trench that comes down, and then our sewage disposal, they have to put a, because of the distance away from the lodge, they have to put a toilet room facility for the maintenance guys. So we’ve got a one whole toilet room out there that required, we went out and did our perc tests, and Dan was there to witness that. We’ve got to put a small sewage disposal system in out there. The way that the grading’s going to work, we’re going to put the eaves trench in and then we’re going to swale between that eaves trench and where the sewage disposal system is, so that rainwater coming off of that side will be directed around the sewage disposal system into the access trench, or to the access road. There’s a big swale that runs down the side of the access road. So anything coming off of that roof is going to go right to where it goes right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HALL-No, I think everything else, we can take care of that. As far as the lighting goes, those fixtures are wall mounted. They are underneath the canopies and they will just shine down in front of the doors. I can get you a cut sheet on those. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we say they’d be downcast cutoff? MR. HALL-Yes. They definitely will be. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-I’d like to see some, get some idea of the contour here of the elevations. Is this steep area? MR. HALL-No. Over the total width of that cleared area, where this is going, there’s about a six foot drop, from high point to low point. So across the building, across the width of the building it’s going to be flat. On the opposite side of the building, there’s about a three foot drop from grade, and then from that point to the lower service road is about another three feet. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, on the septic system, your soil test points here, test pits, show a hard pan at about? MR. HALL-It’s about 30 inches, I believe. MR. SIPP-Thirty inches. Now what are we doing here with this septic system to make that workable? MR. HALL-It’s a shallow system. We did get it. We got a 20 minute perc . Dan was out there to witness our perc test, out there to witness our test hole. We’re putting in what’s called a shallow system, where the system is on top and we’re bringing in sand from over at Northwest to put on top, and the system is set right at grade. So we’re about 30 inches above the water level, and then the outside part is the sand that’s being brought over from Northwest. MR. SIPP-The tank itself is set on? MR. HALL-Well, the tank is going to be set down in the ground. It’s an impervious layer. It’s clay. We can dig in it. It’s not true hardpan. They can still dig in it. It’s not a shale layer or anything like that, but the leach system itself is set in a shallow trench. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. SIPP-What are you going to do for erosion control during construction? MR. HALL-We’ve got silt fence. It’s already actually been installed on the lower end of the project, along that lower service access drive, to contain any of the runoff that’s going to come down through there. The total, one of Dan’s comments was he would like to see a limits of clearing. The limits of clearing is about 50 feet outside the building, and it’s all clear. There is no, it’s already open. MR. SIPP-The downhill side is treed? MR. HALL-Yes. There’s about 750 feet of trees between where this building is going to be and the next nearest building out on West Mountain Road. MR. SIPP-But can you see this building from the road, from West Mountain Road? MR. HALL-No. MR. FORD-The closest trees would be how close? MR. HALL-About 120 feet, probably, somewhere in that neighborhood. They’re right along the property line on the lower side of the access drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it visible at all from Northwest Road? MR. HALL-No. It’s a long ways away from that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t think so. MR. TRAVER-Could I just get a clarification on the stormwater issue that’s raised in Dan’s letter on Number Five? I believe you said when you made your introductory remarks that you discussed that with him, when he did a site visit, and you altered your plan, so that he then would now be satisfied with this? MR. HALL-Yes, I spoke to him after his site visit and after his comments. I told him that we’re going to go ahead and take care of that. We’re going to grade is so that anything that would come out of the infiltration trench, out of the eaves trench, would be directed around the sewage disposal and into the service road trench, the swale that runs along the service road. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Could you clarify for me what we’re calling this evening the proposed building is actually already built. Correct? MR. HALL-No. MRS. BRUNO-It hasn’t been? Okay. I read something. MR. HALL-Part of what Craig Brown asked us to look at was at the very bottom of, right out by the main lodge, there was timing and scoring building that was built some years ago, that was not here, that didn’t come here. It was built without the purview of this Board or anything else, and Craig asked us to take care of that at this time. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HALL-Because none of the numbers for that building were included in any site coverage, but, I mean, it’s 366 acres. The building’s 24 by 24. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. It just struck me as funny because I know that West Mountain has had a history of improvements on their property, and I thought it was odd that, having the knowledge of the procedures of the Town, that they just built it so I’m glad I asked for the clarification. MR. HALL-Yes. It was a 24 by 24 building that was actually added to, or added on to an existing transformer building and they used it for the timing and scoring for the Nastar racing. MRS. BRUNO-Okay, and I have actually another comment, and I understand I’m probably asking questions that are probably prior to your involvement in the project. I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your name, sir. MR. BARBONE-Mike Barbone. MRS. BRUNO-Mike Barbone. Okay. You may have some of the answers to this, but I feel it necessary to bring up a couple of points, because, as you heard earlier this evening, when we are asked to look at a site, for any reason, we can look at the whole site, and recently we’ve had another application come before us for a neighboring subdivision, and there were a number of people from the public that had made some comments regarding stormwater runoff, and I didn’t have a chance to research the background of some of their comments, but I’ll just read one back to you, and I just, I’m not saying I am for them or against them. I’m just looking for some clarification. There’s like a lake back there. There was a lawsuit against the mountain. I don’t know if it was fixed or what, but there definitely is a water issue. What she was referring to was that some stormwater or some of the water coming down from the mountain, was re-routed, and that there were permits specifically for that, and that now it’s becoming an issue on neighboring properties. Are you aware of any history of that? MR. BARBONE-There was a lawsuit back in 2002, in regards to stormwater coming off of the mountain, and they were claiming that we forced it to go south of West Mountain’s property, and it was not true. MRS. BRUNO-There was a final ruling on that? MR. BARBONE-That’s correct. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. TRAVER-It was adjudicated then? MR. BARBONE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the determination was made? MR. BARBONE-The determination was made that it was stormwater, and it just came off the mountain. There’s nowhere else to go, downhill. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? If you could identify yourself for the record, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL BRANDT MR. BRANDT-I’m Paul Brandt. I’m a neighbor, and I have worked at West Mountain for 40 some years, and they desperately need a new maintenance facility. I’ve worked outdoors in the middle of wintertime on groomers and such, and it’s about time that they built a building so we could work indoors. It’s not being paid for by the State of New York like it is at Gore Mountain and Whiteface and so on. The building is out of sight, as far as any of the neighbors are concerned, and I don’t think, there has been no drainage problem around that area that I know of. That’s the only comments I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-No, just one more thing. You’re going to be changing oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid and so forth. Is all this going to be disposed of in a legal way? MR. BARBONE-Yes. We have an oil disposal tank that gets picked up once a month. MR. SIPP-There’ll be no floor drains that would allow this to permeate into the soil? MR. BARBONE-Not at all. MR. FORD-Refresh my memory. What is the floor going to be made of? MR. HALL-It’s going to be a radiant heat poured slab to warm the vehicle up when they bring it in. MR. BARBONE-Concrete. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Where is that water going to go? MR. HALL-That’s sheetflow. It’s just going to run right out the door, the same as it would out from a regular garage door. Anything that would come off of those vehicles is the snow making. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Are we ready for a motion? As I see it we have three conditions. The lights be downcast, address engineering comments and the requested waivers be granted. Anything else? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2007 MIKE BRANDT/MIKE BARBONE WEST MT. SKI CENTER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who 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 proposes construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. maintenance 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) building for grooming and snow making equipment. Expansion of a Ski Center use in the RC-3A zone requires Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/28/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 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 proposal does not result in any new environmental impacts, and, therefore, no SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2007 MIKE BRANDT/MIKE BARBONE WEST MT. SKI CENTER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five the proposed modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts. Therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. Number Eight does not apply. With the following conditions: 1.Outdoor lighting be downcast cut off fixtures. 2.The engineering comments be addressed. 3.The requested waivers be granted. th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. BARBONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) A CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SYSTEM TO SERVICE 11 INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE TAKUNDEWIDE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE MASTER PLAN ADOPTED 3/23/03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/8/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LG CEA LOT SIZE 18.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1- 13 SECTION 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. The application before you is for a proposed connection of a total of 11 dwellings within the Takundewide I’ll call it neighborhood to a community wastewater system. Initially eight dwellings would be connected. Eventually three more for a total of eleven. This application has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for their review and comment, and I guess a couple of questions, what are the plans for the existing private systems upon connection to the community system? Are they going to be removed or just disconnected? And are there any future building expansion plans or plans to connect any of the remaining homes to a future expansion or new community system in the HOA lands as shown as part of this plan, and based on that, Staff has questions about segmentation in regards to SEQRA. Should future expansion be proposed, it would come before this Board at a later time. Again, a couple of other questions. What is the timeframe for connecting the initial eight dwellings and the remaining three homes? And finally the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of this application with a condition that the septic system comply with the 2003 Takundewide Master Plan, and I’ve handed out to the Board this evening a copy of the MOU that was approved in 2003, Memorandum of Understanding, for the Takundewide that was reviewed at that time for the Planning Board, and I believe that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Again, for your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is William Mason who is the principal operator of the applicant, and Tom Hutchins, who is the engineer for this project, and basically I’ll give you just a little bit of background, and then give everything to Tom to I think answer. This began some time toward the end of last year where three different cabin owners had applications before the Zoning Board of Appeals for them to modify and reconstruct their existing cabins, and they required Area Variances, simply because of the size of the lots. The lots, for the most part, are pretty much footprint lots for the cabins that are there. The expansion or the construction plans for those three units were not, were modest, and the Planning Board didn’t have a problem, or the Zoning Board didn’t have a problem, and did approve them with conditions, and I think the approval in part is based on the fact that there’s 17 acres here of common space that’s utilized by all the units within this project. The conditions simply stated were that we come to the Zoning Board, or Planning Board for approval of the septic system, and that we make our application in compliance with the Master Plan that was approved by the Planning Board on prior occasions, and that’s basically what we’ve done at this point. We have a proposal that we would connect eight units that are near the lake that are within the setback from the lake that the people are concerned about to a common facility, and we would actually build the system so that we could have an additional three units hooked to it, if three other units within the subdivision needed to be hooked in to the system. It’s not something that we’re talking about segmenting. We have no plans to go beyond that at this point. We think that we would answer all the questions that have been raised. In fact, when we had the original plans for the three units that we were just getting the Area Variances for, at that time we had individual septic systems designed for them that we thought would work. That’s basically it, I think. I’d let Tom answer each of the questions that were raised in the engineering comments, and/or run through the project and give you an overview of it, and then answer your Board questions. Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. Do you want a brief overview, or do you want to just? Okay. You have a plan that shows all of the cabins. They are numbered through 30 at the Takundewide complex. The cabins that this proposal would serve with wastewater service are hatched, and they are numbers eight, seven, six, four, nine, eleven, three, and two. What they are primarily is the lakefront cottages and most of them are the oldest cottages in the complex. They are, wastewater wise, presently served, six of them are served by cess pools, which are 60 to 80 feet from the lake. Presently they were the original systems installed. Two of them 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) have had some systems replaced since the original installation, but they’re also antiquated. They’re generally 500 gallon metal tanks and some unknown absorption field. What’s proposed is to construct a system consisting of a centralized pump station, a series of gravity sewers, and a centralized absorption system that’s approximately 850 to 900 feet away from the lake, and that would consist of three separate absorption fields fed by three pumps in the pump station. Each cabin would continue to have its own septic tank. It would be a new tank, and the current systems would be decommissioned. We have, in looking at this, we initially started with three and in looking at the logistics of a community system, it made sense to allow some provisions for more than three, and some of the other owners expressed interest in being involved, and so that’s how we ended up with eight. We’ve sized it for eleven, in the event some of the other ones either need to come on, have a failure, or we’ve got room for other type of expansion. MR. FORD-Could you address that last comment, please, amplify on that last comment? You have opportunities for expansion? MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve got opportunities for, the system is sized for 11 buildings. We have eight that will initially be connected, per this proposal. It’s sized for 11. So that, for instance, if Cabin 13 had a system failure, it would be a simple matter of connecting Cabin 13. We’d have the DEC permitted capacity to connect Cabin 13 into this system. MR. FORD-It’s not sized for 15 or 16 or 17? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it’s sized for 11. It’s sized for 11 three bedroom units, 33 bedrooms. MR. O'CONNOR-And the reason that all the cabins, or it’s not sized for all the cabins, there are areas where replacement systems for the other cabins could easily be constructed that would be compliant, and be setback in excess of 200 feet from the lake, and the reason also I’ll tell you, and you’re going to ask why one and five weren’t. MR. FORD-Yes, that was my next question. MR. O'CONNOR-One is a cabin that’s owned by Mr. Forbes, and that has a new system that’s up to Code, that was recently installed, and I believe the other, John Mason has Number Five, and that has a system that’s up to Code, too. MRS. BRUNO-What are the average ages of the other systems? Do they vary considerably? BILL MASON MR. MASON-I’m sorry. They were all built in either 1952 or ’53 or ’54. Excuse me, I’m sorry, of the originals. The Number Two, Three, Four, Six, Seven, and Eight. MRS. BRUNO-The ones that we’re talking about. MR. MASON-Right, were all built then. Number Nine is newer than that, or the next oldest one would have been Number 11 and I would guess that was built in about 1958, and Number Nine is newer and that would probably be in the 90’s, 1990’s that that was built. MRS. BRUNO-What about, I guess I’m asking more say 15 through 17, up in that area, or even 12 through 31. I’m just curious. MR. MASON-All right. They get newer as you get back from the water. The oldest ones are those eight along the lake, or the ones that we’ve got with the exception of those other two that we mentioned before, and then as you go back from the water, they get consecutively newer. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-How many cabins have been modernized? Have you had five that have been modernized? MR. MASON-I don’t really, it depends on what year you wanted to say. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t mean the septic systems. I mean like their individual ownership, have they been re-done? Aren’t there three that are done like that, when you did the Master Plan? MR. MASON-When we did the Master Plan, I guess we had seven, I think, that had been upgraded or second stories or things had been built. That’s a difficult question, because every year people are doing work. Some requiring building permits, some not, but they’re all in different stages of construction, and I can tell you when they were all originally built, but. MRS. BRUNO-I guess what I’m trying to sift out in my mind is you had mentioned that some of the remaining cabins had enough area to have a new working system put in, and I guess in my mind the way that was worded was that, you know, perhaps there are more than three that might be needing to go into this system, in other words, they can’t, they don’t have the room for the newer system. MR. O'CONNOR-No. We actually have no knowledge of anyone outside of these up front that don’t have adequate space for themselves to hook in, and some people, if they have a system that fails, may want to come in. Some others say they don’t want to be part of a community system, and they want to have their own system, their own destiny, their own control, and this soil would support that. We don’t anticipate that we’ll have more than three additional units that would come on to this system. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want to go through the comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FORD-May I just clarify an additional point, as a follow up to a previous question I had. You could expand it to 11. It would accommodate 11. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Eleven three bedroom. MR. FORD-Eleven three bedroom. MR. HUTCHINS-Thirty-three bedrooms. MR. FORD-Okay. Would this system as proposed accommodate 34 bedrooms? MR. HUTCHINS-Would it technically? I mean, sizing criteria, we size by bedrooms. It’s sized for 33 bedrooms. It’s sized for 33. You say would it accommodate, for a certain period of time. MR. FORD-It is not designed to accommodate 34? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-What’s the present water supply? Where do they draw their water from? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a private water supply. It comes from Lake George. It’s treated, under a system that’s been approved by the Health Department. Do you want to talk about the system a little bit? MR. MASON-The water treatment system is in the laundry building, and it is, a primary disinfectant is ultra-violet light. It’s filtered with a sand filter, an then two banks of cartridge filters, then the ultra-violet light and then a minimal amount of chlorine that it is a residual and it’s all been approved by the Department of Health, and it is a real State of the Art filtration plant, and I’d love to show any one of you through it any time. I’m very proud of it, but it’s really, I know I’m, anyway. It’s doing the job. MR. SIPP-Now, these, two, three, four, six, seven and eight, all that’s a cess pool systems at present? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. MASON-Yes. MR. SIPP-What will be done with them? MR. HUTCHINS-They’ll be decommissioned. They’ll be pumped and backfilled with sand. MR. SIPP-All right. Yes, and installed will be a new 1,000 gallon tank in each case? MR. HUTCHINS-Right, 1,000 gallon septic tank and effluent sewer down to the pump station. MR. SIPP-Now, your drainage field is pretty shallow and you get to the clay, and your test pits show clay at a depth of anywhere from 30 to 68 inches or Test Pit Three in particular shows an olive brown clay silt. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I’d love to have better soils to work with. These fields would get a lot smaller. The soils are, they’re very silty. MR. SIPP-They’re clay-y. You get mottling at 35, 42 and 30 inches. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct, and I have three more test holes. You’ll see there’s six, there’s three logs on there. I have three more test holes that have similar results. So they’re shallows. The systems will involve fill, to keep the system up and maintain our separation. We’ve got, we’re still within 1,000 feet of the lake. We’ve got a three foot groundwater separation. We’re taking that to the mottling at the highest mottling that was found, and we’ll be able to maintain that three foot separation. Yes, we do need fill to do that. MR. FORD-You’re bringing fill in? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. FORD-From off site? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. FORD-What kind of fill? MR. HUTCHINS-It will be predominantly sandy, granular fill, and then it will be topsoiled and seeded. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question on the absorption field section. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-On your notes, it says 18 to 24 inch mechanically stabilized system for material five to ten minute in place stabilized percolation rate, on the bottom of the page. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just a clarification, then on your percolation test it says designed to 20 to 30 minutes. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, because that’s the percolation rate in the native material, in the native silt underlying material. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, since you’re bringing in the material, that accounts for the difference? So you’re saying. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I’m designing it to the slower soil beneath, that ultimately needs to absorb. Twenty minutes is slower soil than ten minutes. MR. SEGULJIC-But your note says only five to ten minutes. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the fill I’m calling for. MR. MASON-The fill that’s placed on top of the native soil. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Would be a five to ten minute in place percolation rate. MR. SEGULJIC-But you have to design to the slowest rate. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and I’ve designed to the 20 minute rate, which is slower. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just getting all hung up on the fact that it says five to ten minutes there. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the upper material. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m using that as a means of specifying the in place. MR. SEGULJIC-But wouldn’t that cause ponding then? Because if it’s a slower rate below it, it can’t. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but your area is sized based on the capacity, the limiting capacity which is the lower soils. MR. SEGULJIC-So you spread out your trenches further apart. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, right. If I could work with five minute soils, these would be much, there could be much less trench involved. MR. SEGULJIC-You could reduce your area. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Are all these cabins re-fit with low flow toilets, in other words the 1.6 gallon per flush? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The three that we made presentations on to the Zoning Board, I can definitely answer yes, and we have no problem with that even being a condition of an approval. MR. MASON-And if there is not a low flow one around there, there can’t be many because I’ve replaced them through the years. I just know that as we replace toilets, you always replace them with low flow, and I don’t believe that there was one left on the property at this point, not just these, I mean, throughout the whole property. MR. SIPP-There’s a lot less water flow per day. MR. MASON-Being the area that we’re in, we’re always conscious of that so we do the showerheads that are low flow and we do the toilets that are low flow. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing is you have a lot more land than what’s portrayed on this map, correct? MR. MASON-No. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the metes and bounds are, I’ve got test pit data, that’s within the metes and bounds. There is land. The property line are all the lands of Takundewide. MR. O'CONNOR-The land that shown on here, there’s 17 acres of common space beyond the lots that are shown by numbers. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because the one thing, according to the red book, which I believe applies to this, because you’re supposed to go by the restrictive requirement, and the red book says you have to be able to show a 50% reserve area. MR. HUTCHINS-It says should, I believe, but yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And we do have area up, we have further area up here that we can allocate as reserve area. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SEGULJIC-It says shall be, I guess. MR. HUTCHINS-Does it say shall? Okay. In other places it says should, but. MR. MASON-Is that 50% of the drain field, is that what you mean? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. MASON-So that we have well over that. MR. SEGULJIC-It says an additional 50% of the required infiltrative area shall also be identified and remain available for future expansion. I guess what we’re saying is you have to show that, and designate it as such. So you can’t do anything else in that area. So if this fails, you have another area to go to. MR. HUTCHINS-And I think that’s also outlined in the Master Plan as that way, but, yes, there’s space available. MR. O'CONNOR-On the Master Plan, there was some area shown as reserved for septic. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, well, I guess I’d like to see it on these plans that we’re going to ideally approve. MR. SIPP-What is presently on this absorption field? Is this treed area? MR. HUTCHINS-Partially. There’s a tree line running right through the middle of the three fields. To the east, I’m sorry, to the west of the tree line is field, grass, maintained grass, and then the tree line as shown there. MR. SIPP-Those trees will all be removed? MR. HUTCHINS-The trees will be removed to put the system in, yes. MR. MASON-It’s mostly brush. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing the red book says is that in shallow absorption trench systems, which I believe is what you have. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It says at least two percolation tests, shall be performed within the proposed absorption field. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-As I see it, you don’t have any in the third field, if I’m interpreting that correctly. You have TP-3 which is outside of that area, and I guess I’m mainly concerned because. MR. HUTCHINS-I have four percolation tests in the. MR. SEGULJIC-You did it for the first two, but not the third, and I guess where my concern arises is from TP-1 is three minutes, you know, it ranges from three minutes to twenty-eight minutes which is a wide in a small area. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it is, and that’s why it is different. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, the book says, you have to have two, as I interpret it, you need two more perc tests in that third field. I’m just a layman reading the red book. MR. HUTCHINS-As you interpret it. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess once again it’s because there’s such a wide, I mean, what raises my concern, you have such a wide difference in percolation rates across a small area. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Now the other thing is you note limit of disturbance 74,000 square feet, I think you know where I’m going with this. So you’re saying you’re going to disturb 74,000 square feet? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, where are you, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m on the first page, right below the first, just to the right of TP-6 there’s a line pointing, it says limit of disturbance 74,000 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. Okay. If you follow that, and what that is, that’s a computer snap of that dashed line. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that puts you into a Major stormwater project then, because you’re in the, you’re subject to 147 because you’re in the Lake George basin, in a CEA. So you’re considered a Major Project. I guess the good news is you’re not. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not adding anything. MR. SEGULJIC-No, but the erosion control and sediment controls are (lost words), not the stormwater management. Okay. So I think that’s important to note for consistency. MR. HUTCHINS-And I’ve got erosion controls shown. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I can see that, but you have to do it according to 147 as a Major Project, and I’m surprised that the Zoning Administrator. MR. HUTCHINS-To do what according to 147, as a Major Project? MR. SEGULJIC-If you disturb more than 15,000 square feet you become a Major Project. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-On the plan you’re saying 74,000 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re not, as I see this plan, you’re not installing any impervious surface. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-But when you look at 147, it also has sedimentation and erosion control requirements that you’d be subject to. So you need to file for the permit. MR. HUTCHINS-File for what permit? MR. SEGULJIC-147. MR. O'CONNOR-The 147 permit that we have is for stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re disturbing more than 15,000 square feet of. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’ve run into another inconsistency within, you’re saying you need a gradient clearance or you need a. MR. SEGULJIC-Remember under 147 it talks about stormwater control when you install an impervious feature, and it also talks about sediment control during construction and erosion control. MR. HUTCHINS-And erosion control, right. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying is you have to acknowledge 147. The Zoning Administrator should have issued you a permit. It should be Major because you’re disturbing more than 15,000 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I’m confused. The Zoning Administrator issue a permit? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SEGULJIC-There is, Mr. O’Connor can enlighten you what the permit looks like. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that’s the stormwater management and maintenance, which there is not. MR. SEGULJIC-But it applies if you disturb more than 15,000 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-As I understand it, if I disturb more than 15,000 square feet, that triggers me to a Major stormwater, which means instead of doing the simplified one and a half gallons per square foot newly created impervious area, I mottle the site mathematically and develop a Major stormwater plan. I’m not creating any new impervious area. My mottle’s going to be the same, pre and post. MR. O'CONNOR-We can look at that and see. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, look at that. There’s also erosion controls during construction that would apply. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I don’t think there’s a permit for that, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, there is. Chapter 147 is the stormwater permit. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s, you keep going back. It’s a stormwater permit. It’s not an erosion. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the point of it is during construction you have to make sure you have proper controls in place that you’ve minimized any sediment or erosion that goes into the lake. MR. HUTCHINS-Understood, absolutely, and if you want a separate erosion control plan, I mean. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not me, it’s 147. MR. HUTCHINS-I can do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But I’m not familiar with a permit process for erosion control. MR. SEGULJIC-You have to outline what you’re going to do to address those issues. You have to outline what you’re going to do to address 147. I suggest you sit down with the Zoning Administrator. That’s not my. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I did go through it with the Zoning Administrator, but I will do my best to, or I’ll enhance, I guess, erosion controls. I do have it addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-147, just to clarify for applicability, it says this Chapter shall apply to all building construction, land clearing and subdivision of land located both within the Lake George basin and the Town of Queensbury. So land clearing, you’re clearing land. So you’re subject to the program. The question then is, what parts of it apply to you. Because I’m sitting here, at a minimum, it’s erosion control. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure, and erosion control, that applies to me in general and in good practice in working on Lake George. I mean, we’re going to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-So that means that the Zoning Administrator should have made a decision whether it’s major or minor, but since it’s more than 15,000 square feet, it’s clearly major. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, but I don’t know that there’s any distinction. I don’t know if we should debate this now. I don’t think there’s any distinction with erosion controls between major and minor. MR. SEGULJIC-There are. Actually, I take that back. With erosion control I’m not sure, but it gets into the fact that you have to cover the land within 10 days. There’s a lot more strict requirements with regard to erosion control. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Does Staff have anything to add on this discussion? MR. HILTON-Well, I guess, for clarification, I mean, it’s been suggested to meet with the Zoning Administrator, and that’s a good suggestion. Whether or not this Board approves this this evening, it could either be a condition of approval or a condition of tabling that the applicant meet with the Zoning Administrator to address this project and how it applies to 147. I think that’s the easiest way to get around, well, not get around this, but to address this. MR. FORD-Address it, yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t have a problem with that, and I would add, and I don’t think it’s been mentioned tonight. This is subject to the review of New York State DEC and issuance of a SPDES Permit. This will be operated under DEC permit. This has to go to DEC for their approval and ultimate permit issuance. We’re here before you because it has to go to you as well, and we’d like to get a feel for the Board’s support before we go through the DEC process, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It also has to go to the Town Board, because when you’re serving more than four customers with a sewer system, you now have to form a transportation corporation, and before DEC will accept your transportation corporation, you have to have a consent by the Town Board for the formation. Typically what the Town Boards have been doing is they look for a signoff by their Town Engineer as to the sanitary sewer system, and the Town Engineer looks to DEC to give them some type of informal letter that says that if you do everything that you say you’re going to do, we will approve it. They won’t issue a permit until everybody else, they are the last one to issue the permit. It’s a little bit of chasing everybody around the barn, but there’s more than one player on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand. I think it’s great you’ve gotten your septics off the lake, but I’m just looking at the Code and what it says. With regards to the tennis court, right next to the absorption field, isn’t that going to be an issue with the stormwater runoff of the tennis court onto the absorption field? Don’t we have to divert the water from the tennis court? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We’re not going to allow that to drain directly onto the field. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s pitched away? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-Is this area flat, or what’s the grade? There’s no contours on this map to give an idea of what possible grade there might be. MR. HUTCHINS-There is approximately 28 feet of elevation difference between our pump station and the field. It’s a moderate slope. MR. SIPP-Uphill? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, this is uphill. Yes. MR. MASON-It’s fairly level where all of the drain fields are. MR. SIPP-So 28 feet over 300 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s more than that. MR. SIPP-Four hundred. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s probably 700 feet. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SIPP-One inch equals 50 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, 700 feet. MR. SIPP-Seven hundred, so that’s four percent slope. MR. HUTCHINS-Average. It’s a little more right here. It’s a little less down here. It’s relatively flat in the area of the fields. MR. SEGULJIC-And I have one last general broad comment, and that is I don’t see any stormwater controls on here, during construction. MR. HUTCHINS-Erosion controls. MR. SEGULJIC-Erosion controls. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’ve got silt fence wrapping the whole fields area. We’ve got silt fence on the low side here. We’ve got silt fence on the low side of the pump station construction. So I think there’s erosion controls there. MR. SEGULJIC-But I will highlight for you 147-10 Erosion Control Measures that you need to comply with, in my opinion. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments, questions from members of the Board? MRS. BRUNO-Staff, do we have their 2003 Master Plan in its entirety on record? MR. HILTON-My answer would be yes. What I have in front of me, though, is, and I apologize, I just had this pulled today, the MOU, which you have, and a copy of a plan that was presented as part of that discussion, and it does show an area within the HOA lands to the east of the cottages, in the general vicinity of where this is proposed, as reserve area and an area for drain fields and septic systems. So, I apologize for not getting that plan to you. We can distribute that at a later time if you’d like. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I was a little uncomfortable, just some of the wording, let’s see if I can find it, it was just in reference to the Zoning Board, pursuant upon our, whether or not the Planning Board thought that it was consistent to the Master Plan, and, you know, it’s hard to say that we agree that it’s consistent when we can’t review it per say. MR. O'CONNOR-We can give you, if you don’t have a copy, we can give you a copy of it. MRS. BRUNO-I mean, overall this sounds great. I just want to make sure that we cover all the bases. MR. MASON-I have (lost words) copies of the narrative, and I can point to the places on the sewer that we talked about in the Master Plan, if you wish. MRS. BRUNO-Well, just what Mr. Hilton said in terms of the fact that on the map it actually already calls it out. I just wanted a little bit of reassurance. MR. MASON-Let me go back to Number 15. MRS. BRUNO-Do you want me to read it, or do you? MR. MASON-I can if you’d like. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. MASON-Number 15, the question, the lead up to the Master Plan was that the Planning Board had issued us a letter with questions that they wanted us to address, and we handled it exactly that way. We addressed each question. So their question was, clarify suitability for a community system and common area with or without fill. As per our enclosed survey, the community system alternative would be located in the area marked reserved for possible expansion. As per our engineer’s report dated 3/11/03, it would most likely be designed for build out or an estimated 9100 gallons per day. Such a system would require an area estimated to be about three acres in size. Since the 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) vacant area is seven plus or minus acres, the exact location and type of system used would be determined at the time of design, and would comply. A total of 5,055 lineal feet of two foot wide trench would be required. This would involve use of five fields of 1,000 lineal feet and would require the importation of some 9,000 cubic yards of select fill. Therefore, according to our engineer, the common area is suitable for a community system in the event we need it. We have more than twice the needed land for such a system, and we would need to add fill. MRS. BRUNO-So the estimated gallons for this particular project, I don’t remember how many it is for? MR. HUTCHINS-Thirty-three hundred, three thousand three hundred. MRS. BRUNO-Thirty-three, all right. So that already states right there that you have 50% or more of your current design. Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And Eighteen also is applicable, isn’t it? MR. MASON-I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-Eighteen is also applicable out of that Master Plan. MR. MASON-Eighteen says clarify the maximum gallons per day of water use based on the maximum number of bedrooms per building, plus the main lodge, Number 32, and laundry facilities. Our answer is, as per the included engineer’s report, dated March 11, 2003, maximum water use at build out, with each house expanded to its maximum size according to this Plan, would be between 14,190 and 19,350 gallons per day. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, is that three bedroom per house, is that what you consider the maximum size? MR. MASON-That would be the maximum build out as per what we were talking about at that time, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The bedrooms are actually specified after that. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. MASON-It’s four. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, at build out we would have four bedrooms per house and five bedrooms for Number 32, total 129 bedrooms, which at 110 gallons per day, or per bedroom, would be 14,190 gallons per day. MRS. BRUNO-So how do we handle it if someone goes in and turns three of those three bedrooms into four bedroom houses and we’ve only got it sized for three bedrooms? MR. MASON-Well, this is part of the reason why, and Mr. Hutchins didn’t address this part of it, why we needed to overbuild it, because we do have to be thinking about that. We don’t want to build something that would be the exact size we need today, because things do change. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. MASON-I think that now in hindsight, we wrote this a few years ago. I think four bedrooms is unreasonable. Nobody’s building four bedrooms there, and three bedrooms is a much more reasonable figure to use, but no one really does know, and it’s better to overbuild it a little. MRS. BRUNO-And you’re able to keep track of these updates that each family makes on their cabin? MR. MASON-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-They have to get approval from the Homeowners Association before they go any place. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. MASON-And it’s in our interest to make sure that we don’t ruin this of course. MRS. BRUNO-Right, absolutely. MR. MASON-So I understand your concern, but we have the same concern there. I don’t want somebody doing that. So we have something in place to make sure that we keep track of it. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. MASON-We’re overbuilt a little bit, and then if we were to have to add drain fields, that would be a whole different discussion, hopefully never to happen, but, you know, years down the line, that we’d have to deal with, were we to get into that position, but we don’t want these things to fail, certainly. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I think on Lot Number Eight, which is Jackowski, we’re showing accommodation of three bedrooms. There actually are two bedrooms, but there’s a third bonus room that a Board could consider to be a bedroom. So, even though we’re not showing it as a bedroom, we’ve built for it, and I think the same is true in even the other cabins that have been built. MR. MASON-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve anticipated that you’re going to say you’ve got this room that somebody could use as a bedroom, we want to see that you’ve got it accommodated for in the septic design, so we don’t have arguments about that, but the Homeowners Association does require approval. They did approve those projects that we had, that we went to the Zoning Board before, last year. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-But we can get, is that sufficient? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I’m comfortable now. I just wanted to see what we have here. MR. O’CONNOR-Do you want to go through the comments specifically? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we still haven’t done that, have we? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Tom has talked to your Town Engineer and I think he said he’s resolved. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I received Dan’s letter yesterday, and fortunately I happened to have a meeting with him this morning on another project. So we did discuss these, and a number of them are add notes to the drawings, which I have absolutely no problem with. They’re probably good points, that would be Two, Three, Six, and Eight. Number Four, consideration should be given to specifying clean outs between the tanks. I don’t generally specify a clean out between a house and a septic tank unless the distance is significant, and in none of these cases it is. It’s not a Code requirement. If you want cleanouts there, I can put clean outs in, but the way his comment is phrased. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. What do you consider a significant distance where you would? MR. HUTCHINS-Twenty, thirty feet. If for some reason we have to have a change in direction, absolutely. These are straight shots from the building to the septic tank. Generally it’s not something we do. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you indicate to us what your consensus is on that? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, which item are you on? MR. O'CONNOR-On Number Four. MR. HUNSINGER-Number Four. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll default to the engineers. MR. FORD-You don’t feel there’s the need for a clean out in that span? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t think, in this situation, I’ve got a, you know, generally these are close to the 10 foot from the house, they’re probably 12 feet from the house. It’s a straight shot. No, I don’t feel there’s a need for it. MR. FORD-How about Number Five, the freezing issue? MR. HUTCHINS-Number Five, the freezing issue, the force mains will be installed to frost depth. Apparently I didn’t indicate that on my drawings, but they’ll be installed to frost depth. MR. MASON-We don’t want them to freeze up in the middle of winter. MR. FORD-No, you don’t. MR. SIPP-How many year round residents are there? MR. MASON-Currently, two. MR. SIPP-So there wouldn’t be much flow in the wintertime. MR. MASON-No, and only, and none of those would be going into this. MR. SIPP-None of those. MR. MASON-None of the two year round ones currently. So this is going to be seasonal for a little while. MR. FORD-The others have occasional use during the winter? MR. MASON-Occasional. Some of them have guests and that always helps, but it doesn’t help to go in and run some water or something like that. You need some actual use, and I can’t really do that. Some of them, people have different plans, and to speculate as to what they’re going to do is kind of difficult, but some people may start to retire there, as we all get older. That’s what my plan is. So we will have, I hope, a little bit more year round use. MR. HUTCHINS-Number Seven, he notes that a requirement of Town Code, imported fill for fill systems, required to stabilize for a minimum of 60 days in place. I specify mechanically stabilized fill, which is acceptable by Health Department. Your Code does say that. If we need to wait 60 days from place of fill to installed systems we can accommodate that. That hasn’t generally been enforced, but that is in your Code, and if we need to wait 60 days from placement to installation, we can. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only issue you have is Item Four, really. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t have an issue with it. I’ll put clean outs. It’s an easy thing to put a clean out in there. I don’t think it’s necessary, but I’ll do it. MRS. BRUNO-Do you think that that actually causes a larger potential for failure of the line? MR. HUTCHINS-The clean out? MRS. BRUNO-Having the clean out there, right. MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. O'CONNOR-The way this is worded, it says consideration should be given. It’s Tom’s stamp that we’re going to rely upon. If he’s telling us that he doesn’t think it’s necessary. MR. FORD-Consideration was given. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we’ve considered it and we’d like to not do it. If you tell us we have to do it, we’ll do it. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-It would seem to be the type of consideration that he would install one if he felt that it was appropriate. MR. HUTCHINS-And I was, as I said, when I think it’s appropriate, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-In general, I told Dan I was going to tell the Board tonight that we discussed it today, and I don’t see any of these that we’ve talked about that can’t be addressed, and he concurs with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Okay. We do have at least two. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I had a couple of comments on reviews of the plans. In general we think this is a good concept to increase separation distance from the lake for any wastewater systems. Some comments that I had may be clarifications that could be provided. I recall, at one time, looking at the Takundewide Master Plan. I thought that there was a plan that plan that might have had reserved areas indicated for all the individual systems for each of the lots. I didn’t see that, but that’s just something I don’t know if Staff had one that called out the existing lot treatment area, and I thought there was a reserved area, but I just wanted to make sure that the proposed areas for the new system did not overlap any future reserved areas. Some of the excavation for the lines going back are within a couple of feet of existing fields. So possible some consideration that there be protection for those existing fields. Also if you’re constructing below frost line within two feet of existing fields, you do not want to get seepage from the existing into the trench, which, you know, could provide a conduit back down towards the lake. There was mention about topographic information. I think that was a good catch. There was none provided. Discussion was about the design flow of all the camps. Do they all have water saving devices and fixtures? That could be a consideration for any possibly condition. The depth to mottling was 30 inches, which your Code requires three feet, which basically puts the bottom of all the trenches three feet above that mottling, which would put the bottom of the trench above existing grade. So I believe in theory these are all fill systems and not shallow absorption systems. Fill systems are mound systems because the, as I said, the bottom of the treatment cell will be above existing grade. So I do not know if that needs to be considered. I question the purpose of the project. Was there failures or, you know, are they being good stewards in pushing wastewater away from the lake, and it would be great if it’s the latter, but I don’t know. I just had that as a note. They addressed why Units One and Five were not going to be tied in, but any system that’s that close to the lake should be encouraged to be tied in, even if it is the newer installation. Now, they talked about, some consideration, and I do not know if they’re covenants in there or Homeowners Association have any restrictions on expansions. I think now that we’ve relieved some lakefront lots of areas that they need to consider for wastewater, does that give them areas for future expansion? I don’t know if they have covenants within their Association to prevent that. I do know, and I did comment, on some of the Lots Six, Seven, and Eight that were planned for expansion. So I do not know if this opens up for more expansion along the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-When you asked the question about expansion, do you mean additional units or making the existing units larger? MR. NAVITSKY-The existing units larger. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-And I guess we did touch, I think, Mrs. Bruno touched on the expansion, and I just think what is this reserved for? Is it for expansion? Are these going to become larger, or is it for some future connection of a system that goes down. I think that’s a good question to raise, and one to be addressed by the applicant. So it is good to plan 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) for some expansion, but again, Master Plan calls for four bedrooms. Are these going to be three or four? I think there should be some consideration there. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Sir, did you want to speak? CHARLES LOCKE MR. LOCKE-Good evening. My name is Charles Locke. I’ve brought with me some exhibits, and I’d like to be able, with the Board’s indulgence, to pass out some of the exhibits that I can point to during the comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. LOCKE-One second. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Mr. Chairman, can I add one other point? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead. MR. NAVITSKY-I apologize. You talked about the stormwater, and I think that that is a good point, that although there may be no added impervious, there’s a change of cover. There’s a change of removal of forest or brush cover to now basically grass, which is an increase in runoff. So there could be some consideration of runoff. So that’s a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LOCKE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Charles Locke. I’m a resident, have been fortunate enough to be raised up at Lake George, since birth. So I’ve spent the last 57 summers up there. I’m a third generation on Cleverdale. My kids are fourth, obviously, and I hope that they will enjoy it as much as I do. I’m here tonight, along with a few neighbors. My property adjoins Takundewide. It stands between Takundewide and the lake, and I guess we’re all in favor of responsible septic systems, and anything that’s going to protect the environment of the lake and the adjoining properties is a good thing. However, this proposal raises some concerns and questions that I and others have who live on the lakeshore, down slope, I should point out, immediately down slope from the proposed project. This area, I wish I had a topographical chart, would show that this area that we’re talking about, well let me put up a fairly crudely drawn chart. We’re not as well funded as the applicant but just as passionate, I might say. This map is reproduced under Tab Number Four, I believe, and represents an illustration of where roughly the properties on the lakefront are located, relative to the project and Takundewide. The project, and this is obviously not to scale, but the project is proposed for this vicinity, I believe somewhere to the, actually to the north of this house, but well below Cleverdale Road, an slightly to the south of Hillman Road, this is Hillman Road here. As you can see, opposite Hillman Road, which comes down this way and heads south, is the Hillman property, the Locke property, Buckley, Hobbs, and England. I’m not an engineer, but the best way I can describe this is this is a mini-water shed in and of its own right, and this is basically a funnel. This is a pretty good slope. I think Mr. Seguljic raised the question, one of the members raised the question, about what is the slope of this property. It’s a fairly significant slope from Cleverdale Road down to the lake, and an appropriate question to ask the engineers might be what is that slope? There’s a further fairly steep grade on the other side of Cleverdale Road, but we’re not getting into that. Suffice it to say historically, in my 57 years, and my parents experience and so forth, this is the lowest point for probably a mile in either side, at least a half a mile. This is the natural drain point for this entire area, including the Takundewide area. Has been for years. It became problematic probably beginning 30 years ago. This was all fields at one time, and as it became developed, and as the neighborhood generally became developed, the runoff increased. The road was eventually paved. Homes were built, cottages were converted into permanent residences, and there was continuous ponding, historically, and flooding right in this vicinity here, between the Hillman, Locke, and Buckley property. The reason I’m here tonight is because mine just happens to be the lowest point around. So all the water collected out back, flooded, pooled, ponded, and either sat there or made its way and flooded under the house, and eventually made its way down to the lake. Approximately 25, 30 years ago, the Town was concerned with this, our families were concerned with this, and my parents gave an easement to the Town to run a storm drain, a one cistern drain, from here down through the property, directly into the lake. Over the past 25 years, there’s obviously been development. More houses have been built. More stormwater coming off. The network has been expanded. The drain network has been expanded, out of necessity, so that now I think there are six catch basins, all draining into 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) this one catch basin, which all leads directly, without any filtration whatsoever, directly into the lake, and I’d like to describe these briefly for you. These are open catch basins, that is they’re corrugated pipe, but they’re perforated on the sides, and they’re bottomless. So they’re not just picking up surface water, but they pick up groundwater as well. That’s a significant point which I’ll get to very shortly. As I say, this situation has been expanded to try to address the growing problem. It’s resulted in obviously algae bloom and increased seaweed and so forth in our swimming area. I would also note that there are, within 100 feet of either side of this outlet, are three water intake lines, for the Lockes, the Buckleys, and the Hillmans, and within 200 feet there are I believe five. There are England’s, Hobbes, and the other three. So this is a primary area for swimming, bathing, but also the drinking supply for these families. This was recognized as a problem area by the Town back in 1996. They commissioned a report, a proposal for stormwater management plan in April of ’96. They received a report from C.T. Male Associates who prepared a report which you’ll find under Tab One, and I’m not asking you to review the entire report. I don’t think that’s necessary, but there’s a yellow post it in there, and as you can see from the page that’s been highlighted, the Town of Queensbury recognized this as a problem area, and listed it under the second tier of stormwater problems that need to be addressed, and I think this proposal eventually lead to the promulgation of the stormwater management regulations in 1998. In any event, the Town’s concerned with this area, we’re concerned with this area. If I make one point tonight, it is please don’t look at this proposal as merely a centralized septic system proposal, and don’t look at it to the exclusion of the possible impact this is going to have on the broader issue of where does this water flow. As I say, I’m not an engineer. I think this is, however, more than about perc tests and setbacks from the lake. I think one of the questions was why does this perc test vary so widely. I don’t know the answers to that. All I can tell you is from my experience the water runs off the hill. Every Spring the ground is saturated, and any time we get a significant rain, the same thing occurs. I would like, with the indulgence of the Board, to show just, a picture would speak 1,000 words, and I have a two minute tape, video, that would illustrate the point for you and show you this particular area and what it looks like during a significant rain, and then I’ll address briefly what is it you’ve seen. If I could do that. Mr. Chairman? MR. FORD-Yes, let’s do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LOCKE-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-After his presentation, could we take a look at the aerial shot, so that we can put his map with the? MR. LOCKE-I would note that this tape was taken in May of 1994, when the existing storm drain system, it’s configured the same then as it is today. It hasn’t been changed since that time. However, there’s been additional development out back. Some of these cottages were converted into two story homes. I wish I had numbered these cisterns that are shown in your booklet. It would be easier for you to identify them when you see them in the video. MR. HUNSINGER-Does this mean the Town’s computers aren’t up to current technological standards, George? MR. TRAVER-Haven’t installed Windows Media Player 11, yet. That’s what’s going on. MR. LOCKE-I’d like to point out that it’s very difficult to see in the video, but there’s some discoloration of the water, which I’ll address in just a minute. We actually have some water samples, which are also in the report, taken at about this time, showing a high content of detergents and soapy material, the chemical name for which I can’t repeat. This is Hillman Road looking up the hill towards Takundewide. That’s south, with the Hillman’s residence on the right hand side. You can see the water going across the street and ponding in their backyard. The arrows, or actually they were painted on the street I guess by the Department of Public Works, indicate the cisterns, some of these catch basins, and this one is the cistern between the Hillman house and the Locke house, Locke property, and again, you can see the ponding and the discoloration in the water. The lake in this picture is up in the right hand corner, and everything obviously flows in that direction. This, again, was taken in August. This wasn’t necessarily in the Spring, but in the Spring the problem is always exacerbated with the snow melt and runoff. This is looking north up Hillman Road, the lake being on the left hand side, Takundewide on the right, and again, you can see the ponding that results from waters coming upslope and heading down towards the lake. Again, there are no less than three 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) catch basins on that side of the road, and another three on the other side which all feed in to the catch basin in back of my house. MRS. BRUNO-That’s the Hillman property? MR. LOCKE-That, again, is the Hillman property, the Hillman backyard, with the lake being at the top. MR. FORD-And from there, is there a pipe that goes out to the lake, from that one on your property? MR. LOCKE-Yes, there is. This catch basin is over on the Takundewide side of Hillman Road, and connects, as you’ll see with this diagram, under the street, it catches this water coming off. There’s another catch basin up here that runs over, and then they all go into this catch basin, which is right in back of my property, and the easement and the pipe goes right down the right hand side of the house into the lake. This is looking from, I think, Heron Hollow, Cleverdale Road being up to the left, and going southbound up to Takundewide. This is on the Takundewide side immediately down slope from where the proposed facility would be located, albeit it some distance away. Again, notice the discoloration in the water. There’s another catch basin up at the top right. This is what has existed off and on over 30 years, and even with the expansion of the storm drain, which runs down the left hand side, now, of the house, it’s making me a little dizzy, and exits right in our swimming area, the Buckley’s water line is right off to the right, about where that birch tree is. Our water line is just to the left side of the dock, and this comes unfiltered. This is sub suds. MR. FORD-This was taken some 13 years ago? MR. LOCKE-Yes, correct. MRS. BRUNO-And the Town installed those catch basins when did you say? MR. LOCKE-Well, the first one probably between 25 and 30 years ago. It’s been expanded over the years since then. MR. HUNSINGER-But it hasn’t changed. It’s still there today, right? MR. LOCKE-But it hasn’t changed, it’s still there today. The amount of runoff has, if anything, increased, but the capabilities of the system remain the same. Again, it’s very hard to see on the video, but this, the water is obviously brown down, maybe not so obviously, but it’s brown down here out to about the docks before it clears up. I think that’s the photographer’s scenic shot. These are just still photos that were tacked on at the end. I will leave a set of these photos with the Board to be made part of the record if possible. I believe they’re excerpts from the video. I’ll leave the video as well, but again, you can see the ponding and the effects. This is why, as a downstream, or a down slope, I should say, property owner, we have some serious concerns about the project, proposed project. Let me also quickly address, because I know the hour is getting late, as I mentioned, these are open cisterns and pick up the groundwater as well as the surface water. Our concern is, what happens to this water after it percs? Where does it go? It obviously eventually makes its way into the lake, and probably through the stormwater system in part. The stormwater system as it exists is prone to picking up, or certainly has the capability of picking up, septic as well, and in fact has, in the past. We’ve had an accident back in, again, 1994. I’d refer you to Tab Two in the book. There are a number of Hudson Environmental lab tests that were conducted when we suspected that some of the water really wasn’t fit for bathing, much less drinking, and those lab samples prove to tell the tale. The first one you’ll notice was taken from the kitchen tap. The sample, the grab sample, was drawn from the kitchen tap, and showed a total coliform count to numerous to count on that instance. I believe this instance was traced to a failed septic tank up at Takundewide, from one of the cottages. There was another grab sample taken from the other side of the road, the storm drain, this storm drain to be exact, on the chart, and that’s the second Hudson Environmental test result, th lab test result you see there for 8/19, August 19, showing a total coliform count of 24,000. Several weeks later, a grab sample was taken off of the Hillman’s lawn, where you saw the ponding taking place. Now, we always suspected that there was something coming from a laundry or some gray water from some source, because the water would be discolored, kind of milky in color, sudsy, and when everything dried out and evaporated, it left a white, dusty film on the grass and on the street, and as you can see from the Hudson Environmental test of that sample, it said that the measurement evidenced non-soap, anionic sulficants common to detergent formulation, generally 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) represented by linear alkali benzene sulfinate, whatever that is. It doesn’t sound good to me, and then the following page is a September sample, again, taken from our tap water, which uses a UV filter, I should add. So it’s not as if we’re not taking precautions, and again, showing a coliform count that’s unsatisfactory, according to Hudson Environmental. Not according to the Locke’s, but according to Hudson Environmental. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. This coliform count is after tertiary treatment with the ultraviolet? MR. LOCKE-Yes. MR. FORD-Mr. Locke, have there been no tests taken in the last 13 years? MR. LOCKE-No, there have been tests taken. I don’t have them. We pretty much stopped taking them because Hudson Environmental either moved or went out of business. We used to run the samples down to County Line Road, I think it was, and I don’t know what happened to them, but we then contacted Darren of Freshwater Institute, as well as Mr. Navitsky, who occasionally monitor, I believe, the system. We did bring some of this to the attention of the Town under Tab Three. I don’t need to go through that with you at this time, but I would commend that to you for your reading. It describes some of this situation in a little bit more detail. Tab Four is just a reiteration of the map, and Five is some still photographs that were seen at the end of the video. I guess I think that the video speaks for itself and explains my concerns. Again, this is a highly sensitive area, as 30 years of experience has shown. We’re talking about a fairly significant facility upstream from it or upslope from it, and it’s a fairly significant slope, I might add, and it raises questions about just how much water this soil in this area can handle before it becomes saturated. I know the engineers have the perc tests and so forth. I don’t know what time of year or what, you know, rainy day, dry weather, when these are conducted, but if they could stand out back and take a look at these storm drains, and where this water is flowing from, on its way from upslope down the lake, I think they might recognize that the septic system itself shouldn’t be addressed in a vacuum. It should be viewed in conjunction with what’s already occurring, what are the conditions at this site. I’m a skier, and the only way I can describe this facility is it’s right on the fall line with where this water is going to drain out into the lake, and that is right at our property. So I would ask this Board to be cognizant of that in deliberating on this proposal. MR. FORD-Mr. Locke, may I interrupt you one more time? MR. LOCKE-Yes. MR. FORD-At least. If you were to characterize the runoff and the water that you see today, I mean, this is dramatic footage from 13 years ago. MR. LOCKE-Right. MR. FORD-But how would that compare with the reality of today? MR. LOCKE-It’s comparable during comparable rains. It hasn’t changed that greatly. MR. FORD-So it hasn’t gotten better. It hasn’t gotten worse. It’s about the same? MR. LOCKE-I would say, to be fair, it’s about the same. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re still seeing the gray water? MR. LOCKE-Yes, we’re still seeing the gray water, which raises a question in my mind, I mean, I have several questions about the proposal. One is I notice that the proposed line going across from the pumping area, again, I sort of question why it’s being pumped from the south end of their property all the way over to the north end of the property, which just happens to be behind, not Takundewide’s property, but other homeowner’s properties, and also by a convenient storm drain and exit system for the water, but it goes right past the laundry room. Well, the laundry room is not a two bedroom summer cottage. The laundry room, some of these cottages are weekly summer rentals, with lots of turnover and I presume lots of laundry, plus I believe the laundry’s available to the other Association homeowners. It’s, in my mind, the equivalent of a Laundromat. Now I could be mistaken, but I’m just trying to make a reasonable assumption. I’m wondering, is the intention to include that in this system? That’s certainly more than the equivalent, I would think, of a three bedroom winterized house. So there are many questions I have. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) One of which is if this system were moved to a different location, let’s say the more southerly location, it might not be set back as far from the lake, although it looks from the property line that that could possibly be the case, but it might have longer to run on the diagonal, you know, the fall line as it were, as opposed to a straight shot down the hill and into the lake. The other question I had was, the Association apparently owns the property all the way up to the road. Now there’s a spot at which, above the tennis court and above the proposed facility, the land, I believe, levels off as almost a berm, not a berm, but a slight swale before it then goes up again a rise to the road, which begs the question, couldn’t it be moved back there. It would give the water a further track to perc, further chance to be absorbed, that type of thing. I just worry that it may work fine in dry weather, but as soon as we get a heavy rain, you know, is all this going to be washed down, you know, into these catch basins. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a follow up question, Mr. Ford’s question. Seeing as how it has been 13 years since the video was taken, was there ever any effort to find the source of the runoff? MR. LOCKE-The actual pollution itself, yes, and it was traced back to a failed septic tank at Takundewide. One of the houses, I could probably tell you which house, but I think it was Number 18. MR. SEGULJIC-So I assume that’s been repaired since then? MR. LOCKE-Yes, it’s been repaired. MR. SEGULJIC-But the gray water is still, you still see the gray water? MR. LOCKE-I believe it was repaired before the other samples were taken, the later September samples. MR. SEGULJIC-Back in ’94 it was repaired? MR. LOCKE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re still seeing the gray water? MR. LOCKE-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-What is this about a black PVC tube that’s been inserted into? MR. LOCKE-Well, as you know a number of the summer cottages have been converted into year round homes, two story, in most instances two stories with full basements. The property, and I should let them speak for themselves, but I believe the property, Number 25 was converted, was renovated and turned into a full year round home. I think that’s the McMann’s house. Am I right? That’s Nisland. Let’s see. Hillman Road. I guess it would be Number 30 would be the house. In any event, in speaking with him, he indicated that shortly after he did his renovation, he started noticing he was getting flooding in his basement. Apparently it became bad enough that he installed a sump pump and a generator in case he wasn’t there. He was afraid he would be flooded out. I don’t know for sure that that’s where this drain has come from, but somebody has cut a hole in the side of the cistern, the catch basin, and snaked maybe a three or four inch PVC pipe which carries I don’t know what. I’m assuming somebody’s sump pump basement water, directly down the culvert at my house. So I brought that to the attention of the Town as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get any response from the Town? MR. LOCKE-I had a number of telephone calls with them, but nothing transpired. MR. FORD-And when was this report made, please. MR. HUNSINGER-2006. MR. LOCKE-This was, I think it’s under the correspondence section there. MR. FORD-I haven’t had a chance to read it. MR. LOCKE-Yes, I think, it was recent. It was 2006. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-So do you know, have you still observed that being gray? MR. LOCKE-It’s still there. MRS. BRUNO-It’s still there? MR. LOCKE-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-So we can assume that his basement would still flood? MR. LOCKE-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Which, looking at this, I mean, that’s right along from, if I’m understanding correctly, part of the drainage flow that you’re talking about. So they’re experiencing some of these same issues. MR. LOCKE-Yes, exactly, and I know for a fact that the Buckley’s next door to us also converted or renovated their home quite a few years ago into a year round house, and recently have been experiencing flooding in their basements, and have also installed a sump pump, I believe, and I believe one of the Buckley’s indicated that she couldn’t be here tonight, but she was transmitting a letter with her comments on it and her concerns, and in that regard, I would respectfully ask the Board to consider leaving the record open for some period of time, because some of us got this notice seven days ago, but some people are on vacation and away and would like to respond but haven’t had an opportunity to. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. You had indicated the black pipe into one of the cistern. MR. LOCKE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Which cistern? MR. LOCKE-Which cistern? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. LOCKE-It actually, the hole is in this cistern. The pipe enters here. MR. SEGULJIC-So this cistern here you’re saying. MR. LOCKE-Well, it enters here, and it was snaked through here and part way down to here, and there was new grass, there was a dark grassy line of new planted grass running up towards that house. I’m not making any accusations, but I’m just observing what it was. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’ll ask the applicant to determine what that is, if it is anything. MR. LOCKE-I’ll be honest. I cut the pipe off here the other night, because I figured let it perc, you know, let it do what it’s supposed to do. I spoke to someone at the Highway Department and they said, well, no, technically speaking that should surface and have a chance to actually perc and be absorbed before it hits the lake, but this was being snaked through a pipe halfway down here and shot directly out into our swimming area and 50 feet from our, less than 50 feet. We only have 50 feet of lakefront. So 25 feet from our water pipe. MR. SEGULJIC-And just a clarification. So you submitted a letter. You’ve had a number of correspondences with the Town since May 16, 2006, and really nothing has occurred since then? Is that accurate? MR. LOCKE-Well, something occurred. I cut the pipe off, but other than that. MR. SEGULJIC-The Town hasn’t acted on it? MR. LOCKE-They have not. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. LOCKE-Well, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. FORD-To reiterate, was it, in fact, the Highway Department that put in that system of culverts? MR. LOCKE-It was. MR. FORD-And they’re taking that water into the lake. MR. LOCKE-It was yes. I think, I mean, we had these discussions back in 1998 when they came around, Male came around doing their survey of stormwater problem areas on the lake in Queensbury, and they said, well, one of the proposals is a proper proposal, and because of the lay of the land, would be to catch it in a drywell or basin and pump it back up towards Cleverdale Road, because of the pitch, and give the water a chance to permeate through before it hits the lake again, instead of just being picked up here, whatever’s in it, and dumped raw into the lake, but again, I mean, as you can see from their report, they had many problem areas on their plate, and limited funds. So I don’t know what became of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Thank you. MR. LOCKE-Thank you. May I leave these photographs? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, leave them with Staff, please. MR. LOCKE-I believe I have two neighbors here as well. They asked if I would introduce them. They were hoping to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LOCKE-This one is Mr. Hillman and Mr. England, who are also down slope property owners. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sir? Good evening. LANCE HILLMAN MR. HILLMAN-Good evening. My name is Lance Hillman. My father and I own the Hillman property which we just saw, 48 Hillman Road. What Chuck has shown you is the case. We’ve been there since 1952, and to answer some of the questions I think Mr. Ford brought up was I personally believe that the runoff has gotten a little bit worse than it has been in past years. If we have a heavy rainstorm, the water does flood our lawn, and it does go under Chuck’s guesthouse and it forms a small pool on the lawn, which you saw to the east side of our highway, Hillman Road. MR. FORD-How about coloration, Mr. Hillman? MR. HILLMAN-It’s gray water. We have a paved area there, and if you look at it today, it’s gray, and take a broom to it and sweep, it’s dusty. Personally, what I see Bill doing I like, getting the sewage away from the lake. I think it’s a good thing. I think we’ve got, in addition to that, I’d like to personally see something done with the groundwater runoff. I don’t know whether his project will affect it or not. That’s for a hydrologist or a geologist to see, but there is a big problem there with groundwater runoff. If I can stand, I just wanted to, I’ll point it out to you on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HILLMAN-Chuck just spoke to you. This is his property here. This is our property here, and I think the problem really starts way back up here with the runoff, comes down the hill. There’s a culvert here. It dumps a pile of water in the Spring. There’s been some development here, and I believe just by gravity the water flows this way, too. So, saying that this is the top of a knoll here, the water comes down the Hillman Road, plus this ground, it’s all flowing this way. This is the lowest part of the property here. So, we get runoff from here, here. There’s a knoll here. So this water goes that way, and we get water coming down this way. So Chuck is really stuck, because it’s the lowest here. It’s where the one drain is. There’s a drain, drain, drain, drain, our drain here, it all flows into here, comes across to his property where there’s a right of way and it goes into the lake, 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) and what he showed you does happen, it’s probably flowing tonight. In the Springtime, every year around here, in the Springtime when it starts to melt off, it’s a big stream going out there, but there’s a problem here. Talking with the Masons tonight, there’s a knoll here. Not knowing, not being a hydrologist or a geologist, to me it would make more sense to put it back here, but then you might raise problems coming this way. I don’t know what to do. It takes some thought, but we do have a big problem here with the runoff here, and I would hate to see this project exacerbate this situation here. I don’t know what to do, whether you pump it back up here, but it’s development that’s happened here, happened here, it’s the natural course of circumstance, but there is a problem, and it is gray water. It doesn’t stink. I haven’t smelled it, but it is gray and it’s very dusty when you try to sweep it. I don’t know where it’s coming from. I can remember back when, as Chuck mentioned, I think it was this house here that had a sewage problem. It was repaired. They have a lot of water coming out of their basement. This whole area here, after a good rainstorm or after a good warm rain in the Springtime, this becomes a pond, a three or four inch pond. I’d like to see something done with the problem that’s here, and I know the Town’s got limited funds, and it may have nothing to do with this, it may. I just would hate to see this exacerbate this. I don’t know about this soil, and how it would absorb the water, whether it can do that or not. I’m personally glad to see that, with ourselves, and these folks here, the Masons here, everybody else goes away in the wintertime, and that, I think, helps the lake, and it helps the soil dry out a little bit. I’d answer any questions, if you’ve got any. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HILLMAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, did you want to comment, too? SCOTT HAMMOND MR. HAMMOND-My name is Scott Hammond. I’m Art Buckley’s grandson. As Mr. Locke did say, is that Mr. Buckley Meg did fax a letter to the Board, and it was supposed to be read tonight. I don’t know if you guys have received it? MR. HUNSINGER-Staff has it in his hands. MR. HAMMOND-I just wanted to make sure that before any decision gets made, that that letter was read. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. FRANK ENGLAND MR. ENGLAND-My name is Frank England, and I live just up on Heron Hollow, and I’m going to repeat quite a few things that the gentleman here has said, and the first thing, I’ve had a little experience in Town Boards. I’ve been a selectman in Massachusetts for three years, and the first thing that I saw in here, I just wondered, first let me say we’re very pleased that Takundewide went out and hired a professional engineer to do the job, but just let me show you something that struck me immediately when I received the letter. I live right here, and the thing that just, when I quickly saw it, remember I’m very pleased that they went and got an engineer to have these things. Why would we, when we’re having a problem here, why would we take all the water from down along here, take it up here, ship it up here, and this is where I understand that the new system is going to be, and it’s about only 150 feet from Hillman Road. Unfortunately, Hillman Road, there’s a mountain here that’s almost like a funnel. That’s what brings this water down, and my first thought was, we’re glad they’re doing this, but why won’t they put it over here, as I enter the slope. So this is really, and the other thing is I think a lot of us don’t appreciate where we are right now. This is a very unusual spot. I started coming up here as a Boy Scout in 1932. So you can see I’m an old joker, and I’m lucky enough to spend the winter months out in Las Vegas, and when I tell people that I have a summer home on a lake that’s 32 miles long and it’s drinking water, they don’t believe me. We’re probably the only thing in the United States that has a lake like that, and I think it’s really up to us to do our very best to preserve it, and I’m very pleased that they went to do this thing, but I just think it should be further away from this trough, and I think the Highway Department in the Town of Queensbury is very aware of this, because we talked, we had a little conference here, back, I bought my home here in 1989, and I’ve lived down on Harris Bay since about, further down closer to the marina, since about 1960 I’ve had a place, and we had a conference with them here, and they said, yes, yes, yes, and they didn’t do anything. So the Town has been aware of this for a long time, 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) and I think really the Town should kind of help Takundewide out when they, and I would hope that they can move this back over here, but we don’t want to cause people, other people, problems here, but we have quite a problem here right now. Does anybody have any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, sir. MR. ENGLAND-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Anyone else? Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Again, my name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. Those are tough acts to follow, but I’ll give it a shot. I asked Staff today for a copy of the Takundewide resolution and Memorandum of Understanding concerning the future development at the project, and I got these two pieces of paper. They just tell me at the top that they’re a draft. They haven’t been signed. In any case, it says here in their agreement, whereas the Planning Board has reviewed the Master Plan information package provided to them by the Takundewide Homeowners Association, dated August 3, 2003, that package is very fundamental to what you’re doing here tonight. I hope you have a copy of it. In any case, it goes on to again talk about the Takundewide Homeowners Association agrees to perform the following activities to ensure that the Master Plan is maintained as agreed in the August 2003 package. So we must have the August 2003 package. Further, the Warren County Planning Board has given a conditional approval. The Warren County Planning Board recommends approval with the condition the septic system is compliant with the 2003 Master Plan. I don’t know what the 2003 Master Plan says about the septic system, but that has to be established, and I think you have to make a finding, a finding that what is being proposed is actually in accordance with that, is compliant with that Master Plan. Otherwise the County approval is null and void. As far as the details on the septic system, as Mr. Hutchins pointed out, this project, whatever it turns out to be, is going to be the subject of a DEC permit. Further, and more detailed, that permit must be in accordance with this Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works in the Lake George basin. It’s got a 1989 date on it. I’d just like to read a couple of paragraphs in this. This Design Manual has been prepared pursuant to recent amendments to Article 43 of the Environmental Conservation Law. All new or expanded discharges in the Lake George basin where the flow is to exceed 1,000 gallons per day, and I believe that’s the case here, must meet the following requirements. Most of them are pretty standard, but I’ll read you Number Four. Facilities must be designed to meet existing needs only. Existing needs only. This manual goes on, in a very, very long and detailed dissertation on soil evaluation for subsurface disposal, and I believe if they’re going to get a permit from the DEC in accordance with this requirement, they should have done the following things, and I’m not sure they’ve been done. Soil profile observations must be made on all sites proposed for soil absorption systems. Large soil pits must be dug to allow accurate description of soil types and horizons. While soil borings may be used to determine soil variability over a large area, soil pits should generally be as deep as the backhoe can excavate, and should only be dug at the perimeter of the expected soil absorption area. An extension soil evaluation must be performed for large subsurface absorption systems, up to a depth of at least five feet below the bottom of proposed absorption system. Test borings may be required to determine depth to groundwater and bedrock. This type of extensive soil evaluation is also recommended for smaller systems, especially those on critical sites, and indeed this is a critical site. Critical sites include those with very slow percolation rates, poor soils, steep slopes and shallow depth to groundwater, and on and on it goes, and I’ve got to say, I don’t think the Town Board, the Town Staff is at all involved in this septic system. This is a DEC show, and they’ve got, before they can do anything, they’ve got to get a DEC permit, and it’s going to beg the question, why only 11 units, or 8, whatever it is? Why not the whole project? My understanding, and I thought I understood it, was that someday they were going to address the wastewater problem on this site. You heard them talk about cess pools. I’ve got to believe they’re all over. That was a State of the Art in those years, and that, I think, was everyone’s understanding that that large area there would, that set aside area, would be used for a large system. Now, one of the things that they are very carefully avoiding, I believe, is that when you get above 5,000 gallons a day, design capacity, there are other standards that kick in on these regulations, and they’re called performance standards, where the effluent has got to be monitored and samples taken and reported. You need a professional operator to do this sort of thing, and these are very rigorous standards. They’re in here and I don’t want to go through them. MR. HUNSINGER-Appreciate that. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. SALVADOR-But in any case, over 5,000 gallons it would throw this project into a completely different set of rules. The test pits that have been done, as I read, are not adequate for the DEC permit, but in any case, we’re finding them very, very close to the limit of the three feet that’s required that they be, in order for this system not to be 1,000 feet back from the lake, which is a requirement that our Town Code has for a new mound system, must be 1,000 feet from the lake, it’s just too close to go on the test pits that they’ve got. I mean, they’ve got one that’s 30 inches. That doesn’t cut it, and the other one’s very close to the three feet, and 42 isn’t that far away. The way that a good engineering approach to this area would be, when you have this condition, is to set up a grid, set up a grid system and do these borings on a grid and see what the profile, see what the direction is of this high seasonal groundwater. This is totally inadequate, what’s there. The other thing that we’re missing here is that it has come to my attention, as a result of doing some assessment analysis, that there have sprung up on this site 13 Class B Marinas permitted by the Lake George Park Commission. The Class B Marina is an issue separate in itself, but, as a requirement of a Class B Marina, you’ve got to furnish toilet facilities. Now there’s no reason that a homeowner here would have to have a Class B Marina permit unless they’re renting the dock to someone who’s not staying in the house. If they’re staying in the facility, the dock goes with the home. So that takes care of it if they’re renting the home. So there must be some, the rental of the dock indicates an extra use, and that person’s entitled to the use of a toilet, open at all times. So, you know, where’s the incidence of use for those 13? We don’t know, I don’t know where they. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll ask them. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The other thing is that some of these units are being operated as a temporary residence, by the Health Department, and so they become jurisdictional. I don’t know how that will play out, but that’s up to them to. Understand also that we talk about three bedrooms. If you look at the photos of these units, they’re all equipped with a screened in porch. Is that going to survive, or is that going to be served as another bedroom? And you know the design standards of recommended design standards for the Health Department talk about screened in porches are to be counted as a bedroom. Because the likelihood of them being used is as such. We don’t have, thanks to our PORC Committee, we don’t have still to this day a definition of a bedroom in our Code. It’s been going on for years. The other thing I think we have to, in looking at this wastewater, is we’ve got to give an appreciation to what are we going to do with the stormwater. You want to infiltrate into the same soils, this wastewater that you can’t get rid of the stormwater in. What are we doing here? The stormwater is just building a big dam right now, in front of this wastewater system. That’s all it is. It’s a water dam. You’re not going to get any flow. The other thing, our stormwater regulations call for the fact that all the stormwater’s got to be contained on the site. What are they going to do with it? Keep putting it in the same lousy soils? The runoff from the tennis court, where’s that going to go? I don’t know what the elevations are here, the mound, but it’s got to go someplace in the same direction, and that’s a lot of runoff. That may even have a drainage system. I don’t know where it goes. In any case, I think the question has to got to be answered, the biggest question I have is, if 11, why not 32? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-And I think that would meet the spirit and intent of your Master Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? We do have a written comment. MR. HILTON-The letter you’ve all been waiting for. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. How long is it, George? MR. HILTON-It’s just a page and a half. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-I’ll try to be quick. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-It is from Meg Buckley Goldberg, Executor of the Buckley Trust, and it says, “Thank you for allowing me to write in my family’s comments in response to the application by the Takundewide Homeowners Association to construct a centralized wastewater system to service 11 Takundewide dwellings. We support healthy 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) development. In fact, we voted for a Town-proposed water sewer system, which unfortunately never came to fruition. In the case of this application, we are not convinced that the additional runoff will not compound the problem that already exists, as well as degrade the health of the Lake in front of our property. My family has owned and lived on the property along Harris Bay in front of Takundewide since 1910. From 1925 through 1961 my Mother spent her summers at this property at which time she became sole owner of the land and made it a year-round family residence in 1987 (now designated as 38 Hillman Road). During the past 30 to 40 years as the Takundewide property has expanded with much of the natural forest buffer zone being removed for new cottages, we have seen a first hand a steady increase in water and waste run-off from the hillside onto our property. Our home is at a low point of the shoreline and has suffered the consequence of water runoff. With the long-standing water drainage problems, my parents spent more than $10,000 in 1987 to ensure that there would be no runoff or septic waste onto our property or the adjacent properties. Even after this effort the problem of water drainage continued. Around 1990 three feet of water collected in our basement after a storm. In response, a sewer drain as installed at the corner of Hillman Road at Heron Lane on our property line that empties all of the hillside and roadway water and organic material directly into the Lake in front of our house and the property next door. Since that time, the cottages at Takundewide have been transitioning into year-round homes that now include basements and there has been an installation of an in ground sprinkler system throughout the Takundewide property. The result is that the current system that was designed to handle a seasonal increase of three months is now having to operate all year long that does not allow for the necessary time to fully recover. The ground surrounding our house is often saturated with water and the runoff organic matter has caused an ever-increasing algae bloom in the water where we swim and where our drinking water is pumped from. In 2006, we experienced a wet basement that lasted four months. Structural changes to a few cottages on the Takundewide property directly behind our home in the preceding couple of years coincided with the problem. Our foundation was inspected at this time and determined to be sound. In addition, the Town highway officials were contacted to see if obstructed road drainage was a contributing problem. They determined that the ground was overly saturated with water and they could not help in diverting the continued runoff. We believe that since our property is one of the runoff points for all the water drainage along this hillside, the additional development at Takundewide including the proposed centralized water system on top of the already taxed water drainage will irreparably damage our property and the integrity and health of the Lake. Future development along Hillman Road is of equal concern. Please take into serious consideration our point of view as well as our neighbors who are directly affected by this application and the resulting impact it will have on our properties, community, environment and the lake. Very truly yours, Meg Buckley Goldberg 38 Hillman Road, Queensbury, NY 12804” That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Where do you want to start? MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, you know, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. When we went in to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I represented just the owner of Lot Number Eight. We had proposed a septic system which would be a new septic system, up to Code, behind that unit, that would handle Unit Eight, and I believe that the owners for Lot Six and Seven propose the same thing. At that time, the Zoning Board said, wait a minute. We want you to go back and go to the Planning Board and talk about this Master Plan and doing a community system that would get the systems from the lake units up away from the lake, and that’s basically why we’re here. My understanding is Tom has looked at the entire site. He’s picked the area that had the best soils. We didn’t pick the area behind the other individual homes for any reason other than the fact that they were the best soils that we found. A lot of information was given. We don’t deny that there has been a stormwater problem in that area for a long, long time. I think you’ve shown very graphically that you had problems in ’94 and since then. I’m kind of surprised that nothing has been done since then. I think non-point pollution into the lake creates a lot of problems, a lot of our problems, you know, the culverts that the highway system put in to get rid of the drainage, and they all run right directly to the lake without any filtration and without anything. As we sit here, we think that this system, some seven, eight hundred feet back from even these properties is a lot better than the existing cess pools that are 70 to 80 feet from the lake. All of that is going to reach, somehow, to the lake, and the question is, what is the best of the systems that you can have, given the circumstances that you’ve got. We need to look at it from an engineering point of view. I don’t think where you’re going to accept anything that we tell you that we’ve solved all the problems in the world tonight. So we will get a copy of the minutes, and respond to them. If the Board has additional questions, or concerns that were raised from the comments that were made to the public, we’d appreciate knowing that so that 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) we can also address those, but I really don’t think it’s going to be that productive at this hour of the night to try and sit and go through everything. MR. MASON-Well, the only thing is we’ve heard an awful lot and we can’t, I don’t think that you want to address everything that we’ve heard. I’m not sure. I’d like some guidance. MR. FORD-Not tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you also don’t want an oral response. Do you? MR. SIPP-Have you submitted to DEC a request for a permit? MR. HUTCHINS-We have not submitted plans to DEC. I have met with DEC on this site and have reviewed the concept of what we will be proposing. At that time we decided that we would go to Queensbury first. MR. SIPP-Is what Mr. Salvador said, that they require a soil profile, rather than a test, rather than a boring? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I haven’t done borings. I’ve done all deep pits. They’re all done with an excavator. They’re all deep pits, and I had a soil scientist observe three of them. MR. SIPP-Is it done with backhoes? MR. HUTCHINS-It was done with backhoes. MR. FORD-To the full depth of the arm? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, no, they weren’t. It was a very big backhoe. Okay, and that’s really a nebulous requirement. MR. SIPP-So what I’m wondering here is that there is a soil classification. Each soil in the State of New York is classified by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. You’ll need to know what that soil type is, that soil series, I should say, and that soil series can only be gotten by a soil profile, and I’d like to see what you’re doing in more than three areas right here, possibly four or five. Now, again, I would like to see a contour map that would give us. MR. HUTCHINS-Which I do now have. I didn’t have it at the time. MR. SIPP-Which would give us some idea of the slope, percentage of slope, where the slope goes, which direction, and give us a better idea of what we’re dealing with here, but you can get, from a soil profile, and I’m sure from U.S.D.A. in Warrensburg will give you the soil series that that belongs to and that will tell you whether it’s usable for building or for. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, that’ll tell you how it was mapped when the soil survey was completed, but all those surveys are going to say this is not a substitute for site specific soils tests, which is what we always base on. MR. SIPP-Yes, but from that profile, from that profile you could determine what soil series you’re dealing with. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. SIPP-And that will tell you whether that soil is ready for absorption or non- absorption or can be built on or subject to ponding or what, and I think, you know, the soil maps are too general. In other words, they take a composite of what’s in the whole area, but the individual soils can vary, and this is where you need to find the specific soil series. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I retained a soil scientist to do the analysis, but I don’t think we need to debate that. I mean, we can look further into the soils. MR. HUNSINGER-You have that information already, is what you’re saying. MR. SIPP-You’ve got two different, you could even see three different soils here because of the depth in which you went. I don’t know where this loose shale came from. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUTCHINS-Loose shale is what was found in the test hole. MR. SIPP-Test Pit Number Two at 58 to 63 inches, you’ve got loose shale. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. I don’t know where it came from. Soils vary by horizon and depth, it always varies. If they were consistent, it would be a lot easier. That’s why we do multiple test holes. MR. SIPP-But that’s why you need a. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what else do we want to see from the applicant? You said, Don, you want to see the soil profiles. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you look at alternative locations? MR. HUTCHINS-We did to the extent that, in my opinion and the owner’s opinion, we came to the conclusion that this was what we felt was the best area on the site. I didn’t do extensive evaluation in other location, okay. I did a few soils borings down in here. This is workable down in here, but, guess what, it’s a couple of hundred feet from the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you look in the southeast corner for example? MR. MASON-Let me explain for just one minute. This was represented a number of times, and one of the problems with the site, for doing what some people have suggested, locating it in this area, is that the Town has a culvert that crosses the road right here that’s huge, and when we get a wet situation, this thing’s full of water and it dumps right there. If we are going to do anything developing in this area, we’ve got to move that water, and guess what, it’s going to go down Hillman Road. If it doesn’t go down Hillman Road, it’s got to come over here and go down this road and aggravate these people. That’s exactly the wrong thing for all of the concerns about stormwater, which we have at Takundewide as well. Everybody does. When we get these floods, we’ve got, they showed you ponding here and here. Well, we’ve got pondings throughout the property as well, and it’s not because the water’s bubbling up out of the ground and we’re making it. It’s because we’ve got culverts that are crossing into the property in all sorts of locations and dumping everybody else’s water who’s upland of us. So I don’t really, I’m getting off the subject with that, but for the location, this is more or less high. So commonsense kind of dictates that it’s a better spot than down here where it dumps in and it’s just as wet as can be, and that kind of percs right across here. If you look at the Master Plan words, the engineer said we could build a community system in this area, but it would require a extensive fill, and this is what he was talking about, that we’d need to mediate all of this area, but in doing so, we’re going to have to divert all of that water, and that’s just going to aggravate the same problem that we have with stormwater runoff. It’s a terrible problem. Of course it is. So the location, as far as I know, is a pretty good one. The better site, as Tom said, would have been maybe in this area, because the soils are better, from our test pits that we dug back when we did the Master Plan, but it’s too close to the lake for the Zoning Board. The ZBA said absolutely not, don’t even try and dig test holes there. They wanted it up in the back. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of other things. With regards to the homes that are connected to the community septic, they’re three bedrooms now, correct? MR. MASON-Some are three, no, the eight homes that are being connected? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. MASON-Some are three and some are two. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Would you be agreeable to limiting them to that then? MR. MASON-To limiting each individual homeowner? MR. SEGULJIC-To no further expansion of those homes? MR. MASON-I can’t do that. I can’t speak for those homeowners. That’s individual homeowner’s rights, and I don’t believe that we’d get a homeowner in here that would be willing to say that they would never develop their property. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things I wanted to add for the benefit of the Board and also I guess members of the audience, the Master Plan that Takundewide did was something that the Planning Board asked for, because we were seeing more and more properties get converted and enlarged, and we kind of said, well, how many of these are we going to see. We saw a couple, you know, in prior years. We’ve seen some now, and we basically asked them to do a Master Plan, which is what they did, and in that Master Plan they said the footprint of these houses won’t change. Am I correct in that? Yes. They can go up, but they can’t change the footprint. So that was one of, you know, the whole advantage of that Master Plan was to do just what you’re sort of suggesting, that there would be a limit on how big the properties could become, each individual property. MR. O’CONNOR-And they agreed to a limit of bedrooms also, throughout the whole project. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s one thing we need to see is the Master Plan. We need to see that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we’ve given you a copy of it. MR. MASON-We have given you a copy. I have made more copies. I can do it again, but they are quite large. MRS. BRUNO-May I give this to Staff? MR. MASON-That’s all yours. MRS. BRUNO-This is our copy? MR. MASON-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course they’re on file. I threw mine out, I think, a year or so ago. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense for them to go to the DEC first and get all that straightened away and then come back to us? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, will DEC even look at it if you don’t have approval from the Planning Board? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t believe so. They may look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-They won’t give you a permit. MR. HUTCHINS-They certainly won’t permit it. MR. O'CONNOR-They won’t permit it until we get the transportation corporation consent from the Town Board. I haven’t, we’re doing one where, we did one in, I’ve done two in Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what we’ve got to start with is the Master Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then I guess really we can’t make any decisions tonight until we look at the Master Plan and then go from there. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t think you’re going to make any decisions tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-I’ve got a recommendation, or an observation. Forgive the pun, but what was unearthed tonight was far greater than this Takundewide project, and I think that we need to look at it in its totality. This being a component thereof, and I think to operate in isolation and to try to isolate this one project is going to be short-sighted from a Town standpoint. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know, though, if the discussions that have been brought to you and the concerns that have been brought to you are necessarily related, and I’d like the opportunity to have Tom look at that and see if he can present enough data to you that shows it’s not related. They have a stormwater problem, a regional stormwater problem. That doesn’t necessarily mean that this community system is going to impact that. I’m not even sure that I agree with him as to the ground flow from this system. Because if I understood part of what, we had discussed, it’s on a flat area that actually drains not toward Hillman Drive but drains down this way, and it’s going to be graded that way. So it may not run that way. It may be upland of Hillman Drive, but it’s going to come down across the balance of our property, which would give it even more area to be purified, and then go off our property, and this is underground drainage. So I understand what you’re saying, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. Again, I’d go back to the question. They’ve had this problem since 1994 and they haven’t done anything about it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that was part of the reason it was such a shock is that the problem’s been around that long and nothing’s been done. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s kind of amazing. MR. MASON-It’s been around, the surface water problem there has been around forever, and it just keeps getting, I think it gets a little bit worse every year. MR. FORD-Well, it appears that there are many contributors to this, including the Town, the Highway Department. MR. MASON-I think that the Highway Department is probably the single biggest contributor, but they have to deal with the water. It’s flooding the road up here, and they’ve got to get rid of it. So they dump it on Takundewide up here, which, what are your choices? To cement up the culvert that crosses under your property. Of course that’s not a viable solution. So then it becomes my problem, the water and so on. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we can certainly ask the Town Engineer, in his review of this project, to look at the stormwater issues and to give us his opinion as to whether or not he feels the proposed septic system would exacerbate the existing conditions. I mean, that’s certainly not out of line, and in terms of the bigger issue, I’m not sure how we deal with that. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess we can’t, as far as the DEC goes, we have to address this first before you can go to DEC? That’s what I hear you saying. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, certainly before can get a DEC approval. We’ve gone to DEC. We’ve talked to DEC already on site. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess we’re just spinning our wheels here now because there’s a lot of things that need to get resolved, and one thing we have to look at the Master Plan. MR. FORD-I’m glad that Mr. Strough is here tonight, because it becomes obvious to me that this goes far beyond the purview of the Planning Board, in its totality, and it makes it very difficult for us to isolate the Takundewide portion of the issue. MR. O'CONNOR-So you’re going to table it. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the question is until when. MR. O'CONNOR-To what meeting. This is August. What day would we have to submit? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, normally it would be the 15 of August to submit for September. Let me just list the issues that I have written down. Maybe other members can comment also. One of the things we asked for was a contour map. Don had asked for the soil profiles, the specific individual soil profiles. The applicant agreed to address some of the public comments. The Planning Board is to review the Master Plan, and then finally we would request the Town Engineer to look at the general stormwater issues in that area and to determine if the proposed will impact, negatively impact, the existing stormwater problems. MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of other things. As far as the contour maps, do you have two foot contours? What do you have? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. HUTCHINS-One’s I believe. I do have them. I have them now. MR. SEGULJIC-So we can say two foot, we can say a two foot contour map? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe they’re one’s, one foot. MR. SEGULJIC-So two foot would be fine. So if you do one, it’s even better, and then the other issue is applicability with regards to 147, in light of the fact that the limit of disturbance exceeds 15,000 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. You had mentioned that earlier, and I had that written down, yes. The applicant would meet with the Zoning Administrator to address Section 147, specifically 147-10. MR. SEGULJIC-147, in light of the fact that it exceeds 15,000 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. FORD-Chris, did you say that the Town Engineer would assess the stormwater runoff in that area? Is that part of the charge? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, only to the extent, just in the context of this project. I mean, I don’t think we can ask him to do a. MR. O'CONNOR-The question is, do we have any impact on it, do we have any negative impact on it. MR. FORD-See, I want to see the Town Engineer and others address the bigger issues. Because certainly we can focus on this, but there’s a heck of a lot bigger issue going on here. MR. O'CONNOR-But isn’t that outside of this application? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’d prefer to do that as a separate resolution, and that would be up to the Town Board to decide if they want to fund it. Did you have a comment, George? MR. HILTON-Yes, just one comment. There is a Short Form that has been submitted with this, and based on what I’m hearing, you guys may want a Long Form, and if you do, I would just specify that to the applicant. It’s your decision, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? Did they do a Long Form with the Master Plan, George? Did they do a Long Form with the Master Plan? MR. HILTON-I don’t believe SEQRA was done with the Master Plan because it was. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t do SEQRA? MRS. BRUNO-It said in there that we could re-visit, I think that we can re-visit with any, or that it should be brought up with any expansion or changes. You might want to flip through that. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not even sure about DEC and whether they do a coordinated review or you do a separate review. DEC is a permitting agency. The Town is a permitting agency. The Planning Board is a permitting agency. We ought to take a look at that and see. MR. FULLER-It is certainly an Unlisted Action, and I’m just flipping through it, and it is in the Critical Environmental Area. You do have the option of coordinating it, and that may be something you may or may not want to consider, is to get the coordinated comments from DEC that you were talking about, Tom. That is an option. We could identify those other agencies and just say this is Unlisted, but we’re going to coordinate this review. That’s an option, and the comment about the Long EAF and the Critical Environmental Area is a good comment. I don’t know, and there could even be portions of that, certainly the entire thing might not apply to what you’re dealing with, but I think the applicant has gotten a sense of the stormwater concerns and the things exacerbating 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) that issue. Certainly you can lend an eye towards that when you’re putting together a Long EAF. Some of the stuff may not apply. MR. O'CONNOR-Everything is going to be answered negatively. Are you asking will we submit a Long Form? We can submit a Long Form, but I think everything is going to be negative. MR. FULLER-Yes. That’s why I would say, you can use portions of that form to get the information you’re looking for. Not even Part II of it. More Part I, whatever information you’re looking for, one way or the other, either they submit it in that or they submit it through the answers to your questions. You get to the same point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So is that part of the motion, or is it something to vote on? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I didn’t make the motion yet. I’m just listing the items that we’re tabling this for. So, are we going to ask them for the Long Form? MR. FULLER-Again, it’s up to you. Like I said, it seems like you’re getting towards that information. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Okay. Since I took the notes, I’ll make the motion. We didn’t determine a date yet. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you give us, again, what you’re looking for us to have, and, Tom, you tell me what you think, time wise, is realistic. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s at least seven items. Long SEQRA Form, contour map, soil profiles, comment on public comments. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry to interrupt. You’re saying comment on public comment. A number of the, specifically the technicals with regard to the design and the soils and that will certainly be addressed at the DEC level. I mean, regardless of what I come back with, the drawings are going to ultimately change a little bit in the process in going through DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, I can try to address, I mean, I took as many notes as I could, but on the technicals, I can try to hit those as much as I can in a re-submission. You’re not looking for specifically addressing to the Board in writing, you said comment on the public comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know what you’re saying. It’s really not a very fair request. I mean, really I think the overwhelming and overriding concern was stormwater runoff. So I think it would be helpful for you to comment on what the existing conditions are, as you see them, and how the proposed would impact those conditions, because that’s what we’re going to ask the Town Engineer to look at also. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, as well as, the public comment came up about the alleged drainage pipes that was installed to one of the drywells. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I don’t know that one. MR. SEGULJIC-The allegation was, as I understand it, there was a homeowner drains their basement into, drains something into that. MR. FORD-There’s a PVC pipe. MRS. BRUNO-Are those full basements? MR. MASON-Some of them are. MRS. BRUNO-Do you know what those two are, the 18 and 30 I think they were? MR. MASON-Eighteen is not. Number 30 is a full basement. MRS. BRUNO-And which one did we say we thought? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. MASON-Number 30 has the sump pumps. So I would assume that that’s what it is. MRS. BRUNO-And repeat it again? I’m sorry. You said 30 is the full one? MR. MASON-Thirty is the full basement. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But if they did, the applicant doesn’t have any control over what that, you know. MR. MASON-But it’s not part of this application. It is part of our Association. We do take it seriously as such, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’d like you to look into that and see what it is exactly for us. MRS. BRUNO-The reason why I was asking is obviously if you have that much flooding in a crawl space, compared to a full basement, it’s just even more alarming that it’s that high. MR. O'CONNOR-How much difference in elevation is that basement from there and the area where you’re going to do your? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s down. MR. MASON-Where you see 500 feet, it’s more like 400 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Elevation wise probably 15 feet anyway, or more. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not in the same elevation as the absorption fields, if that’s where you’re going. MRS. BRUNO-No, I was just comparing. I was curious. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a much lower area. MR. FORD-Where the basement is, itself. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the final issue is to address Section 147. th MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. How long? You’re saying submit by October 15 to be on the, if th we submit by October 15? th MR. HUNSINGER-It would be November. If you submit by September 15, you’d be on for October. MR. O'CONNOR-Realistically we can’t do it. So there’s no sense telling you we’re going to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want me to specify a date in November then? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want it the Tuesday before Thanksgiving or the week after? MR. O'CONNOR-Whichever. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the one before Thanksgiving is 11/20, November 20. MR. O'CONNOR-11/20, submittal by 10/15? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2007 TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION [Tabled to 11/20/07, information due by 10/15/07], Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) So that the applicant can address and submit the following items: 1.Submit a Long Form SEQRA. 2.Provide a contour map of at least two foot intervals. 3.Provide details soil profiles, individual detailed soil profiles. 4.To take a look at the stormwater issues on the site and to comment on the proposed may or may not impact the existing stormwater. 5.For the Planning Board to review the Takundewide Master Plan. 6.To have the opportunity for the Town Engineer to look at stormwater and to determine if the proposed will impact the existing stormwater problems. 7.The applicant will also look into the pipe that’s in the storm drain. 8.The applicant will also meet with the Zoning Administrator to determine if Section 147 applies, specifically 147-10. 9.The applicant will put stormwater erosion controls on the plot. th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-I would just strike specifically 147-10. The question is if 147 applies. I don’t want him thinking all he has to look at is 10. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I know. No, I think they realize they need to look at the whole section. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the benefit of the public, the public hearing was held th open. We will take additional comments at the November 20 meeting when this item will be heard again. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2006 SEQR TYPE II DAVID R. KELLY MD & SALLY N. KELLY AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITTER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 8 ROCKY SHORE DRIVE DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT A 2,662 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-06, SP 9-03, AV 8-03, SP 57-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/8/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3 SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, can you summarize Staff Notes, please, for Kelly. MR. HILTON-It’s an application that appeared before you. It has been revised since you last saw it. It’s a proposal to construct a 2,920 square foot dwelling to replace an existing dwelling. Now, in regards to the septic system, the applicant has received a copy or received approval from the Building Department for the proposed septic system which has been revised. The new system is shown being located over 200 feet from the shoreline. The applicant has revised the area of disturbance as well to just under 5,000 square feet. Based on these figures, the project would not be considered a minor or a major project in regards to stormwater regulations listed in Section 174, the Town Code. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) However, the applicant has submitted a stormwater permit application as part of the materials. The site plan has been revised to include plantings near the western edge of the property, as was previously discussed, and that’s all I have, as far as the summary at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Before we turn it over, Mrs. Bruno had a comment. MRS. BRUNO-I feel it is appropriate to remain consistent in my involvement in the review of this project. I would like to recuse myself because of my acquaintance with the project architect, whom I consider a professional mentor. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Good morning. MR. HUNSINGER-Good morning. Well, not quite yet. Almost. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, Dr. Kelly. To my left Dave Carr, from the LA Group, and Curt Dybas, project architect. What George just summarized is that we have made the changes that he described. What has kept away for most of the year is that we had to get the septic permit from the Town, which required us to do the deep hole tests in season, and so that happened in the Spring, and then we had to have the design work done for the septic system and apply to the Building Inspector and get the septic permit. We also, after doing the tests, we were able to find a location that was beyond 200 feet from the lake. So we put the septic system in the best possible location. We were also able to, we were asked to look into 147 and its applicability, and in order to do the best job that we could to infiltrate, we both designed the disturbance so that it’ll be less than the 5,000 square foot threshold, and not only is this less than the other threshold for exemption from 147 of no more than 1,000 square feet of new disturbance, we actually are reducing the impervious surfaces from the pre- construction by approximately 100 feet, but it’s still an improvement, and Dr. Kelly is very familiar with the LGA recommendations for planting along the lake, and we did add that on the plan as well. So the Staff Notes were perfect and recognized that we were exempt from 147. We were a little bit surprised with the engineering comments, only that it appears that the engineer wasn’t given the full set of our submission, but I think the reason is that because we had the septic permit, it wasn’t an issue for the Planning Board, and it appears that he was not given a copy of that because he’s asking questions that are readily apparent if you look at the septic design and the septic permit in terms of the tests that we did, and the location of wells, streams, other property, all of that is clearly shown on the drawings that we submitted for the septic permit with the test pit information. It also shows that the tennis court runoff, it runs off away from the septic system. So that’s not an issue. We’re very pleased that we have a supportive letter from the LGA and I know that the Water Keeper has been on site, and I think my understanding is that he is supportive as well and hopefully he will state that at the public hearing. There were some comments from the engineer about some details which are actually in the stormwater report. So I’m not sure that he saw that, the specifications, and the engineer also incorrectly said that we classified it as a Minor and its exempt, but what George mentioned at the beginning, even though it’s exempt from the stormwater requirements, we still submitted a stormwater plan because we’re doing everything we can to infiltrate, but because it’s under 5,000 square feet, we don’t have that prohibition from infiltrating because we’re not subject to 147. So we think that, you know, just taking a step back, in terms of this site, we’ve been to the Zoning Board to get the variance. Obviously the house is at the bottom of a big hill next to the lake, and the alternative would be to put the house on top of the hill, which would have meant blasting a lot of rock and taking down a lot of vegetation, which would have been far more visible from the lake, and the Zoning Board granted the variance on that basis, and we’re trying to do everything we can to infiltrate at the lake. So I’ve got the whole team of designers here, and we’re here to answer any questions and go into as much detail as you’d like. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. I’ll throw it open to the Board. MR. FORD-Let’s hear from the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MS. BOZONY-Good morning. Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. I would, if I may very quickly, read the letter that I did submit. I’d like to go on record with some of the comments I’ve made. We did have a good discussion about some of the mitigating things that could be done to the existing site plan map that you’re actually looking at, and I’d like to share that with you. I’m starting off my letter talking about the variance application because a lot happened during that period of time. It is only 21 feet from the shore, but there weren’t a lot of alternatives. So the 59 foot shoreline setback relief variance granted for a new home on Rocky Shore Drive will replace a nonconforming two story house with a three story 2920 square foot house at a maximum height of 28 feet. Although this house is not excessive in size, it’s 54% increase over the existing dwelling proposed home, 2920 square feet, existing 1892 square feet is substantial when considering its ledged location, only 21 feet from Lake George. With this said, it is recognized that alternatives for mitigating construction on this steep rocky shoreline are limited. An advantage of the property is the natural vegetation that is on site that will remain after construction. A combination of the canopies of large trees and native vegetation slow the impact of heavy rains on the asphalt driveway and other hard surfaces. Stormwater management should be the main focus of this application. The calculated 4983 sq. ft. of disturbance would indicate a minor project, although the septic system may not be included in the total calculation. The existing house has minimal or no stormwater management and therefore the ‘pre’ and ‘post’ calculations for a major project would indicate the need for little or no additional stormwater management. Regardless of labeled a ‘minor’ or ‘major’ stormwater project, this site needs to maximize infiltration of stormwater runoff with every effort to control all stormwater from all impermeable surfaces on site, which the applicant has proposed to do. The site plan map, as presented, indicates a lawn terrace next to the house on the lakeshore. In discussions with the applicant, this surface will become a vegetated buffer with a small path (needed are exits from the lower level doors) which would lead to a combined path to the dock and stairways. A rain garden will be constructed between the house and the parking area with a vegetated berm constructed between the parking area and the stairway down to the lake. Water will be diverted into the drywell constructed under the parking area and will also be absorbed by the vegetation on the berm. The large walkway from the parking area to the lake will become a narrow natural rock stairway with enhanced vegetation planted on the down slope. Increasing the amount of permeable surface between the house and the lake is critical and the removal of the concrete walkway that is currently adjacent to the house will be beneficial. Potential blasting of the site and the addition of fill to accommodate for the new single-family dwelling should be discussed to minimize tree removal and site disturbance. In addition, removal of the concrete dock on the lakeshore (a condition set from a prior approval for a new dock and deck) and the return of the beautiful natural shoreline with native plantings will enhance the overall construction project and be favorable for Lake George’s future water quality. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Does Staff have a copy of that letter? MR. HILTON-Yes, we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have a comment? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I’d like to thank the Planning Board for their focus on the Critical Environmental Area, and the application of stormwater in the proximity of the lake. I think that’s been fairly strong through the evening and how you guys have been approaching projects. I do respectfully disagree with the applicant regarding their claims of the exemption from the 5,000 square foot and support the requirement of stormwater management on the project as I think you can apply conditions that are in harmony with the Code. I will say we did have a very positive meeting with the applicant at the site, and discussed possibilities that they could use to implement stormwater on the project, and I think if they do follow through with the measures that they have discussed, that this makes something positive out of a difficult project that they have. It’s a ledge situation. There is no stormwater right now. So I think any improvements that they commit to is positive, and I think that they do have some good recommendations from the LGA. So if they remain harmonious with our discussions, I think they can definitely make the existing situation better, and it is a difficult site, but I think that they do have the right attitude to work towards improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think one of the advantages that you have is, you know, you do have the opportunity to meet with them on site and to discuss options and to make recommendations, and that’s really not the purview of the Planning Board. So, you know, hopefully on projects like this and in the future, you know, it will make it easier for us to look at. MR. NAVITSKY-When they let me on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay. I’ll open it up again for questions and comments from the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-A few things here. I can see it’s a very complicated site, but looking at the plans I’m confused. I don’t see where the vegetation is for example. I assume that all of the upslope area is vegetated now. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. You mean the tree canopy up at the top, coming down the hill? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. What I would like to see is some no cut zones, things of that nature. So we could see where the vegetation is. MR. LAPPER-We have photos. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I mean, on the site plans. MR. DYBAS-There’s no cut. MR. SEGULJIC-Well then we should note that none of these trees up here will be cut. MR. LAPPER-Except for the area of the septic leach field. DAVID KELLY DR. KELLY-The septic field is replacing my garage and parking area up at the top. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would just like that clarified so when the inspector goes out there he knows. MR. LAPPER-So what we’re saying is that everything above the house, nothing’s going to be cut. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, well, just once again, if you could highlight that on the plan for me. The other thing is, while it’s nice to see you have this buffer along the lake, but I’m not sure exactly what it consists of. It’s just labeled as ground cover, if I’m understanding it correctly. DR. KELLY-I had a nice discussion with Kathleen, and she shared with me LGA recommendations for some plantings and I will stick to those recommendations. I don’t have them all listed here, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Just understand, so what happens is when this plan gets approved, and Bruce Frank shows up to inspect it, he knows exactly what he’s looking for, not just ground cover. We just have the plantings identified. MR. SIPP-The landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-Landscaping identified. MR. SIPP-Plotted on the map. MR. SEGULJIC-And then also, just a clarification. Is this the area, this is defined as the area of disturbance then? I assume. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. DYBAS-It’s on the lower left hand corner of the site plan it will tell you which one it is. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess is this highlighted area the proposed? MR. DYBAS-Yes, that is the area of disturbance. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just a clarification. Your septic should also be included in the area of disturbance. MR. LAPPER-That’s not correct. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re disturbing the area. MR. LAPPER-But that’s exempt under the regs. DAVE CARR MR. CARR-147-7H(6), under the following activities are exempted from the requirements of this Chapter, which is 147. Item Six under H, construction of an approved wastewater treatment system or construction of a wharf, dock, boathouse or mooring, but obviously the actual wastewater treatment system is an exempted activity, under these regulations. MR. SEGULJIC-However, I can’t find it now, where it defines where a land disturbance is. That includes any area that’s been, the soil’s been disturbed. MR. CARR-Correct, but the actual disturbance of land to construct a wastewater treatment system is exempt as is stated in Section H. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Did you have any details of the plantings? DR. KELLY-I have a number of brochures published by the LGA. I haven’t had time to digest it all, but I would certainly comply with their recommendations. I have those, I have some pamphlets available. MR. HUNSINGER-Native plants for lakeshore buffers and landscaping? DR. KELLY-That’s correct. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’ll certainly specify that on the plan, what species. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CARR-I assume you’re probably looking for number and type normally, so someone can follow a general. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, generally. MR. FORD-And location. MR. SIPP-It would give us a width of the buffer strip and the number of plants of each variety that you would be putting in that buffer strip. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SIPP-If it goes along with the Lake George Association I don’t think we’ll have any problem with it. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. FORD-In conjunction with that, would someone like to address any aspect management on site? MR. CARR-What, in particular, is your question? 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. LAPPER-The design of the system. MR. CARR-Well, actually, Curt did the design. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. DYBAS-Good morning. Basically the system was designed for a 25 year occurrence, which is beyond the requirements under the definition of a minor project which says a gallon and a half per square foot, which a gallon and a half, if my math is correct, is 2.25 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. This is 4.2 inches, which is, you know, about 90% above the requirement. We are handling the entire roof area, plus the drive, the driveway coming down the hill, plus the new parking area, and there won’t be any lawn area left on the site. It’s all going to be natural, you know, vegetation. There is no lawn on the site right now, as a matter of fact. So we are basically retaining, infiltrating and handling on site 100% of the runoff from the top of the hill down, which is approximately 200 feet from the lake. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-How about, I don’t see any stormwater controls during construction. MR. DYBAS-There is, on the site map, there is a buffer shown around the septic area and also around the construction site, which is listed as a silt fence and a hay bale barrier both. MR. SEGULJIC-On which plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, with the stormwater permit. MR. DYBAS-It’s on the one with all the contours on it. MR. HUNSINGER-You submitted it with the stormwater permit, too. MR. DYBAS-No, excuse me. I take that back. The sediment barrier is shown on the site plan around the septic system on top. If you look at the stormwater design, which is in the submittal, it’s shown, stormwater report it’s listed for around the construction site. It’s an eight and a half by eleven. It’s included with the calculations. MR. SEGULJIC-This one? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Getting back to, see, the way I interpret it is that you’re exempt from the requirements of 147, but you have to include that area because it’s a land disturbance. If you look at the definition of a land disturbance, you take that land disturbance to see if you’re in or out, but you don’t have to, the stormwater requirement for that. We’re going into new territory. So I guess I’d have to ask Staff to look at that interpretation. It says requirements, not from the calculation, from the applicability of this regulation. MR. CARR-We’re exempt from the requirements. MR. CARR-Requirements of this Chapter. MR. LAPPER-So you’re completely exempt from. MR. CARR-From the Chapter, and if you look at the item above it, Number Five, it discusses activities such as home gardening, growing flowers, vegetables and other things. I mean, every activity here is a soil disturbing activity, but what this is stating is that it’s exempt. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you could technically say if you planted grass, then, because that’s a plant, if you disturbed an area to plant the grass. MR. CARR-Right, and that’s exempt. MR. SEGULJIC-See, I disagree with that. I don’t think that’s the intent. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. CARR-But that’s what’s written. I understand where you’re coming from, but that’s what’s written in this Chapter. MR. SEGULJIC-But it says requirements, not applicability determination. MR. LAPPER-Requirements means it’s totally out of it. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-But not in the applicability determination to determine other features are involved. MR. LAPPER-I guess it should be clear to the Board that we’re certainly not trying to avoid any responsibility. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m just trying to make this point, because this is a new, you know, 147 is something new we’re looking at, and it’s important we understand. If you look at the definition of land disturbance. MR. LAPPER-And again, we’re looking at this language saying that this activity is not regulated under this Chapter. So you don’t include that. MR. CARR-And I’m not disagreeing that construction of a septic system wouldn’t fall under land disturbance, because obviously it would. Anything within Item H which are exempted activities would fall under land disturbance, but I believe the intent is that these land disturbing activities are exempt. They’re not saying they’re not land disturbing activities, but these activities are exempt from this Chapter. MR. DYBAS-If the definition for Land Disturbance is in the Chapter, then it is exempt from the Chapter. It’s third grade grammar. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as you just pointed out, earlier, when I pointed out the example of, you know, exempt activities includes other plants. Grass could be considered a plant. Correct? And you stated therefore when you plant the lawn it wouldn’t be considered land disturbance. MR. CARR-No. I didn’t say it wouldn’t be considered land disturbance. I said it would be considered, under this, an exempt activity because it’s discussing gardening and I think that the issue, I think the overriding issue, and maybe I’m looking at this simplistically, is I think whether we fall in this exempt, or this minor or exempt activity or not, which we do fall in the exempt activity, we’re still meeting the requirements with our stormwater design of the minor design. MR. SEGULJIC-And I have no problem with that, I understand that. MR. CARR-Yes, and maybe this is an issue that needs to be discussed beyond this project, and I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying is I disagree with your interpretation. I think we have to get that on the record. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Because when you look at land disturbance, it says, it goes on to say replacement of natural vegetation with lawn is considered a land disturbance. So, if you look at other plantings, it could be grass. So that’s, you would have to include that, then, as a land disturbance. What I’m saying is, a septic system has to be included as a land disturbance, but not the requirements of the regulation. MR. CARR-I guess you lost me on that last sentence, I think. MR. SEGULJIC-When you determine the applicability. MR. DYBAS-Where is the definition of Land Disturbance? MR. SEGULJIC-Queensbury doesn’t have it. You have to go to the Lake George Park Commission under 646, and that’s where they adapted it from. MR. DYBAS-I agree with Dave. I think it’s something that’s got to be clarified. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) MR. CARR-Yes, I think it does have to be clarified. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FULLER-The consensus, I think, over here, is that it needs to be clarified. MR. CARR-Absolutely. MR. FULLER-If it’s exempt, there is a strong argument that it’s omitted. It’s specifically. I agree with you. I think the intent was more likely that any land disturbance, even if it’s exempt, should probably be included in that calculation, but definitely there’s a very good argument that this exemption here completely exempts these activities from that requirement. Probably the thing to do is repair this, to say these activities are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter, but shall be included in land disturbance calculations contained in this Chapter. So that if you’re just doing a septic system, and that septic system is, you know, 5,050 square feet, it’s still exempt from what you have to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I could go on further, under applicability, it says this Chapter shall apply to all buildings, construction, land clearing. When you do your septics, you have to clear land. So it applies. MR. LAPPER-Except if you’re exempt. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re exempt from the requirements further in the regulations. MR. HUNSINGER-Who would provide that clarification? Is that something that Counsel would provide or the Zoning Administrator? MR. FULLER-Yes. We would have to take it up with the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-Is it in an LGPC? Because it’s their regulation? MR. FULLER-Remedy. MR. FORD-That probably can’t be settled tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, it’s not going to be settled tonight. What else do we need? I think those are the only two issues. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to see any renderings of the house? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FULLER-I agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to see renderings of the house? MR. SIPP-Elevations. MR. SEGULJIC-Elevations. We don’t have any elevations. MR. LAPPER-We have a model. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. DR. KELLY-Lake side, back side, and to familiarize yourself with the site again. I want to keep this as wooded as it is and hopefully increase the density over time, density of vegetation. That very small portion is going to be visible. MR. SIPP-Is this the loft area, this portion on the back side, right in here? What is the height? MR. DYBAS-The front portion’s 28 feet above grade. MR. LAPPER-At the highest point. MR. DYBAS-The highest point. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) DR. KELLY-The front toward you, where you see the (lost word) that’s the highest point. MR. SIPP-That’s 28 feet. MR. LAPPER-Here are the drawings, as well, that go with the model. We’ve submitted these all to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what we meant by elevations. Is there anything else we’re going to require? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone want to make a motion? If we table this until October, is that okay? MR. SEGULJIC-I think next time is should be pretty clear. I think we could table it to September. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s why I was asking. Why don’t we make it the September thth 25 meeting. Because we’ve tabled a number of projects to the 18. MR. LAPPER-No cut zone, ground cover. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make the resolution, Tom, or do you want me to? All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO 4-2006 DAVID R. KELLY MD & SALLY N. KELLY, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th To the September 25 Board meeting. The applicant shall provide all requested th materials by Friday, September 7. The applicant will submit the following clarifications and additional items: 1.They shall label a no cut zone for any existing trees. 2.The applicant shall provide details of the lake buffer. This is the vegetation along the lakefront in accordance with the LGA guidelines, that would include the width of the buffer strip as well as an identification of the very species to be planted. 3.The applicant shall provide copies of the house elevations. 4.The applicant shall address engineering comments. th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate your patience, again. Anything else to come before the Board? We have a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/28/07) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 78