The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-11-20(Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 44-2007 David & Marylou Dutra 1. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-13 Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 Boats By George 2. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 3. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Site Plan No. 43-2007 Takundewide HOA 3. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-13 Site Plan No. 7-2007 Jolley Assoc. c/o Sean Crumb 34. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 Site Plan No. 47-2007 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 43. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-2.3 Site Plan No. 49-2007 Matthew Emmens 49. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-19 Subdivision No. 10-2006 John Whalen 61. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 279-1-57 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY TANYA BRUNO THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call the meeting to order of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, November 20, 2007. The first item on the agenda is the approval of stth minutes from August 21 and 28. Is there a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 21, 2007 August 28, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 21& AUGUST 28, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA OWNER(S) ETHEL, DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 28 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT THE LAKE EDGE ALONG WITH FILL ACTIVITY WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.18 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-33 SECTION 179-6-060(D)(2) MR. HUNSINGER-In your package was an administrative item, a draft resolution for further tabling for Site Plan No. 44-2007. Would someone like to put forward a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Why the tabling? They didn’t submit information? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they didn’t submit the requested information. Have they submitted it since the deadline, George? MR. HILTON-Not that I know of. My understanding is they haven’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-To a particular date? There’s none listed here. MR. HILTON-I’m pretty sure that we don’t have this. This is the first I’m seeing this. We’ll pass it on to you. So I guess you may want to go forward with the tabling. I’m not sure what date is agreeable for everyone. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I certainly didn’t come prepared to discuss the agenda. MR. HILTON-December’s pretty full. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-I don’t know if you want to pick a January meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-We should specify a date. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARY LOU DUTRA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We will table this to the first meeting in th January of 2008 which will be the 15. That will be with a submission deadline of December 15th. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So we will hear your project in January. Thank you. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE AGENT(S) JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) GEORGE PENSEL ZONING WR-1A LOCATION CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING CLASS A MARINA. MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS A MARINAS REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 2.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 SECTION 179-10-10 MR. HUNSINGER-It was brought to our attention just actually at the meeting that Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 for Boats by George, we tabled that in August for 90 days. The 90 days expires tomorrow. So we have two choices. We can either further table it, or we can offer a resolution to deny without prejudice. MRS. BRUNO-Can you review why we’re tabling it? MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing it says here is that it was tabled for 90 days. I don’t have any additional information with me. MR. TRAVER-So has there been no communication from the applicant? MR. HILTON-No, we haven’t received any information as follow up. MRS. BRUNO-That was the parking lot right across the road? MR. TRAVER-Yes, boat storage. MR. SEGULJIC-They wanted to increase boat storage. Why don’t we table it for another 90 days and ask the Staff to get in touch with them and see where they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Do you want to offer the resolution, Tom? MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled for 90 days, and have the Staff contact the applicant for information. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION HOWARD ST. & GENEVA DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.98 ACRE PARCEL INTO 20 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 12,462 TO 15,524 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 7-1992, AV 52-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-Another item on our agenda for this evening is Sketch Plan Review for Larry Clute. We received correspondence from the applicant’s attorney today, asking if we would table it. When we tabled the Sketch Plan, when we reviewed the Sketch Plan, excuse me, we asked the applicant to file for Preliminary, and apparently when they submitted the file, they checked the wrong box, and so it’s on the agenda for Sketch Plan. We wanted to review it for Preliminary so we could get comments from the neighbors, and they do need a variance from the Zoning Board. They didn’t see any reason to go forward with the Sketch Plan without benefit of having the project duly noticed and the opportunity for the neighbors to come in and comment, because that’s what we had asked them to do. George has a copy of the correspondence. Do you have anything to add, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. Just that, as part of the Zoning Board’s consideration of the related Area Variance, they had asked for Planning Board comment on some issues, and it’s the applicant’s understanding, in speaking with him today, that they still intend, as part of the Preliminary review that they intend to have with the Board, after that, they’ll follow up with the Zoning Board and I guess submit any of your comments to the Zoning Board as a recommendation. So that’s still going to take place, just for everyone’s understanding, but they do want to come back with a Preliminary application, as opposed to Sketch, for the reasons you mentioned, in order to get public comment and make that available as well to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Do they suggest a date in the letter? MR. HILTON-They don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don’t think any action of the Board is really required for Sketch Plan. We don’t need a motion to table it. We’ll just remove it from this evening’s agenda. MR. HILTON-You could do that, and they could just submit a Preliminary application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any problems from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No problems. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: 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 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. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HILTON-Sure. Really quickly, I’ve catalogued the new information, the additional information that’s been submitted. This information has been forwarded to our Town Engineer and they have provided a comment letter, and specifically there was a question in regards to Chapter 147, the applicability of this application to that Section of the Town Code, and the applicant has indicated that the requirements, in speaking with the Zoning Administrator, I should say, that the requirements of Chapter 147 do not apply to this application. We do, as I said, do have the engineering comments, and that’s really all I have at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of 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’s representing the Homeowners Association, and Tom Hutchins who is the engineer for the project. I think since we were last here Tom has revisited the site with the Town Engineer, and I think he has had the Town Engineer do an on-site inspection, and answered the questions that the engineer had at the time of our last submittal. We can go back over the history of this. We’ve been doing this for some time now. I forget exactly how long ago, but probably about a year ago, close to a year ago, they obtained variances for the expansion of three of the cabins or the units that are within the Homeowners Association, subject to satisfactory approval of septic systems, and when we came in for the approval of the septic systems, it was talked to the Town about the septic systems that first went there and asked for a waiver on the time period as to the period to do the groundwater test, and they indicated, no, they wanted us to do them within the season that was within the Ordinance, which we did. This goes back even beyond that some years ago when a master plan was done by the Planning Board so that when the different owners within the Homeowners Association came in and asked for an updating or expansion, they would have a template to follow. Right now, what we have before you is a proposal to take up to 11 of the cabins and put them into a community septic system, a good distance from the lake, as opposed to the systems that are antiquated and perhaps not the best in the world, or even close to the best in the world, that are much closer to the lake. We know that the neighbors, when we were here before, had concerns about groundwater, and the stormwater controls, and I think you’ve had at least two different dissertations by the Town Engineer. One at a Town Board meeting when the Town Board discussed the issue in depth. I don’t know if you’ve gotten copies of those minutes. You haven’t? Okay. That was at a meeting October nd 22. They went through, you know, the whole thing. The sum and substance of that, and you can look at it in summary, I do not think this project has a direct impact on that particular issue, but what does surprise me, that this issue has been persisting for 10 years and nothing has been done, and that was Mr. Ryan’s comment, kind of in summation to the Town Board. I’ll be glad to give those to you, or if you want them for your record, and then his latest comments. So I think we’re prepared to answer your questions that you have, and hopefully we’ll get to an end to this this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. FORD-Do we still have the public session open? MR. HUNSINGER-It was left open, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-There was the issue of the black pipe that allegedly snaked into one of the catch basins. I didn’t see any information about that. WILLIAM MASON MR. MASON-I did talk to owner. It comes from his sump pump in his basement. The same surface water problem that everybody else is experiencing in the neighborhood he was experiencing, and specifically, the problem he had was when we had a major flood of the road and there was about six inches of water on top of the catch basin out at the road, it backed up from there into his, no, I’m sorry, I’m losing the word. He had a pipe running from the house into a catch basin that it’s supposed to drain out of, but instead the water from the road is running back into this catch basin and then running back into his house, a drywell. So his drywell was getting inundated with the water from the road, when it flooded, and running back into his house and flooded, he had 18 inches of water in his basement. So he put a sump pump in his basement and pumped the water out of his basement, and disconnected this drywell. He’s no longer connected to the drywell, because the drywell’s not working. When the road floods, his basement gets flooded from the road. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What was the drywell, what drainage went through the drywell? MR. MASON-The perimeter drain from his basement gravity fed into the drywell and then it’s supposed to perc out through the soil. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but it got inundated. Its capacity was exceeded. It back flowed into his basement. So he closed off the discharge to the drywell, put the black pipe in, put a sump pump in, and pipes it out the other way now. MR. MASON-Right. MR. FORD-And pumps it where? MR. MASON-Pumps it out and into the catch basin which runs across the road, to get rid of the water. He first tried to just put the sump pump in, and what he found was that the water was just going around in a circle. So that didn’t make a lot of sense. National Grid was making a lot of money on the deal, but he wasn’t getting (lost words). So he is willing to move it to a different location, and I’ve asked different people in the Town if there’s anything against putting the pipe exactly there or not, and I haven’t gotten a definitive answer. He’s willing to move it, but he needs a solution, too, and it’s the same problem with the road flooding that the neighbors have, and we expressed that we have the same at Takundewide, you know, when it rains like crazy, and things flood, we all have that problem. MRS. BRUNO-That’s a Town road, right, not the Association’s? MR. MASON-Yes, a Town road. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to read those meeting minutes. I’m sorry that the Town Board didn’t let us know that there were meeting minutes available to us prior to this. I had no idea that they had covered it that evening. I’m curious to know if they had asked Mr. Ryan to kind of put that on his agenda, or if there was any response whatsoever after his recommendation or comments about the lack of anything being done in the past 10 years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what was the context in which it went to the Town Board? MR. O'CONNOR-It looked like it was a general discussion of stormwater problems throughout the Town, at least the section that I had talks about Michaels Drive, Takundewide, Meadowbrook, and there’s a general. MR. HUNSINGER-So it was probably when he was reporting on the, because he was involved with the study of the Meadowbrook area. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’s like general discussion, and truthfully there’s no summary or action plan, even after this discussion, and his comment that he didn’t understand why there hadn’t been any action since 1994. MRS. BRUNO-And they made no response to that? MR. O'CONNOR-Not in my reading of it. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. FORD-It’s not surprising that it went before the Town Board because I recall that John Strough was here that evening, and I made mention of the fact that I was glad that he was so that this could, in fact, get back to the Town Board and what was occurring there with the surface runoff and the obvious problems, at least on occasion draining into, with surface water draining into the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-What I took away from my reading, and there’s only a page. We can read it right now if you want to read it into the record, was basically it’s like the comments that he made in response to his earlier engineer’s (lost word) is that there is a stormwater management problem, but re-locating the septic system or putting together this community septic system that we’ve provided will not impact that. I think the significant issue here is that we will, in fact, improve the quality of the lake by getting the septic up away from the lake. I’m not sure how you describe the existing systems, except they’re 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) like cess pools. Some of them are cess pools. Some are septics, but they’re not certainly up to date septic systems, and they’re in close proximity to the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you seen the most recent correspondence from Vision th Engineering dated November 15? th MR. O'CONNOR-The most recent correspondence that I saw was November 15. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because he does address those issues in that letter. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the same, he gives you the same report that what we’re proposing will not negatively impact that issue. That is an existing issue that needs to be addressed by the Town Board. MR. SIPP-Which house is it that has the sump pump? MR. MASON-Number 30, McMahon. MR. SIPP-Thirty. MR. SEGULJIC-The other issue that was raised by the gentleman with the video was the foam, which the engineer’s comments do not state anything about. He’s silent to that. MR. MASON-About the foam? MR. SEGULJIC-There was allegedly foam running from the area of Takundewide, across the road and into the lake from there, and as a matter of fact, he showed sample results from his drinking water. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s part of their stormwater issue, turbidity of it. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it wasn’t turbidity. It was like a (lost word) foam, and the engineer’s letter doesn’t speak to that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The engineer’s letter does speak that he reviewed the minutes, the public comments, and he addressed those that he thought were necessary. MR. SEGULJIC-Where does he say the ones that he felt were necessary? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, he says that he reviewed the comments at the public meeting. He visited the site with David Wick, with the above completed comments, the above named applicant has submitted the requested information and/or made necessary changes to the project which satisfactorily address all of my technical review comments. That’s on Page Two of Three. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, I mean, the fact there was foam, the problem is the foam was there so long ago, but he doesn’t address that issue. I would feel more comfortable if he had stated that problem wasn’t there anymore, but he doesn’t say anything. He’s silent to that fact. MRS. BRUNO-Are you thinking, Tom, that he may have just overlooked it and you’re still concerned? MR. SEGULJIC-He’s silent to that fact. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, further on he says based on the fact that this project does not create additional impervious surface, and existing runoff patterns are not being substantially altered, my initial opinion is that this project should have minimal impact on the current state of stormwater conditions in this area. MR. FORD-I think there also was reference to the fact, did this not occur in 1994? MR. O'CONNOR-He had problems with the fact that what they were looking at was 1994, although I think there’s some anecdotal type suggestions in one of the meetings that some of the same things have occurred since then and he recites a whole number of years. MR. FORD-That it could have and should have. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. He talks about in particular 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2006 when there were similar weather patterns or precipitation patterns, but I think in part we got sidetracked at the public hearing on this because of the neighborhood issues or problems with stormwater as opposed to the improved septic system that we’re trying to provide to go forward with the Homeowners Association. The master plan that was adopted by a predecessor Planning Board many years ago with an idea that everybody would have a template that they could look at and work with. From an applicant’s point of view, we think that we’ve been overly generous in the fact that we actually have the separation distance without including all 11 units, but we’ve included all 11 units as a safety belt and suspenders type approach to this. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I think if you take the elevation that you have here for the new septic system at 246, 249, 351, and then follow the contour lines down to say Number 30, and Number 30 is at 332. So it’s downhill, so that if there is a subsoil problem here of water, it’s going to run downhill towards the lake, is this going to add the amount of groundwater, when we have a year in which you have 40 inches of rain, or a heavy summer or snow melt? MR. HUTCHINS-You’re right in your reading of the contours. It is downhill toward the lake. The field is located at a high point. It also slopes down in the other direction slightly. We’ve graded the top of this field so that surface runoff runs away from the lake from the field area, and we’ve actually, we’ve improved, there is one area that currently runs down toward Hillman Road that we are re-directing to the southeast. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, I was glad to see the soil profiles because it shows that 30 to 40 inches you’ve got some mottling and some water problems, drainage problems. If this follows, which it looks like it doesn’t from the soil samples that you, from the soil profiles that you took, there’s three different types of soil on your plot, or in that plot. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there’s different soil series, yes, but they’re all a mix, and there was some inconsistencies, but in general it’s a soil of reasonably high silt content. It’s not ideal, but it is what it is, and we are able to meet separation. Frankly that’s why we’re using the amount of fill we have to use. MR. SIPP-Well, my concern is that hopefully the water will dissipate downward rather than across the slope and down into the, is 18, House Number 18 inundated also, 18 and 19? I don’t see any valley or any difference in the contours. Why would one house be more so than any other? MR. HUTCHINS-Water issues. There’s water issues there as well, drainage. MR. MASON-They would be the same in 18, 19, and 30, and 17 as well. They’re all about on the same level and they have the same flooding surface water issues. It’s beautiful, except on those days when you get the big, heavy rain. So the same days that the neighbors complain, we have problems. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have flooding surface water issues there. MR. MASON-Well, I mean, yes, we’ve got a lot of surface water. I don’t know whether I’m using the right words or not, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what I’m getting at, you stated you had flooding surface water issues there. That must impact the operation of the septic between those units, then. MR. MASON-See, I said, he asked me if they have water problems, and I’m saying, yes, when it rains, it gets wet. If you ask the neighbors that are right along the lake at Takundewide if they have problems when it rains, and they would say, yes, it gets real wet, but they all have septic systems that are a lot closer to the lake than these. We’re back, just trying to put a septic system that’s 350, 400 feet back from the water. MR. SEGULJIC-I think what you’re doing is great, but we just want to make sure it’s done right. I mean, the question is why not, Number Five and Number One, and these units where you have these water issues, why not connect those? MR. MASON-You want it bigger? MR. SEGULJIC-No. You have three units left, at least. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. MASON-There are 32 homes, and we’ve only got 11 in it. MR. SEGULJIC-You have 11 and you’re sizing it for, I forget the number, 14 I think. MR. MASON-All right. Number One, we did cover this before. Number One has a brand new septic system that was put in, permitted and put in, I say brand new, it’s about six years old right now. Number Five septic system, that is a newer building than all the other ones around the lake. It’s got a 1,000 gallon concrete tank, and it’s got a tile field, I believe it’s PVC pipe, and it’s working fine and that owner is not interested in joining us right now. I’ve tried to cajole him into it, but his system works beautifully, and he said I don’t really need it. I don’t use it very much and it’s working fine. The ones, 17, 18, 19 and 30, I’m working with all of those owners and trying to get them to join because I think that they should, but they are all back from the lake. I believe all their systems are back about 150 feet from the lake. I think that they’re all working. When it gets wet, when it really rains hard, it’s wet in that area, but I don’t have noticeable, I don’t have septic systems, you know, septic smell bubbling up from the ground or anything. I don’t have a failing system. MRS. BRUNO-But it’s getting in the basement. Are those full basements? MR. MASON-No. Only one is a basement. Number 30 has the basement. It’s clear water. MRS. BRUNO-And refresh me, when were these built? MR. MASON-Number 30 was built probably four years ago. MRS. BRUNO-Four years ago. MR. O'CONNOR-The septic system is what. MRS. BRUNO-No, I’m actually referring to the cabin itself. MR. MASON-The building, Number 30 was a re-build about four years ago. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. MASON-The other ones were built in the 60’s. MRS. BRUNO-So 30 is still getting the water in the basement. What I was thinking of was just. MR. MASON-Thirty is fine right now with the sump pump. It keeps it dry. As long as it’s not connected to the road, the sump pump works fine, and it stays dry. It’s the road that was flooding. MRS. BRUNO-I’m going to assume that 30 actually has the proper foundation drainage going around it, and you’re saying that it’s still, I’m assuming that because it was just in four years. The other ones may not. MR. MASON-The other ones don’t have basements. MRS. BRUNO-Are they on piers, okay. It would be interesting to pull those plans and see what the as builts were on them. MR. MASON-On those older ones? MRS. BRUNO-No, on the new one. Why you’re even needing your sump pump if it was properly drained when it was built. I mean, even with the water conditions. MR. MASON-It was drained to the drywell. The drywell got flooded by the road. Everything worked fine except when the road flooded. MRS. BRUNO-There’s a difference of 29, all right. Usually you drain it to daylight. MR. MASON-You can’t there, though. To daylight that, we would have had to lift the building up about four, five more feet. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. MASON-Or daylight the pipe across the road, which I don’t think we could, towards the lake, because that’s where it slopes down farther. MRS. BRUNO-You’re caught between a rock and a hard place, it sounds like. MR. MASON-Yes, or a road. MR. SEGULJIC-With regard to the system, you’re going to get the SPDES general permit, correct? Greater than 1,000 gallons. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, DEC SPDES, wastewater, it’s going to be under a general permit, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and when you look at that permit, it says this general permit authorizes only on site wastewater systems, and incorporates treatment units or processes referred to in, or for facilities in the Lake George basin the design standards for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George basin. So I assume you followed the requirements of that manual, then. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve designed it to DEC’s intermediate size standards, which is what they referred us to design to. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So it says sewage treatment facilities must be designed to meet the best technology available. It says facilities must be designed to meet existing needs only. So you have three extra units or so, and I don’t know how that gets squared, and you have a mound system. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s a shallow trench system. Yes. It’s not technically a mound system. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you’re a mound system it says you have to do a perc test every 1,000 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not designed as a mound. A mound is a different design criteria. Designed as shallow trenches. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re bringing soil in, aren’t you? MR. HUTCHINS-We’re bringing soil in, and you bring soil in for shallow trenches. It doesn’t make it a mound system. It’s a function of how much soil you bring in. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, there’s a number of requirements within this document that I don’t see being met. MR. HUTCHINS-Within the? I’m not sure what. MR. SEGULJIC-Take a look at the SPDES Permit. MR. O'CONNOR-Did you submit it to DEC? MR. HUTCHINS-No. We’ve discussed it with DEC and we’re ready to submit. MR. SEGULJIC-It refers you to this document. MR. FORD-You’ve submitted the application for that but not received approval. Is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-We have met with DEC and reviewed the application. We have not yet submitted to them. We’ve had numerous discussions with them and we’re on track to submit to them. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, it says you’re to follow the design standards for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George basin, and there’s a number of things on this plan that, when I look at it, I don’t see meet this manual. Number One being best available technology. MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll review that in the process with DEC. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to you conditioning your approval to us obtaining the DEC permit before construction. That’s what we’ve got to do anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’ve got to get the permit. MR. HUTCHINS-We have to do it. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve got to do it. It’s not something that your engineer has raised, but we certainly will address those. MR. SEGULJIC-It says it right there clearly. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Tom? MR. FORD-I’d like to have Mr. Hutchins address something in lieu of greater detail, help us identify what is going on underneath the surface and address some of this. Number One, test pits reveal a depth of 30 to 42 inches to the seasonal high groundwater table. Number Five, a note has been added to the plans and the pump station detail indicating that at least five feet of frost protection is to be provided for the force mains, and then Number Eight refers to a three feet minimum of separation required between the bottom of the absorption trenches and the seasonal high groundwater table. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. What were the numbers on those again, Mr. Ford? MR. HUTCHINS-You’re referring to the Vision letter? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-What were the paragraph numbers? MR. FORD-Hutchins Engineering, Number One, Number Five and Number Eight. MR. HUTCHINS-My letter to Dan. MR. FORD-Your letter. MR. HUTCHINS-In response to Dan. Five foot of frost protection for the force main. The force main is the pressure pipe from the pump station up to the absorption field, and that will be at a frost protected depth. MR. MASON-That was intended to be that way. It wasn’t written on the plan, and that was what was pointed out. It wasn’t on the plan, and Tom talked to me and that was my understanding. That as septic it doesn’t really have to be, but it’s a good idea to do it in case it freezes, even though it’s not proposed. So, yes, that is going to be there. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-As far as the depth to groundwater, whenever you do numerous test holes over an area, we identify groundwater, probable seasonal high groundwater table by soil mottling, and two holes they rarely come out the same amount. The surface elevations are different. What that says is we found soil mottling between 30 and 42 inches in our test hole, and we did seven or eight of them. MR. FORD-Yes. That was my next question, how many had been done. MR. HUTCHINS-Seven. We did three last May. We did three more in July, and those were logged by soil scientists, and we did one in October with Dan Ryan and myself. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. Could you, again, address please, maybe I wasn’t just getting it when you concentrated on this. With test pit revealing a depth of 30 to 42 inches to the seasonal high groundwater, then you go to Number Eight, where there is to be a three feet minimum of separation between the bottom of the absorption trenches and the seasonal high water ground table. So it sounds like there should be three feet minimum between the bottom of those absorption trenches and the seasonal high groundwater table, which is 30 to 42 inches down. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. There should be three feet minimum, and the area will be graded, because we’ve stripped the organic material off the surface before we place the fill, and then the fill will be spread at such a depth that there can be three foot of 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) separation between the bottom of the trench, which is predominantly at, about existing soil level, and the groundwater separation. In that one particular spot where there was 30 inches, what we’re going to do is assign an elevation and the bottom of the trenches are going to be essentially the same elevation, at least within each field. So, in that particular location. MR. FORD-So the bottom of that trench will be at least? MR. HUTCHINS-At that particular location, the bottom of that trench will be slightly above the existing grade level. MR. FORD-And you’ll accommodate that by bringing fill in on site. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I think what I’d like to do is have Staff read the first paragraph of the State SPDES Permit for sanitary systems between one and ten thousand gallons, which refers to the document I’m referring to that this plan design does not include. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you can read it, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll let Staff read it. MR. HILTON-Okay. To give you an idea of the title, it says State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, SPDES, General Permit application for groundwater discharges of sanitary waste between 1,000 and 10,000 gallons per day, and the first section here says this application, it’s under applicability. This application is for seeking coverage under general permit 0-05-001. This general permit authorizes discharges to groundwater between 1,000 and 10,000 gallons per day of treated sanitary wastes only without the mixture of industrial waste from on site treatment systems serving private, including qualifying single and multi-family dwellings, commercial and institutional facilities. This general permit authorizes only on-site treatment systems that incorporate treatment units or processes referenced in the design standards for wastewater treatment works, intermediate sized sewage facilities, manual, New York State DEC 1988, or for facilities in the Lake George basin, the design standards for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George basin, New York State DEC 1989. Note: Subsurface discharges less than 1,000 gallons per day of sanitary waste without the ad mixture of industrial wastes do not require a SPDES Permit from New York State DEC. MR. SEGULJIC-And if I’m correct, that permit’s good from 2005 to 20015? MR. HILTON-Effective dates, May 11, 2005 to May 10, 2015. MR. O'CONNOR-Tom, I have an e-mail from Mike Dauphinais. Mike Dauphinais is the one that handles the septic permits or SPDES permits, if you will, for DEC. It was to th Tom Hutchins. It’s dated November 16 at 2:53 p.m., copy to Randy Galusha and Walt Haynes. Randy Galusha is also in the engineering side of it, and Walt Haynes, I think, is in the permitting sign. RE: Takundewide wastewater system “Hi, Tom - sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I also received your phone message, but when I tried to call you, your line was busy. So I’ll handle this with an e-mail for now. The requirement for Transportation Corps have placed us all in a bit of a Catch-22. The Department should not accept a SPDES application unless complete – so that would require that the Trans Corp already be formed. However, in order to get the municipal sign-off on the Trans Corp, a DEC letter of system “approval” is almost always required. In order to make things happen, we have accepted SPDES applications and issued “approval” letters, however a SPDES permit will not be issued until proof of Trans Corp formation is submitted to the Department, in addition to any other criteria necessary. As we have discussed, Takundewide should meet the criteria for coverage under the SPDES General Permit. The application should be sent in under the name for the to-be-formed sewage works corp. along with 2 sets of plans. We will perform a cursory review to determine if the design does in fact meet the criteria for the GP and if it does, DEC will issue the “approval” letter to allow the municipality to proceed with their approvals. Once proof of Trans Corp formation is submitted to DEC, we will authorize the SPDES GP. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Mike D.” DEC now, for community systems, is requiring that the applicant form a transportation corporation, and that the transportation corporation actually own and operate the system, and that’ll be the case here. In order to form a transportation corporation, you have to have a letter of consent from the legislative body of the municipality where it’s situated. Now I haven’t done one in Queensbury, but I’ve done a couple in Lake George. So we will have to 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) submit the SPDES permit to DEC, as he’s outlined here. I call it a soft approval letter saying everything plays out the way that you have said it, we will approve it. We then take that to the Town Board and ask them to look at the plans, look at the letter from DEC, and to issue the consent letter. We then take the consent letter, with the typical certificate of incorporation and file it with the Secretary of State. We then have an actual transportation corporation. We then submit the transportation corporation with the final permit papers to DEC and we get the SPDES Permit, and that’s the way that they do it throughout this region. The purpose of the transportation corporation, your counsel can tell you, is that if the Homeowners Association doesn’t maintain the system in the manner in which they are supposed to maintain it, the Town actually then has the right to take over the system, to charge the owners as if it was a public system, and bring the system into compliance or up to date. It’s a pretty good system. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got to make sure it meets the design requirements first of all. MR. O'CONNOR-DEC does. DEC just doesn’t issue you the, you know, they approve it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just noting that the permit states you have to design it according to that document. There’s a number of things on the plan that I don’t see meet that document. So to make me comfortable, I think what you have to do is look at the document and design according to that document. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you then going to issue the DEC permit? MR. SEGULJIC-No, but I just want to make sure. MR. O'CONNOR-Then just make it conditioned upon us getting the DEC permit. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m not. I’m looking at the design, it doesn’t meet what the permit says it has to meet. MR. O'CONNOR-How doesn’t it meet it? MR. SEGULJIC-What other technologies did you look at? MR. HUTCHINS-What other technologies? MR. SEGULJIC-It says you have to meet the best available technology. The other thing it says you have to do your test pits during Spring, the wettest time of the year. You have some, I think one of them, some were done in June and October. MR. O'CONNOR-That is a fallacy. It says that they prefer to have the test pits done during the Spring. They accept test pits done during other periods of the year if witnessed by a soil scientist. That’s a fallacy that somebody started here in the Town as to the test pits. You have to read the whole provision on test pits, and I’m not an engineer, but I know that argument, and the Town here used to have that system. Only within the last two or three years did the Town adopt a resolution that says we will not accept out of that season test pits and we have done away with the list of approved soil scientists that we will accept, and I think you’re familiar with that. MR. SEGULJIC-It says here you have to do mottling with regards to the mounding that the system will cause. I didn’t see that anywhere. I’m not making this up. This is in these documents. MR. MASON-You have to do mottling with regards to what? MR. SEGULJIC-Significant groundwater mottling may occur under an absorption system in the presence of an impervious layer or over zone of saturation. Operational problems and groundwater contamination may result if the mound approaches the base of the system. Thus the potential for groundwater mottling should be investigated during the site investigation. A mathematical analysis or simulation model is to be performed. I mean, this is. MR. HUTCHINS-I have not done a mathematical model of a groundwater mound, yet. I can tell you it’s not going to happen with the volumes in this particular situation. Okay. It’s not, the topography isn’t such where that’s going to be an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand. I think what you’re doing is great, getting those septic systems away from the lake, but these are the requirements. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. MASON-And we will meet them. MR. SEGULJIC-But I just want to make sure and be comfortable with that myself. I mean, I guess the question is, why weren’t they met prior to this? MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I can’t sit here and tell you and swear to you that what’s presented meets every requirement as written in that standard. We’ve been taking it a step at a time, and we’re trying to overcome this hurdle, and we’ve been working with DEC and our next step is to go to DEC, and we are, we’re going to have to satisfy them before we can do anything. They’re going to have to permit it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We’re here for your site plan approval. Why don’t you condition the signature of your site plan approval upon the DEC stamp of approval on the plans, like you do, to some degree, with the Health Department for subdivisions. MR. FORD-It sounded from your reading of that e-mail that. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’ll submit that. I’ll submit that. MR. FORD-It sounded as if the SPDES Permit needed to be received and accepted and approved before local approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically the towns won’t sign off on the consent for the formation of the transportation corporation until they see that the DEC is satisfied as to SPDES. So this goes to the Town Board. That consent is not from your Board. It’s from the Town Board. MRS. BRUNO-It’s got to come back from DEC, after we give, kind of a soft approval, then it goes to the DEC for your SPDES. Then the Town Board will be receiving it? MR. O'CONNOR-Then it goes to the Town Board for consent to the formation of the corporation, and then after we get the consent and file the corporation papers, we go back to DEC and get the final permit, and then we can begin construction. MRS. BRUNO-So I see what Tom is saying is that once we give our okay, we’re not going to see it back here. MR. O'CONNOR-No, the Town Board would see it. MRS. BRUNO-The Town Board would see it. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town Board would see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing held open until this evening. We’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? Anyone that wants to address the Board, I would ask that you speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting minutes, so that they can be transcribed, and I would ask that you address your comments to the Board, and if you have questions of the applicant, address those to the Board and we will get the answers for you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES LOCKE MR. LOCKE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LOCKE-My name is Charles Locke. I’m a resident at Hillman Road, 44 Hillman Road, which is immediately downstream of the proposed project, and I spoke to the th Board at the August 28 hearing about this issue to express my concern. I’ve received and reviewed a copy of the reply of the applicant. I’d like to first start by simply saying, and I’ll try to keep my remarks brief, but I want to say that the neighbors appreciate the job of the Board. It’s got to be a thankless job with long hours and little pay I’m sure, not enough, but it’s a fine balance that the Board has to make between approving development and weighing, on the other hand, the risk of the health and welfare of the citizens that might be impacted negatively by any such development. We think in this 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) case, however, and I should speak for myself. There are others that would like a chance to speak as well, but in this case I think it’s clear that all the signs, if you look closely at it, and I would certainly say the devil’s in the details, but all the signs point to the fact that this proposal is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would ask the Board, again, and I ask them as I did the first time, to consider this project in the context of the environment of which it’s proposed to be situated. I know there was much discussion last time, and particularly by the consultants and representatives of the applicant, that this Board should only consider the project itself, in a vacuum. Does it make sense, doesn’t it make sense. Does it comply with the Town codes, doesn’t it comply? The neighbors and myself in particular feel differently. We don’t think the Board should or can ignore the fact that this proposed septic system is going to fall right smack in the middle of a mini watershed, and immediately upstream of a stormwater situation that is already in peril. We all recognize that stormwater management is not the purview of this Board, but we’re not hear to ask you to fix the stormwater situation. We’re simply here to ask you not to make it worse. There was some discussion at the last meeting asking about where the stormwater drains were actually located, and if I can figure out how to work my pointer here, I’ve taken the applicant’s site plan. These are the proposed fields. This is the private property at the base of Hillman Road. This is Mr. Hillman’s house, his property here, Mr. Locke, myself, is next door. The Buckley residence is next door. Eamonn Hobbs’ would be up just above that, and Mr. England just above that. These are where the storm drains are located. This was the initial storm drain granted in an easement by my father to the Town, probably 25, 30 years ago, because of the ponding and flooding in this region right here. The Town, over the years, has expanded it as these areas have become developed with more and more year round houses, brush and forest area cleared, and they all drain into this one storm drain which drains directly into the lake. What I’ve tried to show, but the map doesn’t cover it completely, is that within a span of about 130 feet of lakeshore, right here, are no less than five water intakes for the five residences and the families that live there, and right smack dab in the middle is the discharge pipe for the stormwater drain. Now you’re probably saying, this isn’t our concern. We’re just worried about this building here. This topographical map, I think one of the members pointed out, indicates a fairly significant slope, and I think if you look at the differential between this topographical line here and the one down here, it’s about a 25 foot drop, in a fairly short span, and as you can see the lines, the topographical lines, are fairly close together there, indicating more of a slope there. There’s still another several feet from the last line down to the lakefront property. So this water flows, and I know you’ve heard experts maybe try to convince you otherwise, but I’d ask you and beg you not to set aside your commonsense and ability to reason. This water is going to flow downhill. At some point it’s going to make its way to the lake. Thirty-five hundred gallons per day. Our concern, and my concern, is that this is not going to add to the safety and welfare of the residents that live on the lake, and the question is, can it be guaranteed that it’s not going to negatively impact on us. I think the answer to that is no. I’d like to get into a little bit of the details. One of the items was the soil survey, which I think was requested by this Board, and there was some discussion about the wide variation in the perc tests that were conducted. Some were as low as four and a half minutes, and some were as high as between the 20’s and 30’s. I wish I’d blown this up. Unfortunately I didn’t, but you have it in front of you in the package. It’s attached to the Hutchins Engineering report dated October 15, 2007, and it looks like this. It says the source is the soil survey of Warren County, New York, and it then references January 1989, United States Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service, and it’s essentially a map, a soil map, a soil survey, of the lot that we’re talking about, and again, I’m no hydrologist or engineer or earth scientist, but it looks to me as if there are three different types of soil listed here, by initial. One is Madelyn series. One is Reinbeck series, and one is Sutton series. Those seem to be the three types of soils. The Madelyn series, which appears to be the one furthest to the east, is described by this treatise as the Madelyn series consists of deep, poorly drained, and very poorly drained soils in depressions on lake plains and in small basins and upland areas. Another goodly portion of this property is composed of SUB, which is Sutton series, and the second paragraph there says Sutton series soils are in a drainage sequence with well drained Charlton soils, but there are no Charlton soils indicated within that lot. There are some to the south, but there’s none within that lot, and somewhat poorly drained Massena soils, and then lastly, what’s important to note, is there’s a swath that comes down from the north through the middle of the parcel, which is actually just to the south of the proposed septic systems, the three fields, and it’s indicated as RHA. I take that to mean, and correct me if I’m wrong, if anybody understands this better, as Reinbeck series, and it says the Reinbeck series consists of deep somewhat poorly drained soils on lake plains, and then the next paragraph down it says Reinbeck soils are in a drainage sequence with moderately well drained Hudson soils. Unfortunately, there’s no indication that there are any Hudson soils here, and poorly drained to very poorly drained Madelyn soils. Well, there are Madelyn soils mixed 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) in there. My point is, it would appear to me that this soil consists of some fairly poor drainage composition. In addition, the perc tests that were done, including the recent perc test, it was noted they vary widely, but this area perked, in some instances, at up to 30 minutes. Mr. Hutchins, in his transcript of the last meeting, indicated that he had designed this system to a design spec of 20 minutes. I would submit to the panel that this area, A, it does not perc very well, which I think the locals, through their lay observations, can attest to. More importantly, that it’s right at the margins of the operating systems’ capabilities. In short, my view is this is not the best place to start pumping in under pressure 3500 gallons of effluent. I would also note, well, these perc tests are also borne out in the master plan. The applicant filed, with his response, a copy of the master plan that was filed with this Board back in 2003, September 2003, and in that package, and again, I wish I had the page number or could reference it for you, there was an engineer’s report. It was conducted by Harold Berger, and attached to that, there’s a page that looks like this, called percolation test results, and this was in connection with three perc tests that were done. Test Number One and Number Two I believe were somewhere down towards the lake, and Test Number Three was done in a vacant area where it was proposed back in 2003 that the applicant might place a large communal septic system. So this is not a new feature to come before this Board. This was before this Board back in 2003, and in there, the perc test that was conducted by Mr. Berger with Mr. Mason showed the vacant area, which is in the same vicinity as the proposed area, as it says depth 24 inches, stabilized result, the perc test, 30 minutes. Again, I think that’s demonstrative of the fact that this area does not perc well, certainly not as well as other areas within the 18 acre lot, and maybe of poor design from the get go. I raised the question, but I think someone on the Board has already addressed this point, and that is, when were these perc tests conducted? I know there’s been some criticism of the fact that, well I’ve shown the Board videotape from a number of years ago. I think it was 1998 or whenever that was. MR. TRAVER-It was 1994 I believe. MR. LOCKE-And I submitted, at the time, some photos to indicate what we’re really confronted with, and the question was raised, has the storm drain situation changed, has it improved? The answer is absolutely not. Are there still soap suds? I’ll let the other tenants, I mean, not tenants, but the other neighbors and residents address that issue. I’m telling you to this day that we still have these problems during heavy rains. There was a report by the engineer, the Town’s Engineer this time, saying, well, I went back and I checked the weather reports and the weather records, and that was a particularly heavy rainfall. It was a heavy rain. There’s no question about it, but it rains, and it rains heavily at Lake George, and if we’re going to design a septic system that only works in dry weather, and moderate rains, then we’re all in for a hard time, including the lake, but I did take another photograph at the end of the summer, after the hearing, because I knew this was of concern to the Board, and I just wanted to show you that this is not an isolated instance. It wasn’t just the hurricane of ’08 or whatever. This is something that happens during heavy rains. Here’s what happens during moderate rains. This was a very light rainfall in I think late August or early September. Again, you can see the milkiness in the water. That’s not mud. That’s a soapy residue when it dries. So, just to address that point. MR. FORD-What is the picture on the left significant of? MR. LOCKE-The picture on the left is actually a photograph of the storm drain, this storm drain, with the pipe that was snaked, there was a trench cut here at one point in time. I don’t know when, but within the last three years I would say. That was the trench that was cut. A PVC pipe was snaked. A hole was cut on both sides of cistern number three, snaked directly through, another hole was cut on the side of cistern number one, and this PVC pipe was continuing to snake right down just like an angiogram or the thing where they put the thing through the veins. It was snaked down into this pipe. The end result was, whatever was going into that pipe, and we’re now told that it’s a sump pump from a basement, was piped directly into here. It didn’t perc. It didn’t pass through any soil, which I understand is not Code, and it went directly into the storm drain system and directly into the lake. Do not pass go, you know, go directly to jail. It was discharged directly into the lake. The offensive part about this, I find, is that, years ago, the house that Mr. Hobbs, one of the neighbors, lives in, when it was being built, I still have vivid recollections that he had to capture the rainwater coming off his roof, and it had to go into a cistern, a drywell, before it was allowed to perc and go into the lake. I think that’s a good thing. To allow sump water out of a basement, you know, with the calcium and concrete, whatever comes out of concrete, to pass directly into the lake without being perked at all doesn’t sound to me like it’s quite what the Town had in mind when they adopted the Codes, but that’s what that is. This pipe has since been, this pipe still 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) remains, by the way. I went out with a saw one day and cut it off, but the water still flows into it, and not just in the Spring, as contended, but you can pass out there anytime after a rain and you can hear it running. With respect to that issue, the applicant has addressed that issue in his report, and I find it troubling in three respects, that I’d like to bring to the attention of the Board. One is that it indicates what the neighbors have been saying, that this is a very high water table and a very delicate situation when it comes to flooding and runoff. Lots of wet basements. I, for one, have a house without a basement, but other neighbors will testify as to the wet basement situation, every time it rains. The fact that House Number 30, or 32, whichever it is, I forgot which, felt the necessity to put in a sump pump is indicative of the fact that this is a very high water table area. Lots of flooding, lots of basement flooding. The second part of it that is troublesome is that it’s a direct violation of Town Code. I looked at the stormwater code, and you need a permit to alter the Town’s stormwater drains. One cannot just willy nilly take it upon one’s self to start drilling holes and pumping material directly into the Town stormwater situation, and, Three, what concerns me probably as much as anything, and it’s a little awkward to talk about, and that is the integrity of the applicant to be able to monitor a system that he puts in, and with respect and adherence to the Town’s codes. I have several other points I just wanted to make quickly. One is that the project design is based upon the premise that 11 houses will be connected to this central system, and that each house, on average, is going to have three bedrooms. I believe that’s what the applicant has told the Board, and yet, when they filed the master plan, they used the assumption that each house would be a maximum of four bedrooms, and using the flow assumptions that were used, and they used the flow assumptions, I’m looking at the master plan, and again, this is taken from the report of Harold Berger, consulting engineer, dated March 11, 2003. It says the standard figures of 130 or 110 gallons per bedroom are recommended by the State Health Department, but he opined that in the case of Takundewide it would be appropriate to use 110 gallons per bedroom, which is what has been used, and has been used by the applicant. That’s fine. They used that number times the 33 bedrooms that are being proposed, and I think Mr. Hutchins testified that he designed this system for 33 bedrooms, not 34. That was a question that was asked by one of the members of the Board, was is there any expansion room in this project, and he was told would this system proposed accommodate 34 bedrooms, Mr. Hutchins, would it technically, I mean, sizing criteria. We size by bedrooms. It is sized for 33 bedrooms. It’s sized for 33. One question that this Board should consider is, if 11 houses hook up to this, and I think Mr. Mason testified that the Association doesn’t have jurisdiction over the homeowners to tell them how they can renovate their homes and how large they can make them, if you assume 44 times 11, you’re up to, and using 110 gallon flow rate, you’re up to 4840 gallons per day, well in excess of the design limits of this septic system. I mean, without quibbling and splitting hairs, even at three bedrooms per house times 11, they’re at 3630 gallons, which is over the 3300 gallon a day capacity of the system. That, combined with the perc tests, just yells that this is problematic. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LOCKE-Yes. I’m sorry. I’ll move along. I just have one or two more items. Yes. One of the concerns was, it was pointed out in the last, at the last meeting, that we had taken some water sample tests, and there had been an episode a number of years ago where one of the septic systems failed, and it was the septic system for this house right here, Number 18, and this field located here, and that failed. Raw sewage flowed right into the storm drain system, catch basin here. This I understand is about a 500 gallon tank. My grave concern, my concern for my family and my neighbors is that what do we do if there’s a failure of one of these? This is 500 gallons. This is 3500 gallons a day. If one of these fails, the harm, I think, would be irreparable, and it certainly would be a health menace, a health hazard. I can’t stress that to the Board. That’s truly one of my concerns. Just a few last points. One is, as I think I’ve noted in the past, and I think this Board may be already well aware, and that is that this area that we’re talking about is very critical. It’s deemed, in fact, by the Town of Queensbury, to be a Critical Environmental Area. This is a photograph of the same plot, but this is a little easier to see. This is the lake. This is Hillman Road. This is the site for the proposed septic field. A matter of feet uphill from this Critical Environmental Area. This red line indicates what the Adirondack Park Agency designates as critical wetlands area. It just happens to be where the pipe discharges right into that area. It’s also critical because not only the Adirondack Park and the Town of Queensbury, but the Town of Queensbury, when they did their stormwater management program and developed their program, a number of years ago, designated this area, this flooded area here, as one of eight areas within the Town of primary concern. In fact, it was one of the top four or five sites that was designated by the Town as having a real stormwater problem. It hasn’t changed, unfortunately, over the years. It still exists. We don’t think it can be ignored. Especially because of the close proximity to the proposed project. Finally, this is the report. I’m 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) sorry, I didn’t have a copy of this, where they indicate that the assumptions being used is for four bedrooms per house, five bedrooms for Number Two, which is not material to this application, but the four bedrooms per house is very material, I think. Well, and finally, I had one more panel, but I don’t seem to locate it, but it’s in your package of materials. As I indicated, some of this was already previously discussed at the time that the applicant filed his master plan in 1993, and I believe the Town engaged an independent engineer, Mr. Berger, to look into it, and on Page Three, in your package is his report of March 11, 2003, and Page Three. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just read the point that you’re trying to make. MR. LOCKE-Sure. It says at the present time, and he’s addressing the proposal to, they had talked about all the different issues, including (lost words) central system, albeit larger, but in the same (lost words). At the present time, there does not appear to be any basis or justification to provide a community sewage disposal system. In fact, the outcome of our 2001 engineering study indicated that the more porous soil were in the vicinity of the existing home, not in the vacant area at the rear of the property. He then goes on and says the system would most likely be a raised system since the soil in the area in question is marginal for sewage disposal. He then concludes, such a disposal system would cost in excess of $100,000 to construct, and would be less reliable than the systems now in use. It would also seem impractical to rely on a treatment system with a surface discharge being in the Lake George drainage basin. I think this issue has been asked and answered previously. I think this is simply a second bite at the apple, but I think the engineer probably had it right. I would simply ask, respectfully ask the Board that if there’s any doubts in their mind that they can assure the safety of the (lost words) that you err on the side of reasonableness. I have concerns about pumping 3500 gallons across the breadth of an 18 acre plot and put it right smack dab in this area which is already problematic just makes no sense. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one quick question. Those first pictures you showed of the discharge, when were those taken? MR. LOCKE-Those are the same pictures that I submitted to the Board in August. So whatever the date of those were. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-I visited that site in September. You were not home. I knocked on your door, but there was no answer, and I observed the water coming through the pipe directly into the lake at that time. Maybe a quarter, the pipe was a quarter full, but it had not been a particularly rainy September. MR. LOCKE-I’m not a crackpot. I mean, I’m sure I come across like one sometimes, but I’m not making it up. MR. SIPP-For your own knowledge, when it says series, it means soils evolved from the same parent material. So they go from well drained to poorly drained in most cases, but the soils all evolved out of the same parent material, which was whatever rock was thrust upward by the thrust fault that made the lake. MR. FULLER-Just one quick comment. If the Board is going to use any of the exhibits that were cited by the gentleman, copies of that should be submitted for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LOCKE-And I would like them to be made part of the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, well then you need to submit them. MR. FULLER-I don’t know if Staff wants those for the file, but copies of. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, do you have copies? MR. LOCKE-I’ll make some. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. MEG BUCKLEY GOLDBERG MS. GOLDBERG-Hi. I’m Meg Buckley Goldberg. I live at 38 Hillman Road, and I just want to say that I do support a great septic system. I think Takundewide is trying to do the best that they can. However, being at the lowest point of the peninsula has given me quite a few nights of unrest because I’m the one who has to take care of the water in my basement and worry about the water on a year round basis. To me it does not make sense to put the water up through, in a sense taking it back off the lake, but if you look at the drainage, it goes back around down Hillman Road and down into the infrastructure that’s already at its maximum and really is not sufficient as even Takundewide has admitted. I mean, all the neighbors of Takundewide recognize that that system right there is just not working, and I just want to be able to say that. The other thing I really would like you to consider is, again, the infrastructure of what’s happening. I know that you’re not the people who can come in and fix the road. However, as you saw even here, that once you approve something and pass it along to someone else, you never see it again. So please take that into consideration, because once this moves forward, then we really have nothing to work together on, whether it’s Takundewide and the neighbors and us, and the Board here working as the Town to fix the problem, because I don’t think the Town has been trying to fix the problem in the last 10 years, and so therefore putting all this water onto this one system and down, because the water comes out through, between the Locke’s property and our property, and I can tell you it’s coming out bubbly. It’s coming out dark. There’s algae. It’s not pleasant, and we can’t swim in front of our lakefront anymore. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. LANCE HILLMAN MR. HILLMAN-Good evening. I’m Lance Hillman. I live at 48 Hillman Road, Cleverdale. I’d like to enter into the record three letters that I’ve received from homeowners in the area. One is from Mr. Eamonn Hobbs who lives at the foot of Hillman Road. I’ll give you a copy of these letters. However, the bottom line for Eamonn is he said he supports the concept of updating the Takundewide septic system, but he’s very concerned about the potential that this expansion and renovation may aggravate the existing stormwater problems that are in the area. So he’d like to make sure that this gets read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILLMAN-Second one I have from Ted Sprinkle who’s a renter in the area, and basically he says that he believes the addition, and of course he’s not an engineer, but the addition from the, the extra effluent from the addition of the sewage treatment facility on the higher ground may lead to more water coming down the hill towards the property which he is renting, and then finally, last time we met in August, Frank and Kathleen England who own property at the foot of Hillman Road, they write that they hope the Board will really take a look at the stormwater drainage problems and/or if this would be aggravated by the addition of the sewage treatment facility on the top of the hill, and then finally a comment that I’d like to make is in the 2003 Master Plan, which was drawn up, Mr. Berger stated that the best soil is closest to the lake, and I believe that this all came about when several of the Mason families, and the house next to ours, which is owned by Ginkowskis the came before the Board that they wanted to keep the same footprint of the house but make it a year round home, and at that time their permit was denied because they wanted, I’m not sure who wanted it, but they wanted a better septic system. Now Bill has gone out and hired attorneys, engineers, and is going to spend, or has proposed to spend a lot of money here, but yet the original master plan it says the best soil is closest to the homes. So I don’t understand why (lost word) receive approval for it and put a mounded system right in the vicinity where the best soils are. Why do we have to spend all the time, money and effort to pump this back on property which is above the lake, and the soil is worse than its closest to the lake. I just don’t understand why people don’t use common logic. Why spend the time, money and effort. Let’s put a top, let’s put a sewage system that is the best that we can find, technologically advanced, but keep it on the soils which are the best, and it happens to be it’s closest to the lake. I don’t understand the thought behind why you’re spending all the time and money to push it way back. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, we already have two of those letters, the one from Mr. Hobbs and one from Mr. and Mrs. England. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? John? Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’d like to speak first to the issue of stormwater. Our efforts here should be to manage the stormwater so that we prevent excessive erosion, and that we keep the stormwater from being polluted before it gets to the lake. That’s, I think, the object of the exercise. Stormwater falls on the lake every time it rains, directly on the lake. Every time it snows, but it’s not polluted. Our problem here is we’re polluting the stormwater before it gets to the lake, and the object of the exercise is to clean it up, and I think if we do an adequate job of wastewater treatment, it will do a lot to solve that problem. Managing the stormwater through channels and how you get it to the lake, that’s another thing. Technology’s available. We don’t have to suffer excessive erosion in the process. There’s no question that the solution to this wastewater problem at this site deals with the importation of soils that are going to be able to (lost word) the wastewater, and I believe the best solution is to have some kind of enhanced primary treatment. You can’t rely simply on a standard septic tank. It has to be, you have to enhance the primary treatment before you get into these soils with a secondary and tertiary treatment, and those facilities are available. They’re in operation in the area. They’re not very expensive. They’re very reliable. I’d like to address the issue of the capacity of the system that we’re talking about here. There’s no question that the present operation of Takundewide is based on three bedrooms per unit. They have an advertisement here in the Warren County Travel Guide where they show that they have a total of 32 units and a maximum capacity of 192 people. Simply arithmetic gives you six people per unit, two people per bedroom gives you three bedrooms. So any build out that’s being considered should be based on four bedrooms. In addition to that, I think I mentioned at your last meeting that the records, both at the Assessors Office here and through the Lake George Park Commission, show that there are presently in the order of 13 Class B Marina permits operating on the property, and I don’t know how these 13 equate to these 11 units, but in any case, capacity has to be provided for these 13 Class B marinas. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you said that at the last meeting. MR. SALVADOR-They’re required to furnish toilets open at all times. I can tell you from personal experience, when a family arrives at the lake, before they get on that boat, every one of them hits the restroom, and when the boat returns from the lake, every one of them hits the restroom. In addition to that, some of these boats might have port-a- potties on them. Port-a-potties have chemicals, deodorizing chemicals in them, that are not compatible with septic systems, and it’s very easy for these people, you know, they’re not going to truck this all the way home, believe me. It’s very easy to dump it in the local septic system. All of that has to be taken into consideration. With regard to the Class B Marinas, parking is also a requirement, and that goes to your site plan approval. That would be parking for all 13 of them, not just these 11 units we’re talking about here, and this approach of just taking care of 11 units now is a gross segmentation of the project. I believe a plan has to encompass the total build out of the 32 units. What is the plan eventually for these 32 units based on four bedrooms? How are we going to treat the wastewater? It doesn’t have to be built, all built on Day One. If they want to just build for 11 units, build for 11 units, but at least you have a plan that will take care of the rest of the facility in the event it’s needed. So that’s, I don’t know, do you want this copy of the travel guide, it’s available upstairs in the vestibule, all over. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. A couple of points I’d like to add. Regarding the stormwater and local drainage, a report from the Town Engineer stated that some of the information last meeting was the result of a 2.5 inch rain event which was a large rain event. However, I’d like to inform the Board that that’s actually a two year rain event, and it’s a designed storm event for a minor stormwater project, which equates to the one and a half gallons per square foot of impervious surface. So it’s really something that should be handled under regular project design, and the project is claimed to be exempt from stormwater management 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) because it’s for wastewater, and the Town Engineer stated that it would have minimal impact. However, the project will result in an increase in runoff from alteration of ground coverage through the removal of woods, and the alteration of soil structure. Perhaps there should be a watershed review on that. Next point is regarding the 2003 Master Plan. It was stated that Unit One recently had a septic system replaced, that it was now located in the reserve area shown on that Master Plan that was prepared in 2003. The same with Lot Five. Both of these are on lakefront. They’re not proposed to be connected to the system. Another point is that the proposed new system is located where the reserve area is for Lots 21 through 24. (Lost words) contingency plan for that master plan that was prepared in 2003. The concern also is regarding the force mains which will kind of be snaked through the site. They come very, very close, within feet, I think, of the existing systems for Lots 15, 20, 32, and the laundry, and there’s a potential for seepage from those fields into where the trenches are being installed. I was glad to hear this document, Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment in Lake George Basin, referred to. They have such recommendations as dosage and pressure distributions to achieve uniform distribution when you have laterals up to 100 feet. Again, the item of not building out for expansion, but you should just design for what would be put in, and that was a good point which should be addressed, and then also should the Master Plan be revisited. I know, and I remember when you were going through the 2003 Master Plan, put a lot of effort into it. It seems like they are segmenting and getting away from that. So should that be re-visited, and then finally, regarding the drainage issues, the Water Keeper has been involved. We were contacted by the Lockes back in 2004. We took samples out in the lake, which had some high coliform counts back in September of ’04. Mr. Locke had forwarded, copied us on a letter that he sent to the Town Highway Superintendent back in May of ’06 with photos showing this (lost word). So this has been raised to the Town. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Could I get an approximate date of when the coliform tests were done? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. That was September 1, 2004. MR. FORD-And what was the location of the tests? MR. NAVITSKY-I took them right at the end of the pipe that was discharging into the lake on the Locke’s property. We had total coliform counts of 7,000 colonies per 1,000 milliliters. Fecal coliform of 1700. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the standard for swimming or drinking water, do you know, for context? MR. NAVITSKY-I think it’s 500. The 500 becomes a high notice, and that requires additional testing, and I have tried to contact the Town, Supervisor Stec, to see if there’s any funding for stormwater that we could use to address the drainage issue. So that has been brought to the Town’s attention. It’s not been just at this recent submittal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. Since there are no other commenters, I will leave the public hearing open, but we will cease taking public comment. Without sort of re-addressing all of the arguments you made back in August. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to respond to everything sentence by sentence. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to? Go ahead. Again, we’re mixing, to some degree, apples and oranges, and we understand that there is a stormwater issue, stormwater problem. Apparently there’s been one there since 1994. Why it hasn’t been addressed fully by the Town, I can’t tell you, but your engineer and our engineer have indicated that the system we’re proposing will not have any significant impact on that. So I think you have to separate the two issues. I’m not trying to say that I don’t understand the stormwater issue, that I don’t think that that is a serious issue, but it’s not something that we’re impacting. The comments that were made, particularly by the first speaker, as to the report by Mr. Berger, and then followed up by somebody, I think by Mr. Hillman, saying why don’t we just simply put in three separate systems for the three units that we got the variances for to expand. That’s what we tried to do. We’re here because this is 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) the direction that the Town has told us to take. Mr. Berger wasn’t hired by the Town. Mr. Berger was hired by the applicant. Mr. Berger said that he thought from his professional opinion that you’d be better off with individual systems closer to the lake than trying to build this community system in the back where we’re trying to build it today, because the soils in the back aren’t as good as the soils up front. You can’t build a community system, though, and I’m not (lost words) the engineer, except that far back (lost words) separation distance from the community system to the lake different than individual systems. So you get caught up in this catch all. One tells you to do it this way. The other tells you to do it that way, and you can’t get it done. We have reserve areas for those three units, and we could build up to date septic systems for those three units on the lake. In fact we probably would get into, and I think we offered, I forget the type systems we had, but I’ve been involved in enough of the lake systems now there’s some decent individual home septic systems that are almost like primary treatment systems before the discharge to the leach field, and we can do that. You tell us to do it, and we’ll go out tomorrow and we’ll do it. I mean, this is an expensive process to build this community system. It’s not something that the applicant has thought, or really has pursued, but the applicant has to go some place. MR. MASON-Let me add, though, that when we started down this road, and we found that we could get all of the cess pools, all of the owners who had cess pools along the lake to go into it, I’ve now kind of bought into it. To me it makes sense, because it does have problems, everything does, but it solves a multitude of issues, the biggest one is that we handle every single one of the systems that is the most marginal, the oldest, getting a vast improvement. I just want to say that we’re balancing two different ways to go. We could go back to the three systems for these three units. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, Mr. O’Connor. I missed who you said had sent you into the direction of going into the one field. MR. O'CONNOR-The Zoning Board of Appeals MR. MASON-And the Town Board. MRS. STEFFAN-You mentioned a little earlier in your introduction that you went before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance on three buildings was it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And what were those buildings for? Expansions? MR. O'CONNOR-They’re expansion of square footage, but that’s another comment. They’re on the same footprint. It’s going to a two story as opposed to a one story. The Homeowners Association does have control over those expansions. The owners can’t simply make changes or modifications to the units without the Homeowners Association. They’ve been very strict with it. MR. MASON-They have to stay within their footprint and they can only add a second story. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And basically the expansion, if there is an expansion, is from a two bedroom to a three bedroom. That’s why it was designed as a three bedroom. MR. MASON-All of them currently, the numbers that one of the commenters was making, all of them were two bedroom, and then they had a couch in the living room that folded out. So we figured six people per unit. (Lost words). Since that time we’ve got a few of them that are three bedroom, but there’s only one three bedroom that (lost words) all the rest of them are owner occupied. So when I am doing this stuff for people who want to rent, like that brochure that is being shown to you, I’m still dealing with mostly the two bedroom units (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-So those expansions that you went before the Zoning Board, that would exceed 1500 square feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, 1534. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it falls underneath your maximum square footage of 1536. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and when this project was, I guess the original conception of the project was for 30 units. Obviously you don’t have that many yet. Were these seen as rental properties? MR. MASON-No, there are 32 homes at Takundewide. It’s fully built. MRS. STEFFAN-It is fully built. Okay, and was this, was it, the conception of this, was it for rental properties or for owner? MR. MASON-When it was originally built like in 1962 or earlier than that, in the 50’s it was started, it was built like rental homes, and one single family residence. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How many of these units are year round? MR. O'CONNOR-I think when the Master Plan was done, there had been five or eight applications for people who had bought units and came in and modified them, and the Planning Board at that point said, wait a minute, we’re going to end up with 32 applications here, and we don’t have any game plan as to what the total build out is going to be, and that’s why we spent the time, money and effort to do that Master Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember. MR. O'CONNOR-You were on the Board at the time. So it became a framework which people could rely upon, or at least look to as being a guidepost as to where they would go. They understand that they can’t go beyond the square footage that you cite. They can’t go over the number of bedrooms. MR. MASON-And it’s fully built out and fully developed and fully sold right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Every unit there that does this expansion will require an Area Variance because the expansion, since it’s vertical, you don’t meet the setbacks. That’s considered an expansion, and those are the variances that were applied for by those three lot owners recently, that brought this about, and at that time we did propose individual septic systems for them. MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarify for me. Is the maximum three or four bedrooms? MR. MASON-I’d have to read. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe it’s four bedrooms. MR. MASON-I should know that, but I don’t know what we committed to in the Master Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m correct, it’s four bedrooms. MR. O'CONNOR-The Master Plan is up to four, but I think the proposal that has been approved is three bedrooms. MR. MASON-And when you sized it, the system that we’re trying to build is based on, we counted the number of bedrooms of the houses going in. Most of them are actually two bedroom houses. We have, it’s built for 11 homes at three bedrooms each, or 33 bedrooms is what we were sizing for, but what you are actually sizing for is the number of bedrooms. We’ve got 33 bedrooms. MR. SEGULJIC-But it is possible they could each have four. MR. MASON-If somebody has four, though, we would keep track of that. We’d count that and know when we trigger. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying you’d build it to a maximum of 33, and renting it out. Okay. All right. MR. MASON-It’s no different than saying a maximum of 11 homes, if you say that you’ve got, and if you had 33 bedrooms involved in the system, and somebody said I want to put 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) an addition on and add a bedroom, we’d have to say no, we need to do something before we do that. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand. What I think you’re doing is the right thing, putting a septic system further from the lake. There’s no question about that, but the issue is there’s certain rules you have to follow, and the other thing is, as I look at it, you only looked at one type of treatment. There are other treatments out there you could look at. The other issue is really tied to this, is a stormwater issue. Is this going to make the matter worse, because you’re correct, Mr. O’Connor, that the engineer does state that, my initial opinion is that the project should have minimal impact on the current state of stormwater conditions in this area. Please keep in mind this determination is based on limited observation and data and limited knowledge of the existing and historical conditions specific to this area. So that’s one of those give and take away. So, I think you’re on the right track. You’re trying to do the right thing. Except I’m just a little uneasy. We’ve got to make sure we do the right thing here. We have a chance. MR. O'CONNOR-Last time we were here, you gave us a tabling motion with a checklist. MR. HUNSINGER-We did. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’ve gone through that checklist of everything that was on that checklist, and where we get into a problem, when we get into this, oh, by the way. Even when you send this to your engineer and you get the engineering report probably the same time we do, which is unfortunate. You’re not satisfied with it. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an iterative process. No one ever said it was perfect. Here’s my question. How come this wasn’t designed to meet these standards as outlined in the manual, then? You could have saved us a lot of time. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s designed, I put the design together based on Queensbury’s standards with DEC standards. MR. SEGULJIC-When you went to visit the Town to talk about this project, did they give you any direction about the Manual, saying it has to meet the, I can’t think of the terminology right now, the septic system? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. SEGULJIC-They probably should have. I mean, it says that right in front on the SPDES Permit, and that’s something I was not aware of until I pulled that up on the web and I read it, and the first thing it says in there, you have to use best available technology. MR. O'CONNOR-If we proceed with DEC and we get the DEC soft approval, and we send you that, are you then going to judge whether or not they were correct in giving us that approval? I mean, when does this system stop and who has what jurisdiction? MR. SEGULJIC-When you follow the requirements as stated in the Permit. MR. O'CONNOR-But are you going to judge DEC’s judgment process? MR. SEGULJIC-I do a lot of work with the DEC and they’re not exactly up to snuff all the time. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, how do we get approval? MR. SEGULJIC-I just saw it happen here. The Permit says something and the Town didn’t even direct you to do it. How am I to know that the DEC is going to require it? The first thing it says in there, you have to use the best available technology. I’m no expert on septic systems. I don’t know if this is the best. MRS. BRUNO-I was going to suggest, perhaps something between the two, that the documentation received from the DEC be sent to the Planning Board for review prior to the Town Board review of the corporation so that if we have any continuing concerns we can submit them formally to the Town Board. That way. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have a problem with that. I would presume, and this is what has happened in the other municipalities where we’ve done this, the Town Board doesn’t take it upon themselves to review it. They submit it, again, to the Town Engineer. Even 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) though we’ve gone through the engineer in this part of the process, when the Town Board gets it and says, okay, we’re going to be responsible for this system if it doesn’t work and if it’s not maintained correctly, we want an engineer to tell us that that’s okay, that this system will work, and they send it to the engineer. MRS. BRUNO-So whether we ask for those additional concerns be addressed by the Town Engineer in another tabling motion, or if we asked for the documentation to be given up to us from DEC prior to going to the Town Board, who will then give it to the Engineer, ultimately either way, the Town Engineer will need to answer some of our continued concerns, and I understand what you’re saying that, you know, we’ve said yes, but what if. I wish I had a copy of the tabling motion in front of me but I don’t, but, you know, especially when the public comes in front of us and we start looking at your, the soil samples and all of that, it does open up other. MR. O'CONNOR-The problem is keeping in motion and getting to DEC, we need to have Planning Board approval. So then we go to DEC. Then we come back. We go to DEC for what I call soft approval, their concept approval, and then we come back to the Town Board and get their formal approval. So the Town Engineer then gets the (lost word). If you make your approval subject to us having a DEC permit, subject to the Town having the Town Engineer take a second review of the system, at the time that the Town Board is making its consent to the formation of the sewage corporation, I think you then cover the bases that I’ve heard you try to say that you’re covering. Maybe I’m wrong. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the terminology that you use, consent of the? MR. O'CONNOR-At the time that the Town Board is making its review for purposes of issuing consent to the formation of a transportation corporation, the Town Board refers to the Town Engineer for a final signoff, pursuant to whatever the regulations that you’re talking about. MR. SEGULJIC-He didn’t even, he was not even aware of those regulations. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town Engineer? MR. SEGULJIC-Apparently he didn’t even look at it in light of that. That’s what concerns me. It says you have to use best control technology. I did not see any comparisons. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, Gretchen and I were just commenting, you know, one of the problems that I have is we’re paying the Town Engineer to review these documents. Just because he doesn’t say, I believe that this is the best technology, doesn’t mean that he didn’t do that analysis, and I’m not an engineer. If their engineer designed something and then our engineer says it’s okay, subject to DEC approval, who am I to say if it’s right or wrong? MR. SEGULJIC-Were there any other, or any comparable plans submitted, any analysis completed? MR. HUTCHINS-I didn’t do an analysis of secondary treatment options, because the intent was to use primary treatment. It’s actually an enhanced primary treatment, primary with filtration and subsurface discharge. I looked at different means of subsurface discharge. I looked at different areas. I decided that this was the most logical area on the site to locate a centralized subsurface system, and I decided the shallow trenches were the most appropriate subsurface system, as opposed to beds. MR. MASON-We also looked a lot, you’re forgetting, I looked a lot at that grinder pump technology. I got a lot of information on that whole system. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that. MR. HUTCHINS-Although that’s collection, but. MR. MASON-At that same time then you’re treating a different form of effluent. That’s part of the reason I didn’t like it because it’s ground and then it goes up in the back and you have the large septic tank in the back, and then you distribute it in the field a little bit differently, but you’re right. It’s a whole different technology, and we threw that out for a few reasons. MR. SEGULJIC-Did our Town Engineer ask you what other technologies you looked at? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUTCHINS-No. Did we consider other technologies in the process? Yes. Did the Town Engineer ask us about them? No. Did we do a report of evaluation and comparison? No. Certainly we considered alternatives. You always consider alternatives. MR. HUNSINGER-With all due respect to the question, Mr. Seguljic, but it’s not the Town Engineer to design the system. I mean, our role is to review what the applicant submits to us. MR. SEGULJIC-And I say they have to review it and come up with the best technology, according. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the applicant’s responsibility. That’s not the Town Engineer’s responsibility. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but the DEC would ultimately decide that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-But what I’m saying, I don’t think there’s been an effort, at this point, to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s your opinion that you’re entitled to, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I stand on the fact that allegedly the Town was not aware of the document, the manual, and I get the impression nor was the design engineer aware of the manual, that the SPDES Permit says you have to refer to for the design. MR. MASON-Do you have a particular technology that you think that we should be looking at? MR. SEGULJIC-No. No idea. That’s not my responsibility. MR. O'CONNOR-Within the realm of what we’re talking about, the quantity of effluent that we’re talking about, it was Tom’s idea that this is the most appropriate system. MR. SEGULJIC-It has to be the best, not most appropriate. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don’t know the real distinction between the best and, probably the best is to store it, haul it and dispose of it some place else. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-That would be wonderful. MR. HUTCHINS-Or build a treatment plant. MR. O'CONNOR-Or build a treatment plant with a Class One operator on it. There are certain things that dictate that and certain things that don’t dictate that. MR. FORD-I want to make an observation, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it going to lead to a conclusion this evening? MR. FORD-Maybe. I think we can all agree that on this site we have detrimental stormwater issues. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we can all agree to that, yes. MR. FORD-Okay. I’m getting so basic here. As I look at this plan, and as I look at slopes, I don’t see where this is just a negative. I see it as positively impacting, but in a negative way, the flow of stormwater on this site. Now, if I’m wrong, please point out to me where I’m wrong. We are increasing, if we’ve got water problems on this slope, and we’re increasing the slope, are we not also, does it not logically follow that we are going to increase the rapidity with which that flow descends that slope? MR. O'CONNOR-The top of our construction is graded away from the grade of the slope, so that, our, the actual construction area, correct me if I’m wrong, will drain away from the lake. It will not increase the speed of it. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SIPP-If the height is 350 at the drainage field and the height going back to the tennis courts is 352, 354, still sloping towards the lake. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-If you look at this section on the last sheet, okay, you’ll note that the crown of the field slopes higher in one direction. That direction is away from the lake. MR. SIPP-This is the absorption trench profile? MR. HUTCHINS-No, absorption field section, the bottom of that sheet. The runoff from stormwater. MR. SIPP-Is sloped to run which way, to the east? MR. HUTCHINS-This is running away from the lake. This will be a high point on the site. MR. FORD-From the current 350, you’re not increasing that elevation? MR. HUTCHINS-No, we’re infilling. MR. FORD-You’ll be bringing in fill, so you’re increasing that, but you’re saying you’re going to totally send that slope away from the lake. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know if I’m saying that. I’m saying. MR. FORD-Well, then if you’re not, then you’re going to increase the slope toward the lake and therefore negatively impacting the flow of the water. MR. HUTCHINS-If you take average slope to the lake, rise over run, the distance, yes, you’re right, but the actual water that now falls in the middle of the field, if it runs off ultimately runs towards the lake, now it falls in the middle of the field (lost words). MR. SIPP-Has anybody explored the possibility of between Building 18, 29, 17, so forth, a building a sod waterway to conduct the stormwater into a central point which is approximately where it says approximate location of community water supply, in this area? To have this stormwater infiltrate in this area, rather than going across the road? This 1700 coliform bacteria turns me right on. Who’s drinking this stuff? You are, in the neighborhood here, the primary water supply is right out there in the lake. Now, some place you’ve got to. MR. MASON-We’re not arguing with that. We agree that’s a problem. MR. SIPP-Yes, but let’s stop the stormwater from getting to the lake. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-The watershed, if I could just address that, the watershed that’s contributory to the three or four structures that are down there pumps from north and up gradient from Hillman Road. I mean, yes, Takundewide (lost words). MR. SIPP-But there are structures used to move water, diversion ditches, sod waterways, that can be used in this case to move that water because it’s all downhill. MR. MASON-I believe if we kept every drop of water that fell on Takundewide, in Takundewide, that fell in the form of rain, that they would still have the same problems there. We have a culvert that runs into us and across us, and when it rained, this isn’t our water. It falls from the sky on the mountain above us, and all of our neighbors, and comes to these culverts. It’s directed there by the Town water system. MR. SIPP-And where is the culvert? MR. MASON-The culvert that the Town has, that directs it here, come all down the road, up in this area, or up in here. I’m sorry, I’m on us. The culverts that he’s having a problem with are right down in here. MR. SIPP-Yes, but he’s having a problem because the water is going this way. MR. MASON-This is part of the water, yes, because that’s downhill. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SIPP-Well, let’s stop it, because this whole area is draining this way. Let’s cut off that stormwater before it gets to Hillman Road, and that one discharge area, and this can be done by plantings, by swale, ponding, whatever you want to do, but it can be cut off and stopped, and if this is the source of this 1700 per liter coliform. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand your frustration, and we have some of the same frustrations, but say you did not approve this system, and told us we couldn’t build it, that condition exists today, according to the neighbors, and will exist tomorrow. Your engineer says that our system which we’re here to seek approval of, won’t impact that in any significant manner. So, I mean, I understand the frustration that there’s a system up there that needs to be taken care of, but it’s not part of our application. It’s not a result of our application. It’s not an impact of our application ,and it’s not significantly impacted by what we’re proposing. MR. SIPP-Well, you assume that. MR. HUNSINGER-Our engineer said that, Don. MR. SEGULJIC-No, he didn’t say that. He said the limited information he reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re right. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all he said. MR. O'CONNOR-He didn’t ask us for more information, and any other application where he thought that there was something particular that he needed in order to make an intelligent decision, they asked us for it. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, let’s come up with a tabling motion, because I don’t think we’re going to get too far. I’m not sure how we can handle, I mean, it’s not our job to review septic system designs, but from what I see, they’re not following the manual. I think what they’re trying to achieve is very good. I’m not saying they’re trying to cut corners. I’m just saying there’s other rules out there they have to adhere to. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve talked about this before, and I guess I want to maybe lean on our attorney a little bit. I’m sorry to put you on the spot, Matt, but where there’s a permit that’s outside of the jurisdiction of this Board, what is our role in terms of the design of that permit or the adherence to that permit, or the submission of that permit, and, you know, we dance around this all the time. MR. FULLER-Well, I kind of suspected that question was going to come up. George and I were talking about that a bit over here. I certainly would caution the Board against putting yourselves in, or taking some sort of stance that you’re going to be the review authority of DEC. I think you’re, you know, in a tough spot if that’s the position you’re going to take, that we are going to review what DEC does. That’s a DEC general permit. I understand your concerns. One of the suggestions was, and a condition you may think of is, that it meet the DEC standards and that you have the Town’s Engineer confirm that it has met those standards as laid out in that manual. I have no problem with that, but that’s another layer, and if it doesn’t, and if he has questions, then he can refer it back to you. He can refer it back to the applicant. You can refer it back to DEC. You can have any of those options in there. MR. HUNSINGER-What if our engineer, and let me just give you a for instance, what if our engineer, let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that we do that. They get the DEC permit. Our engineer reviews it and says, in my opinion this doesn’t meet the DEC requirements, even though DEC will have given, to coin Mr. O’Connor’s phrase, given the soft permit. Then where are we? MR. FULLER-I think you’re back to the applicant and the Town’s Engineer, and DEC needing to work those out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Because again, I’m not trying to be argumentative with my own fellow members, but, you know, I think at some point we have to take the position that people will do their jobs, and we have to take the position that, you know, DEC, being the regulatory agency that they are, will look at this will all of the due diligences that’s required, just like we have here, and that they will do their jobs, and if they don’t think that you’ve used the best technology or the most current technology, that 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) they will send you back to the drawing board to re-do it. I just don’t think that that’s within the realm of our authority is to tell the applicant how to engineer his septic system. MR. FULLER-Well, I think it would be a different scenario if the Town had a different, a regulation above and beyond that general permit, or additional requirements on top of that general permit. That might be a different scenario, but again, just the straight, we’re going to review, you know, whether or not DEC, their review of it has complied with that manual, again, I’d caution you against that. MR. SEGULJIC-That was never the angle that’s going on, because we are not to do design, but I don’t believe that the applicant has looked at the best available control technology with our engineer. I would like them to at least take another stab at it before it goes to the DEC because in reality, this is a very small project in the DEC’s world, and they’re all very busy with stormwater right now, between the MS-4’s and the industrial and the construction stormwater permits. I don’t think this is going to get a real review. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’re assuming that they aren’t going to do their jobs. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m saying. MR. FULLER-Well, I have a question. How did it get to this point where this manual was not included in the design? MR. O'CONNOR-Your interpretation of the manual is different than DEC’s interpretation. We started of, somebody was talking about you only can do your test within a certain period of time. That’s not DEC’s, or the Health Department’s determination. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you read the manual? MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve read parts of it. On the timetable for. MR. SEGULJIC-It says during the Spring months when you have the maximum stormwater. MR. O'CONNOR-Then what’s the next sentence say? MR. SEGULJIC-It would take me a minute to find it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The next sentence says you can have soil scientists do it outside that time period. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it doesn’t say you can do it outside the time period. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d differ with you on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, even if it does, is that our job to second guess whether or not you meet the requirements of the DEC permit? I don’t think it is. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve done what you asked us to do. We understand that we’re under other jurisdictions for permits. We apologize that we don’t have an answer for the stormwater. That’s unrelated to the actual application that you’ve got before you. If you want, we’ll dig out the zoning, ZBA decision and simply have you tell him that you would prefer that we do three septic systems for the three cabins that we have, the three houses that we have. I mean, a lot of people are all concerned that we’re doing a community, we shouldn’t be doing a community system. We thought that’s what the Town told us to do when you approved the Master Plan three or four years ago, and we’re trying to comply with that, but you can’t just keep throwing us back and forth. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think anyone on this Board said that a community system is not a good idea away from the lake. I believe what this Board has said is this might not be in the best location and it does not meet the best available technology. MR. O'CONNOR-Our engineer said that this is the best location that he found on the site. MRS. BRUNO-I have a question for Counsel. It is possible for us to ask DEC what their opinion is between the two, between what the community and between the three separate, considering that the soils are that different? Because I am looking at the soil. It looks to me like the two worst soils, there’s one right underneath this field and then 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) there’s one right underneath the three cabins in question, if I’m looking at correctly, which is going to lead me to something else in a little bit, but can they look at that, besides, you know, to kind of back up what Dan has said to us? Did I stump you? MR. FULLER-No, I’m not entirely sure of your question. MRS. BRUNO-I guess my question is, is can the Planning Board send along an additional question that DEC also look at the potential or the comparison between the community septic system or the separate ones? MR. FULLER-Yes, I mean, I think from the applicant’s standpoint, their complaint to you is we’re bouncing back and forth. MRS. BRUNO-I know. I hear that. MR. FULLER-The ZBA said, no, come up with a community system. We’re not going to allow these variances on these individual systems. So they they’ve gone in that direction, and now we’re heading back in that direction again. MRS. BRUNO-I wasn’t necessarily saying that I was. I’m just questioning it. MR. FULLER-Sure, I think they could. They could do anything. Yes. It’s certainly plausible. MRS. BRUNO-Can we poll the Board? MR. FORD-I’d like to ask Mr. Hutchins a question first. Again, I try to get down to basics. This, you feel, is the best community source for taking care of the septic issue? MR. HUTCHINS-I feel this is the most appropriate community centralized system for the approximate number of cabins that we’re talking about that we can site on this site, the location in particular. The soils are not great down by the lake. MR. FORD-Is there a way of configuring that which you consider to be the best proposal, in a way in which could also address, and I know this isn’t part of the application, but could address a community issue of stormwater? MR. HUTCHINS-We could address, to a certain extent, and Bill and I have talked about this, stormwater that’s generated at the Takundewide site. This problem, this stormwater issue is a whole lot bigger than Takundewide. As far as the drainage area that’s contributing, most of this is coming either down the road or across the road at some point or another. A lot of this gray I believe that you’re seeing in the water is some of the stone dust that was put on the side of the road. There’s obviously coliform counts, that’s a problem. We can address the Takundewide stormwater, but I think the Takundewide portion of the stormwater issue is a relatively small percentage of what happens coming out that pipe when it rains. MR. FORD-Looking at it from a community standpoint, in that enlarged community, I’m just trying to seize an opportunity to make it better, to make current conditions better. MR. MASON-Tom spoke of the fact that he and I have been talking now about the technology, as far as I know, is detention ponds, trying to slow down the water getting into the lake. So we’re looking at it. MR. FORD-Mr. Sipp mentioned the same thing. MR. MASON-We’re looking at it, but it’s a sell job to the homeowners, and I’m already, I’m looking into other technology, and we’re thinking about it, but again, if we were to do it, we can’t size it to take care of the mountain, and all of the neighbor. There’s just no way that we could build a pond big enough. That’s the lake. MR. FORD-It’s not totally your problem, and it can’t be totally your solution, but you’re contributing to it, and you can contribute to getting it better, making it better, because there are a lot of people, including the Town, that are going to have to contribute to making it a lot better. MR. SIPP-I think we’ve got to involve the Town here in some way. MR. FORD-That’s what I said at the last meeting. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SIPP-Both of us, you and us, engage the Town in doing something about this water on Hillman Road. Well, you could try, I don’t know, you’d have to get a slope measurement and take your precipitation and design, but you’ve got quite an area there, not necessarily, I don’t know what this gravel road is. MRS. BRUNO-Tom, I have one question for you, and maybe this is just my limited knowledge of site, but my concern is just in terms of, say we were to go forward with this, what we have on record for watching the as builts afterwards and everything, your absorption field section does show a slope across it. It’s not to scale, and then your topo that you have blown up, actually it’s on both of them, but blown up, it really looked symmetrical to me, and I’m wondering if maybe just so that we could have a proper record, that, I was kind of playing, but it seems like, you know, if you could go down the middle of your absorption field. MR. O'CONNOR-DEC does require an as built. We just went through this with one that we did up in Lake George. After it’s totally built out, we have to do an engineered as built (lost words) that you could condition, if you want, that you receive that. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I guess what I’m saying is, to me, the topo doesn’t match the cross section and the cross section is what we want. MR. HUTCHINS-I can clarify. I’ve got the spot elevations across the front which show the high points, okay, and obviously you don’t show subtle changes in grade with one foot contours. That’s what we have. The spot elevations are intended to show along the high points across the front. I would clarify that. There’s a slope line. MRS. BRUNO-Right, it could probably just be simply clarified even almost if you, you know, put the horizontal line and just, I’m just saying so that it’s actually in numbers. MR. HUTCHINS-I could do a scale depth. MRS. BRUNO-Just to clean it up, thanks, and I was wondering, too, if we could put the line of the Critical Environmental Area through the map. I kind of sketched it in there, but I think it would be good to have. That’s all I have. MRS. STEFFAN-I think one of the things that we’re seeing is just the overall cumulative effects of everything that’s been going on in the Town. I mean, everybody, we’ve all lived here for a long time, and we’ve had so much growth and development, our infrastructure isn’t keeping up. Some of the public comment tonight is certainly based on the cumulative impacts of development, you know, without a plan. A lot of plans like this are based on thinking at the time, and there are assumptions made, and even, you know, or people’s lifestyles have changed which has effected stormwater and the way septic systems worked, and, you know, we have more people that use more water that have more leisure time, that spend more time at the lake, and just utilization of lakefront properties is just very different than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and as Planning Board members, every project has a whole range of issues that’s associated with it, and I think you can certainly hear the frustration of many of the Board members, and I know that you guys are, as far as the agents that are sitting at the other side of the table, having heard all these things, and are arguing, you know, your points from your point of view, and there’s no win here. We’ve got a lot of Town issues that have to be worked out. From my point of view, I mean, you’re certainly trying to propose something that’s going to fix a problem, but because of the cumulative impacts of some of the development, it’s certainly not going to fix all of the problems of the area. There are no magic, you know, there are no simple solutions here. We’ve spent two and a half hours on this particular application, and we need to move this forward. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just get a simple yes or no from members of the Board, if you’re comfortable moving forward or not. So yes would be to move forward, no would be not, to move forward with SEQRA. Don? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MRS. BRUNO-No. I’d like to hear from the Town Board more. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to offer a tabling resolution, Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I’d just like point out, in looking at Mr. Ryan’s letter, one thing he does say in here, I should have pointed this out earlier. It is possible that other unknown factors, in addition to precipitation levels, have an effect, which cannot be readily determined without an extensive study of the area and problems which exist. If you feel further analysis is necessary, or if you would like to discuss my initial findings in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me, and this is one of the problems we have. In a lot of ways, the engineer should be here with us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And we could have saved a lot of time here. MR. FORD-Do we need further analysis? You bet we do. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we need our engineer to come, if our engineer was here, we could really, I could get a comfort level that it’s appropriate and then we could discuss the stormwater issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I know one of the things that I find personally really frustrating about the discussion this evening is, you know, we spent at least a half an hour re-hashing issues that I thought were fully fleshed out back in August, and I think the reason we did that is because the collective memory just couldn’t remember some of those details, and I think that’s unfortunate but, be that as it may. Do you want to offer a tabling motion? MR. O'CONNOR-(Lost words) 50 people sitting behind trying to wait for their applications, and if you invite your engineer we could all hear the same thing at the same time so we don’t end up with an, oh, by the way, you haven’t looked at this, you haven’t looked at that, and allows everybody to make a much better decision. You’ve got a neighborhood that has said that they’ve got a community problem. I think it’s a little different than a typical applicant coming in and saying whether this is our problem and we know how to solve our problem on our four squares. MR. FORD-That’s exactly where I am. MR. O'CONNOR-I think probably the best, most productive thing we could do would be to do a workshop, because otherwise I don’t know, we’re going to be back in two months from now. MR. FORD-It also is bigger than us, though. I understand about the application, but in terms of the problem, it’s bigger than just Planning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and that’s why, even having the Town Engineer here. The problem is bigger than we are, and it’s a Town Board issue. We’re talking about major infrastructure. MR. FORD-Yes, and if we have a workshop and the Town Board is involved. MR. O'CONNOR-Except that nobody has said yet what is proposed has a negative impact on that existing problem. You’re of the mind, I think, from what I’m reading or hearing between the lines, of trying to solve the overall problem, which is still going to be there, as I said, even if you disapprove us. MR. TRAVER-Well, the report that we have actually, he doesn’t state that there’s no impact. He says it’s minimal, and the, I think that some of us, perhaps most, feel that the stormwater, even though the context of the appropriateness of your septic design is a different issue than the existing stormwater issue. The fact that this not only does not improve the stormwater situation, but that he’s clearly indicating that it does have an impact. Now, it does say minimal, but if you have a sinking ship, you don’t drill another hole in the hull. I mean, we’ve got all this water coming in, and if this is contributing to that, that has to be considered, and I think we should, and I like your suggestion of a workshop. I think if we can come up with a design where the report is indicating that it is contributing to the resolution, short term. Understanding that there are long term implications to the larger issue of the community and that the Town is going to have to get involved in a long term solution, but short-term we at least don’t want to add to that problem. So if we can come up with some ways, on that side, as Tom was discussing 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) earlier, so that we can come up with a design that does not even minimally add to the existing problem, I think then we’re on a right track, as far as the stormwater issue is concerned. MR. O'CONNOR-Everything has some impact. I would defer to your counsel as to the SEQRA definition about what is significant or not significant, and his definition, actually even if it’s minimal, is something that requires (lost words). MR. TRAVER-But I think in this context, that needs to be clarified. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I think, much as I’d like to have another meeting, it probably makes sense. MR. FORD-I like the idea of the concept of a workshop meeting, realizing that it’s bigger than this Board’s function. I would like to invite the Town Board to be participants, and maybe we can look at the problem in its totality and get at your solution, your issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have a suggestion for a meeting date for this workshop? MRS. STEFFAN-January, after the new Town Board, because Tony Metivier will be the Councilperson for that area. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not going to construct this in the winter anyway, are you? What’s your timetable? Were you going to try to construct it during the winter, or were you going to wait for the Spring? MR. MASON-Yes. I was hoping to, we have to stabilize the fill for 60 days. I was hoping to get positive result tonight, and start bringing in fill tomorrow. I guess that’s not going to happen. Timetable is ASAP. I have three homeowners who for three years have been trying to build a house, and they, you know, after three years it starts to get stale with them. I don’t know if they want to build a house anymore. Time is of the essence. MR. SEGULJIC-What does our December agenda look like? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s a bigger discussion. I mean, our normal regular meeting is Christmas Day night, which I can’t imagine anyone wants to be here. Staff has thth indicate that our normal meeting date would be the 18 and the 25. Staff has indicated th that the 20 is available, which is, you know, so it would be a Tuesday/Thursday, and we thth have a meeting scheduled for the 6, tentatively scheduled for the 6. MR. HILTON-Tentatively, right. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put them on the December meeting, one of those nights? MR. HILTON-I mean, you can, but we have two pretty full agendas. We have a pretty full agenda for December, if the idea is to not put them with a bunch of other items. th MR. SEGULJIC-What if we put them on the 6? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a tentative date. MR. HILTON-That’s another item which is going to be pretty heavily attended. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And we just can’t add anything into December, because we’ve done this for the last couple of months, and Staff is short staffed, and they have to jump through hoops to try to rearrange schedules, get paperwork, and then we end up not getting commentary or information that we need, and I think we’re just going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we try to put this through to December. MR. O'CONNOR-My actual thought, from what you were saying, though, is that we would have a meeting with the Town Engineer, our engineer or if you want to delegate a committee to meet with the Town Engineer and our engineer and have everybody discuss the options. We’re not going to have anything on paper until after that first initial meeting. I don’t know what we’re trying to design to. We can write a report that says that we think we have the compliance with that regulation. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I agree. I think personally what I want is the engineer here so we can ask him questions and get a level of comfort. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t mean to be insensitive, but we have two Planning Board meetings. We have the Schermerhorn project on Gurney Lane, and it is the holidays, and, you know, don’t count me in. MR. FORD-January. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I guess my comment wasn’t necessarily, it was time wise, but not necessarily, a regular meeting we’re going to have the same discussion we had tonight. We had this same discussion two months ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Three months ago. MR. O'CONNOR-Three months ago. There wasn’t a lot different tonight than we had three months ago. MR. HUNSINGER-No. The only new information was that our engineer signed off on the project. Do we schedule this first for the first meeting in January, for the first item, or do we do a workshop on a Thursday evening? MR. SEGULJIC-What would you rather do? MR. O'CONNOR-What do you think is going to be the most productive? MR. FORD-Workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Of course, but the problem is if we do it as a workshop, then we can’t approve it. So we’re going to do a workshop in January, and then we’re going to send them packing and tell them to resubmit new information so that we can review the project in February? MR. FORD-If we agree with the concept that it’s bigger than us, then the workshop needs to include more than our engineer and the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s put them on the first agenda item, the first meeting in January. I guess we just table it to meet with the engineer. MR. FORD-You didn’t hear what I said. MR. SEGULJIC-I heard what you said. We’ll invite them to that meeting. MR. FORD-The Town Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to make that in the form of a resolution? Question, Mr. Hutchins? MR. HUTCHINS-Are you going to ask us for additional information for that meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t sound like it. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I just want to be sure. MR. SEGULJIC-My big question to the engineer is is this going to be the best available technology. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you want to write something up along those lines, I mean, we would certainly accept it. MR. FORD-You know our concerns, and if there’s any way you can come up with something that would address them, that would be great. MR. HUNSINGER-We did conclude the public comment period. All of our meetings are open to the public. If it’s a workshop, it’s a workshop. It would be a Board workshop, but 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) the proposed resolution which has yet to be offered would be to have it as a regular agenda item at a regular meeting, which would be open to the public. The public hearing was left open. So there would be opportunity for public comment. MR. SEGULJIC-And what is the date of that meeting? th MR. HUNSINGER-January 15. MR. FORD-It’s going to be a regular meeting, not a workshop, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Make the resolution and we’ll see where it goes. MR. FORD-Solution is more important than resolutions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2007 TAKUNDEWIDE HOA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the January 15, 2008 Planning Board meeting, to request that the Town Engineer be present at the meeting to discuss the septic system and stormwater issues associated with this site. That the septic system design be in accordance with the design standards for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George basin. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, you’re not asking them for an alternate design? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s true. Then I should say that the, good point, that the septic system design be in accordance with the design standards for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George basin. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB AGENT(S) BOHLER ENG./J. GILLESPIE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 474 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION & SNACK SHOP FOR PROPOSED 4,250 SQ. FT. JOLLEY C-STORE & GAS STATION, SANDWICH SHOP & DUNKIN DONUTS WITH A DRIVE THRU. CONVENIENT STORE, GASOLINE STATION AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ALL USES THAT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-98 SECTION 179-4-020 JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Really briefly, a couple of comments that I’ve made. The plan has been revised to show right in/right out only at this point on Aviation Road, and I guess to clarify my comment, what I’m trying to get a handle on here is, is that design of that access point adequate to prevent unauthorized movement from the left, in the left in/left out. I guess generally is that design going to achieve what it’s designed to do, and that is be right in/right out only. The landscaping along Aviation Road is another comment that we’ve made previously, and Staff would just reiterating that the landscaping in this case should be consistent with other commercial plans that have been approved throughout Queensbury, and as indicated, the applicant, it’s anticipated, will present potential monument sign details this evening. There are comments from Vision Engineering for this application. They’re included in your packet, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) SEAN CRUMB MR. CRUMB-Sean Crumb of Jolley Associates, and Jim Gillespie with Bohler Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add? MR. CRUMB-Well, I guess the first thing is do you need another review of what the project is, or do you want to just jump in to what the remaining issues are? We’re all pretty clear on what the project is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Are people comfortable with the project at this point? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-We’d like that right in/right out addressed, so I could understand it. MR. CRUMB-At the last meeting, the Board had requested that we go back to the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation agency and have them weigh in on their opinion of our right in/right out, and I believe that you’re in receipt of a letter from those folks, that would appear to me to be a favorable letter for project. So I guess I would throw that back to you as to what your opinion is at this point about that response from them. I feel like, from our point of view, we’ve given you a number of arguments that are favorable to keep that right in/right out there. It’s a better situation than what currently exists, and referring to the notes from the Town, I’m totally favorable to designing the curb in that area to make that a direct right in/right out. (Lost word) design that so that it’s very difficult for anybody to turn left into that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll start off the discussion. I never thought it was necessary. I bought gas there this morning. I took a left hand turn in. There was no other cars around, and when I went to leave, there were no other cars around, and I was able to take the right out no problem, but I understand your engineer, your traffic engineer suggested, you know, that the no left hand turn in. MR. CRUMB-And I agree with the proximity of Burke Drive there, is there really a necessity to have a left in there? I don’t think that there is. However, I’m of the strong belief that the right in at least is in need to avoid a second turning motion off of Burke Drive. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, I think so, too. You’re going to have additional services there besides what you have right now. I’m thinking of just Dunkin Donuts. I mean, I visit Dunkin Donuts frequently and it does get pretty busy, and I think people will be coming from the back way. I can say that my traffic pattern is different whether I’m going down to the one on Glen Street, and I actually live out towards West Mountain. So, you know, I mean, I think it really will be different, and I think it was a smart move to cut down on that one left hand. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. No, go ahead. MR. CRUMB-And again, just to reiterate, that we would certainly work with you to design an entrance that would prohibit the left turns into that access, and I think it can be done. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the other thing, too. Not to belabor this issue, but one of the left hand turns that I’m most familiar with is the one into Lowe’s from Quaker Road, and that left hand turn is prohibited. There’s signs there that say no left hand turn, and I see them, and I don’t drive down that end of Quaker Road that often anymore. I still see it quite frequently where people make those illegal left hand turns. MR. CRUMB-I’m not familiar with that particular area, but I am familiar with. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, there’s only so much you can do in design. If people want to make that move they’re going to make that move. MR. CRUMB-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MRS. STEFFAN-I actually use the gas station all the time, but I think you’ll have a lot more traffic at the location with a Dunkin Donuts drive thru then you have currently. So, you know, I’ve waited and considered how many people would be cutting through that what is now the entrance off of Aviation Road, and it’s probably a good idea to have the right in/right out, just because the gas station, you know, the island will be between the road and the building. So just for traffic it’ll be much better. MRS. BRUNO-You’re going to have more kids crossing the street, too. MR. CRUMB-I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m glad to get the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation letter. My only comment is the landscaping. That goes to Staff’s comment. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I was confused by that. MR. GILLESPIE-When we left the meeting the last time, one of the issues that had remained was that you had requested some sort of planting in this area, and I asked for the opportunity to review that with a landscape architect. This area is going to receive quite a bit of snow, and I’m with you that it needs to be landscaped. I think that the appropriate plantings are what needs to be decided upon and I’m asking you, would you be agreeable to something as a Black-eyed Susan that grows pretty hardy in the summertime, fairly tall. However, in the winter, it dies away. It goes away, would allow for the snow removal. It wouldn’t come through there and wipe out all these pines or some type of greenery, and then reproduce come Springtime, be hardy again all through the summer, and then just continue to grow every year and again, it would be probably a 30 to 36 inch growth, and they are very hardy, to help maintain some of that landscaping, but to keep it to a minimum so that we’re not having to go back in there every Spring and replace God knows how many evergreens because of the snow removal. MRS. BRUNO-Before we answer that question, I’d like to ask Staff to clarify the third paragraph that Staff believes that landscaping and a number of street trees along should be consistent with other commercial landscaping. When I first read that, I thought that you were kind of implying that we had actually asked for more than what we should have, or did you intend it the other way and I was just confused? MR. HILTON-Yes, the other way, and I apologize for the confusion. If you look at other commercial businesses, including gas stations, on major thoroughfares in Queensbury, one on the other side of the highway, a couple on the other side of the highway, we, I guess this Board has, in the past, approved landscaping plans with street trees, and I think we’re all of the, I don’t know if we all are, but I think we’re of the opinion, Staff, that, you know, street trees are good for design and, you know, beautify the landscape and the street corridor, and I think we’re looking for that as Staff, and I guess ultimately my comment was that this should be consistent with other commercial plans that have been approved on major thoroughfares in the Town. MRS. BRUNO-Thank. MR. GILLESPIE-If I’m not mistaken, we clarified that issue as well, with the square footage, we met the landscaping requirement per the distances of square footage. (Lost words) my recollection from the last meeting was that we did meet the requirement with street trees, in that we were arguing the point a little bit along Aviation and we had offered up one more tree (lost words) added additional street trees, but again, I came away with the assumption that we had met that criteria for the linear square foot. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I think my previous comment was that certainly the numbers were there but the location, it was our preference to see more, again, on the streetscape, as opposed to the rear of the property, but I guess to answer your question, my previous comment certainly was that the numbers were there. MR. CRUMB-Really the only other opportunity on our property would be here, and certainly (lost words). So I think we discussed this location, but we had added one here. We had this originally, but the last meeting we talked about adding an additional one, right in the middle of the landscaped island. It would seem to appear satisfactory. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m the one who asked for plantings along that side. MR. CRUMB-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SIPP-Now Black-eyed Susans, to me, is not what you want. As you say, they’re going to be down, buried under the snow during the. What’s the difference, then, between your snow removal on that corner where you’re putting in some rose bushes and then you’ve got two types of rose bushes on that corridor, right? That are PFA and RFA. What is the difference? MR. CRUMB-The only difference with very limited space (lost words). MR. SIPP-I realize that, but what’s the difference in the snowplowing? You’re going to bury those rose bushes. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, you have a valid argument. I will say that. I did speak with a landscape engineer, one that works, Jim Miller, that works here in Town, and again, trying to limit, I’m open to suggestions. I’m not limited to Black-eyed Susans. What I’d like to stay away from is something in the distance, what’s the distance there, that we’re looking at, you know, in area of 100 feet that I potentially have brown greenery come Springtime. I’m willing to compromise with that. That was a suggestion, and I think we can certainly come up with an alternative to make you happy, but I’m trying to keep it somewhat simple here, that it’s. MR. SIPP-Maybe some rhododendrons. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I’m not a landscape architect, and I never claimed to be one. I’m happy to consult with them as far as what they feel like is appropriate for that area, that’s not going to die off, that’s hearty, and doesn’t become overgrown. I think that there’s just some minor issues. MR. SIPP-Well, let alone that side being open all winter, I’m concerned about coming up the, going down or coming up the ramp there, or somebody with their lights on pumping gas. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, they should, theoretically, be facing back out towards Aviation Road. MR. FORD-They’re north/south. MR. SIPP-North/south. All right, my mistake. Just those plants being squashed leaves that whole thing open all winter. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I agree, but again, I’m looking to the longevity of that and what (lost words) long term. I agree with you, but I think that at least if Black-eyed Susans aren’t the appropriate planting, then I think that we could likely come up with one, but I don’t think an evergreen would be an appropriate planting for there, and I’m happy to consult with you. MR. SIPP-There is a very invasive type plant that maybe shouldn’t be there, but above the rose. MR. FORD-I think you’re communicating with him, the Town arborist. MR. GILLESPIE-Really? Well, if you want to put a condition on it that you and I discuss this further and come to a mutual agreement, I have no problem. MR. SIPP-Well, something, it’s a minor issue. MR. HUNSINGER-You like Rhododendrons, right, Don, for there? MR. SIPP-Rhododendrons would work I think. You break off the lower branches, maybe, with the plowing, but they’re pretty tough. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we see a lot of those. MRS. BRUNO-You’ve already got one there, four there. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, if that’s the condition that you want to lay on that, that we’ll put Rhododendrons down through there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The only question is, how many? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I think that it’s up to the landscape architect. MRS. BRUNO-You’ve got 12 overall on the site right now, and four in that particular area. MR. FORD-When you’re finished landscaping, I have another question. MR. GILLESPIE-And I would refer you back to the photos of some of our other sites. If you take a look at those, we do not skimp on our landscaping, and it would be appropriate to the area. MR. FORD-At the south end of the property, there is expansion room for additional parking, etc. Do you have any idea, any plan, even in the back of your mind, of expanding this and adding something such as a car wash? MR. CRUMB-Quite honestly. MR. FORD-There’d be no carwash there? MR. CRUMB-No. I had brought that issue up early on within our own organization. MR. SEGULJIC-What are we going to say for landscaping there? Don’t we have to give them some, what are we going to, spacing wise? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, actually we had talked about it in our tabling resolution in September. In fact, we even specified Rhododendrons along the eastern property line, two to three feet high. We heard a comment minimum three feet on center. I don’t know if that’s the right number or not. Do you know, Don? Three feet on center? MR. SIPP-They go three feet high. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. HILTON-Maybe I’m jumping the gun here, but I just want to make sure that the Planning Board’s comfortable with the signage proposed, and that you may want to address what type of signage. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t seen the monument sign yet. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve already got it in the motion. MR. GILLESPIE-And this brick doesn’t, this isn’t an exact match of what the building will be, but the brick on the monument sign. MR. HUNSINGER-It will match the building. MR. SIPP-Your competitor down Dix Avenue took us for a ride. MR. HUNSINGER-And this is not an LED sign. MR. CRUMB-No. It’s primarily an illuminated sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members of the Planning Board going to be able to buy gas for $2.16? MR. CRUMB-On a good day maybe. MR. FORD-I’d setting for $2.36. MR. SIPP-Are we going to put that in the motion, no electronic sign? MR. CRUMB-That’s fine. We’re not an advocate of electronic signs, either. If you want to put that in, that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s in the motion already. No reader boards or no red illuminated gas pricing signage. Actually I had the word in here is prohibited. MR. FULLER-I would not even limit the color but no back lit electronic. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this is back lit, right? MR. GILLESPIE-It’s an internally illuminated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry, there is a difference. Any other comments from the Board? We did have the, we did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any, I forgot to ask, is there any written comments? No? Okay. We’re safe then. Any other issues, other than the ones mentioned? We do need to do SEQRA Unlisted. I think they submitted a Long Form. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, there is a Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We actually visited the Exit 20 site the other day, just to see the excavation, and they’re making fast progress on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form? MR. HILTON-Yes, that’s what I found in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we had asked them to submit a Long Form, which was submitted for September. Am I the only one that has it? August. MRS. STEFFAN-It came in August, George. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we do a Short Form if they submitted a Long Form? MR. FULLER-Was that for this or for the other one? th MRS. STEFFAN-474 Aviation Road, August 15, Bohler Engineering. MR. HILTON-They did ask for one. I’m not finding one. I’m seeing the Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN- Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If you’re saying yes, what’s the impact? MR. FORD-Minimal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Just for the record, that question generally is always going to be yes. MR. FORD-That’s why they’re in here, to make a change. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-George, did you prepare the draft resolution? MR. HILTON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we were just talking about is we frequently, I won’t say always, but we frequently have standard language about verification of lighting fixtures prior to installation prior to installation. Do you have any objection to putting that in there? MR. HILTON-No, and from past experience, the language, as I recall, has been that Staff inspect the proposed lighting fixtures prior to installation for compliance with the Town Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-And that would be fine with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Or for consistency with the plan. MR. HILTON-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing Mobil Gas Station & Snack Shop for proposed 4,250 sq. ft. Jolley C-Store & Gas Station, Sandwich Shop & Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru. Convenience Store, Gasoline Station and Fast Food Restaurant establishments are all uses that require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/20, 5/15, 7/26/07, 9/18/07 & 11/20/07; 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 comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 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 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative Declaration. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the Community Development Staff will verify lighting fixtures prior to installation. 2.That the applicant will enhance the landscaping design based on our discussions, which will include rhododendrons, two to three feet high, along the eastern border, approximately 100 feet in length, minimum three feet on center. 3.That there will be no electronic signage on site. No reader boards or no illuminated LED gas pricing signage, specifically red. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SIPP-Question, is that the eastern border that you have? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Isn’t that the northern border? MR. CRUMB-To the northeast. MR. FORD-Because on this north is at the bottom. MR. SIPP-Okay. All right. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Happy Holidays. MR. HUNSINGER-You, too. Thanks. MR. FORD-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LI LOCATION LOT #7, CAREY RD. INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24,808 +/- SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. OFFICES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUBDIV. 6-1987 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/12/07 LOT SIZE 2.16 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16- 2-2.3 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 RICHARD JONES & GEORGE PERDUE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-George, can you summarize Staff Notes when you’re ready. MR. HILTON-Sure. This was rather quick. I’ve provided a list of items that have been provided. I’ve stated in my notes that additional low lying vegetation along both street frontages has been shown on the revised plan. The lighting plan has been updated as well with shields to be used for lights along the perimeter of the site, and the applicant has provided responses to previous engineering comments, and in fact there is a follow- up letter from the Town’s consulting engineer dated November 15, 2007, and at this time that’s all we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project. To my left George Perdue from Hudson Headwaters, and to my right Craig Jones from Richard Jones from Richard Jones Associates. What I’d like to do is talk briefly about the comments that we had from the last meeting. I know the Planning Board had requested colored elevations, which we have. We’ve also got information regarding the finished materials themselves, and we can hand these out at this time. I’d basically like to go through that, start the meeting on a light note, based on what we’ve gone through. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Jones, which buildings around the one where your office currently is did you design? MR. JONES-Around our office? MRS. BRUNO-Right, in the little neighborhood section. MR. JONES-The Hudson Headwaters clinic behind my office was designed by our firm. Actually that is one campus right there. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. JONES-Other buildings that we’ve done in the Town, the Bay Ridge Fire Company, the North Queensbury Fire Company, West Glens Falls. MRS. BRUNO-The ones to the left of your building, then, looking at the front of it? MR. JONES-No, those were not designed by our firm. Those were actually designed by another firm. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious. MR. JONES-Yes, in our neighborhood I think basically the buildings that we’re in and Hudson Headwaters are in, those are the buildings that we’ve done on that end of Town. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. JONES-What we’ve presented to you is a colored rendition of what we’re looking at for the building, and basically in the large scale plans that we had given you in the first submission, it indicated the materials that we were looking at. Basically the building is a large wood frame single story building. We have gable roofs on certain portions of the building. There are some flat roofed areas to the center of the building which will be utilized to locate rooftop mechanical equipment. It’s our intent to hide them behind the gable roofed areas, so that they’re not visible from the street sides of the building, basically Carey Road and Corinth Road. Basically it is an asphalt shingled roof. We’re looking at a red/brown shingle on the roof areas. The building itself, as you look at it, the vertical elements that exist at the main entrance and the gabled areas that you look at on the two ends of the building is an Ashler Stone material, and I can pass this around. This basically gives you an indication of the color ranges and the material that we’re looking at. What we’re trying to utilize are earth tone colors. They’ll be the grey tones, browns. We’re looking at white trim on the building, and as far as the sidings, basically we’re looking at vertical sidings. We either have a four inch vertical along the bottom, which would be like a water table running around the base of the building. The upper portions of the gable are more of a board and batten type material, and then the eyebrows that we have over the window areas, the linear panels, are basically a fancy cut shingle, and we’re looking at materials, and again, we have another brochure that we can pass around. Basically we have an option of either going with a pre-finished material or a field 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) painted siding material, and right now we’re not sure if we want to go pre-finished. I think it’s going to depend upon the time of year that we actually construct the building. The colors that are available. MR. FORD-What will be the material, please? MR. JONES-It is like a cement board siding, one of them, and you can get it as a pre- finished material or you can field apply paint to it. MRS. BRUNO-Like a hardy plank. MR. JONES-Hearty plank, yes, very similar to that. The trim on the building would be white. Basically all of the windows in the building are an Anderson, either fixed unit or casement unit, and we would be adding grills and screens where we have operable sash, but basically the colors, as I said, are an earth tone type scenario. We’re trying to keep it as low key as possible. We’re not going with bright colors. We’re depending upon the architecture of the building, basically, to sell that corner of the property. We feel it’s a good transition between the industrial uses to the back side. There are still a lot of residential applications along Corinth Road, and we’re trying to basically compliment those with single story wood frame type construction. MRS. BRUNO-Are there other vacant properties still left in that Carey Road? MR. JONES-Yes. This is actually Lot Number, I think it’s Lot Number Eight of I think an eight lot subdivision which was Phase I of Carey Road. Phase II, which is the loop that comes around Carey Road and actually comes out on the other end on Corinth, heading toward the Northway, there’s quite a few empty parcels still on that end of the development, but I believe this is probably the last lot. I think the one next to it was just developed here in the past year. There may be one additional in Phase I. MRS. BRUNO-The last lot of the initial eight. MR. JONES-Yes, in Phase I, but that’s basically the colors that we’re looking at and the materials that we’re anticipating for the project. In reference to other comments, the Board had asked for signage type detail, and we have provided that in the second submission, which you did receive. The comments from the Planning Department, we basically addressed those by utilizing additional planting along the edge of the parking area that borders Corinth Road to the north and Carey Road to the west. We added a second row of staggered trees in that area, as part of a screen. The comments from the engineer, the review engineer for the Town, we were able to address all comments in our last submission. We did receive another commentary from Vision Engineering, actually yesterday, and basically all but five of the comments were addressed and the five that are still remaining are basically minor issues and do not impact the design layout for the proposed project. The one item that he was asking for additional information on was the detail that we had proposed along the south edge of the parking lot, and this would be to the lot to the rear side of our, as you look at our property to the right hand side. We’ve added a note in that detail, basically that entails washed one inch stone, which would be the top 12 to 18 inches of that detail, that’s on the, I think it’s SP-5 or 6. The test pits have been numbered. That’s a minor item. The SPDES Permit is required by DEC, and we have made an application in reference to that, and the septic systems have been dimensioned and laid out according to setbacks that are required by DEC standards and the Health Department standards in reference to location relative to the building and the property lines and the areas that are required for additional space for relocation of septic if we need to. In reference to the percolation test, we have not completed one yet on the property. As I indicated, this is part of an approved subdivision, and the approved subdivision included, as part of their approval package to Warren County, as part of the approved subdivision, percolation tests which indicated less than a minute and a half in perc. They also did deep test pits which are indicative of what we found in our test pits that we performed. Basically we’re here tonight looking for a Site Plan Review approval. We’re not here looking for a building permit. As part of the building permit process for the Town, we would need to file for the septic permit, and part of that would require that we complete perc tests, and it would be our intent to complete those perc tests, too, for each septic area, as well as additional perc tests for our storm drainage areas as well. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s basically all sand, isn’t it? MR. JONES-Yes, it is. It’s very, it goes from fine brown, red sands at the top to courser grey, brown red sands as you go down. The test pits that we did were in the six to eight 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) foot depth. We encountered no groundwater. We encountered no mottling of sands or anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m not surprised. MR. JONES-And based on everybody else that’s built in that area in that subdivision, basically they’ve basically found percs that are less than two minutes. Our design application for our design is actually based on two and a half minutes. So we feel we have adequate buffer in that regard, and as I said, part of the process in getting the building permit would be having to complete those, and at that time we would also complete the perc tests for our SWPPP’s for that permit as well. The last item that the engineer had asked for were some dimensions in reference to the Eljen infiltration system that we have on site, and those have been provided on the detail as well. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that anyone may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. FORD-It may not be appropriate at this time, but the use of the building will be? MR. JONES-It’s basically a corporate office for Hudson Headwaters. They currently have office space that they’re leasing at the old Broad Street School, down on the corner of Broad and Hudson. MR. FORD-It’s not anticipated that there would be any subdivision or subleasing of a portion of it? MR. JONES-No. There’s a space indicated there which would be for other tenants. Basically there are other organizations within Hudson Headwaters that would conceivably move into that building at some point in time. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing that was tabled until this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that had comments or? Any written comments? Okay. I guess if there are no written comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions or comments from the Board? Okay. SEQRA. Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2007 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 24,808 +/- sq. ft. Office building. Offices in the Light Industrial zone require Planning Board review and approval; and 2. A public hearing is scheduled for 9/25/07, tabled to 11/20/07; 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 comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. 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 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2007 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative Declaration. This is approved with the following three conditions: 1.That the building be constructed according to the building design that was presented this evening. 2.That the Staff will inspect the lighting fixtures before installation. 3.That the applicant will obtain a Vision Engineering signoff. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2007 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW EMMENS AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S) SAME ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION 2 HIGHVIEW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE REMAINING STRUCTURE, ALONG WITH SITE GRADING, AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/12/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 0.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-19 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-6-060, CHAP. 147 BILL DEAN & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MR. HILTON-This will be really quick. I really just provided a listing of what has been provided since the last tabling, per the Planning Board’s previous tabling resolution, and as I’ve mentioned, questions regarding septic design, test pit data, topsoil detail, zoning compliance, that information has been provided. The applicant has addressed Vision Engineering comments. There has been a follow-up comment from Vision Engineering dated November 15, 2007, and with that, that’s really all we have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett, of Jarrett Martin Engineers. To my left is Gabe Hodge, the project architect, and to my right is Bill Dean, the project manager and builder. What we’d like to do tonight is go through quickly just re-hashing the need for this project, and then highlight how we’ve improved the project since the last time we met with you, and then open it up to questions. Gabe is going to run through the needs for the project, and what we’d like to do, if you don’t mind, is use some overheads to help us illustrate the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Perfect. Yes. MR. FORD-Great. GABE HODGE MR. HODGE-Okay. George, if you could go to Slide Two. The goals for the project, remedy severe water infiltration problems caused by ledge rock that is found, you know, sort of supporting the north end of the house. The original house was built on the ledge rock which allows water to run into the building, causing the second point, rot, mold, mildew issues throughout the building. Our client would like to add very much needed 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) storage space to the building, which it is sadly lacking, make the structure more livable in the addition of the storage spaces, and altering some of the layout of the lower level, which is fairly fractured currently, and then as an overall, tying the whole thing together, update the finishes and the mechanical systems, etc. We’ve included, in your packet, and in the slideshow, three pages of examples of, this one happens to be the ledge rock down in the basement. The next one is the water infiltration photo showing where it’s seeping through walls, where it’s collecting on floors, causing rot, etc., and then the third examples of mold, mildew and rot found throughout the lower level of the house, illustrating the severity of that problem. If you would go to the next slide. You’ve seen this illustration before. This shows the site plan, the house plan, the proposed plantings. If we could skip, one more, the cross section of the rain garden and then this is the slide I’d like to land on. After the last Board review, where we sat with you all, we worked very hard to incorporate your comments, the comments of Vision Engineering, and of the public, in the form of Mr. Navitsky’s comments, as Water Keeper, to make the following changes to the architecture. I’m going to run through those really quick and then pass it on to Tom to talk about stormwater changes. In this illustration, which is an updated version of the one that you received previously, we have an overall reduction in the Floor Area Ratio of the building. What we’ve done is we have eliminated the screening in of an upper level porch on the southeast corner, and with that we’ve taken the roof back eight feet. So now the southeast corner in the new form of the building will remain in the same position as it always was, no further encroachment to the lake. Number Two, the impervious surface area of the project, previously, we had an overall increase of 552 feet, I think it was 552. We’ve actually taken away impervious surface in this version. So that our net is a reduction of, we’ve calculated seven square feet. So it’s almost a zero sum game through the reduction of paving on the west and on the east side, actually mostly on the west side, in the driveway and the entry paving. Number Three, paving on the lakeside is unchanged. We’ve only replaced what we’ve taken away and added no square feet. Number Four, I’ve already mentioned that screened porch was deleted and the roof cut back, and at the same time, on the northeast corner we had a larger overhang in the roof for a tighter dimension to the lake. We’ve eliminated that. We’ve pulled that roof drip line back to match the existing. So now those two corners, the northeast and the southeast corners, are unchanged from the existing. So we are, in effect, eliminating one of our variance requests or two if you count both. With that, I’ll pass it on to Tom. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Thank you. Essentially with regard to site work, we’ve got two significant changes. The questions regarding infiltration at the northeast corner of the house, where we had planned to infiltrate roof runoff, we dug some test pits by hand, because it was very impractical to get equipment in there, that side of the house right now, and we could not prove, by hand, that we had deep enough soil to put infiltration systems in there. We may have that, but we could not dig by hand to get down deep enough. So we’ve moved the systems further to the south where we’ve documented we have deeper soil. That’s one significant change. The other is, after careful deliberation, we’ve looked at the leaching system, the wastewater leaching system, and at your behest, in looking at advanced treatment, we’ve decided to propose increasing the vertical separation between the bottom of the leaching device and groundwater, which essentially is adding another sand filter. It’s another layer of sand that effluent goes through, and in my opinion it’s equivalent, and maybe even superior to other advanced treatment systems because of maintenance and simplicity and effectiveness of unsaturated soil in providing that filtration and treatment. MR. FORD-How deep will that be, please? MR. JARRETT-The New York State Department of Health standards are 24 inches. The Town standard within 1,000 feet is 36 inches. We’ve now proposing 42, a minimum of 42 inches. So an extra six inches of filtration above what the Town’s standard, which is in a sense advanced treatment itself. So that’s our proposal. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Interestingly enough, I was at a seminar last week in Lake Placid on wastewater treatment, and they talked about the peak filters as advanced treatment and the manufacturer of the peak filter of course was touting his own system, but he essentially said that sand filtration is just as effective as the peat filters, and he felt the very effective leaching system design that had the proper amount of unsaturated soil depth was just as effective as the advanced treatment system. So I thought that was very interesting for him to say that. That, I think, summarizes what we’ve done to try to improve this project and meet your needs, as well as the community’s needs. What we’d 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) th like to do now is open it up to questions from the Board, based on our October 15 submission. It has a very detailed letter in response to all these comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Could you address any modification in the garage and associated space? MR. HODGE-We did not reduce the size of the addition to the garage. We felt that it was the smallest we could do in order to get the building storage that the client is asking for. So we’ve, all of the cuts to the building were made on the lake side of the house. MR. FORD-And the height of the ceilings on the second floor of the garage? MR. HODGE-There’s no second floor on the garage. MR. FORD-No second floor. Thank you. MR. SIPP-In the present house, is there a use of the basement for sleeping quarters, bathroom downstairs? MR. HODGE-There are two bedrooms downstairs in the basement, and that will contain. MR. SIPP-And that large area called mechanical room is nothing? MR. HODGE-That’s currently where all of the bedrock is coming into the house, and all of the water exists. So that will, a large portion of that will become storage and mechanical space. MR. SIPP-A large portion. What is a large portion? MR. HODGE-That portion of the house, there’s no real way to get any light into it. So that will continue to be used as, this is the proposed re-build of the, on the lower level, and it’s mainly buried in the hill, all the way around to here, to this point. So all of this is buried in the hill. This will become mechanical. This will become storage because it’s more proximal to the living spaces. MR. SIPP-So that storage is counted in the Floor Area Ratio or not? MR. HODGE-Storage spaces, I believe, are not counted. Let me check. MRS. BRUNO-Are they full height ceilings? MR. SIPP-But all the media room, and pool room, and so forth, that’s all counted? MR. HODGE-That’s all counted, yes, and that’s all currently used as living space. MR. SIPP-And that bump out that you have on the lower level for, what’s that called, the one next to the mechanical room? MR. HODGE-Right here? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HODGE-That’s a screened porch on the lower level. MR. SIPP-That’s counted? MR. HODGE-That’s counted. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe you have to count the storage areas. MR. HODGE-I was just going to check that. If you do, then I did. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sure you did. MR. HODGE-Yes. It says building square footage includes all floors of the primary structure, covered porches and basements that may be suitable for living space. Detached storage buildings greater than 100 square feet and detached garages are included in the FAR. Our garage is attached. You can’t use the lower storage area. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SIPP-Are you calling those detached garages? MR. HODGE-The garage is, because it’s not detached. MR. SIPP-There’s a breezeway in between, right? MR. HODGE-That’s becoming an enclosed, it’s all, the roof continues over it anyway. So it would have been counted as a covered porch. MR. SIPP-So are the garages counted in your floor area? MR. HODGE-Yes. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-And the storage area should be, too. MR. HODGE-I don’t think so because it’s not suitable as living space because there’s no access to light and vent. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask Staff a question. The Vision Engineering response letter too many times says completed but not included in submission forwarded to Vision. Well, it says it twice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I found that interesting, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Any thoughts on what that means? MR. HILTON-I don’t know why. I don’t know. I can’t speak to that comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-How do you blast underneath a house that’s there? MR. JARRETT-Well, that part will be gone. MR. HODGE-Part of our proposal is to take the north wing. MRS. STEFFAN-Everything is just still so close. MR. JARRETT-Well, it takes some very precise blasting to do that, but the north wing will be removed and the south wing will stay. MR. HODGE-And it so happens that the hill is coming down from the northwest. So it disappears under the house before it actually gets to that wall. I mean, in a way it sort of works out in our favor. So you’re able to walk on, you know, a level floor along that wall that we’re going to keep and then, as you’re standing looking north, the ledge comes out of the floor toward those walls. So, you know, the blasting will happen, you know, at a reasonable distance, controllable distance away from that wall. MR. DEAN-It’s still not very far, though. It’s still within four feet of where there’s an existing foundation wall. MR. JARRETT-The client will need to put the champagne glasses away. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the garage? I mean, you have ledge within three feet of the current garage wall. MR. HODGE-A lot of the water is coming from the garage, the existing garage. MR. JARRETT-That rock, at the garage, is feeding in to the main structure right now. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re going to have to blast that rock back to add the garage addition as well. MR. HODGE-That’s correct. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. JARRETT-That’s the impetus for the project is to get that water controlled at that structure. MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of risk is there in blasting to neighboring wells and septics and things of that nature? MR. JARRETT-Years ago there was fairly significant danger. Now with the blast, the charges they use and the charges they would use here, and the covering, it’s very minimal. Not, it can happen, but it’s not the risk that it used to be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEAN-I think especially probably in this case, though, just because like she’s asking the proximity of the house, I mean, it’s going to have to be, as they call them, staged charges with a smaller separated. MR. JARRETT-Closer spacing on the. MR. HUNSINGER-Some of us were there Saturday for site visits. Maybe we could go back to the water garden, stormwater controls. Just off the driveway there’s a catch basin, and then down by the dock there’s actually a pipe, discharge pipe. MR. JARRETT-That will all be eliminated. MR. HUNSINGER-Are those connected? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So right now all the runoff coming off the driveway is basically going untreated right into the lake? MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. JARRETT-There’s actually catch basins up along that swale to the south of the driveway as well. Everything is running directly to the lake very quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. HODGE-Virtually no stormwater management. MR. JARRETT-So we’re eliminating that entire system and putting in this instead. MR. SIPP-What’s that white PVC coming out of the ground? MR. TRAVER-That’s what he’s talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I just asked. MR. JARRETT-That’s one of the drains. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s coming off the driveway. Just as we feared. Yes. MR. JARRETT-It’s not a good situation. That’s why we’re proposing this whole new design. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if you could just take a minute. I’m having trouble grasping this whole thing. Just run through how the stormwater is going to be managed. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Maybe I should go to the, can we go back to the site drawing with this. The north side of the house essentially is going to be, the stormwater from this side of the house, the roofs, will be picked up via a swale here, routed around the front of the house, and into infiltration systems here along the front of the house, as are the roofs in this area of the house. This is the corner where there was questionable depth of soil, and so we moved our infiltration systems to this corner. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have the three feet, then. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The entire inner corner of the house, and all the driveway here, is going to be picked up and routed into the new sand filter system which is essentially right here at the edge of the driveway. I think it’s right here. Okay, and then that filter system runs into these rain gardens, terraced down the slope, and eventually, if the rain falls hard enough, it’ll overflow and go through the landscaping to the lake. In minor storms it’ll just soak into the ground, weep through the berms or evaporate, or transpire with the vegetation. This system back here, we’re now providing a new divide in the site. Drainage to the south, I’ll call it the west, will go back toward 9L and not go directly toward the lake as it does now. So I don’t know if I’ve confused you or helped you. MR. SEGULJIC-Helped. MR. FORD-Helped a lot. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. SIPP-That would slope from 9L? MR. JARRETT-It’s sloping from 9L down to the beginning of our leaching system, but at our leaching system we can reverse grade from approximately this point and go back toward a new stormwater basin right at the back side of our leaching system. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to get captured there? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We’re trying to reverse as much flow as we can, get it away from the lake, get it back on site. MR. SEGULJIC-So the driveway and the parking area is going to go into that sand filter? MR. JARRETT-Yes. The driveway from approximately this area here, plus this entire apron will go into that sand filter. MR. SEGULJIC-And the sand filter is an area of sand that it filters through? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then it’s going to come out the bottom? MR. JARRETT-It comes out the bottom and goes into this rain garden terraced system. MR. SEGULJIC-Now do they have to ever change that sand? MR. JARRETT-They have to, at worst case scenario you scrap the top few inches off and some of the very intense treatment lagoons you scrap off six inches or a foot. MR. SEGULJIC-So is this just under a lid or something? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then what’s the stormwater control like during construction? MR. JARRETT-In addition to the barriers that are along the lakeshore, that’s our primary control, our barriers, sediment barriers along the lakeshore. We’ve talked about some stormwater control during the excavation of this north wing, and what we plan to do is pump out of this excavation, once it’s blasted, into a sediment bag in the parking lot or into a stilling basin, what’s called a stilling basin, it would be constructed here in advance of our terraced rain garden, as well as additional barriers here. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s not included in these plans, or did I miss something? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. JARRETT-The barriers are all on the plans. We have not detailed the stormwater system as far as the sediment bag, the silt sack that would be in the parking lot. We’ve not detailed that. MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon my ignorance, but could you just, which plan is it on, the silt fences you’re talking about? Because I didn’t see those. MR. JARRETT-Drawing C-2 is what I’m told it’s on. You’ll notice a number of barriers toward the lakeshore. Actually double barriers. Notice there are redundant barriers, two barriers back to back. MR. SEGULJIC-Now is part of this proposal also to do the docks? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. HODGE-No, not this proposal. MR. JARRETT-We’ve disclosed that last time that we’ll be back with another application for those at some future point. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s a concern, because on the plans they show the docks reconfigured. If we approve the plan, are we also approving the? MR. HODGE-No, we’re not asking you to approve that. MR. JARRETT-We could either remove it or put a condition on there that it’s not an approved. MR. HILTON-Yes, I mean, you can specify a condition that says you’re not approving those and that they have to return for Site Plan Review. MR. JARRETT-We just wanted you to be clear on what the intent of the overall project would be ultimately. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarify for me what we’re doing tonight? Aren’t we doing a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. HILTON-I believe so. MR. JARRETT-If you would like. You certainly can approve the entire project. In lieu of that, we’d like a recommendation to the ZBA. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re looking for a recommendation to the ZBA, and you’re going to go to the ZBA. See it’s such an efficient process. So you’re going to go to the ZBA and get their approval and then come back to us. So we get a second shot at you. MR. HUNSINGER-So all we’re doing is making a recommendation to the ZBA this evening. Is that correct? MR. SEGULJIC-On the variance for the 100 foot, I guess, could you run down the variances? MR. JARRETT-Several of the variances have been removed, as a result of our modifications to the project. We’re looking for an overall modification of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. That’s for the storage on the garage, not within the shoreline setback. The setback variances to the corners of the structure have been removed. We’re no longer asking for variances there. Okay, and then remaining are variances to the stormwater devices which do not meet the 100 foot separation to the lake. Essentially it’s the infiltration. MR. SEGULJIC-The 100 foot setback for the infiltration, and then you said that the, what’s the other variance that you need? MR. FORD-The garage. MR. JARRETT-There were originally three structure variances. Two of them were setback variances, and one of them was a modification of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, we still have that one. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HODGE-Which includes taking down part of the building and re-building it. That’s a variance, so that’s ZBA. MR. JARRETT-So that variance remains. The two setback variances go away. MR. SEGULJIC-The first variance you mentioned the, just clarify, I’m confused. MR. JARRETT-Maybe I should have George clarify it. MR. HILTON-The expansion is within a certain setback, and it requires a setback variance, as I understand it, from the shoreline, and so there’s a shoreline variance. MR. JARRETT-It’s a nonconforming structure because of the shoreline setback. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HODGE-Because it straddles the setback line. MR. HILTON-So the upper expansion. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s within 50 feet of the lake? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re looking for the variance. MR. JARRETT-And since we’re modifying the structure, and it’s nonconforming, it requires a variance. MR. HILTON-Because they’re going upwards and violating that setback. MR. HODGE-It’s just modifying a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. MR. JARRETT-Any time you modify a nonconforming structure, you’ve got to come in to the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-It has to go to the ZBA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you said there was a third one? MR. JARRETT-That’s the only structure variance we need. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Okay, and then we need the setbacks to the infiltration devices, those variances. We listed them as two. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s the 100 foot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HODGE-Correct. MR. FORD-The garage came in? MR. JARRETT-The garage is not within the shoreline setback. So technically itself doesn’t need a variance. It just becomes part of that modification of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. MR. SIPP-If you’re going to re-do your landscaping, I’ve got some items here which are not part of the recommendation by the Lake George Association, and I’ve documented with their brochure and the list of acceptable plans, plus the fact that these buffer strips are, we would like to see them at 15 feet wide. MR. JARRETT-Ours is going to be equal to that or more. We’re basically re-vegetating the entire waterfront. All the lawn on the waterfront is going away. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SIPP-But it’s not 15 feet wide, and it includes some plants which are not recommended. I’ve got them right here. I’ve got them all marked off, the ones that are okay and the ones that are not. MR. JARRETT-Not on our list? Okay. We’ll be glad to review those. MR. SIPP-On the back of that is the Lake George Association brochure and then another list. MR. JARRETT-And these are not on our plant list? MR. SIPP-Some of them are and some of them aren’t. I’ve never heard of one of those. MR. JARRETT-Okay. We will give this to our landscape designer and have him review it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anymore questions, comments from the Board? We did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? I think by now you kind of know the drill. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Hello. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I’m passing out a photo not of this site or I don’t want to confuse you, but it’s regarding a situation we’ve come across, across the lake. Regarding the potential impact of projects to the lake, recent experience around the lake has indicated that more attention should be provided to impacts which can occur during construction, especially when blasting is involved. Engineered plans are presented to mitigate runoff during post-development conditions, but there’s nothing in the plans to address the sediment and runoff which is collected in large areas where blasting has occurred. For example, please refer to the photos which I’m passing out of a large project in Bolton where substantial blasting occurred and captured sediment runoff and subsequent rain events resulted in impacts to the lake. Basically, I’m not saying that the blasting will be to that magnitude, but when we have an engineered plan, that looks good at post construction, I think, and blasting is involved, we have to take a look at what disturbance, what bedrock is going to be exposed and how we’ll capture that runoff during. So I encourage the Board to ask the applicant about estimates on the amount of blasting to occur and the area and depth to be removed, and also to consider temporary sediment basins during construction. We also would like to say that we’ve been working with Mr. Jarrett on the stormwater design, I think, you know, making good strides on the bio-retention and the rain garden. So we’re encouraged on that. So thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I’m a little confused, and I’m going to ask for clarification from Staff. If all we’re doing is making recommendation to the ZBA, there’s no reason to leave the public hearing open, if there’s no additional public comment. I mean, when we do Site Plan Review, we’ll have a separate notice for public hearing. There’ll be a separate public hearing, correct? MR. HILTON-My understanding is that this is part of the beginning of reviewing that application, and although you can’t act on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Counsel’s saying leave it open as well. MR. FULLER-I think the dilemma that you’re in, and I think the applicant hit on it, is they’ve applied for site plan, and correct me if I’m wrong, I haven’t seen the full application. You’ve applied for site plan approval. It also triggered variances. So before the Planning Board can take final action, the ZBA needs to take final action on those variances. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-But the ZBA wants to know of your recommendation on the variances beforehand, so it technically is in for Site Plan Review right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. FULLER-So you could issue those recommendations on the variance side, leave open your public hearing on the Site Plan side, and deal with it after the ZBA acts. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and we would do SEQRA later as well. MR. FULLER-It’s Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. That’s right. Okay. MR. FULLER-Not that environmental issues are off the table. We’ve said that numerous times. It’s just procedure purposes, that review’s done. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will leave the public hearing open. Did you have any comments based on the public comments? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’ve been working with Chris regarding stormwater management and the concerns he has with blasting during construction, and some of the proposals I mentioned earlier were as a result of discussions with Chris. We’d be glad to enumerate those in writing to you, and I think it will allay a lot of your fears. The project we are working on is vastly less in magnitude than what you see in those photos. I’m familiar with that project in Bolton, and our project is probably on the order of two to six hundred cubic yards of blasting, 200 being the best case scenario, 600 being our estimate of worst case scenario, and the project in Bolton is, you know, magnitudes above that, and there was a problem due to inattention by the contractors on site, and we plan to take steps to make sure that doesn’t happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And we’ll enumerate that to you in writing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-When you come back next time, I’d like to see the details on that as well as your buffering along the lake. MR. JARRETT-The buffering on the lake we have detailed, but what we’ll do is take Mr. Sipp’s comments under consideration and maybe modify it if we need to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to offer a recommendation to the ZBA? On this application anyway. The three, again, the three variance requirements are the 100 foot setback for stormwater, modifications to a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, and then setbacks for the infiltration devices. MR. JARRETT-If it helps, the ZBA was specifically asking for help with the stormwater. They were not obviously asking for help with the nonconforming structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-That’s their purview. MR. FULLER-The one thing I would say, from comments, having been at the ZBA meetings, too, is the better your discussion on that point, the better for them. They like to see your thoughts on what they’ve referred it over to with some detail, some discussion of, versus just a, we like the stormwater. What do you want? What do you think they need to focus on when they go through their variance from a Site Plan perspective. MR. SEGULJIC-What other options have you looked at? MR. JARRETT-For stormwater management? MR. SEGULJIC-Getting it 100 feet away? MR. JARRETT-There’s no way to get it 100 feet away. We wouldn’t be able to provide stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-Because then you’d have to pump it. MR. JARRETT-Technically that’s illegal in the basin. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So you’ve designed it as far back as you could. That’s what you’re saying? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And how far from the lake is it, like 40 feet? MR. JARRETT-The roof runoff in front of the house is approximately that distance, maybe a little less than that. The stormwater on the south side of the house where really it’s the most intense stormwater system, it deals with the driveway runoff, is more than 40 feet. I think we’ve got that listed. MR. HODGE-It’s over 50 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Refresh my memory. You have two infiltrators in front of the house. They drain the roof again, correct? MR. JARRETT-Essentially the roof and the drainage to the north side of the garage, which is just woodland landscaping in that area, but basically roof runoff. MR. SEGULJIC-So in theory there’s no activity, there’s no cars, there’s just roof runoff? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. SEGULJIC-And on the one side it’s going to be running over the ground anyway and that’s going to be a grass swale. On the non-driveway side. MR. JARRETT-The north side of the house? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the north side. MR. JARRETT-That’s all vegetated swale. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all vegetated swale. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense to add a sand filter in there? MR. JARRETT-I don’t have the depth to be able to do that there. We’ve got bedrock underneath. On the south side, I have the ability to put that sand filter in because I have depth, and I’m dealing with dirty water, basically contaminated water off the driveway on the south side, and that’s where I wanted the treatment, the sand filter. MR. SEGULJIC-And you have the three feet to put an infiltrator in? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I don’t see what else we can do. MR. TRAVER-It certainly is an improvement over what’s there now. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an improvement. MR. FORD-And Chris has been directly involved with you, in dialogue, design, review and so forth? MR. JARRETT-Dialogue, yes. I should let him respond to that, but I feel yes. MR. FORD-Input. Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-It’s a work in progress. MR. JARRETT-That’s the design, not me he’s referring to. MR. SEGULJIC-In the motion, should we give a reason for our recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I guess it sounds like you’d prefer us to be as specific as possible. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-From what I’ve seen, I mean, once again, it’s not an ideal situation, but it looks like they’re doing what they can with what they have. It’s definitely an improvement over what they had before. MR. JARRETT-Now that you’ve seen the site, I think you see what we’re trying to do to improve it, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. It’s definitely an improvement. To me it’s a big thing that we’re acknowledging that you’re having the infiltration within 100 feet and you have to get a variance or a waiver for that. That’s a big step. MR. FORD-Agreed. MR. SEGULJIC-So with that, I’ll make a recommendation. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THEY GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE 100 FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF INFILTRATION OF STORMWATER WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE LAKE, DUE TO THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND THE FACT THAT IT’S A DESIGN THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE INTENDED RESULTS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder if perhaps we should add some commentary about maybe the Zoning Board would get this information or not, that currently the stormwater is going right into the lake untreated. So if we could somehow make sure that they understand that. MR. FULLER-Yes. Hopefully they’ll get these minutes. MR. FORD-Yes, they want the minutes. MR. HODGE-We’re on the docket for them next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-No, December. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. JARRETT-We’ll see you soon. MR. FULLER-One follow up on that, you’ve got to table the Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-To what date? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know if we pick a date, do we? MR. JARRETT-We’d prefer late next month after the ZBA meeting, if the timing works. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be for a meeting in December? MR. JARRETT-If it can be worked out. MR. TRAVER-Can you meet the submission deadline? MR. FORD-You’ve already missed the submission deadline. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. JARRETT-We don’t really have anything to submit except the clarification of the stormwater management during construction, which I can do within a few days, and the plantings that we’ll look at for the lakeshore. MR. FULLER-I guess just not re-noticing the public hearing and that kind of stuff, you should table it over to a date. MR. HUNSINGER-To a specific date. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2007 MATTHEW EMMENS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Tabled to the first meeting in January, January 15, with an application deadline of th December 15. To include construction, stormwater controls, enhanced landscaping plan. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FULLER-Do you want to include those changes you had talked about with the landscaping and I forget what the other one. MR. SEGULJIC-Construction stormwater controls. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-See you in January. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2006 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WHALEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A, RR-5A LOCATION STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 40.37 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.15 TO 27.56 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PREL. APPROVAL: 9/25/07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 40.37 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279-1-57 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize. I would have put you guys earlier. After I had called up the last applicant, I saw you sitting there and I was like, we should have moved this up first, because I think it’s probably the shortest item on the agenda tonight. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Jack Whalen, and Mr. Whalen is here on my right, and Tom Nace, the project engineer, is here on the left. We are here for Final approval of a small subdivision on the south side of Route 149. I’ve seen the engineering comments that they’re satisfied. I’ve seen Staff comments. They raised only one issue, and that was whether or not you should approve it subject to the Chairman signing it after we either have an APA permit or a letter of non-jurisdiction. I have a little issue with that. Basically, the Town of Queensbury has an approved subdivision, Zoning Ordinance with the APA, and my understanding is that you do not need to submit subdivisions to them for non-jurisdiction determinations based upon that. Also, and I’m not sure if Staff has it or not, but we have an e-mail from Mary O’Dell, and I don’t know if you have it. It was th dated November 15, and it’s from Mary O’Dell to Matt Steves at Van Dusen and Steves, and it says “Re: Whalen Wetlands Map Matt: I have reviewed the survey may you provided for the Whalen property in the Town of Queensbury, Tax Map Parcel 279-1-57. The wetlands are accurately depicted on the survey map. I will send out a hard copy of the map with my signature for verification today. Thanks. Mary” Mary O’Dell is the Biologist for the APA, and basically my understanding is, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the only time that the APA does exercise jurisdiction on subdivisions in the Town of 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) Queensbury is if the applicant is trying to subdivide a wetland, and if you look at the subdivision map, the wetland is depicted all as being on one lot. In fact, there was a great gyration to make sure that that happened so that they didn’t become involved with the jurisdiction. So I don’t think we will need, this, basically, is a signoff by the APA, from my understanding of the Town of Queensbury rules, because we have an approved subdivision, or approved zoning map or zoning plan with the APA, but I think we’ve satisfied the Staff’s comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-I, too, believe that it’s probably not jurisdictional. It was my understanding, in making the comment, that even though the Town has an approved land use plan, that the APA can and will issue a jurisdictional determination. I would expect that that would come back non-jurisdictional. So I made the comment that just a copy of that or verification that be provided. I don’t know. I can’t speak to, again, it was my understanding, that’s my impression that even though we have an approved land use plan, that those determinations are still made, so I didn’t see it as a huge deal to just verify that or have the APA slip a letter in the file that says non-jurisdictional, but I agree that it more than likely is not jurisdictional. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s an expense involved with filing even the non-jurisdictional. I don’t know, typically the filing is half an inch thick. I don’t think they have a specific non- jurisdictional application for towns where they’ve done zoning approvals, but you have to show the history of the property since 1973. You show all kinds of irrelevant things, and they do come back and say it’s non-jurisdictional. It costs the applicant $750, probably at a minimum. MR. TRAVER-Can we just get something from them in writing saying that the application is not necessary? MR. O'CONNOR-They will not give you that. They will not give that to you. We filed a subdivision map, and that’s all we have to do, and when she signs off on the map coming back, she’s basically indicating that she doesn’t have jurisdiction. The only thing that triggers jurisdiction in the Town of Queensbury is if we’re subdividing a wetland or if we’re in a scenic river, and I don’t think we’re in a scenic river. I’ve done subdivisions on the, well, the Hudson River is the only river, and actually their jurisdiction doesn’t start until the greenway. It starts up by the water plant, and I did Hudson Pointe, which was below that. So I can’t really say that that’s one where we didn’t even have to do that. Again, you’re getting into this third party jurisdiction. We’re asking for your approval, under your regulations, and I think we’re just creating issues for people that we don’t need to create. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to comment on this item? MR. FULLER-Yes. I think, George and I were just talking about it. The wetland is the big, would be the big issue. If you’re not subdividing the wetland, I was just flipping through the Class A and B Regional. What’s the land use right there? MR. O'CONNOR-The classification? MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s moderate. So I think, best case scenario, it’s B, and it’s not subdivision involving a wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask George if, you know, having this e-mail and having that gives you a comfort level. MR. NACE-I can also provide him a copy of, this is the original, but I can provide him a copy of this, the map which is signed, with the wetland delineated. MR. O'CONNOR-I called, when I saw the Staff Notes today, I called and tried to get somebody to do something else, but everybody’s gone for the holiday, or at least that was the impression I got when I asked for different people. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-I was just trying to get some level of verification. I guess if the Board’s comfortable with the fact that they’ve seen it as part of their wetlands review, I don’t have a problem with it. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m not trying to put you on the spot or anything. MR. FULLER-No. The applicant’s point is well taken. If you try to get them to answer that question, the response is file the NJ, or the J. It just is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-It’s a big thick document that has a lot of unnecessary information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you want a copy of that wetland delineation map? MR. HILTON-We do have it on the map, and we have a copy of the e-mail that was just passed out. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you already have that? MR. HILTON-We’re all set. MRS. STEFFAN-So you don’t need anything. So we’re good to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone okay? MRS. STEFFAN-SEQRA was done. MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA was done. Public hearing was closed. MRS. STEFFAN-And so I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2006 JOHN WHALEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared. There are no conditions attached to this approval. th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Question. That deals with the CEA on the map. I’m confused because. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s on there, I think. We don’t know why it’s there, though. It shows the Lake George CEA. MR. NACE-This little piece in here is outside the CEA. That’s inside the CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-But on this map it looks like the whole thing is in the CEA. MR. HUNSINGER-So this part is in. MR. NACE-It looks funny with the arrows there, but this piece is a (lost word) in the overall CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Does anybody know why? This doesn’t look like it’s by elevation. It doesn’t look like. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it certainly doesn’t look like an elevation. Is it like the floodplain map? MR. HILTON-Their hard copy mapping is what it is, and if there are any questions, I can only point anyone to that. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. Have a nice holiday. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Now you’re all set. Thank you, gentlemen. Happy Thanksgiving. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want me to come back next month, or whenever I’m coming back on that prior application, with two different alternatives, one the three systems for the three individual units, and one for this major collective system? And the other question is, does it make a difference if we do the three individual systems because we’ve got good soil for them and do a collective system for the other ones? MR. SEGULJIC-What I would do is turn to your engineer and say what are your thoughts? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I asked the engineer, and the engineer said he’s probably more satisfied with the three individual systems, and I said, yes, but everybody keeps sending us to this collective system. MRS. BRUNO-Which engineer said that, Dan? MR. O'CONNOR-No, Tom. MRS. BRUNO-Tom said the three individuals? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Those three units, you know, those three units the soil is decent, and maybe that puts off, if you’ve got a real concern with the fact that they’re going to put effluent up there, even if gets treated through the three feet of soil or whatever it is, and then contributes to the groundwater, it puts it off, and the Town does something about the groundwater, or stormwater. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s why I think we ought to get the Town involved. MR. FORD-That’s why I wanted a workshop session. MR. SIPP-Because our new Highway Superintendent ought to be ready to, even if works with Warren County Soil and Water. MR. O'CONNOR-They were up there. MR. SIPP-They were there? MR. O'CONNOR-They’ve been up there. MR. SIPP-Well, you know, they can rough out a plan for him. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t mean to prolong, but the individual applicant really doesn’t have the wherewithal to force these people to come to the table, and it’s not really fair to the individual applicant to wait around until everybody gets their act together. MR. SEGULJIC-My perspective is just I’d like to hear our engineer say Takundewide’s not contributing to this issue. MRS. STEFFAN-We, I don’t think we should be having this conversation, folks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was kind of thinking the same thing, because the applicant, well, I mean, his representative’s here, but the public is no longer here. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of the problem, though, Chris, with our system is trading letters doesn’t get you solutions. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know if you’re that much busier than you used to be, but we used to have better dialogue and better solutions. I mean, nobody likes to work by ambush, and you get the engineering report the same time we get it, Staff gets it. We come up with a resolution or come up with an answer. It doesn’t work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. O'CONNOR-But I mean I’m trying to figure out what to bring to you. I never have had somebody who says that they won’t do what they’re told to do. The biggest problem here is finding out what they’re supposed to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think there’s any harm in you giving us an alternative solution. MR. FORD-In fact, I encourage that. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess what I’m saying specifically is, you know, the three individual systems. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The issue with that is always, you know, I could sit here and be very quiet and make a lot more money than I do by simply keeping the wheels spinning. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-I feel very frustrated, though, and I think part of the service that I offer, or that I should offer, is to do it as cheaply and as economically as I possibly can, and not waste money on alternatives that are not going to be even looked at, and I can’t beg the question. I don’t mean to beg the question, but I’m very conscious of how much it now costs people. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, it’s unfortunate because we’re dealing with an existing situation that calls for, perhaps, extraordinary efforts to address, you know, all of the context of the stormwater and all of these things that we’ve been talking about. That’s the real problem. MR. FORD-Like multiple concerns. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they’re interactive, that’s the thing. MR. FULLER-I don’t want to prolong it. I just don’t want you to get a backlash from some of the neighbors that we kind of talked about that. That’s all I’m worried about, both from your perspective and the Board’s. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll tell you guys, I went to Bolton last night, and I don’t say this. MR. SIPP-Is that the one that was 10 feet from the lake? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the one was saw the pictures of, right? MR. O'CONNOR-No, 40 feet from the lake, it’s a probably 6,000 square foot main house, 4,000 square foot guest house and probably a 2,000 square foot garage. MR. TRAVER-Is that the one that has a lot of blasting associated with it? MR. O'CONNOR-No. No blasting, but Bolton now has an ordinance that says that you can build on the existing footprint, as long as you don’t enlarge or expand. Well, they got tired of some people getting it and some people not getting it, and they finally said we’re going to treat everybody the same. I was going in on one of those last night. I was totally surprised that that’s their ordinance, and that’s as much frontage on the lake as we’ve got. In fact, Bolton has jurisdiction, and I don’t agree with John Salvador, but Bolton actually has jurisdiction of the docks in Queensbury. MR. FULLER-Let’s not go there. MR. O'CONNOR-Some day in court somebody’s going to prove that. MR. SEGULJIC-Have a good Thanksgiving. MR. O'CONNOR-This should not be an adversarial type proposition. It should be what’s good for the applicant and good for the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. I had a couple of things for the Board to at least think about, if we don’t want to deliberate them this evening. The first one is I think everyone saw the e-mail from John Strough on the CEA Ordinance, proposed CEA Ordinance. I know, you know, several members have been very active on that. He has asked that the Planning Board consider that Ordinance and get comments back. I just want to put it out to the Board on how you want to handle that. You do have the draft. So I don’t need to pass 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) that along. The other item is December meetings. As we mentioned earlier, our normal th meeting date would be December 25. So the question is do we want to have that th meeting on the 20, which is the Thursday before? Do we want to have a second meeting in December? And then the final item is there was a challenge made on the Schermerhorn Residential Holdings. The project may or may not be considered by the ZBA. There was a challenge made of the Zoning Administrator’s ruling. So the th proposed meeting on December 6 may not happen. It might be put off. The Zoning Administrator ruled that office is, by definition, within the Professional Office zone. MR. FULLER-I just want to be clear on that. He didn’t rule on that. He just rendered a clarification to a letter that John Salvador had written. The challenge that has been brought on that is that they’re saying that that is a ruling. The applicant came out today and said, no, actually, he rendered a ruling back in August when he originally said, here’s what the project needs to have to go forward. It needs Site Plan Review, needs these variances. Other than that, it’s allowed. So that’s why I just don’t want us going on the record saying that he ruled in October or November it was, because the applicant has put forth a Statute of Limitations argument. He rendered a determination actually in August. Sixty days ran on that, and that this new challenge by a few people does not give them another bite at the apple. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other right now on that for you. That’s their argument. MR. HUNSINGER-So my understanding is that the Zoning Board, tomorrow evening, will consider whether or not they want to hear the argument. MR. FULLER-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-And I think on that note, I did talk to the Chairman, and the likely outcome is that, in order to hear whether or not that 60 days has run, they’ll need to have a hearing. That probably isn’t a determination they can make tomorrow night. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-So in any event, it’s likely that tomorrow, if the applicant wants to start to hear, to continue the variances that were on before, it can do that, continue that process, or, what’s likely to happen is, that variance will get tabled, the ZBA will have its hearing thth on the 12 on the challenge, potentially on the 12, on the challenge. So, in any event, th it’s going to impact that meeting on the 6. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and again, the meeting on the 6 was just a proposed meeting. MR. HILTON-Right, and ultimately the applicant, in a letter we received today, has thth requested that that meeting scheduled for the 6 be rescheduled to the 13. They also stated they’d be happy to notify residents within 500 feet, pay for that, and provide, I guess, return receipts to indicate that they’ve noticed everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, you gave me a copy of the letter. I didn’t get a chance to read it. MR. HILTON-Right, but ultimately they have requested, they, the applicant has thth requested that that December 6 meeting be rescheduled to the 13. th MR. HUNSINGER-Be rescheduled to the 13. MR. HILTON-But that’s for your consideration. MR. TRAVER-On the issue of December meetings, why don’t we have three in January? We’d have a lighter load for December, but still take care of business? th MR. HILTON-Well, to give you my two cents, we have, if we’re looking at December 18 th as the first meeting and December 20 as the potential second date, and if you also th consider the 13, with all that, assuming all of that, we’d still have six or seven items that are on a bump list that are already January, including, or not including, but in addition to that, we now have the three that you tabled this evening to January. January is likely to be a very heavy month. I guess if you’re asking for our two cents, we would say th Thursday the 20. I know it’s two meetings in one week, but you get everything done before Christmas. You don’t have to worry about scheduling dates after the holidays or between Christmas and New Years, and you’re kind of not frontloading everything or 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) impacting January’s agenda as much as you may if you only have one meeting in December. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, we don’t have to decide tonight. We can decide next Tuesday. MR. HILTON-Yes, on that definitely. MR. TRAVER-In any case, it sounds like they might want to consider, if the two regular meetings in January are that lengthy an agenda, maybe we should consider having a third anyway, just so that we’re not up at the wee hours and we can, you know, do a better job of considering the applications before us. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we need to do a workshop in January. I think we should have a workshop in January and kind of regroup, because I think all of us are feeling kind of out, I’m going to speak for myself. I’m just feeling out of control like we need to get a better handle on what’s going on. We’ve visited, in the couple of years I’ve been on the Board, actually I don’t even know how many years now, we’ve changed things. We’ve changed agenda items. We’ve changed meeting structure. We’ve changed lots of things over time, and I think we need to have a workshop and regroup and identify what works for us, what order we want to do things. MR. FORD-And January would be an appropriate time to do that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. George? MR. HILTON-That’s fine, as far as the second meeting. I guess I want to go back to the thth request to table, having the meeting date changed from the 6 to the 13. If that’s the Board’s intent to grant that request, I would, I guess, suggest that you guys kind of act on that pretty quickly, only because, well not only, but primarily because if there is going to be notification to the neighbors, we’d like to get that going as soon as possible, and not leave the neighbors with the impression that it was a last minute decision and have similar comments, comments made that were similar to the last time that, this is a last minute decision. Why did you leave us hanging? That’s my only concern as far as the Schermerhorn request. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, again, I think the tabling resolution was vague, you know, and it was a proposed date, so, you know, I don’t have a problem in changing it to th the 13, unless members of the Board have strong feelings. It’s still a Thursday. MR. HILTON-Yes, and that’s ultimately your decision. I’ve obviously requested and you have to, as a group, decide, but I’m just. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree with you. We should let the applicant know. ththth MR. FORD-So we’re looking at 13, 18, and 20? th MR. HUNSINGER-Potentially. The 13 is just the Schermerhorn project. MRS. BRUNO-Any reason given? thth MR. TRAVER-For the movement from the 6 to the 13? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the pending ZBA hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’ve got some issues with the ZBA. MR. FULLER-Yes. I mean, hypothetically speaking here if the ZBA upheld the challenge thth on the 12 and reversed the Zoning Administrator, that meeting for the 13 doesn’t happen, because now they need a Use Variance. MR. TRAVER-Right, but it sounds more likely, based on the comments that I’ve heard, that that won’t happen. MR. FULLER-I don’t know. I don’t know one way or the other. MR. TRAVER-Right, but, okay. MR. FULLER-It could go either way. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-The other option, I mean, we’ve already heard, literally, as much public testimony on that project as we could possibly hear. I mean, there’s not going to be anything new for the public to comment on. The other option is to just have two meetings, have that be an agenda item on one of the two meetings. That’s another option, and just limit public hearing and limit public comment to new items and leave it at that, and I’m comfortable doing that because we sat through two and a half hours of testimony, twice. MR. FORD-And it is being called out and given very special treatment, but if we put it in as an agenda item on a regular meeting, I like that, rather than one more example of special treatment. MR. TRAVER-Although the public hearing is still currently open on that, though. MR. HUNSINGER-It is, absolutely. Yes. I mean, we’ll take public comment, but we’ll just say, you know, public comment will be limited to new information, and I would feel comfortable in summarizing what the comments were, up front. MR. TRAVER-Maybe you can make them available. MR. HUNSINGER-And just say if there’s anything new that the public wishes to add, we’ll consider it, but if you’re just going to reiterate the same items that we’ve already heard. MR. TRAVER-That’s real difficult to control, through. MR. HUNSINGER-It is, but, I mean, I have no problems doing that. MR. TRAVER-It could help. MR. HUNSINGER-Or, I mean, we can, I mean, I don’t want to close the public hearing, but. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And we certainly want to respect the public’s right to speak. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s a great idea. We’ll have two dates. th MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So we’ll hear it on the 20. MR. SEGULJIC-What days are the meetings, then? thth MR. HUNSINGER-The 18 and the 20. thth MR. FORD-The 18 or the 20. MR. HILTON-Based on what I’m hearing, you’re going to move your second regularly th scheduled meeting to the 20. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we’ll hear Schermerhorn on the 20. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then as far as John Strough’s request, we’ll discuss that next week? Is that what we’re going to do? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, when you say discuss it, do you want to discuss the ordinance, or just how we want to handle it as a Board? MR. SEGULJIC-How we’re going to handle that as a Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I just wanted to clarify, so people will know what to prepare. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess a question for George. What’s the status of the Meadowbrook study? Do we know? 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad you brought it up. MR. SEGULJIC-What about the blue Karner butterfly? Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. That’s been on hiatus for a while is my understanding. I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-And the Meadowbrook? MR. HILTON-I don’t know about that. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you check on that and let us know next week? MR. HILTON-I can check I can let you know. MR. SEGULJIC-And the third thing was the Rockhurst wastewater district? Because all these reports you hear about being done and they just go into like a black hole. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think we ever got a copy of the new adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. FORD-Absolutely not. MR. SEGULJIC-When was that? MRS. STEFFAN-Many months ago. MR. HILTON-I can pass that on to Stu. He’s been working with that. MR. FULLER-When we took over, I don’t know that past people who reviewed that had looked at whether or not the special district, currently under New York law, can be formed for that purpose. That was never, somebody glazed over that. So that had to be looked at from a State legislative standpoint. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the wastewater district. MR. FULLER-Septic Maintenance District, (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-George, I don’t know if anybody else wants it. I’d like a copy of the Sign Ordinance for the Town, please. It needs some tweaking. MR. TRAVER-That could be a subject for a workshop in itself. MR. FULLER-I had one last thing. There was an application, I don’t know that it’s been on since I’ve been here, but Seaboyer application, project up at the lake. There was a condition that the Planning Board had put on that that they needed to go back to the Town Board with regard to the wastewater, and what happened is Craig had put that in a letter to the applicant saying, listen, it still can’t go forward because you still need to go back to the Town Board with that. The applicant, in turn, appealed that to the ZBA, as a determination of his. The ZBA upheld him. I had recommended, and I had talked to Craig about it that I would talk to you guys about it, I think the applicant is concerned with that condition. I think they went about it the wrong way. It wasn’t that they, it wasn’t Craig’s determination that they had to go back to the Town Board. It was your condition that they had to go back to the Town Board. What I had said to Craig is, if they want to change that condition, and discuss that with you, they should come back to you. I’ll throw that out to you. Because what I’m hearing is that there’s an Article 78 coming on that ZBA determination, which I think is ridiculous because it wasn’t Craig’s determination. It was your determination that he simply restated in a letter. So if you want, if it’s your, if you guys would approve that to say, okay, Craig, yes, this can come back on an agenda for the applicant to come back and talk to us about that condition. I don’t have any recommendation about that condition one way or another, but it seems to me that the resolution for the applicant is not suing on a determination that Craig didn’t make. It’s coming back to you to ask whether or not you’ll reconsider that condition. From what I’m hearing, circumstances, things may have changed in the interim. I guess they went to the Department of Health, got an approval for an alternate system. They don’t think they need to go back to the Town Board now. MR. FORD-Well, was it the Town Board, or the Town Board acting as the Board of Health? 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MR. FULLER-It was the New York State Department of Health that approved that alternate system. The applicant’s, I guess, argument is. MR. FORD-But what have we done? We have sent them to the Town Board acting as the Board of Health, or as the Town Board? MR. SIPP-As the Board of Health. MR. FULLER-As the Board of Health. I think what they’re saying is we don’t think we need to do that now. Can we get before the Planning Board to talk about that? MR. FORD-Bring them. MR. FULLER-I think that’s all Craig needs to hear. MR. TRAVER-Put them on the agenda with Schermerhorn. th MRS. BRUNO-Yes, on the 20. th MR. TRAVER-Yes, put it on December 20, the Schermerhorn. MR. SEGULJIC-One last question. Irish Bay, where is that now? I had heard rumors that they were going to drop it. MR. HILTON-I don’t know about that. There was some ZBA activity, I think, going on with that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they were waiting for something from the Zoning Board, right? MR. HILTON-Zoning Administrator determinations, additional variances, I’m not entirely sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So as far as you know, it’s still winding? MR. HILTON-Still. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s still out there. MR. FULLER-Where is the application tomorrow night for Schermerhorn? They needed variances. Okay. Craig, in his determination in August, said you need Area Variances because of the CEA I think is the big one. So they were going for Area Variances. MRS. BRUNO-They weren’t going for the parking? MR. FULLER-Whatever the variances were in the past. That’s where it is now, as of tomorrow night. In the interim, Mr. Salvador had sent a letter, and it said it here, too, I think, that there’s no definition of office building. This doesn’t meet the Professional Office zoning. So he sent a letter to Craig on that. Craig replied to his answer just saying, no, this is what it is, and so now what they’ve done is some people have brought forth a challenge saying that that was another determination, and they’re challenging that th determination. That appeal is going to be heard some time in December. I think the 12 was the date that was thrown out in letters. So, the Area Variance tomorrow may very well get held up on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination, which came after the variance was filed. It’s an interesting procedural aspect, but that’s the likely outcome, I think, for tomorrow, in which case, if the ZBA overturned the Zoning Administrator, said that that was not an allowed office, it’s stopped for the time being until that gets resolved, court or otherwise, and then it would be held up here indefinitely. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. MR. FULLER-But the applicant came back today with that letter saying, listen, we think it’s barred by the 60 day Statute of Limitations asking the ZBA to rule on that tomorrow. The problem with that is, procedurally, the ZBA needs to have a hearing to permit the people the opportunity to be heard on whether or not they’re going to get bounced on the Statute of Limitations. That’s going to come as part of the review of that appeal on the th 12. They can’t do that tomorrow night. The applicant has the ability to offer any defenses it thinks it has to that determination, as does Craig. The Zoning Administrator can offer that as well. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/20/07) MRS. BRUNO-And the Zoning Board will come back. MR. SIPP-Please read this document, because if it passes you’re going to be under the jurisdiction of what’s in here, and if you don’t understand something, talk to John, e-mail him. MR. HUNSINGER-This is the CEA Ordinance. MR. SIPP-He sent this out last week or the week before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There was a huge mailing, but all the Planning Board members were included. MRS. BRUNO-I’ll go back through my mail. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you need it, e-mail me and I’ll send it to you. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. SIPP-It gets complicated and you’ve got to understand what’s in here because it’s going to mean a lot more work for the Planning Board if this does pass. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thanks, Don. If there’s no more business, a motion to adjourn is always in order. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 71