Loading...
2008.03.11(Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-2007 Redbud Development 2. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 2. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38 Site Plan No. 59-2007 Katharine Seelye 2. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-10 Site Plan No. 3-2008 Joyce Massiano 4. Freshwater Wetlands Tax Map No. 266.1-1-10, 11 Permit No. 3-2008 Site Plan No. 43-2007 Takundewide HOA 16. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-13 Site Plan No. 63-2007 Keith & Pam Harris 27. Tax Map No. 265-1-32 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 2/26/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO DONALD SIPP MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. SEGULJIC-A few orders of business before we get into the agenda. Help me out with this, Stu. So, for Brian McCall and K. Seelye are requested tablings, and also Redbud? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-To any specific dates? th AUDIENCE MEMBER-Redbud the letter says the 15 of April, but I got an e-mail from thnd them today that says on the 15 they’re not available. It would have to be the 22. MR. BAKER-And we have a letter to that effect as well from Jon Lapper, received this morning. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now how about Brian McCall and K. Seelye? MR. BAKER-Yes. Hang on one moment, please. Bear with me for a moment, and I’ll have those letters. I’m at a technological standstill, but we do indeed have tabling requests from them. I will pull those up and give you requested dates if they had any. MR. SEGULJIC-In a minute? MR. BAKER-Hopefully. MR. TRAVER-Are you looking for the e-mail? MR. BAKER-Yes, the e-mail summary. MR. TRAVER-I used my old-fashioned printer. MR. BAKER-Thank you. Let’s see. McCall is requesting a tabling to the earliest time available. Seelye is requesting being tabled to a future meeting, no specific date. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, the next question is, how does April look? MR. BAKER-April is booked. Well, I mean, we haven’t set the agendas yet, but we certainly have enough applications waiting in the wings. You can table these to April, and that will just push others back. I would recommend tabling them to April. MR. SEGULJIC-To April? MR. BAKER-Yes. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Just one motion for all of them, or individual motions? MS. RADNER-Individual motions. MR. SEGULJIC-Individual motions. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, Redbud Development’s the first one on the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) REDBUD DEV. OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS AT THE SHORE OF LAKE GEORGE, BLUE STONE PATIOS, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FILLING/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-92, AV 59-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-4-020 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: nd At the request of the applicant, to the April 22 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver. Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 SEQR TYPE II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S) ALBERT MUGRACE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF THREE WORK BAYS & STORAGE FOR TIRE WAREHOUSE. AUTO REPAIR AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV -07, SV 59-01, SP 44-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 0.58 ACRES 0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-39, 38 SECTION MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th At the applicant’s request, to the April 15 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 11 day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger SITE PLAN NO. 59-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 14 CROOKED TREE DRIVE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 110 SQ. FT. STONE TERRACE AREA AND IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THAT ALONG WITH INSTALLATION OF SHORELINE ROCK AND INSTALLATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHORELINE PLANTING. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 17-03, SP 22-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10 SECTION 179-6- 060 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2007 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th On a request from the applicant, tabled to the April 15 Planning Board meeting. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then we have VMJR. MRS. STEFFAN-VMJR. I believe that they had asked for a special meeting, but I think because it was postponed, it actually is the first item on the Planning Board agenda for th March 18. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. They are, however, asking for a special meeting on top of that. They understand that they were tabled to that. They are asking for a special meeting in addition to that regularly scheduled meeting. MR. TRAVER-In addition to? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, would that be in March or in April? MR. BAKER-That’s at the discretion of the Board at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-I think at this point, with three meetings in March, we should probably look at an April meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-So they still want to come before us in March and then have a special meeting in April, just to clarify? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, what’s the availability look like in April? MR. BAKER-I would need to confirm with the Activity Center staff, but we have plenty of time to set a date and meet the noticing requirements. I will look into that tomorrow and get back to the Board and confirm we can get a quorum of the Board for whatever dates are available. MR. SEGULJIC-And then we can do that next week, then, our next regular meeting. MR. BAKER-The next regular meeting is next week. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So I believe that takes care of the special issues we have. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Didn’t we have to consider Lead Agency Status? th MRS. STEFFAN-We did that at the February 18 meeting, the Lead Agency Status. MRS. BRUNO-For VMJR? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We had decided on our next meeting, which got postponed twice, we were supposed to deal with the special meeting request. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, the next item on the agenda, then, is Takundewide. Now, we asked for Mr. Ryan to be present, and he is not here yet, correct? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So we will hold off on that for now and go to the next item. Is he aware he’s supposed to show up tonight? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. BAKER-He is. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then we will move on to the next item on the agenda which is Keith and Pam Harris. MRS. STEFFAN-Who I don’t believe are here yet. MR. BAKER-All the applicants were notified of the multiple changes in date of this meeting. We did not hear, to my knowledge, from the. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, he does not appear to be here for now. MR. BAKER-We do have correspondence from their agent, but I don’t recall a tabling th request. Yes. We have information they had submitted on March 7, but it was not, did not include a tabling request. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll just move on to the application for Joyce Massiano. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOYCE MASSIANO AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1743 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND, WHICH REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETALNDS PERMIT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECTS IN THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN. WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC LG CEA LOT SIZE 3.14 ACRES, 3.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-10, 11 SECTION MIKE O’CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t have an engineer. He’s supposed to be coming. He thought it was going to take a little bit longer to get to that application. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So your engineer would be Tom Nace, I assume? MR. O'CONNOR- Yes, and I think Tom Center is coming. Basically I think we have engineering comments that they have responded. Do you want to open it up? MR. SEGULJIC-Sure. Please. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor representing the applicant. With me is Matt Cifone and I presume shortly Tom Center from Nace Engineering. My understanding of this is that they have submitted the plans. There was an engineering review of it. Tom Nace has responded to the engineering review, but I don’t know if that has been sent on to the engineer at this point. Here’s Mr. Center. Good. th MR. BAKER-We have a transmittal from our office to Dan Ryan of February 26, in which we forwarded engineering responses, which I believe was the original meeting date. MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, this is here because of the Freshwater Permit, then? MR. CENTER-Because of more than 15,000 square feet of disturbance and because we’re doing disturbance within, the new rules, within 100 feet. We’re not doing any disturbance closer than 50 feet, but under the new Wetland Regulations, anything, any disturbance within 100 feet I believe has to come before you for Site Plan Review. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CENTER-So there’s kind of two fold, plus we are in the Lake George drainage basin. So that kicks in Site Plan Review, I guess. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I guess for clarification, the Lake George drainage basin, nor 147 requires that you be here. I think it’s just a Freshwater Wetlands. Correct? I think that’s right. MR. BAKER-I didn’t hear all that. I’m sorry. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-The fact that they’re in a Lake George CEA and the fact that they’re subject to stormwater under 147 doesn’t drive them here. It’s the Freshwater Wetlands issue. MR. BAKER-No. They’re also here because they are considered a major stormwater application. So it’s the wetlands issue and the major stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. The floor is yours. MR. CENTER-Would you like me to go over the Staff and engineering comments in th regards to that, my response letter dated the 25 of February. Do you have our th response letter of February 25? th MRS. STEFFAN-No, the last comment we have is February 16 from VISION Engineering. We don’t have your response letter. MR. CENTER-Okay. We did respond to Staff comments and VISION Engineering. The first Staff comment, I believe, was in regards to the APA wetlands. We were in contact with the APA. Mark Rookes did provide us with the photo, aerial delineation that’s on the drawing, and that also is provided in the initial submission packet. We were able to take that and overlay that onto our drawing for the wetland delineation. We are more than 50 feet, I believe. Right now the disturbance shown there is 83 feet. Even though it says 50 foot minimum, we have 83 feet of separation from the wetland delineation that Mr. Rookes provided us with and the disturbance that’s shown in the, near the Ridge Road, at the bottom basin, just before you get to the road. We’re not doing any work that would require an APA permit. We are not doing any disturbance in the wetland. We’re staying away from them. So there was no need for an APA permit. The applicant does intend, Number Two on the Staff comments, the applicant does intend to merge the two parcels together, if approval of the project. So we have no problem if that’s a condition of the approval. Number Three, which is in regards to the engineering comments, the first engineering comment, again, it answers the question initially that I think we just talked about was the 15,000 square feet of disturbance requires Site Plan Review. The area of disturbance is right about one acre, just under an acre. So we will be filing a Notice of Intent for the DEC, and we have also provided Drawing Two. I don’t know if you have that packet. That’s the resubmission in response to the engineering comments. We have re-submitted a drawing, Number Two, in regards to erosion and sediment control. We moved some details around, but we have provided an erosion and sediment control to answer Mr. Ryan’s comments in regards to that, and to satisfy the NOI requirements. We did revise the stormwater management report and included some hydro cad calculations in response to VISION Engineering’s comments, and we did reduce the runoff rate and the volume going off site. Number Four, we’ve provided additional dimensions for the rain gardens, the crushed stone bedding for those rain gardens for what’s coming off the roofs of the house in response to VISION Engineering’s comment, and we also plan on utilizing the Lake George Association’s, or Cornell’s rain garden planting list, approved plants to use in those rain gardens. Number Five, we added a detail for a Schedule 40 PVC sleeve under the driveway for the effluent line coming out of the septic tank to the distribution box, in that area. That was a request by the engineer. We removed a miscellaneous note that was no longer needed. Number Seven, just to clarify that roof drains will be utilized to convey roof runoff to the rain gardens. We’ve added a note detailing the roof drains, and we’ve also provided a proposed plan for that, for the engineer to review. Number Eight, we changed the stone weir in the, there was some question in regards to the stone weir and the grass line swale depression. We’ve actually changed that to an overflow area with erosion control matting. It’ll be much easier for the owner to maintain, be able to mow, be able to keep that down, as opposed to stone, and I did have a conversation with the engineer in regards to these comments before submitting them. We also added a note stating that foundation drain was going to be provided, and daylighted from the house, and Number Eleven, we added a note detailing maintenance procedures in the stormwater management report for permanent stormwater controls, in response to the engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-You also submitted a Long Form. MR. CENTER-And also, I know initially, it wasn’t brought up in the pre-submission conference, but we did submit a Long Form EAF in case it was required. We weren’t sure. We were unsure initially filing it, but after some consultation, I don’t know if it’s included with, if you did receive that, in case we wanted go over that. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MRS. STEFFAN-We got that one. MR. O'CONNOR-If it’s major enough to require that. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we can, but typically we haven’t. So, any questions from the Board? MR. SIPP-Yes. On this rain garden detail, now I don’t know, is what you’re talking about, but the roof drain runs directly into the rain garden, right? MR. CENTER-The roof drains do go directly into the rain garden, yes. MR. SIPP-Yes, then there’s a crushed stone encased in geo fabric filter. MR. CENTER-Yes. In order to, something in talking with the contractor, bringing the roof drains out into the rain gardens, instead of having them come to daylight so they don’t freeze, bringing them out to a crushed stone and will allow them to get out and into the basin. MR. SIPP-You said you enlarged these rain gardens. MR. CENTER-We showed dimensions. He wanted width and length dimensions. So it would be clearly noted for the size and depth of the rain garden, and also I increased the detail for the stone. I added a dimension for the stone. MR. SIPP-Because I think he questioned whether the size was big enough to handle the roof. MR. CENTER-Right, and we discussed that in our meeting, that the stone isn’t, per se, for volume calculations. The volume is actually in the pond, the width and depth of the pond. The stone is more of a medium to allow the water to come from the house and into the pond. MR. SIPP-Yes. You’re on a pretty steep grade there from the house to go from 112, or about, down to 107, and 30 feet. How much of the surface is going to run into this pond. MR. CENTER-Yes. How much from the surface? Well, once it’s grass lawn, I don’t think you’re going to see, you know, it’s going to be a grass maintained lawn. The only thing that’s not going to be maintained as grass is going to be the pond itself, which will be the rain garden detail. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a list of plants for the? MR. CENTER-Yes, sir. We will use, the Lake George Association was mentioned. I couldn’t get a copy of those, but I did also, we got some information from a seminar. Cornell has put out a list of plants, and those will be the ones that will be chosen for the garden. To make it work properly, those are the plants, and we’ll work with the homeowner to allow them to, you know, pick the plants that they’re looking for. MR. SIPP-How much filling are you going to have to do to get this house up high enough? MR. CENTER-I think some of it is going to be, you know, what’s used for the foundation. We’ll be taking out some of it for the foundation. The ponds are going to need to be, some of them are depressions, built into the existing grade. Some of them are built up, depending, as we get closer to the road, it’s more of a built up style. So there will be some fill brought in. Exact calculations, I don’t think we’ve actually come up with any exact calculations, but. MR. SIPP-That’s not going to change your finished floor in the basement? MR. CENTER-No. Actually, we are raising the house, so that we have some separation to that seasonal high groundwater, but we’re putting the foundation drain in to protect. MR. SIPP-Well, where will the drainage from the basement exit? What are you going to do with that? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. CENTER-It’ll have to daylight, follow a general path, either out the front or to the rear, away from either the stormwater detention or the septic system. MR. SIPP-Your basement would be. MR. CENTER-The basement elevation is going to be 105. MR. SIPP-105. MR. CENTER-So, you know, we could come straight out the back, you know, it does drop away in the back of the parcel, following the existing flow, and again, we’re going to be built up, and I don’t necessarily think the mottling groundwater issue here, again, is more of a bindery condition than, this house is going to sit up on top of a hill. It’s more of a boundary layer where the soil starts to change to a silty sand. So, you know, we won’t be seeing an area. We’re not like in a level or low spot where we’d be getting groundwater and trying to get it away from the house. This is more of a boundary condition. MR. SIPP-How many bedrooms is this house? MR. CENTER-I believe it is four. It’s designed for a four bedroom house. MR. SIPP-Is that septic system big enough? MR. CENTER-Yes, sir. The septic system is sized with 100% replacement to the north. MRS. BRUNO-Were you able to locate where the well was for the northern neighbor? MR. CENTER-The northern neighbor? I believe we’re more than 100 feet from any of those. We’re 100 feet from the wetland, and I believe his well is on the further side of the parcel. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Yes. He’d have to have it right up against the boundary. MR. CENTER-Yes, and again, I think we’re, from going out there, that the wetland was closer than anything. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. CENTER-And that’s actually further than 100 feet, as shown on here. I know the ad says 100 foot minimum, but we’re about 120 feet from the wetland. MR. O'CONNOR-The back line on that parcel is probably over twice. There’s two little squiggles there. If you look at it, it’s actually 343 feet, and probably by scale what’s shown there is 112 feet. MR. CENTER-So there’s, in order to fit it on the page, the back part of the parcel was broken, the back lines. MR. O'CONNOR-The lot goes out quite a ways in the back. MR. SIPP-On the map I have, I have no scale. There’s one inch equals 40 feet. MR. CENTER-Yes, sir, one inch equals 40 feet. MRS. BRUNO-Don, you might be looking at the bottom for the detail. MR. CENTER-If you look at those grass line and depression, it’s not to scale, but just above the lands now and formerly of Harris, you see where it says planned, right underneath that, by the legend, just to the right of where it says Legend, it’s one inch equals 40. MR. FORD-What is the depth at which the roof drain enters the rain garden? MR. CENTER-The depth at which it enters the rain garden? I believe it’s just a foot and a half below grade. Just enough to get cover over it. We’re going to be down about approximately two feet, because it does, you know, the hill goes up as we’re coming into it. So the actual cover will be approximately two feet, you know, positive drainage into that stone. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-My question was mainly along the stormwater. It looks like you’ve addressed all those, but we haven’t seen that information. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s been submitted to the engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s been submitted. Okay. How is the stormwater under the driveway going to be handled? MR. CENTER-The stormwater under the driveway, the driveway is pitched to the north, so that the stormwater will go through the grass side slope for filtering, and then travel, be captured in a swale, and down into the detention ponds along the edge of the road which in turn. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s one right along Ridge Road, then? MR. CENTER-Yes. There’s one right along Ridge Road, but our off site going to the swale along Ridge Road is less than currently what flows down directly into the wetland currently. If you were to look at it as a single sub catchment, everything flows down that parcel from that area, straight to, for the 25 year storm, what we capture, detain and outlet is less than the existing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, another thing, and it’s more of an administrative thing, this is actually two lots, there’s two lots that are getting merged? When I look at the Site Plan, I’m not seeing that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We said we will merge the two lots. MR. CENTER-And we’ve listed it as two lots. There’s a lot line that you can see coming up, you know, we’ve merged it on this drawing, on what we’ve submitted since they aren’t merged yet. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I can’t match them up on here as to what’s happening, between here and here. MRS. BRUNO-You took a partial of another one, right, not the whole? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s just a partial, not the whole? MRS. BRUNO-I think so. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That explains it, then. You just took a partial, all right, and on your stormwater permit, on Page Two of Three, I believe, where you have total area of land disturbance, you have 12,479. That should be 40,170 I think. MR. CENTER-I believe what happened with that is we were using the actual road and house and when configuring, talking with the engineer, we had to add in all disturbance, including. So we have modified the stormwater permit or Freshwater Wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now, I guess, we have the engineer sitting out there. Is it okay if we ask him to come up and answer the questions, because allegedly he got information? MR. BAKER-Certainly. MR. SEGULJIC-Certainly. MR. BAKER-He’s here, if he’s prepared to answer them. I guess, before we do that, does anyone else have any questions at all? Is everyone okay with doing that? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan, for the record. Yes, because of the multiple delays with this meeting, they had submitted some additional information. I contacted Craig Brown to see if he wanted me to review it, and since the meeting was delayed, he said to go ahead and review the subsequent information, okay. I didn’t write a formal signoff or any kind of response to my subsequent review, but, in talking, in reviewing the information and talking with Mr. Center, it did appear that most of these items, if not all of them, had been addressed on the updated, revised documents that I received, okay. He did submit, and I can go through these one by one here, if you want to. He did state that he’s going to apply for a New York State DEC permit. Number Two, he did submit a stormwater report helping to indicate the compliance with that section. The other information regarding construction entrance, they are going to propose a construction entrance. I don’t know if you have seen that now or not. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have the information. MR. RYAN-You don’t have it. So I’ll go through these, so that you know what I’ve seen versus what was here. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. RYAN-Number Four, additional information regarding the rain garden, he did provide additional dimensional data that I requested, and also included in the stormwater report the requirements of that volume storage. Number Five, the Schedule 40 pipe, they did alter that particular specification. Number Six was an infiltration trench, there was erroneous data that was deleted. Roof plan. Basically they’ve shown the gutters. They are going to gutter this roof system, and each of the gutters will have leaders that will actually drain to the various rain gardens that are shown, or detention basins. Number Eight, the stone weir detail, that’s been altered to a grass lined spillway, and that information has been provided. Number Nine, this is for grass swale, which one’s this? For the depressions, okay, and in particular along the driveway, okay. So those dimensions have been added to the plans. Number Ten, foundation drainage. I believe they’ve noted a perimeter drain with daylight. That’s on there, and also maintenance procedures for permanent stormwater devices. That was addressed in the stormwater report. I think that’s it, as far as what I’ve seen on the revised plans. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the only other thing was the erosion during the construction. MR. RYAN-Erosion and sediment control notes. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. That’s been addressed, then? MR. RYAN-Let me see here. As part of Question Number One, related to the total site disturbance, because they’re required to get a DEC permit, they did add the appropriate information for SWPPP requirements on here. So those notes in general cover erosion and sediment control maintenance and SWPPP requirements, and those were added on Sheet Two, which you don’t have. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how about the 147-10 requirements, erosion control? MR. RYAN-Specifically? I don’t have that in front of me. MR. SEGULJIC-Areas that have been cleared may be made or left devoid of growing vegetation for more than 24 hours without a protective covering securely placed over the entire area and/or erosion control measures properly installed to prevent sediments from entering the water body. MR. RYAN-He’s got notes here, of course I didn’t memorize anything here, but if this is in fact the same drawing that I’ve reviewed, and it appears to be, they’ve got four erosion and sediment control notes basically indicating sediment traps be installed prior to any clearing and grubbing, barriered areas shall be seeded and mulch as soon as possible, and swales and ditches to incorporate matting and netting and seed and mulch. Complying with guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control. MR. SEGULJIC-It also says any area of land from which natural vegetation cover has been either partially or wholly cleared or removed by development activities shall be re- vegetated within 10 days after substantial completion of such clearing and construction. MR. RYAN-Okay. I don’t see that note here. So I guess we would want to recommend that we add that. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other thing is ground clearing or grading activities which occurring during the period October 15 to April 15, during which germination of vegetation, you have to have enhanced control. So the 147-10. I guess, how does everyone feel about this applicant? What would you like to do? I think, personally I think I’m fine with going ahead with the condition and moving forward. Do you concur with that? I don’t see a need to table this at all. MR. SIPP-Yes. I’d like to see a landscaping plan, with plants identified. MR. CENTER-If you would like to use this to put the conditions it. This is Cornell’s, it’s a foldout, on rain gardens. We can specify in there that this is the approved plant list. MS. RADNER-You have a public hearing. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry about that. I got ahead of myself. MS. RADNER-Mr. Baker’s put up a picture of the two lots that are involved. It’s my understanding that these aren’t being subdivided, correct? These are the two that are going to be merged? MR. O'CONNOR-No, that’s how they exist now is two separate lots. They will be merged with one perimeter deed. MS. RADNER-Perfect. MRS. STEFFAN-That second parcel will not be altered in any way? It just looks a little shorter on the plan. MR. CENTER-This is the full parcel. It’s where we cut it at the top end, where we’re not doing anything, towards the far end. MR. O'CONNOR-On your plan, before you see the squiggles at the end, that’s the way the surveyors say that that line is actually longer than shown. MR. CENTER-The dimensions are there. MRS. STEFFAN-I learned something new today. MR. BAKER-What you’re seeing on the screen, keep in mind, is the assessment map representation. MR. O'CONNOR-Gretchen, you often miss that when you’re looking at the map, though. You say to yourself, what’s going on. MR. FORD-Yes, I understand that. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have any other questions at all, before I open up the public hearing? Anyone here to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEITH HARRIS MR. HARRIS-I just wanted to, I don’t know if they’re here, are they here because of wetlands? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MS. RADNER-You need to identify yourself on the record. MR. HARRIS-My name’s Keith Harris, and we excavated those wetlands out like 30 years ago for a pond. It’s not really it’s wetlands. That’s something that we did 30 years ago. So, if it’ll help these people at all, it’s not natural wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. HARRIS-We had a farm there and that was actually a pond that’s filled in. MR. SIPP-Was there an intermittent stream? MR. HARRIS-There was a minute, minute spring, probably maybe a foot wide, and we took an excavator, because we had a lot of cattle there that we were trying to get water for. So it’s not a natural wetlands. So I don’t know why they’re here, but maybe somebody determined it was, but I just figured you ought to know that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-Did the pond fill in or was it filled in? MR. HARRIS-Yes. It all filled in, erosion. I own the land, actually, around this. MR. FORD-It filled in naturally you’re saying? Thank you. MR. HARRIS-Off the mountains. It’s just, it’s all sediment, and we had a pond there, you know, I was very young at the time, probably 10, 13 years old, but it was rather deep, 10, 15 feet deep. So it’s not natural wetlands. So I don’t know who determined it was, but maybe they made a mistake. MR. SIPP-Well, the contour map shows an intermittent stream coming out of the. MR. HARRIS-There is. There’s a little stream, and we actually, I don’t know if these guys have been down there, but there’s a natural well we put in, too, it’s still there. MS. RADNER-For purposes of your review, it’s not necessarily dispositive if it’s a natural wetland or if it’s just a man-made wetland that’s there existing, because it can still support animals and habitat regardless of whether it was man-made or natural. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anyone else who’d like to comment? MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we did receive one letter on this application. This is from Chris Navitsky, the Lake George Water Keeper, dated March 11, 2008. “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: I’ve reviewed the submission regarding the above referenced Site Plan application. I would like to apologize that I am unable to attend to present these comments in person, due to a conflict, but would like the following to be placed into the record. 1. Based on the level of disturbance proposed, the Planning Board should require a major stormwater management project design. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin.” MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else? MR. BAKER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, I get the sense that we’re okay in going forward with this. Is that what I’m, with some conditions? MR. FORD-Absolutely. MR. BAKER-You do have SEQRA to do as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Do I close the public hearing now or afterwards? MS. RADNER-Close the public hearing. Do your SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-We’ll do SEQRA, and then we’ll talk about the conditions. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and we’re going to do the Long Form, I guess. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because that’s what they submitted. Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate? Can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I only got one no on that. MRS. BRUNO-Wouldn’t that be a yes, just because? MRS. STEFFAN-The examples, proposed action would change floodwater flows. Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So, no. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MRS. BRUNO-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. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. FORD-No. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. SP 3-2008 & FWW 3-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOYCE MASSIANO, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So with that, who would like to make a motion? Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m going to assume that Dan Ryan is going to ensure, if we do go with a VISION Engineering signoff, that those notations will be made, the 147-10 notations? MS. RADNER-So you’re conditioning it upon engineering signoff? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MS. RADNER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now do we have to do approvals separately, the Site Plan and then the Freshwater Wetlands, or can we approve those together? MS. RADNER-You do them each separate. MR. SEGULJIC-Does it matter which one gets the conditions? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MS. RADNER-Probably. MR. SEGULJIC-The Site Plan? MS. RADNER-Well, typically it would be related to the Site Plan. If there’s a condition that’s related to the stormwater, then you could condition that as well. If, for example, you need engineer approval of stormwater management plan, then it would be a condition of that plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So we just do them on the Site Plan. Okay. MS. RADNER-Okay. Stu’s telling me the way that they’ve got it set up for you they do have it as one. It’s concurrent. So you can do a single resolution. MR. BAKER-Yes, you can approve them concurrently. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-2008 JOYCE MASSIANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home that includes disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland, which requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit. Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board is also required for major stormwater projects in the Lake George Basin. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/26/08, 3/11/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and N/A 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and N/A 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-2008 JOYCE MASSIANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and it is approved with the following two conditions. 1) That the applicant will obtain VISION Engineering signoff 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) 2)That the applicant will provide proof or documentation that the two lots owned by the applicant have been merged into one lot prior to the issuance of the building permit. th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We’ll go back to Takundewide, then. 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 FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE MASTER PLAN ADOPTED 3/23/03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/8/07 APA/CEA/DEC LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 18.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-13 SECTION 179-4-020 MIKE O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The table is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor. I represent the applicant here. With me is Bill Mason and Tom Hutchins. I think the last time we were together, we adjourned it, or tabled it with the idea that there would be a joint meeting with the Town Board to discuss some global approach to stormwater and our proposal to do on site waste treatment. MR. FORD-Good recollection. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Since then we have submitted complete plans for either three individual septics for the three cabins that obtained the Area Variances last year, and we have completed the filing for the roof, is that what we call it, the central wastewater system for the eight units, and we basically are saying we would build either. You tell us what you want us to build. I’ve been told that since we met the Town Board discussed this and decided that they would take steps that would take care of the stormwater and that they would take care of the stormwater issues from the area, separate and distinct from our application, and they told us to proceed. I don’t know if Craig left a letter to that effect or we’ve talked a couple of different times about making sure something was in the file, but Dan Ryan is here, and maybe you would want him to speak, as opposed to us speaking for him. Unless you have questions of us at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-Any questions? Would you like to have Mr. Ryan come up. MR. RYAN-Okay. I do have a letter from, well, it’s an e-mail from Craig Brown, and it was addressed to the Chairman and Board members. This was on 1/23/08. Basically, and you can have my copy if you need it. I’m assuming everybody received the e-mail at some point, but basically as a summary, and Craig did attend that meeting, as well as Mike Travis, the Highway Superintendent, and that was a workshop meeting with the Town Board members, in particular related to stormwater problems on Hillman. Basically, I described to them in summary the same stormwater issues that I personally witnessed and observed on site, and testified to that at the last time I spoke here regarding this application. In summary, you know, to keep this short, basically we reviewed those items. We do feel that there’s a possible, or at least a couple of alternatives that would help to solve the problems of contamination of the lake and stormwater and the combination of leach field effluent getting into the stormwater system that’s currently existing. So what we’d be proposing to do is to eliminate or separate the two options, where the stormwater collection system would be an enclosed system with catch basins and culverts, thereby removing the existing drywells which allow that 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) contaminated groundwater to enter into the storm sewer which ultimately discharges to Lake George. So by enclosing the system and not allowing groundwater seepage into it, we would, in effect, prevent or reduce any possibility of contamination in Lake George. So the Town Board in this letter is, again, from Craig Brown, if you want, I can read a couple of statements, but it basically says that it was agreed upon the Town Board that proposed infrastructure improvements that were discussed would progress through the design stage and plan for construction during late summer to early fall of this year. So that’s basically the current game plan to address stormwater conditions that were stated by the local neighbors. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. You said the leach field effluent is currently getting into the stormwater. MR. RYAN-Well, basically, let’s go back a step. During this application and some of the public testimony, there was concern, by residents, of contaminated lake with coliforms. Based on the testing that was done, and this was, I believe, I’m going off memory, 1994, with high coliform counts, that was related to a specific septic failure nearby. I’m not aware of any particular testing done since that particular failure, and it was very evident there was a septic failure nearby at that time. I think the Water Keeper did send me some information, but it was all related to that particular incident. I personally tested the storm drains a couple of months ago myself, and sent them to the Water Department for testing, and they came out with coliforms in the normal range. I believe during ’94 when the incident occurred, the coliform counts were 2000 per 100 milliliters. My results came back at I think they were 20. So it could be something from a ditch, you know, really more of a typical stream bed or a ditch line, you know line ditch could be anything, really. So the results, right now, are showing that there really isn’t the contamination levels that have occurred historically and particularly to that event that happened in ’94, but the theory being that as some of these older individual systems fail, we could have a recurrence of that problem that happened back then, and, you know, which obviously is a health risk, so, in doing this project, and in closing the stormwater system, not only can we improve the stormwater conveyance, which you saw ponding and they did show a video that had some flooding issues locally, that most of those problems are related to conveying that water with proper grading and slopes to the storm system, and we’re also possibly looking into installing some kind of sand chamber filter underground, some kind of structure that would also treat stormwater, not just avoid, you know, separate the two issues. So that’s kind of what the game plan is at this point, without having any further information. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you say eliminate the drywells? Are those the ones on Hillman Road, then, you’re going to eliminate? MR. RYAN-Yes. Basically, instead of having catch basins, they’re perforated pipes that connect the culverts. So if groundwater was to come up, or there was to be a septic failure that would contaminate groundwater or surface water, all that obviously runs in, and potentially if it is groundwater that’s contaminated, could seep into the drywell. Instead of water seeping out of the drywell, when the high water table comes up, it’s the reverse of that. MR. SIPP-Now this would prevent salt, oil. MR. RYAN-Well, we would install catch basins with sumps. This would help trap sediments, salts, whatever else, you know, debris, and then a sand filter chamber would essentially filter, we would try to design it for a regular current so it would filter that stormwater before entering the lake with an overflow for an extreme condition, obviously. We’ve got a little bit of homework to do because we’re not sure of the right of ways, if it’s a Town road, if it’s a right of use road. We’ve got to see who owns what, and in order to determine how we can handle and implement this. MR. SIPP-It’ll be a vast improvement over what’s there. MR. RYAN-Yes. I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-And this would be installed along Hillman Road? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s where the work would be done. The work would not be done in Takundewide. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. RYAN-Yes. Basically, well, the culvert’s at the western end of Hillman where it turns and there’s a “Y”. That’s where the existing system starts and then heads towards the southwest. We would be looking at improving Hillman drainage and the end part where the actual basins are now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RYAN-I’m not sure there’ll be an entirely installed culvert system, but, you know, we’d probably improve drainage overall while we’re doing it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the other issue is the proposed individual systems or the community system. What are your thoughts? MR. RYAN-I did read the letter from DEC. I’m probably more along the same lines as them. In my opinion, this application, and the community system in particular, complies with all the regulations, is within all standard practice and engineering practice. The reason these guidelines are in place is because there’s a long history, which attests to their proper function, and, you know, I think I stated the last time that these soils aren’t the best soils, but they aren’t the worst soils either. Conventional absorption systems are allowed for any perc rate up to 60 minutes per inch. We’re only half that. So, again, we’re not the worst soils imaginable. I think the system’s been scrutinized by enough people to say that it, you know, again, complies with all the standard practice. My opinion, personally, is that, you know, farther from the lake is probably going to be a better solution than closer to the lake. I have done lots of research to see the benefits of being farther from the lake, and it is evident that, even though we’re not specifically removing, doing extra removals for phosphorus or nitrogen, the farther from any source that you’re protecting, the better, and a lot of the research does state that anything between 100 to 500 feet does have added benefits of removing phosphorus and nitrogen. So, with that belief, I think that’s probably the better option. MR. SEGULJIC-The community system? MR. RYAN-The community system farther from the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone have any questions? MR. FORD-Thank you very much, Dan. That’s been extremely helpful. MR. RYAN-Yes, sure, and if you guys need a copy, I can e-mail this to you or send it to you for the record, because I don’t know if I have another copy. This is the Craig Brown. He’s probably got it as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is there still a public hearing with this? MR. BAKER-Yes, there is. There is also an Unlisted SEQRA to do as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RYAN-Do you need me? I can just sit off to the side? MRS. STEFFAN-You have two comments in your. MR. SEGULJIC-On the next application. MR. RYAN-Yes, I’ll stick around. MRS. STEFFAN-You also, Dan, Number Twelve in your letter of February 16th, you add consideration should be given to adding a few observation wells and reports in the vicinity of the community absorption field for monitoring. MR. RYAN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And then also for method of monitoring water usage for the community septic participants. This would help minimize the risk of overuse of leach field, and then third, the yearly maintenance plan should include a site walk around the proposed absorption field. We could make those conditions. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. RYAN-Yes, basically the last time you had requested that they add a recommendation that I made to the Board that they implement a maintenance plan, and I think everybody was on the same page with that. So they did submit some additional information, which that is reflected in that review here. So there were a couple of comments and suggestions, and I think, I don’t think anything’s here that they wouldn’t be willing to add. So I think as long as you incorporate that, or that they incorporate that on the final plans, you know, we would want to make sure that that happened. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the last point, Number Thirteen, we had some discussion during the last meeting to consider signage or other measure. We had talked about a fence, but I don’t think we came to a decision. I guess I’m looking for a recommendation. MR. RYAN-A permanent barrier is the best barrier. The concern I had is, being a community, people might think they’re going to wash their boats or, you know, you don’t know what’s going to happen, have family and friends that want to drive right up and load up a couch, you know, the preference is to just keep vehicles off this system entirely because the soils, again, are more sensitive to compression. So that would probably be, you know, I’ve seen large boulder type barriers. I’ve seen wood fences. It could be something as simple as large boulders, stacked so that a car couldn’t fit between them. MR. SEGULJIC-But isn’t the system going to be raised anyway, above? MR. RYAN-It is raised, but that, again, I don’t, you know, four wheelers, I mean, who knows what it could be, and that’s, just the point is, Number One, be watching out for that, and, Number Two, to prevent it, you know, preventative maintenance will help with that. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying some ways to make sure vehicles stay off of it. MR. RYAN-Yes. The reason for this is that there’s a driveway right next to it, you know, and any time you have an access road that promotes people to do crazy things with vehicles. MR. SEGULJIC-So just in that area. MR. RYAN-Yes. I’m thinking that end, and that’s really what my comment’s related to. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How about, I mean, people walking on it isn’t an issue, I assume. MR. RYAN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-It is kind of a berm, though. MR. RYAN-It is raised, and, you know, it would probably be difficult for a car to drive up on there, but again, having a road access right there, you know, I would just make a quick recommendation, it’s an inexpensive safety measure that I think would be important. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that, I guess, do you have questions for Mr. Ryan? MR. SIPP-I have a question. Can we approve this without the Lake George, Number One, without the Town Board giving permission for a Transportation Corporation? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that this just sends them off to get that finally approved. MR. RYAN-I think with this approval they would, you know, I can let these guys speak to that. MR. TRAVER-That’s going to be the next step, I think, following our approval. MS. RADNER-You can make it contingent upon their forming a transportation corporation. Mr. O’Connor’s had some experience with that before. They know the steps, and just make it a contingency of the plan if it’s approved. MR. SIPP-Will that also cover DEC? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MS. RADNER-DEC will be thrilled if you require them to form a transportation corporation. MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe you said you’ve got a letter from DEC. MR. O'CONNOR-DEC won’t approve this system without a transportation corporation approved by the Town Board, filed with the Secretary of State. That’s before they even give us permission to, although they may give us a letter saying we can begin construction if we show them that we’ve got that underway. MR. SIPP-Do you know if they’ve ever done this before? Have they ever done this before, the Town Board? MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve done it twice in the last year. MR. SIPP-So they understand the problems? MR. O'CONNOR-The Queensbury Town Board? I apologize. MR. SIPP-Yes. MS. RADNER-They’re well aware of the process, and they’ve done them before. Mr. Hafner from our office usually assists them with that. MR. SIPP-Okay. So they know that they would be responsible if something happened. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think they’re responsible in the first instance, but then they go back against each individual lot owner that’s a party to it, and that gives them actually the mechanics of being able to do that. We had one question, I guess, or I guess I had one question when I heard Mr. Ryan speaking. You’re talking about monitoring wells, and we haven’t specified any, have we? Are we talking one? Are we talking two? We ought to have it spelled out. MR. RYAN-With regards to Comments Twelve and Thirteen, I don’t have a problem with a couple of observation wells. That’s a good idea. As far as monitoring water usage, our pump station’s going to have run time meters on it, and you know the flow rate of the pump and you know how many hours the pumps run every time you log it. So you have water usage actually to the, you have flow to the field, how much that’s seen. So I think that covers that. In this seasonal, semi-seasonal application, individual water meters would be a pain in the neck, but we do have that covered with the run time meters, and sure, a site walk around of the proposed area, I didn’t put that in there. I think it’s kind of implied, but I can incorporate that into the maintenance plan that’s on there, and with regard to Comment 13, we weren’t really thinking signage. What Bill and I have discussed is basically a hedge along the side of that whole road, up to the parking area, so that no one would drive in that road and go onto the fields. MR. SEGULJIC-That probably would look a lot better, too. MR. RYAN-It would look a lot better than a sign, please stay off the absorption field. MR. SEGULJIC-Getting back to these observation wells, should we note where they’re going to be? I guess this is unusual. I don’t know, I don’t want to have to keep going back and forth. Maybe you could just come up and tell us. MR. CENTER-Basically, the purpose of these is to detect if there is a problem or there appears to be some sort of problem. It helps eliminate the fact that groundwater is or is not a component to that. Observation wells are commonly installed in sewage systems to monitor potentially high groundwater elevations, because there are severe conditions. I don’t think it’s a particular issue in this case, because we’re raising the system, and, you know, we have done many test pits and I’ve witnessed most of them. So, it is just, again, another, an extra precaution that if there did appear to be any sort of problem with the system, they could quickly and swiftly eliminate groundwater as a potential problem. If groundwater was abnormally high, we don’t want to contaminate it. So that gives them the option to shut it down until it subsides. MR. SEGULJIC-These monitoring wells will go outside the system or inside? MR. CENTER-It’s basically a pipe vertically in the ground, it’s basically an observation port so you can look down into the ground to see what level the groundwater might be at. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-But would they be installed in the field itself or outside? Just out of curiosity. MR. CENTER-Well, they’d be around the, either within the field or in the periphery, and there are guidelines, and I could certainly forward them on specifically how deep they normally would be and all that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we can just put that as a condition, Mr. Ryan’s approval. All right. Now, with that, I guess, is anyone here to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we still have to do SEQRA on this. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. BAKER-Yes, you do. MS. RADNER-Do you have any letters to read in from the public? MR. BAKER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Is everybody comfortable with going forward with this? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any other questions at all? MRS. STEFFAN-What kind of hedge do we want around the? MR. FORD-Honeysuckle. MR. SEGULJIC-Honeysuckle. Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-And now we have to do our SEQRA review. Is this Long Form or Short Form? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a Long Form. I don’t have the form with me, but with this magnitude, I’m sure it’s a Long Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Is this a Long Form? MS. RADNER-It’s a Short Form, I believe. MR. BAKER-It was a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, folks. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large? MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, mitigated by the Site Plan. MR. FORD-Small to moderate. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Mitigated by project change. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MRS. BRUNO-Well, that was my question on the previous application. MS. RADNER-Yes, it is okay to say, yes, it will have an effect. There will be a positive effect, and then you don’t have to go any further. MRS. STEFFAN-Do I hear, yes, it will have a positive effect? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. It will have a positive effect. Number Six, Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. SEGULJIC-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. SEGULJIC-It will have a positive effect. 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. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. SEGULJIC-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. 43-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: TAKUNDEWIDE HOA, 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. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) 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 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and with that, is anyone prepared to make a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We need to talk about conditions. That the applicant will obtain a VISION Engineering signoff after Item Twelve has been addressed. So I think the parts of Item Twelve are specific. I don’t think we have to list those. What do you think, Stu? As long as we identify Item Twelve, or do we have to break it out specifically for Bruce? MR. BAKER-I think the specific number of observation wells that you’d like you should specify. MR. O'CONNOR-Everybody at the table has said two, including Mr. Ryan. They’ve said a couple. MR. SEGULJIC-Two. Two is the number. MR. O'CONNOR-In most society’s, a couple is two. It may be changing. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is that, the other condition is a Honeysuckle hedge around the absorption field planted and maintained by the applicant. MR. RYAN-I think we were intending to look at near the road. That’s what we were talking about, around the entire periphery. MR. O'CONNOR-Bordering the road where it adjoins the septic system. MRS. BRUNO-Are those still dense enough in the winter, when the foliage is gone. BILL MASON MR. MASON-Yes. You can’t go through them, and I may put in a sign as well, but I don’t like, signs aren’t great. So it’ll have to be a small, tasteful one. The hedge works much better. MR. TRAVER-Is there any possibility of vehicle access other than from the road? MRS. STEFFAN-I was just going to say. MR. MASON-Excuse me? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. TRAVER-Access to the area where the community system will be, is there a way that a vehicle or an ATV or whatever could access the site other than from the hedge side? MR. MASON-It’s really that one road that everybody uses to get out on it. It’s hard to get to it from another area because you’re kind of going uphill and going through a lot of lawn to get there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, plus it’s elevated in itself. So, okay. MR. MASON-So it really isn’t a very good way to go any other direction. That’s the one, and if I block it, plus there’s an education factor. We’ve already been talking about it as an association, that we don’t want people driving up there, and so this is going to change the way people behave a little bit, but they’re aware of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there’s no way anybody would go around that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. If they want, they’d really have to want to get there. MR. FORD-You wouldn’t want them driving on it anyway. So you’ll expand that Honeysuckle. MR. MASON-No, that’s what I mean. When we got into this, there’s an education thing, because as a part owner in it, as one of the eight, I don’t want people driving on it. It ruins it. MRS. STEFFAN-So how do we want to word that, so it’s not around the absorption field? MR. MASON-Hedge blocking egress from. MR. TRAVER-Or a vehicle barrier composed of Honeysuckle hedge between the system and the road. MR. O'CONNOR-From Oneida Drive, Mrs. Steffan, it’s Oneida Drive. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we say something like extending twenty feet to the south and east from the northeast corner of the septic system, absorption field, northwest. MR. FORD-Do you anticipate the Honeysuckle would be planted parallel to Oneida Drive? MR. MASON-Yes, alongside of, that’s the way I’ve done it throughout the rest of the property around the parking lots and along roads, like three feet, four feet off, or more even for snow. MRS. STEFFAN-Can you hold that drawing up and show us? Because it’s not clear on this drawing. MR. MASON-This is Oneida Drive here. This is already a Honeysuckle hedge. So we’d just extend it this way. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So this is Oneida Drive? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MASON-And that’s exactly where everybody would come off of. To get in from this other road is very problematic, and this is all surrounded by hedge all the way here anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-So we would just say to extend the hedge along Oneida Drive. MRS. STEFFAN-And there’s nothing here, there’s no road here? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. MASON-There’s no road. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-And you’re saying that you really can’t access it going this way? MR. MASON-No. Well, I, I mean, I wouldn’t do it like this. I think this is what you were trying to do. I’d, instead, do it this way, and I’d be away from the road a little ways so when I snowplow it I’ve got a place for the snow. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I think we’ve got it. MR. MASON-So it would be parallel to Oneida Drive, in such a way as to block egress to the. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-Do I take it that you’re thinking of the community system, and not the three? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You are correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to mention the community system? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MS. RADNER-And I believe you also wanted to condition it upon formation of a transportation corporation. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Okay. So we’ve got four conditions. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2007 TAKUNDEWIDE HOA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a centralized wastewater system to service 11 individual dwellings. Proposed residential uses in the Takundewide development require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/28/07 & 11/20/07, 1/15/08, tabled to 2/26/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and N/A 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and N/A 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2007 TAKUNDEWIDE HOA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four, the application complies. Paragraph Five, Negative SEQRA Declaration. Paragraph Eight does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply. This is approved with the following conditions: 1) That the applicant obtain a VISION Engineering signoff, specifically satisfying Comment 12, with two observation ports, 2) That the applicant will plant a honeysuckle hedge. They will plant that and maintain it, and it will be placed parallel to Oneida Drive to block access to the absorption field, 3) That the applicant will proceed with the community wastewater system option, 4) That the applicant will form a Transportation Corporation and get approval by the Queensbury Town Board. th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. MR. FORD-Could I make a comment? May I compliment the team before us for both their patience and their cooperation. MR. SEGULJIC-In putting up with us. MR. FORD-It’s been a long time coming, but you have been patient with us, and I know that you recognize what we were doing, but I think as a result of our utilizing this opportunity, the enlarged Takundewide property and neighborhood and the sanctity of Lake George has greatly improved. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MASON-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. MR. O'CONNOR-I was telling my client that we had one year from tonight to do this, because our SPA thing was conditioned upon us getting this approval, but now that this is conditioned, I guess, our year doesn’t start running until the Town Board acts? MS. RADNER-I can’t even tell you that, but work with Bob on the Transportation Corporation. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 63-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KEITH & PAM HARRIS AGENT(S) JOHN T. PECK OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 1671 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A POND TO BE USED FOR FIRE PROTECTION, WILDLIFE [STOCK WITH TROUT] AND RECREATION/AESTHETICS. MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECTS IN THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 123.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-32 SECTION 179-4 JOHN THOMAS PECK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Keith and Pam Harris, and I guess we just have a couple of questions. MRS. STEFFAN-Just one question. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question. The floor is yours. Just give us a quick synapses of what you’ve done and you can go from there. MR. PECK-Good evening. My name is John Thomas Peck. I’m from JTP Environmental Consulting, helping Pam & Keith Harris with their pond design. I thought for the sake of time we’d basically go over how we’ve met the comments that have been put forward by VISION Engineering and also the Water Keeper, and that way we don’t have to go through the whole proposal all over again or whatever. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. PECK-But I do have pictures here if you do have questions. So, when we were last here, you tabled it to 2/26, and then somebody ordered a snowstorm, and then somebody ordered an ice storm, and now we’re here. MRS. STEFFAN-Which I would imagine made the Harris’ driveway very exciting. MR. PECK-Yes, it did. KEITH HARRIS MR. HARRIS-Actually the extended time actually helped us meet all the conditions and th comments that came in. I’ve actually made three or four submissions since January 15 in order to accomplish that, the latest being 14 copies of the dry hydrant. I had to correct it because I found one error. They asked for a female head on the dry hydrant, and I had in the original plans male. So, I had to get that corrected. I sent an e-mail to Craig th Brown on the 25 of February to follow up and satisfy Comment Number Four from Town th Engineer Dan Ryan of VISION Engineering. That would be in a letter of February 17 from Dan Ryan, please verify design storms used for service and emergency spillways. Discharge from the pond is limited by the intake. It should be verified that the pond outlet can attenuate the 25-year design storm with the intake closed with only the 3-acre contributing watershed entering the pond. So I’ve submitted a TR-55, which is a hydrologic computer program to show that from that three acre watershed you could expect, from a 25 year storm, 2.18 cfs, and the pond outlet pipe is designed to pass 22.5 th cfs at peak flow, and since the 25, I’ve been able to, at that time I requested the final approval for the Site Plan proposed pond design as revised and contingent upon nd satisfying conditions from February 22 memo from Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I’ve since met those conditions in the revised plans you have in front of you. You should have, amongst your information packages there, the comments from Chris nd Navitsky dated the 22 of February. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. PECK-Mr. Navitsky wanted the temporary sediment trap, right here. He wanted to see how it was going to fit the plan. It’s a 20 foot by 70 foot. Twenty foot going across the contours. That would have sufficient capacity to hold the amount of water and sediment that could be expected to come from this point down the hill and through, this is surface runoff. If you look at the stormwater management plan, on Sheet Four of Twenty, you’ll see on that stormwater pollution map, Sheet Four of Twenty, it’s eight and a half by eleven, I’ll show you up here anyway. You can follow it on the plan view map. Right across here is where we would put in the diversion ditch. So any water that comes off the three acres, any clean water, would get diverted down and safely over the bank. So we’re not muddying up the clean water. So that would cut off a lot of water there. Whatever water is muddy here will be pumped out into a ditch that goes down in here and then ultimately into the sediment trap. Right along that ditch you’ll have something called triangular silt dikes, which are about 10 inches in size, and you would put them such that you have a series of stilling pools so it doesn’t erode anymore, but what it does is catches a little sediment each time it goes through each one. So whatever mud we create here is going to be captured all the way down here and then here and then all the way down the 400 and some odd feet down to the stream. Now the main way we’re going to control erosion is by starting at the outlet, solidifying everything as we come up. Before we put any water in the pond, everything will be done. So that’s going to help out a lot. MR. SEGULJIC-The triangles you refer to, is there a detail for that on the plans? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. PECK-There’s a detail of it in Appendix C of all the erosion and sediment control. It would be in the previous submission. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Right. I don’t think I have that one with me. Okay. MR. PECK-Chris Navitsky’s second comment, he said he didn’t see any reference to the proposed dewatering of the pond spoil, and I won’t read all the rest of that, but basically I put on a plan right here just above the pond is where we would, when you get down, you can safely dig here quite a ways, about five feet, before you actually start to hit anything muddy or wet. So we would start to build the berm, and then anything that we hit that’s full of water from the spoil from the site, we’d simply just put it uphill, let the water drain out of it. As it becomes moist, just let it sit here and then when it finally gets dry enough, start to build this up right here for the spoil area. He was concerned that we were going to allow muddy water to just kind of run down the slope, but that’s not the case. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that during construction? MR. PECK-During construction. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, during construction. MR. FORD-Speaking of construction, can you refresh our memory for the length of time anticipated for this project? MR. PECK-It’s in the neighborhood of one to two weeks, two and a half at the most. MR. HARRIS-Well, the, I figure the bulk’s going to be about two weeks. I figure, start to finish, a month, you know, being safe. What I want to do is I want to try to do it like June, maybe towards when it dries out, before thunderstorms come, and just hope that I can get like the window of like seven days to do the bulk of it, and then like John said, he wants to start from the bottom up. So if we do have any erosion, we can stop it and get the stone in the bottom of the ditches. MR. PECK-Erosion and sediment control plan is such if you get a rainstorm right in the middle of it, it will be taken care of. MR. HARRIS-It’s nice soil. MR. PECK-It’s very sandy. MR. HARRIS-If it was clay where everything was just going to lay there and run down the mountain. MR. PECK-It’s a good draining soil. Well, we’re required by the DEC permit to do this after May 1 anyway. According to the Article 15 permit, we can’t disturb the bed or banks of the stream between, after October 1 or before May 1. So we’re restricted by that anyway. If you look at the sequence of events in the erosion and sediment control plan, that’s Appendix C, and it’s part of the plan, the written narrative, we don’t go in there until it dries out. His third comment was about the fill area extending 40 feet out here. That was a good catch. He caught me putting the line right here when we’re actually disturbing out here. So I added that the limits for clearing are this orange line. I had this one here. I simply moved that down to compensate for this. So our area of disturbance hasn’t changed. MR. FORD-Just the perimeter lines have changed. MR. PECK-Yes. The area hasn’t changed. There’s very minimal clearing there. Right now this is all a field anyway, if you’ve ever seen it. MR. HARRIS-This used to be a farm, believe it or not, in the 40’s and 50’s. I bought that when my great uncles actually farmed up there, which I found out after. MR. PECK-The VISION Engineering comments, one was, and the concern of the Lake George Water Keeper was the sewage coming from the septic system up by the house, down through those porous soils into the pond. So we simply extended the liner up to the surface. Take care of that concern. Dan Ryan wanted to see a three to one slope 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) instead of a two and a half to one on this part of the dam. So we changed that. We had a six foot wide dam. Dan suggested we normally have 10 foot, so we put a 10 foot, and I went up to see Chris Navitsky because I couldn’t envision in my mind what he meant by bringing, how the structure would be made so you would take cold water into the pond rather than warm water off the surface. Turns out it’s a very simple structure. It’s basically an upside down 55 gallon drum that’s about four feet in diameter. What happens is the water, you get the water from, not on the surface, but the water down here two and a half feet. So you actually get a little bit cooler water. It goes between the outside of the riser pipe and the hood and up and in, and it actually very simply, and probably for less cost than a trash rack, will keep that debris free, right here, which would be the most pertinent safety problem. If that pipe plugged, then what would happen with, we have an emergency spillway, one foot above that, and then there’s another two feet of compacted fill there. This is, you can see the site here. This is a wetland map, APA wetland map, that I used when I went out there, when I worked for the Soil and Water Conservation District in 2004. Keith came in and we had a program called an pawn site investigation program, and part of that is to see what permits you needed, and we looked at the APA wetland map. The stream that is unnamed is actually jurisdictional by APA, but they wrote a letter, after I sent it to them showing them what the situation was, that this was not jurisdictional for them. There wasn’t really any significant wetlands involved. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any questions? MRS. BRUNO-Was there a response from Dan regarding the adjustment that was made for the potential sewer? MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we have Dan come up. It’s quite advantageous having you here. I want to let you know. MR. RYAN-Yes. I did, subsequently to this most recent information submitted, take a look at those documents. There were two outstanding issues, one being the concern of separation. Obviously, we do have approximately 110 feet of separation currently, which under normal circumstances is adequate, except in this particular case, because in Section 136-9C, we are required to have 200 feet. That’s obviously a safety mechanism to provide protection for anything in the Lake George basin, and to get additional separation whenever it’s possible. To actually install a membrane beneath this pond, obviously it was necessary to retain the water volume that was desired, but to extend it as well essentially will help to provide a shield or separation between the pond water and any possible groundwater now. This presumes that if there is a concern for effluent contamination, that that effluent has not been treated in the first 110 feet, which it most likely will have been. So, that being said, I agreed that if the membrane was installed as an additional safety measure, that would be adequate. MRS. STEFFAN-How long do those membranes last? MR. RYAN-I’m presuming they’re going with a rubber membrane of some sort, which is as long as a tire would be. So, I mean, it would last forever, essentially. It’s PVC. Okay. Basically, some of these products do degrade over time with UV influence. I don’t know the specifics of this material, but maybe these guys could attest to that. MR. TRAVER-And it won’t be exposed to UV. MR. PECK-Won’t be exposed. MR. RYAN-Okay. So, if that’s the case, then it’s probably minimal effect. MR. PECK-In the area where it has to stop the effluent. MR. RYAN-It would be underground, yes. MR. PECK-Underground or underwater. MR. RYAN-The only other item that they did do the analysis for that three acres, basically trying to make sure that the spillway pipe that was going to be proposed could handle any influx of runoff without any flow from the stream, and he has satisfied that obviously. There’s a large disparity between the allowable and what’s actually going to happen. So MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like they’ve been addressed, then. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. RYAN-Exactly, yes. Those being the only two outstanding items. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Good. MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments on the, did you see the Lake George Water Keeper’s comments? MR. RYAN-I didn’t have the one from the date he said. I’ve got something from January. I don’t know if that’s the same. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to look at this copy? MR. RYAN-I’ve got one from 1/12. nd MR. SEGULJIC-February 22, I believe it is. nd MR. PECK-Just for the record, you’ll note that February 22 is the Friday before the Tuesday we were supposed to come in, and I saw him that next Monday. MR. RYAN-Yes. I normally wouldn’t get this unless it was in the submission package, or unless he personally forwarded it to me. Okay. Basically, you know, Number One, regarding the sediment trap, I think he’s kind of, Mr. Peck has kind of clarified that a little bit, in terms of the location of that, and I am familiar with your triangular spillways, or sediment trap devices. Dewatering, pond spoil is obviously important if they’re using that soil on site to further compact and create the dam itself. I believe I’ve already asked for a testing program, I think, and I think you’ve agreed to that, to test any of the soils that they’d be using. So that would ensure that it’s not saturated. There’s an optimum moisture content that would normally be desired to compact that soil. So, presuming that the testing results are adequate, then that would prove to be the case, that the spoils have been addressed properly. Number Three is just basically a general, the fill area will be approximately six feet deep. Okay, and that’s the area you’ve addressed with the clearing adjustment? MR. PECK-Yes. MR. RYAN-Okay, and again, the discharge, that makes sense to draw water from the bottom is actually a better design even for winter conditions. So any time you can draw water from below an ice cap, that would be a better alternative. I think it looks like he’s addressed these. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-Would you explain this outlet with this 55 gallon drum, again, and how you draw. MR. PECK-It’s not really a 55 gallon drum. MR. RYAN-It’s a device. MR. PECK-It’s a device. It’s a hood. It simply would be a cylinder like a 55 gallon drum only it’s four foot wide, and it’s going to extend two and a half to three feet below the surface. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. PECK-There will be a gap on both sides. So the water will essentially go down and up, and then down and into the riser. So you’re getting cooler water because you’re not taking it from the surface. You’re taking it from three feet down in the water. MR. RYAN-It’s a pipe inside a pipe. So the outlet pipe is on the interior. Picture a larger pipe outside of that, that comes above the surface. So no surface water enters that outlet pipe. It actually flows down from underneath, through pressure head, basically. MR. PECK-Yes, because you’ve got a rider pipe here, and then you’ve got a regular cup over the top of it, but it’s four foot and the riser pipe is three foot. So you’ve got six inches on both sides gap where the water will just come up from two and a half feet then into the riser. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. FORD-What forces that water? MR. RYAN-As you build up elevation head in the pond itself, there’s a disparity between the interior and exterior of that cover pipe, okay, and that creates what’s called elevation head or pressure head, which ultimately pushes or forces that water up through that interior pipe. So it’s common practice and it’s often done to prevent trash and things from entering the outlet as well. MR. PECK-It’s quite an advantage, actually, over a trash rack. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Are you a year round resident, Mr. Harris? MR. HARRIS-Yes, I am. MR. SIPP-So there’s no need for a fence around this pond for protection? MR. HARRIS-No, and actually my wife and I and my daughter moved out to Florida. So, we do have two grandkids, but we’ll definitely keep an eye on them. MR. SIPP-But you’re not away from the property that somebody might come on the property and fall? MR. HARRIS-I have Posted signs. I was originally going to put a security gate up there for my wife, but we’ve actually had just one person up there. We’ve been up there four years. MR. PECK-It’s a half a mile in, and it’s steep. MR. HARRIS-I’ve probably got to put some more Posted signs up there, warning signs just for. MR. SIPP-In ponds that I’ve had anything to do with, we usually had muskrat. Are you going to be trapping? MR. HARRIS-We’ve got all kinds of game up there. I’ve got deer. I’ve got coyotes. MR. SIPP-Is there anything going to keep these deer from tramping the sides of the pond there to get a drink of water? MR. HARRIS-I’m going to seed it. I mean, I hope I’m going to have a good stable sod. I mean, they’re all over the place. The turkeys are all over. I don’t see them trampling it up because it’s not like it’s a herd of cattle going for the only water. There’s water all over French Mountain. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, there’s going to be routine inspections of this area, correct, to make sure there’s no burrowing animals into the dam, things of that nature? MR. RYAN-Well, yes, I mean, obviously any earth dam should be regularly inspected, Hadlock Pond being a good example of that, but, yes, considering if it’s built properly, and that’s why I like to have the testing and all that done during compaction. So, ultimately, if he detects a problem, it should be, it’s certainly noteworthy. MR. SEGULJIC-This dam wouldn’t be subject to DEC regulations, correct, because it’s too, small, less than six feet. MR. RYAN-No, it’s too small. It’s based on the volumes of storage and all that. MR. PECK-Yes, that was purposely done. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. PECK-Essentially a dug out pond. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Any other questions? All right. This is an Unlisted Action, I believe. Am I correct? It’s Unlisted. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s Unlisted. MR. PECK-I submitted a Short Form with the stormwater management plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’ll open the public hearing, and I will close the public hearing. I assume no one else is here to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-I believe we’re all set. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “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. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-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. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-Isn’t that what this is all about, what we’ve been listening to and how it’s being addressed and mitigated? Would you re-read it, Gretchen, please. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. -“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. PECK-I could just volunteer what I wrote on the application. I put without the proposed erosion and sediment controls, dewatering, coffer dams and logical construction sequence, this construction could contribute significant sediment to Double A special stream, but those erosion controls are in place. MR. TRAVER-We’re considering the project as a whole, for the purposes of SEQRA, not just the construction phase, but thank you. MR. PECK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So I would say small to moderate, with remediation procedures in place. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You mean the plan as proposed? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-But the answer is yes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. SEGULJIC-If we say yes on this, does that make a difference, or still say small to moderate? MR. BAKER-You can say yes, and you can qualify it if you like. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-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. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. FORD-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 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) RESOLUTION NO. 63-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KEITH & PAM HARRIS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got to do the motion now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2007 KEITH & PAM HARRIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a pond to be used for fire protection, wildlife [stock with trout] and recreation / aesthetics. Major stormwater projects in the Lake George Basin require Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/15/08 and 2/26/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 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 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8 If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and N/A 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and N/A 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2007 KEITH & PAM HARRIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. This is approved with the condition that the applicant obtain VISION Engineering signoff. th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-You’re all set. MR. PECK-Thank you very much. MR. HARRIS-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. There’s no other issues, I believe, correct? MRS. BRUNO-I have one question. Since I haven’t been on the Board for longer than two years or so, and The Great Escape has been here for so long, is there anything that we should have reviewed or seen in terms of them changing their restaurant? Because, to me, looking at the other Johnny Rocket’s that are around the country, they’re very significantly different aesthetically, and I didn’t know if we had any design standards in place with the Park that they might need to address. I mean, this is not having seen any plans. I’m just making an assumption. MR. BAKER-A preliminary set of plans were reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, the Director of Building and Codes and the Fire Marshal last week, and no exterior renovations are proposed to that building. It’ll be all interior work. The only exterior difference will be a change in the sign. I’m not sure, again, it’s only been preliminary plans submitted. I’m not sure if there’s going to be any review by the Planning Board required. There may not be, but I don’t know that a final determination has been made on that by a Zoning Administrator yet. MRS. BRUNO-Just a hypothetical, if they were to go as extreme as their chain usually goes, in terms of their look, is there something that would determine further review than by Mr. Brown or Mr. Hatin, just in terms of what we would normally? MR. BAKER-Yes, I believe that if there were exterior design changes, that would kick it into Site Plan Review. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/26/08) MR. BAKER-But as I understand it, if it’s only interior changes, it may not require any Planning Board review. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Presumably the sign would change, but assuming that overall parameters of the sign don’t change, then I guess that’s not an issue either. MR. BAKER-Yes, I believe you’re correct. I don’t think a sign change, within the existing parameters, would require Board review. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank. MRS. STEFFAN-Motion to adjourn? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 11 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman 37