Loading...
2008.06.24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 61-2007 VMJR Companies 3. FWW 1-2008 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Site Plan No. 5-2001 Stewarts Shops 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25 Special Use Permit No. 14-2008 J & D Marina 4. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-31.23 Subdivision No. 17-2006 Theodore Rawson 17. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 300-1-20 Site Plan No. 23-2008 Cifone Construction 20. Tax Map No. 308.8-1-21.21, 21.22, 21.31, 21.32, 21.41, 21.42, 21.51, 21.52, 21.61, 21.62 Site Plan No. 26-2008 Robert & Anne Clark 25. Tax Map No .289.13-1-54 Site Plan No. 24-2008 Larry Clute 36. Freshwater Wetlands No. 7-2008 Tax Map No. 297.17-1-27 Site Plan No. 27-2008 Tom & Dusty Putnam 40. RECOMMENDATION ONLY Tax Map No. 239.15-1-7 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWNIG MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, June 24, 2008. First item on the agenda is Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS/REAFFIRM PREVIOUS SEQR APPROVALS: SUBDIV. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN; SUBDIV. 14-2005 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP; SUBDIV. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS; SUBDIV. 12-2007 CHRISTINE GERMAINE – SCHEDULED FOR FINAL STAGE REVIEW SUBDIV. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON – SCHEDULED FOR FINAL STAGE REVIEW MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s five separate resolutions that are required. Drafts were in our Board packages, and the first one is for Thomas Brennan, Subdivision No. 13-2006. Would anyone like to make a resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-So all you have to do is just a motion to re-affirm Preliminary and Final Stage approvals. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and actually Staff has prepared one resolution for each, or, I’m sorry, one resolution that covers all five. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And they included copies of the record of resolution from each specific Board meeting. So we can just do it as one resolution. Let me just read them. The first one is Thomas Brennan, Subdivision No. 13-2006. The next one is Hayes Construction Group, Subdivision No. 14-2005; Cerrone Builders, Subdivision No. 1- 2007; Christine Germaine, Subdivision No. 12-2007; and then Theodore Rawson, which is scheduled for Final Stage review this evening, Subdivision No. 17-2006, and Staff has prepared one Draft resolution for all five projects. I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM THE PREVIOUS SEQRA APPROVALS FOR THE FIVE PROJECTS SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN; SUBDIVISION NO. 14- 2005 HAYES CONSTRUCTION CORP.; SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS; SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 CHRISTINE GERMAINE; SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, in connection with the above referenced projects, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the resolution prepared by Staff. MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM THE PREVIOUS SEQRA APPROVALS FOR THE FIVE PROJECTS SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN; SUBDIVISION NO. 14- 2005 HAYES CONSTRUCTION CORP.; SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS; SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 CHRISTINE GERMAINE; SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-So do we need to re-affirm each of the Preliminary and Final Stage approvals as well? I found that a little confusing on the Staff Note. MR. OBORNE-I think these SEQR findings you’ve already previously completed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And now you just need to go ahead and reaffirm those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can we do that as one resolution as well? MR. OBORNE-I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO REAFFIRM PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE APPROVALS FOR THE FIVE PROJECTS FOR THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISIONS; Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: Subdivision 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN Subdivision 14-2005 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GRP. Subdivision 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS Subdivision 12-2007 CHRISTINE GERMAINE Subdivision 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON [PRELIMINARY ONLY] th Duly adopted this 24 day of June 2008 by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-But we didn’t do Final for Rawson yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We have not done Final for Rawson. MR. SEGULJIC-But we can still do this, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Because we’re only approving the Preliminary for that. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan No. 61-2007, and Freshwater Wetlands No. 1-2008, for VMJR Associates. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2008 SEQR TYPE I THE VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MGMT. ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION RT. 254 NW INTERSECTION AT QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 199,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. RETAIL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: FILLING WETLANDS TO PROVIDE PARKING AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE UV 27-93, AV 34-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 4/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC/ACOE NWI WETLAND/ACOE LOT SIZE 37.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION 179-4-020 MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a draft resolution. Actually, I’m sorry, there’s a letter from the th applicant requesting that we table the application until the July 15 meeting, and then there’s a draft resolution prepared by Staff. I’m sorry, it’s the resolution from the last th meeting. So what we’d be doing is tabling the project until July 15, pending the th submission of the required documents as evidenced in the April 29 tabling resolution. Everyone with me? MR. FORD-So we’ve already passed the deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-We tabled until this evening. We held the public hearing open. They did not submit all the required materials. They’ve asked that we further table it until July. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is fine. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I’d certainly rather have that than. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here to address the Board on the project, I guess I should ask first. We will keep the public hearing open, obviously. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll just make the motion, then. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2008 VMJR, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th In accordance with the request by the applicant, it will be tabled until July 15. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: th MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know if they submitted the required materials by June 15? Did they submit the required materials yet? MR. BAKER-Yes, they did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we’re into our regular scheduled items. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO THE GAS ISLAND CANOPY TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BLUE STRIPE TO BRAND GAS A 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) “MOBIL”. ALSO APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE FREESTANDING PRICE SIGN FROM MANUAL TO DIGITAL. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 2-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25 SECTION 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER- I would like to address the Stewarts project first, since they didn’t meet the required deadline. Is there anyone here from Stewarts? What I’d like to do is table this until July. The information has been submitted, but it hasn’t been reviewed by the Town Engineer, and it wasn’t submitted on time. So, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION STEWARTS SHOP, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th 1. This item was tabled to the June 24 meeting with a submission deadline th of June 6; th 2. The requested information was not submitted by June 6; 3. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION STEWARTS SHOP, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: thth Tabled to the July 15 meeting, as they did not meet the required June 6 deadline to submit materials. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously the public hearing will remain open. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 14-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED J & D MARINA AGENT(S) LONNY CHASE, CHASE ENG. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 2585 ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES OUTDOOR BOAT AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE. MARINA USES IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 5-06 SUP 47-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/9/08 APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA LOT SIZE 13.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-31.23 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-10 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, do you want to summarize Staff Notes when you’re ready. If the applicant could come to the table. MR. OBORNE-We have a memorandum. These are by George Hilton, GIS Administrator, this is for Special Use Permit No. 14-2008, J & D Marina. The applicant has submitted new materials in response to the previous Planning Board tabling of this application. The new materials include: Revised Site Plan showing additional buffering; Responses to Vision Engineering comments; Pictures showing visibility of property and surrounding areas. The berm that is intended to provide screening of boats being stored on site is shown as having a row of white pines planted across it. Consideration should be given to planting other evergreen species such as spruce as a replacement or in addition to the white pine in order to provide more screening. As the white pines grow, the understory of these trees loses their limbs which reduces the effectiveness of screening below the tops of these trees. The materials submitted by the applicant do not 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) appear to show what the visual impact will be from surrounding properties once boats are stored and the berm is planted. Based on topographic information shown on the site plan, and considering the typical height of boats that are stored it appears that some visibility of boats is likely to occur. Will there be any stacking of boats and if so, how high will the boats be stacked? In the previous tabling motion, the Planning Board included conditions concerning boat repair, washing and lighting. The Planning Board should include these conditions as part of any final approval of this Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. MATTHEWS-Good evening. John Matthews, principal of J & D Marina. We have made several minor changes to our Site Plan. One of which is elongating the berms in areas where we felt the visual impact might be enhanced, as far as being able to see directly into the property from the street and from neighboring properties. We did this, utilizing our plan. What we did is we positioned a boat on a trailer, shrink wrapped behind a truck, and moved it around to different points on the property where we thought we would have boats stored, and then we went around to the different properties to see what the visual impact actually was, which will be shown on the slideshow that we have to present. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-So, in doing so, we did recognize that there were areas where, if, by elongating the berm and changing our planting scheme a little bit on the berm, it would make all the difference in the world. I believe, Lonny can go over the list, but we’ve complied with all of the questions that were asked at the previous meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. LONNY CHASE MR. CHASE-Lonny Chase, Chase Engineering. I think, to add to what John just said, we did elongate the berms on the drawing. You can kind of make them out up there on the screen, but you’re probably better off looking at the paper copy that you have. In addition, we’ve added the required notes about trailer storage being during the summer season only. Winter boat storage only, and the other notes that were asked for by the Town at the last meeting. In addition, we had the APA come back out and delineate all of the remaining wetlands on the property, and these were picked up by the surveyor and added to the plan. We’ve also added a future septic expansion area, part of the engineer’s, the Town engineer’s requirements. MR. MATTHEWS-This is where we elongated the berms, one coming down around the back side of these large trees, and then up here, by the front driveway, we elongated this berm to bring it over to incorporate it as part of our entrance way, so that coming down the (lost words). MR. CHASE-As John mentioned as well, we have met all the requirements for the Town engineer and he has given us, basically, a signoff on each of them. I guess I’d like to point out that the Town had asked for a stormwater management plan the last meeting, and in discussions with the Town engineer, Dan Ryan, I think we decided that, based on the vegetative cover that’s existing at the site, and the fact that we’re not adding any impervious area, a stormwater report would basically show that pre and post construction, since there is no construction, would be the same, and therefore that has not been provided, but he kind of explains that a little bit in his response to our letter as well. I mean, I guess one of the other questions in the last meeting was the breed of the trees being planted on the berm. In talking to local nurseries, their strong suggestion was a shared white pine tree, and if maintained and kept trimmed, it should stay nice and full, and John can probably expand on that. MR. MATTHEWS-When I read the notes from Mr. Hilton here, I called a nursery man that I’ve known for a long time, and he, without me even saying any breed of tree, he recommended the white pine tree, also, but he did recommend that if it’s maintained and nipped or trimmed on a regular basis, they won’t lose their lower limbs, but I don’t have any objections to interspersing some spruce or some other species that someone here feels is going to give us better coverage. MR. FORD-Who is the authority that you called up? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. MATTHEWS-I called a fellow by the name of Frank Legacy ,and he owns and operates Paradise Tree Service. They do all the work for, most of the work for the State, and he happens to use our facility quite a bit, and I talked to him about the situation. MR. SIPP-The only problem with that is, when these trees get 20 to 30 feet tall, how are you going to do the pruning? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the object is to keep them from getting that high. I mean, if you have a recommendation. MR. SIPP-You want to keep cutting them back. I see. MR. MATTHEWS-That we don’t plant the white trees, I mean, I’ll put any white pine trees, any kind of tree in there, but I mean, we’re trying to. MR. SIPP-I mean, if you start with six foot trees, you’re going to just keep cutting the top leader each year. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-Just trim it. MR. SIPP-So another one will take its place. MR. MATTHEWS-But they’re also going to re-seed and little trees are going to come up alongside of them, and, I mean, I don’t see this project as being a forever project for us as owners. It’s a measure to utilize the property in the best way we can affordably do it now, with the marina use. In lieu of the fact that we haven’t been able to go forward, I haven’t solicited. I haven’t advertised to increase our boat storage. So I don’t know how many boats we’re going to store. I mean, it may be a few. It may be as many as we predict. I don’t know right off the bat, but if, down the road, we find that it takes off and we need more screening, then we’ll have to add in areas where it’s not covered. I mean, screening is screening. I mean, it’s not necessarily a 12 foot wall. I don’t want to change the total character of the neighborhood, either. MR. SIPP-I understand. Do you plan on stacking boats? MR. MATTHEWS-We plan to do no stacking of boats. MR. SIPP-No stacking. So they’d just be set on a cradle? MR. MATTHEWS-They’d be set on blocks or on a trailer or on a cradle. MR. SIPP-Shrink wrapped? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you submit photographs? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. TALIA CHASE MS. CHASE-Yes. I’m Talia Chase. I’m with J & D Marina, and I’ll go through the slideshow with you, and you also have that in your paperwork that we submitted. If you want to go to the next one. This you can see, this is about a medium size boat that we parked in the back of the lot. MR. FORD-Medium size. Could you give us the length, please. MS. CHASE-Twenty-four feet, and this, the location of where that boat is, and I’m standing, when I’m taking picture obviously, at the entrance of this location, is relatively where we think is the closest spot where we will park a boat, closest to 9L, okay. Then if you go to the next slide, this is the back area. So this shows you, this is behind that garage that you saw in that first slide, this is where we will be storing the boats, and we can’t, I mean, first of all, we’re not allowed to really bring boats over there and store them, park a bunch. So we had the one, but unfortunately we can’t show you how 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) exactly we’re going to line them up. Also, we don’t know what sizes we’re going to bring over there. It could be, you know, a 28 footer next to a 24 footer, but they will be in a line, neatly placed, so that we can get at them if we need to, and they will be on blocks. If you want to go to the next one. So this is looking towards 9L, and you can see here, this is the berm that’s already in place, right here, so you can hardly see the road, and this is where John had mentioned he’s going to extend it. So you won’t even be able to, the neighbor will not be able to see into that back lot, if he extends that berm. If you want to go to the next one. This is the other berm on the other side. This is the house that goes with the property, okay, and then the neighbor’s house is right over here, and John had mentioned as well he was going to extend the berm over this way. We noticed that once we took the pictures. Next. This is just looking, again, out over, and of course this is Hanneford Road. This is the berm in the front closest to 9L. It’s just as close up as the other one, other berm. This is, there’s a lower lot, which you cannot see at all from the road. It’s back behind the shed. You can go to the next one, and this is just down on that lower lot. You absolutely cannot see it at all, and that’s looking up towards the neighbor’s property. You had asked for a visual impact. So this is really where you’re going to see this boat. Now you can see there is, this is the one home, and from the last meeting people had mentioned that they had a view from Hanneford Road, and you’ll see that I went over to Hanneford Road in a few slides, and you’ll see that I went over to Hanneford Road, and you’ll see that I went over to Hanneford Road, in a few slides, and I tried to see, granted, I had to stay on, you know, the road, but I tried to take a picture to show you that. This is from 9L. You can’t even see the boat, and you can barely see the top of that shop that’s already existing. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Would you just go back and just point out to me where. MS. CHASE-That boat is still in the same location. I left it in the exact same spot. So it’s relatively, right about in this area, behind the berm. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I can see the hole where it’s cut out, but it’s going to be, but you can’t see it because trees screen it out, then. MS. CHASE-You can’t see it because here is the berm, right here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MS. CHASE-That berm is already hiding that boat. You cannot see it from 9L. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MS. CHASE-This is, and I’m sorry it’s blurry, but it’s the only picture I had. This is the front of Mr. Halliday’s property, looking through. Now we just planted these big trees, and you can see the boat right there, and then John is going to extend that berm over, and that was the portion we realized as well that you could see through there. So once that’s extended, you might be able to see the top of that shrink wrapped boat, but that’s it, and you still, you can’t even see his truck, which is in that, it’s always attached to the truck. MR. HUNSINGER-So when were those new trees planted? This year? MS. CHASE-He transplanted those. Those were. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. They were on the marina property . I moved them over for, and for a place to put them without losing them, I decided to put them in there, so they fill in that area alongside the house where there’s a bunch of bamboo and what not growing up, which is very unsightly. It works well as a screen in the summertime, but in the winter it’s just stalks. So we’ll probably end up planting some more in this particular area, too, to shade the backyard of the house, once I get a tenant in there, from the road. MS. CHASE-This is from Mr. Schoonover’s, in front of his home. So you can see these two people are really the only people with that view, at which once we extend that berm, that should go away. You shouldn’t be able to see those boats. This is, unfortunately, my only shot I could get from Hanneford Road, and I believe, if you look, I have to look at it really close, and I know it’s Springtime, I thought it was right in here might be where the shop building is, but unfortunately I don’t know. Then again this is just that front. MR. MATTHEWS-This is a good picture to show where, if we extend that berm to the right, past the big hickory tree there, further, keep going over, Talia, yes, maybe even a 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) little further than that. So the next portion will be a 25 foot gate area. So if the berm is moved over to there from 9L. MS. CHASE-You will not be able to see it. MR. MATTHEWS-Last Fall, when they did the excavating for the road, culvert that they had put in down on 9L, they needed to place the (lost words). So it was just put there, and I tried to explain to the fellows that were trying to dump it and pile it that I wanted it to go in a certain area, but this is as good as they could do. I was glad to have the material. MS. CHASE-Character of the neighborhood. We just wanted to show you, we do not believe this is out of character at all. We’re going to go down one side of the street and then come back the other. The course starts with Castaway Marina, then you have Sunsoval. This is right across the street. This is James Lettus’ house, directly across from this property. Mr. McLaughlin, Mr. Schoonover, Cleverdale Store and we see there’s some boats there that are visible from the road. Cleverdale Store, then of course along with Cleverdale Store, behind it is Davies and Davies, a liquor store, and then Cleverdale Store, and then we get to Harris Bay Yacht Club. There’s just a couple of pictures of Harris Bay. There’s just a couple of pictures of Harris Bay, and you can see the boat storage from the road. Then we have Kraft Construction, which is in the same property or not the same property, but on the same driveway as the next slide, which is office buildings, the post office in the back with the North Queensbury Rescue Squad, and then the next one we have a Verizon building right on the corner. Going up we have North Queensbury Fire Department, and then the next one is Harold Halliday’s house, which is right next door, and then, just to show you, commercial versus residential, you’ll see there’s a bunch of commercial properties, and actually the one right next door is Commercial Residential because there are apartments there. So, I don’t think it’s disrupting the character at all. I think it blends right in with the character. So, that’s what we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Is there an advantage to using the white pine as a screen as opposed to the spruce? MR. MATTHEWS-I believe, economically, there would be an advantage. MR. TRAVER-They’re less expensive. MR. MATTHEWS-They’re less expensive, but, you know, I’m not opposed to intermingling some spruce or any other species, if someone here feels that it would work better. MR. TRAVER-The spruce, would the spruce require the same level of maintenance as the white pine? MR. MATTHEWS-I’m not sure. MR. TRAVER-That would mitigate the cost difference. I’m just trying to see if, you know, it might be easier to just go with the spruce and not worry as much about the cost of maintenance. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I was really not looking at this as a long, long term venture. I mean, I’m trying to utilize the property to derive some income, to pay the taxes, keep it afloat and what not at this point in time. Down the road, we may decide that some sort of housing may be a better plan for this, but that takes time, and considerable more amount of funding to develop the site and to think about roads and infrastructure and what not. So we’re trying to put together something that’s going to utilize the land on the best way we possibly can right now, so that it just doesn’t sit there vacant. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MR. FORD-The public hearing it still open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. If there’s no other questions of the Board, we did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. If you could give up the table, please. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MS. CHASE-Sure. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of the public hearing is for interested neighbors and affected parties to address the Board. So I would ask that you address your comments to the Board. When you come up to the table, if you could state your name for the record, as we do tape the proceedings and we do publish literal transcripts and I would ask that you try to keep your comments to within five minutes. So who would like to be first? KEN KAMBAR MR. KAMBAR-Hi. My name’s Ken Kambar, and I live at 27 Hanneford Road. The only reason that I’m here is to put forth my view, which would impact us more in the wintertime because right now there’s a lot of foliage on the trees, but most of those are, the leaves come off. They’re not evergreens, and in the wintertime, looking at that many boats would be a change for that whole area. I brought a couple of pictures, if you’re interested in looking, that I took in the last few weeks. The one picture that was pointed out, it was looking towards Hanneford Road, that was Mr. Beals’ house in the back, which is just next door to me to the south, and my two neighbors to the north are not happy about it, either, and they couldn’t be here. That would be Mr. Hanson and the Hoppers, but mostly, and also that property drops away downhill towards the back bay. So I don’t know how effective a berm would be of evergreens. They’d have to get pretty tall, I think, but the other thing is that area there, and if it could be maintained, that’s fine with me. If I can show you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t you start down there and we’ll pass them down. MR. KAMBAR-All of that area is pristine, from our view. It’s all forever wild. So that would be my main concern. MR. HUNSINGER-So the arrow on the one photo, what does that represent? MR. KAMBAR-Well, that’s the area of this property, from where we live. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KAMBAR-But that one is taken from Hanneford Road, and there’s a couple taken from down on 9L, but you can see, looking down that whole area, there’s nothing manmade. So that’s my only problem with utilizing the property. It’s just what our visual impact would be. That’s really all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. JOHN BEALS MR. BEALS-Good evening. My name is John Beals. I’m a former commander in the Navy. I was the former Deck Officer on the Nemitz, and on seven other carriers. The thing that concerns me, and I can speak with authority, as a navigation officer on carriers, is the amount of traffic that will be on the bay. We’ve had a number of accidents on the bay. It’s not the fault of the boatyard. It’s the fault of the people who are operating the boats. We’ve had collisions, and they come down in the swamp, and cause problems there, and there’s a very narrow neck at the end of the point. In fact there was a man killed there several years ago, and his wife had her leg amputated. They came in at night at a high rate of speed, and they claim they were under the influence, and went head-on into a steel pier there, and that’s the only thing I’m concerned about, and I’ve dealt with this problem coming into port with carriers. I know they’re a little bit bigger than what you’ve got here, but you still have the problem. You’ve got to be on the lookout for every other boat, and there’s a lot of people that are on the lake with boats that are not qualified to run boats. Now I was a former inspector for the Lake George Association, for quite a number of years, and I’ve run up against all kinds of accidents on the lake, and people ignore them. They’re supposed to come in the bay at a low rate of speed. They come in the bay wide open often, and it’s caused a number of problems for the people not only on the bay itself but the people who have docks on that side. This has nothing to do with the boatyard. It has to do with the people who operate the boats, and that’s my concern, and I hope you’ll take that under consideration. I don’t know how much it will increase the traffic on the bay. Is there going to be instant launch there? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-We had asked the applicant that at the last meeting, and they said that there would be no quick launch from this site. This site would be for storage only. MR. BEALS-I think that would create a great deal of problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BEALS-Is there any questions you’d like to put to me? I have been on the lake. I’ve traveled through the lake probably 700 times over the years because I was the Assistant Engineer on the Mohican for years. It was Captain Stafford, and I’ve witnessed about every misdemeanor you possibly can think of, and people don’t care, and it’s not just them. There are people who come up that have never been on a boat in their lives, and they say, can I run the boat, and they guy, they’ve had a couple of drinks, possibly, I don’t know, yes, go ahead, and somebody gets behind the wheel of a boat who has never run a boat and that creates problems, too. I know we had a collision right down in front of my house, and my house overlooks the intersection, and another thing, I talked to Brian Humphrey who’s head of the Warren County Highway Department, and they’re a little concerned about the traffic and some of the problems that have taken place there, in years past. When I first moved over there, in ’73, there were seven bad accidents right at the intersection, and Mr. Schaeffer, who’s my next door neighbor, who’s the former head of the Department of Transportation and their Chief Engineer, and he had that all new signs put up on both sides. As you come from Pilot Knob, you see a sign across the road, and coming down Ridge Road there’s a sign at the intersection, and there still are accidents there. There’s been two this year, and it’s a bad situation. I don’t know how you people feel about that, but I’ve seen, I’ve been on the lake. I’m probably older than any of you are here. I’m 83 years old, and I’ve been on Lake George ever since I was a year old, and I’ve seen it change and I’ve seen all kinds of problems, and there’s been problems at the Cleverdale intersection, too, and it’s something that should be looked into. In fact, I think Brian is going to come over this week and look over some things, because we’ve got some culvert problems and stuff over there. I’ll see what he’s got to say about it. Anything else I can answer for you? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. MR. FORD-John, we acknowledge and thank you for your service to our nation. Thank you. MR. BEALS-Well, I was a Navy officer 22 years. MR. FORD-I know. Thank you very much. MR. BEALS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I do have something to read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. OBORNE-This is from William and Linda Dator. “Dear Planning Board Members: We own the house and property at 2557 Rt. 9L. Our property is directly adjacent to the proposed storage on the East side. We have no objection to this use. The property is much improved since the dump was covered and a berm was built. Very truly yours, William F. Dator Linda L. Dator” Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You can come back to the table. There were a couple of comments noted, or concerns listed about increased boat traffic and whether or not this would be used for quick launch, and I think you had already mentioned on the record at the last meeting that it would not be used for a quick launch. MS. CHASE-Yes. As far as increased boat traffic, we would simply, during the winter months, be storing customers’ boats. So essentially during the Spring we might be doing their Spring commission, and then most customers come pick up their boats. So, we don’t know if it’s going to increase the traffic right in Warner Bay or if it’s going to be over in Bolton, or actually his customers may be going to Saratoga Lake. We don’t expect to just store boats for customers that are around Lake George, I mean, it would be primarily the Lake George region, but there might be some that will bring their boat to us. So I 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) don’t see how you’re really going to find out if it’s going to increase the Warner Bay boat traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-Do we have a Warren County signoff? MR. HUNSINGER-Did this go to the County Planning Board for review? th MR. BAKER-Yes. That was there on April 9. MRS. BRUNO-They would have considered the traffic issues, as well, that Mr. Beals brought up? MR. OBORNE-Presumably, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. I don’t see it as being very many visual impacts. I don’t have any problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I think our initial concerns have been addressed appropriately. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQRA. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to say that if you foresee that maybe you’re not going to be able to keep the trees up, sheered and well pruned, that maybe we should consider, or you should consider, a different variety. I’d really hate to see scraggly berms, five years down the road, especially since they’re next to the road. MR. MATTHEWS-No problem with that. MR. SIPP-If you’re going to plant trees, you’re probably going to have one out of five or six die on you anyway. So you’re going to have to do some replacement. Arborvitae works well, but it’s more expensive. It might work as a replacement. Arborvitae, which is white cedar. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. The only problem is, with those, is they’re prime feed for the deer. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the deer love them. MR. MATTHEWS-And you come back in the Spring and they’re chewed right off at the height that they can eat. MR. FORD-As high as they can go. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MATTHEWS-That would be very high maintenance. I received a copy of this from Sunsoval, and evidently you didn’t get one. They sent it to me. MR. HUNSINGER-What does it say? MR. MATTHEWS-It’s a letter that probably you could read. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Actually, if you could give it to Staff. If you could read it into the record, Keith, please. MR. OBORNE-This is from John A. Mason, “To Whom It May Concern: Our company would like to go on record in support of the Castaway Marina proposal to use their property for boat and trailer storage. This use fits the character of the neighborhood, as we are located in a lake area and on a rather busy highway where both businesses and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) residences have existed alongside one another for decades. The work that Mr. Matthews has done to date on the property is already a great improvement to the neighborhood. As one of the property owners directly across the street from Castaway Marina, the proposal would impact our company as much as any of the neighbors. We hope the Planning Board will approve the project, as the proposal would not have a negative impact on our business, nor would it have a negative impact on other businesses or residences in the area. Sincerely, John A. Mason President” MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there’s no other questions or comments from the Board, I will close the public hearing, and are we ready to move forward on SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-With that, I will propose a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: J & D MARINA, 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 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So as far as the motion is concerned, I don’t believe there are any conditions, because I think their plan takes care of most of them, if not all of them. MRS. BRUNO-I think we need to add to it that the manner in which they’re storing, they’ve stated a few times that the boats will not be stacked. If we could just stick that in there. MR. TRAVER-We also want that there’s not going to be repair or washing. MS. CHASE-No servicing. MR. CHASE-General Note Number Three. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s already on the map. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing, on Number Five, you say site will not be used for any quick launch services associated with Castaway Marina. Can we just get rid of associated with Castaway Marina, and just say, because we’ve got Fischer’s Marina down there, or Mooring Post, or whatever. MR. CHASE-Fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I’ll say general note five, associated with Castaway will be removed, and I think that’s everything, right? MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other consideration is, this is a Special Use Permit. The permit can either be permanent, temporary or renewable, and we haven’t really discussed that consideration at all. MRS. BRUNO-I’d say renewable, renewable, but with a generous amount of time, so that we can review it, in terms of, I’m thinking actually perhaps the traffic issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t think traffic’s going to be an issue at all, because as I understand it, it’s just a one time thing, you get the boat trailers over there in the Spring. MS. CHASE-And then they sit. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you bring the boats over in the Fall. I mean, the way it works is that’s, well, I believe it’s going to be pretty heavy for a few days, because everyone comes at the same time. MS. CHASE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-My issues are visual impacts, and I think they’ve demonstrated that there shouldn’t be any, but nothing tells like the real one. So I would say, you know, several years, that at least we can re-visit it. MRS. BRUNO-I was thinking five. MR. FORD-That’s what I had in mind. No sooner than three. MR. TRAVER-Five years works. MR. HUNSINGER-And then what happens at the end of five years, they have to come back for Site Plan Review? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, do we have to re-apply for a new Site Plan, or is it a? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, Special Use Permit, I believe, that goes to Staff. MR. OBORNE-It would depend on what the parameters of the Special Use Permit that you put into your resolution tonight. Typically, reading the Code right now, typically it’s every year you would not have to re-apply. You would have to re-apply, but it would basically be almost a rubber stamp, per se. If you want to go ahead and put a date, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) 2012, 2010. I think one of the questions to ask the applicant would be what is the intended time use for this project, for this property? Is it indefinitely? MR. SEGULJIC-So if we made it five years, that means that in the Year 2012, they would have to come back through this process again? MR. HUNSINGER-2013. MR. FORD-2013. MR. OBORNE-Correct. The Special Use Permit would cease at that date, and you would have to come back and re-apply for another Special Use Permit with a certain time. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess, to be honest and practical, what you would submit is the Site Plan that you just filed, and say, you know, we’re operating this site, in compliance with the Special Use Permit from 2008, and we would like to continue. Is that a fair assessment of what would be required? I mean, you’d have to fill out the form, but in terms of the Site Plan, it would just be the Site Plan that we’re looking at now. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like we’re going to a five year Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Now as far as the expiration date, I don’t think it would make sense to have it be today. It would have to be the beginning of the season or the end of the season, I would think. MS. CHASE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So we do want to make it, what, November 1, 2013? MS. CHASE-We’d have to know in enough time so that we can advertise, because right now, we need to start advertising, if we’re going to actually have some. MR. SEGULJIC-So what would be a good date for you guys, in 2013? MS. CHASE-I would say the middle of the summer. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, anytime towards the Fall, because that would give us all winter to put the thing together. If we got tabled and what not. MS. CHASE-No. MR. MATTHEWS-No, that wouldn’t work? MS. CHASE-I would like it, if we could do it either beginning of summer, beginning of summer would be fine, because we would need to let people know that we’re able to do it. st MR. FORD-So May 1 of 2013? MS. CHASE-That would be perfect. st MR. SEGULJIC-May 1. MS. CHASE-Well, except we need time. The boats, typically, are in the water by, this year was a little late. MR. HUNSINGER-So five years from today actually wouldn’t be a bad date, is what you’re saying. MS. CHASE-Correct. th MR. SEGULJIC-So June 24. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we just say five years from today. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MS. CHASE-That would be fine. MR. SEGULJIC-So that becomes the condition. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be the condition. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How about with the others, that boats will not be stacked, and strike associated with the Castaway Marina. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 14-2008 J & D MARINA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes outdoor boat and equipment storage. Marina uses in the WR-1A zone require Special Use Permit approval from the Planning Board; and 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/22/08 tabled to 6/24/08; 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 if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. NOT APPLICABLE. 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. NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 14-2008 J & D MARINA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five is negative. Number Seven does not apply. Number Eight is not applicable, and Number Nine is not applicable. The following conditions will be applied: 1. The Special Use Permit expires June 24, 2013. 2. The boats will not be stacked, 3. On Site Plan C-1, Proposed Boat and Trailer Storage site plan, within Number Five, the general notes, the comment associated with the Castaway Marina will be eliminated. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MS. CHASE-Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-We will see you in five years from now. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE I THEODORE RAWSON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 725 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 ACRE PARCEL INTO 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 ACRES TO 1.84 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AD 5-05; PRELIMINARY STG. 10/23/07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/CEA/DEC/DOH NYS DOH LOT SIZE 8.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300-1-20 SECTION A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Staff comments for Theodore Rawson. The applicant’s engineer submitted the revised information on April 11, 2008 in response to the October 23, 2007 tabling resolution. Per an October 19, 2007 Vision Engineering comment letter, all outstanding items appear to have been addressed with the exception of an error with a conservative calculation with the Stormwater Report. ( comment #2 )06 On May 9, 2008 correspondence from Kathleen Obrien of the NYS DEC confirmed that the proposed development would not present an adverse impact on the Karner Blue or lupine concerns. On May 29, 2008 the NYS DEC consented to SEQR Lead Agency status for the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. On May 30, 2008 the NYS DOH consented to SEQR Lead Agency status for the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. If Final approval is considered, the previous SEQR determination and the Preliminary stage approval will need to be reaffirmed as this project had been previously reviewed as an Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of Ted Rawson who is here with me. I thought I’d just update you on where the project has rd gone since Preliminary approval, October 23, I believe. We have submitted to the Department of Health. We have addressed some comments from the Department of Health, and one of those was the SEQRA issue, which I believe, is resolved, the Type I SEQRA. We have addressed their comments. They have verbally told me that they’re satisfied with the plans, and we’re awaiting a local approval. DEC issue that we were waiting on is resolved with the endangered species. The City of Glens Falls, we have submitted. They had a few comments that we have addressed and re-submitted and I have followed up with them. I do not have a signoff in hand from the City at this time. I believe it is forthcoming. I’ve talked with them a couple of times on it, and I’m trying not to be a pest, but I believe it’s forthcoming. I believe they are satisfied. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, that was with the right of way with the water? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There’s an old City water line that runs across the property, and by easement. It’s not an ownership. It’s by easement, and we have requested the City’s opinion on it, and they have issued a couple of comments, one of which is to notify them and get them involved before you do any work on the project, and they’re not entirely sure that the water line is within the easement. The water line is very old. Early 1900’s. MR. SIPP-Is it still in use? MR. HUTCHINS-It is still in use. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we were to say something like a condition, get the signoff from the City of Glens Falls? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, from Steve Gursla, the City Engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like they don’t know what they want. It sounds like that could be an endless loop for you. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t believe that’s the case, Tom. What I believe is he’s a very busy guy, and he hasn’t been able to get back and review what’s back there. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have a copy of that letter from him? MR. HUTCHINS-We don’t have a signoff letter. I have a comment letter that I’ve addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess can we even ask for something like that? MR. BAKER-We should have a copy in our file, certainly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That doesn’t seem to be too much to ask. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t think it’s too much to ask, and I believe it’s forthcoming, and I believe I’ve addressed his concerns. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just concerned if we say that, I don’t want them being caught in an endless loop, then, not being able to get it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I’m not sure what the issues are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s my concern. I don’t want to put a condition on you that you can’t resolve. MR. HUTCHINS-And of course we appreciate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Because it just concerns me that they don’t know where that line is. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s been there a long, long time, and there’s really no evidence, in the field you’re walking through a wooded area, and there really is not evidence of specifically where it is. The easement’s defined on the map. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but if we do ask for the signoff from the City Engineer of Glens Falls, you’re okay with that? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m okay with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Good. MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to, the only other issue I wanted to touch on was Mr. Ryan’s comment on the conservative calculation within the stormwater report. Without debating whether it’s in error or engineering judgment on why it is, I have revised the model, and it actually is conservative. It changes a calculated 1.07 cfs discharge to 0.98 cfs. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And with that, I’m all set. Unless Ted has anything to add, we’d turn it over to you for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? Comments? Is everyone satisfied with what was submitted with the exception of the signoff from the City Engineer? Okay. There is no public hearing required. The public hearing was already closed, and we 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) already did SEQRA and affirmed SEQRA. So we can move right to a resolution, if everyone’s comfortable. MR. FORD-Let’s do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.62 acre parcel into 6 residential lots ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 1.84 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/21/07 and 10/23/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. NOT APPLICABLE. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, 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; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, negative. Six does not apply. With the following conditions: 1. Obtain Town of Queensbury engineer signoff, 2. Obtain signoff from the City of Glens Falls engineer. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2008 SEQR TYPE II CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) JMC PROPERTIES; LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S): JMC PROPERTIES ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: SMOKE RIDGE RD., LOTS 19-23 APPLICANT PROPOSES FIVE [5] DUPLEX UNITS WITH ZERO LOT LINE ON LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.51 – 0.95 ACRES. DUPLEXES IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 15-04, AV 12-04, AV 4-06, SUB 6-06, AV 29-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 6.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.21, 21.22, 21.31, 21.32, 21.41, 21.42, 21.51, 21.52, 21.61, 21.62 SECTION 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan No. 23-2008, Cifone Construction. The applicant proposes to construct five duplex units on ten lots. The Planning Board approval is requested for the construction of a duplex in an SR-1A zone. There’s multiple lots associated with this project. The property is zone Suburban Residential One Acre. This is a SEQRA Type II. The parcel history, I’m not going to go into that because it’s pretty long, but I’m just going to go right down to Staff comments. The project has had numerous area variances which have not been acted upon in the past. The applicant has had his site plan approved in the past and wishes to commence building at the earliest possible time. Each unit will be owner occupied which is different from past proposals. The land is currently vacant and consists of scrub brush with few trees over 18 inches in diameter. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of duplexes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. With me is Matt Cifone, one of the principals of the applicant, and Tom Center, the engineer for the project. I think, as Staff said, we’ve been here before. Basically what happened was that the approvals expired, and we recently went back to the Zoning Board and renewed, or got approval of the variances that we had before, and we’re here to get Site Plan approval of the residences that are going to be built on this. Some of the Board members, I think everybody was here before. I don’t know if this is brand new to anyone. Basically these are going to be built with a common wall, and they are going to be sold as individual lots. We are hopeful that they will be owned occupied, and that’s basically it. I’ll let Tom speak to the engineering notes. I think we have spoken to the engineer, who I think was the same engineer who reviewed the project before, who’s got some additional comments this time around. TOM CENTER MR. CENTER-I did speak to Mr. Ryan this evening. In regards to Comment Number One, we have no problem, and I have added a note on the drawings, I believe it’s S-3, with the septic systems, basically stating that an additional test pit and percolation test would be required for Lot 20, for Unit 20A, prior to construction of septic system. In regards to the septic field, the location of that, Dan had some concerns. He was a little, you know, he was confused as far as, he thought it was the whole septic system. There’s actually the recommended, or with the replacement area, I’m sorry, the replacement area was closer to the toe of the slope. We discussed that as long as we have proper berm on the septic system so water sheds off it, which we do, he doesn’t have a problem. So I’ll enhance the grading in the area of that septic system to meet his comments and also he asked me about a dimension which I’ll provide in a comment back to the letter, in the letter. Comment Number Two, in regard to maintenance of the drywells, previously, when we applied to the Planning Board, I did go meet with the Town Highway Superintendent and they had no problems with the stormwater system that was designed in the right of way. As with any drywell that’s in the right of way, the Town, everything gets turned over to the Town upon completion of construction. So those will be, that’s the only infrastructure that’s being turned over to the Town, along with that drainage easement for the culvert that we’ve relocated. So I’ll just clarify that in a letter 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) to Dan, so both of those comments are relatively minor, and I think we’ve come to terms on both of them. MR. SIPP-And they would be maintained by the Town? MR. CENTER-Yes. Similar to any drywell in a subdivision that’s in the road. These are a little different because the road’s already constructed. So we will be adding them along the ditch line for increased infiltration of the stormwater coming off, between the lots and off the road. I think it’ll increase, you know, the drainage in that area, too, plus it’s deep well drained sands there, as it is from our experience doing the test pits. It’s quite well drained material. MR. SEGULJIC-So the long and short of it is, if I’m understanding this correctly, is you had your approval, it ran out, so you have to come back and get a new approval. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the long and short of it, because I can recall approving this, but that was back in September of 2006. MRS. BRUNO-It doesn’t seem that long ago. MR. O'CONNOR-The one request we would make, though, and this gets a little bit confusing, because this is basically a subdivision. It was, at one time, duplexes, and then it turned out to be single family homes but built with a common wall, and we don’t really have a timetable for that type of approval. You have a Site Plan approval which is good for one year, but even this time, we won’t build all ten units within that one year period, particularly, I think, with the market where it is. So I would like to have some consideration to have you give us an extended approval, which I think you’re authorized to do, say three years, and if we don’t have them up and built in three years, we’ll come back, probably for the same approval again, but. MR. SEGULJIC-That makes sense to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it seems reasonable. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we do that? MR. FORD-For the initial houses built, what price range are you looking at? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cifone will answer that. MATT CIFONE MR. CIFONE-In the $200,000 range, per side. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we, the approvals are generally one year. Can we extend it for three, two to three years? MR. OBORNE-The approvals of the Site Plan? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. OBORNE-We’ll get back to you on that. MRS. BRUNO-This has been one of the easiest evenings, with, you know, your application included. You don’t want to come back again? It’s quiet tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not so much what we do when we get here. It’s getting here. MRS. BRUNO-I can understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-You file 30 copies of whatever, to whoever, and you wait for this agenda and that agenda. That’s the difficult part of it, although we may catch up with it someday. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is on Lot’s 20A and 21B. Why didn’t we ask for a no cut on those two lots? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. CIFONE-That’s the area where, in order to come back up and meet that existing grading for the septic system. Because remember, these are the lots that (lost words). MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at Sheet S-2, you’re going to see that we have the grade back there in the area which would be the no cut zone. MRS. BRUNO-Was it the no cut zone that we, I know we had talked about the ATV traffic and some of the concern with the NiMo lines, was that one of the reasons why we had the no cut zone? MR. O’CONNOR-I think you just did it for preserving greenery. We think that the occupation with houses on this land will in fact cut off the access for the ATV’s. They use it as an access way. You put a house in the middle of the lot, people certainly aren’t going to, and they put a lawn in, they certainly aren’t going to let them run across the lawn, or they aren’t going to be too happy if they do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless of course they own an ATV. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Use their own property as the launching pad. MR. O'CONNOR-Then they would think that they have their own access to the Niagara Mohawk line that’s directly behind them. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. SIPP-Didn’t we discuss something about a fence at one time? MR. FORD-We did. MR. O'CONNOR-We did, and then eliminated it. MRS. BRUNO-Was that for upkeep? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cifone was here and took strong objection to putting a fence up, a fence to fence what, was his comment I think, and then you’ve also got something. You’ve got another thing. You’ve got clear (lost word). Right now we’ve got a no cut area back there and then we’d have to clear to get the people back there to put the fence in. It would be counterproductive. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I do have an answer to your question. It is under 179-9-070, Sub E. States, unless otherwise specified, or extended, and or extended by the Planning Board, it’s one year. So you can go ahead and say three years, five years. MR. O'CONNOR-Five years would be better. MR. OBORNE-Now there’s a point, if you don’t get construction, your Area Variance will expire after one year. That’s clad, that’s iron clad. MRS. BRUNO-But I thought they just had to re-apply for their building permit? As long as the building permit was up to date, the variance would stay. MR. OBORNE-That would be correct. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-You get caught up in a vicious cycle, because when you apply for the building permit, you have to pay for your recreation fees, and the other application fees, you could tie up probably $800 a lot. So you could put up to $8,000 and not be utilizing it for a period of five years. We’ll address that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-If you would give your extension, we would appreciate it. Maybe we’ll go back to the Zoning Board and see if we can get an extension from them. We didn’t really talk to them about this. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I get the sense that the Board’s okay with three years? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. FORD-Let’s go three. MR. SIPP-Three, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Three’s fine. Maybe the economy will turn back to building houses again. MR. SEGULJIC-So the only conditions we have is to get VISION Engineering signoff and then the extension. Now as far as the SEQRA goes, have we considered it? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Type II. MR. FORD-We’ve done it. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve done it. So we just have to say we’ve considered it and we affirm it. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? I’ll open the public hearing, and since there are no takers, is there any public, written comment? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2008 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic 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 five [5] duplex units with zero lot line on lots ranging in size from 0.51 – 0.95 acres. Duplexes in the SR-1A zone require Planning Board review and approval; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) 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 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2008 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the motion prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, the requirements of SEQRA have been considered and the proposed modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impact and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. We will impose the following conditions: 1. That you obtain an engineer signoff, 2. That the Site Plan approval will be extended to June 24, 2011. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Does the Town have a specific form, that maybe when you’re doing one of your (lost words)? Does the Town have a specific form for applications for an extension of an existing approval of Site Plan? If this goes to June of 2011, say in February we send in a letter saying we’ve sold X number of units and we wish to extend the balance of the units, is the letter sufficient, or maybe you could make up a form that would make that sufficient as opposed to making somebody go back through 15 copies or 18 copies of the maps and everything else. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand what you’re asking, and I guess that’s a question for Staff. MR. OBORNE-If I’m hearing you right, if you start one duplex, I mean, you’ve started the project. MR. O'CONNOR-This is Site Plan approval for each unit. This is Site Plan approval for each unit, although they’re all submitted at one time. Every duplex needs a Site Plan approval. That’s been the interpretation, and I’d like your thought process. APA does that, some other people do that. If you start the project, it’s like when we filed the subdivision map, even though we didn’t sell off any lots, we put in place the individual lots, and they couldn’t be taken out of play by any expiration. A lot of ordinances say if you substantially begin the project, then your approvals remain, and I don’t think we have that. MR. OBORNE-That, I think you are correct, and now that I remember the application, they are all broken out, because we had discussed with Matt, that, you know, you don’t need to submit 10 times 14. So we went ahead and we bundled it. I would say if you don’t start on one of the lots after three years, you’re going to have to go through the process again. That would be my guess. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s my fear, and my comment is the Town ought to take a look at that. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. SIPP-What happens, Mike, if you start one, you’ve got a common wall. You’re going to have to build one and shingle it and side it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think that they will, I don’t think that they will build one by itself. They will build the two. They typically, Cifone Construction doesn’t necessarily build on speculation. They’ve always built on contract. So they probably will follow through the same way, but, I don’t know, it’s something that we are coming to and ought to be looked at. I thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2008 SEQR TYPE II ROBERT & ANNE CLARK OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 10 BENMOST BUR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 375 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-54 SECTION 179-4-030 LINDA CLARK, ANN CLARK, & BILL CLARK, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I shall read the Staff comments. This application had an area variance for side setbacks for side setback relief that the applicant has withdrawn. The proposed addition may be either downsized or moved further from the shoreline in order to be compliant. If the current plan has been modified then staff offers the following: The submitted stormwater control plan appears to be lacking certain information. With the exception of an area marked ‘proposed drainage system for driveway side roof” on drainage system plan sheet, no details are evident. The clarification of type of drainage system to be installed and the precise location of the system should be noted on the plans. The following should be noted on the proposed plans also, any proposed grading to include any limits of clearing, contours, landscaping plan, utility locations, construction sequence, and an erosion control plan. This application has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for review and comment, which I believe you have received VISION Engineer’s comments. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floors is yours, whenever you’re ready. MR. CLARK-Okay. My name is Bill Clark, and my sister, Linda Clark, my mom, Anne Clark. She’s the property owner. This is kind of another kind of a faded version from what you had because the variance proposal that you have originally needed to be updated. So the plans are kind of a little bit updated, and so is the drainage and contour system. You requested some drainage issues. When it comes to the drainage contour map, we’re putting in some type of drywell system. Basically there’s a four inch by four drywell system that we can drain the rainwater from the back roof, and I’ve included the front roof, and we may be changing the roof system on this here, and it may include another angled part where the four inches, where it juts in there, and it may have to include a little bit of that roof structure there for runoff. You also requested that you wanted the distance from the well. You’re talking about 12 feet from the edge of the actual building, and then to the neighbor’s house you’re talking about 27 feet over to the well and the neighbor’s house. From the, I shouldn’t say the edge of the lake, but from the bottom of the hill in the front of the property where the lake is located, all the way back to the drywell, is approximately 97 feet, at the present time. Plus or minus maybe a foot. When they excavate the property, we plan to put some type of berm or hay bales or something to keep any kind of runoff from going down towards the lake. It’s pretty much a level piece of property, with the exception of the driveway going out the back and to the front of the property, it slopes down to the lake. There’s about an 11 foot drop off. Do you want to add anything, Linda? MS. CLARK-When we were at the meeting last week, they had suggested that the size of the building be changed, and we have accommodated that change. Instead of the whole building being the same size, as you see in the front here, we moved the one room by four feet. So we are now in compliance to how the building sits on the lot. MR. FORD-In compliance with what? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MS. CLARK-Well, we had sought a variance and, yes, we had tried to get a variance for three feet on the one end of the building, and we changed that. So, it’s sitting on the property properly now. MR. FORD-You no longer require a variance. MS. CLARK-We no longer need a variance, right. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the members of the Board? MR. CLARK-They also mentioned that they wanted to know, from ground level, if you look at the sectional view, on the original drawings it didn’t show from ground level up about where the actual poured wall would be, it’s about eight inches up above the ground level, and then the sill plat and the joist system would actually begin to take form. They wanted me to add that. So I put that in there, too. It’s all in the sectional view, and then the floor plan, the modified floor plan or changed floor plan is the last page of the document. MR. HUNSINGER-So was the lot surveyed so that you know the exact location of property line? MR. CLARK-Yes. You should have, in the original packet, the survey map that is stamped and gives all the specifications of measurements on that. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have an existing septic system that’s staying, correct? MR. CLARK-Correct. The existing septic system has just been updated. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CLARK-It is all in compliance. There is nothing out of compliance. MS. CLARK-It’s brand new. MR. CLARK-It’s brand new. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re going to be doing is building an addition onto the existing house. MR. CLARK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-On the west, east side I guess? MR. CLARK-I believe it’s the north. MR. OBORNE-It is the north side, yes. MR. CLARK-I believe it’s the north side. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. FORD-Can you elaborate on that updated septic system, please? MR. CLARK-Yes. I have the specs here. When it comes to the Certificate of Compliance, basically there’s a map of the septic system that was just put in and you’re talking about June 13, 2005 Town of Queensbury has been stamped. That should be in the packet, the original packet that I had originally dropped off. The septic system is all up to compliance. Really, the septic system, I don’t believe, should be an issue because really what’s happening is my parents are getting older and they’re moving downstairs versus using the facilities upstairs. So it’s more of a flat surface, and we’re increasing their space that really they would have been upstairs. So, as they get older, they may have to move around. MRS. CLARK-My husband has arthritis, and he had his study and things upstairs and he can’t get up there anymore. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. CLARK-And both their study and all your art and supplies and all your other stuff. Basically, there’s almost two bedrooms that we don’t even use upstairs because they have all their stuff in it. So we’re kind of trying to give them some space so my mom can do some artwork downstairs, and she doesn’t have to go up and down the stairs all the time. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to, you’re proposing a drywell. MR. CLARK-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-At the base of the driveway it looks like. I don’t see any calculations for that, though. How did you size that drywell? MR. CLARK-Well, the actual drywell itself, I really didn’t have any specs or any, when it comes to the Town of Queensbury, I really don’t know what they’re exactly looking for. So in this case, I still am doing more research on that, when it comes to the drywell system. If you would like me to move it back, we’ll move it back in. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, I mean, here’s where I’m coming from. I have no problem with the project over all, but I don’t know, are you aware that you’re in a Critical Environmental Area? MR. CLARK-Correct. That’s why we’re in front of you. MR. SEGULJIC-I always have a heightened sense of awareness whenever you’re in a CEA. MR. CLARK-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-And, you know, what you’re trying to accomplish here is fine, but you have a stormwater plan, but you don’t have any calculations with it. So how do we know if it’s going to work or not? I mean, I’m not even sure what that’s going to drain. I assume the driveway. MR. CLARK-No, no. It doesn’t drain the driveway. We’re actually bringing, the dotted lines, basically what you’re seeing here is you’re going to take the roof, water off the roof system, and into the drywell system, okay, and when it comes to the calculations, if you’d like me to come up with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we’re going to need that to show it’s sized correctly. MR. CLARK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my comments, if you’re in a CEA, then, shouldn’t we try and capture the rain water on the driveway? I don’t believe the regulations require that, but it would be a good idea. MR. CLARK-That’s not a bad idea, when it comes to, you mean adding that to it. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing is, and I think that’s something we can easily overcome, and then the other issue is, I don’t see any stormwater controls during construction. You do note that you’re going to be putting hay bales and other things of that nature, you have that on your notes. MR. CLARK-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So really what you should have is where you’re going to put your silt fences during construction. How is the silt fence going to be installed? So that when the Town goes out to inspect it, it’s, you know, it’s all being done correctly. Right now you just say I’m going to put out hay bales, but where are you going to put those hay bales? I mean, if I’m correct, hay bales are not, don’t quote me on this, they’re not reviewed kindly these days. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you should have silt fences, and silt fences have to be installed into the ground like several inches, and then you put soil over them. MR. TRAVER-I think those regulations have changed. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s what we need to see. I mean, so you’ve just tighten this up. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. CLARK-Okay. MS. CLARK-I have a question. When Bill talked with the Town, the Town told him he needed to address the stormwater runoff from the roof system. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MS. CLARK-Are you saying that the project would be held up if the stormwater system wasn’t addressed in terms of the driveway? Or is it just the roof system that we really, really need to address here? MR. SEGULJIC-I believe, and Staff can chime in on this, I believe you only have to address the new construction, which would be the roof, but I was just saying you’re in a CEA. It would be nice if you also took care of the driveway. MS. CLARK-Well, that water does not run into the lake at all, coming off that driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, I don’t have any contour map showing me that. MS. CLARK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-This is just one voice on the Board. MS. CLARK-Okay. I appreciate what you’re saying and I understand what you’re saying. I just wanted to know if this is something that would be holding up the project if this was not addressed? MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, I believe you only have to address the new construction, which would be the roof. MS. CLARK-Okay. All right. MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m just saying it would be a nice idea. I mean, I think it’s great how you maintain the vegetation along the lake. Vegetation along lake fronts is very important. MS. CLARK-That’s mom. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s nice. It maintains the stability of the banks and everything else like that. MR. SIPP-We have no elevations to show how much pitch there is between the house and the lake. Is that steep? It looks fairly. MR. CLARK-It’s an 11 foot drop off. It is steep. It drops down very quickly. The front yard is relatively, it’s flat all around, pretty much where the addition is going to be placed, and really you only have two areas that drop off, that is where the driveway is, and in the front of the property, the lake side. So those are the two areas, and you can see. MR. SIPP-That shows a hard surface, black top driveway? MR. CLARK-Yes, it is. MR. SIPP-Following halfway along the house there, towards the lake? MRS. CLARK-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is there anything that catches that water that comes off that drive? MR. CLARK-The water comes off the driveway, very slight slope, okay, into the grass area, and the driveway comes down really, that’s, we rarely, we don’t use, the driveway sloping down, we don’t use that as much, but the rainwater that comes down the other part of the driveway runs down, and it’s kind of angled and goes off into the grassy area, and both sides it goes right off there. MR. FORD-It runs off the side as well, does it not? MR. CLARK-Off the side of the driveway, yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. FORD-The left side is where (lost word). MS. CLARK-Well, yes, because it does go down, yes. MR. CLARK-Right. In the back of the property, if you looked at the, it does slope down. There is a hill. MS. CLARK-There is a hill. MR. CLARK-You can see, I’ve got labeled hill, and it does come down. MR. SIPP-See, we don’t have elevations to show that. We need calculations here, because if you push snow down that short length, and pile it at the end of that driveway. MR. CLARK-That’s not where we pile the snow. MS. CLARK-The snow is pushed up, or it’s blown off into the grassy area. MR. CLARK-It’s blown off into the grassy area. MS. CLARK-It can’t be pushed the other way because there’s a public road down there, and there are people that live there. So you can’t push it that way. MR. CLARK-Right, and that’s a right of way that goes through there. So that all has to be cleared out of there. MR. SIPP-That’s a right of way. MS. CLARK-So you have our driveway, or mom and dad’s driveway, that goes down. Then you have a private driveway, and then you have the public road, and the private driveway, we have, or mom has the right of way over that private driveway. MR. CLARK-Yes. Do you want me to show you a couple of things up there? All right. What you have here, right now, this building here is my sister’s house, and this is the driveway that goes down, and really the property is landlocked from any major roads. So you have a right of way over this property that goes down into here. Right up in this area right here there’s kind of a hill that goes down. There’s a couple of big trees that are all sitting right along in here, and this comes right around and then slopes right around. You can kind of see the driveway through here, and the rainwater pretty much goes off right into this area here. The driveway’s kind of angled right into this area. So all of this runoff just runs right into this area here, and then it slopes around, and all this still keeps going over into this area here, and then the driveway goes right out right here. What we’re proposing is right here for the addition, and the drop off, out in front, is from right here to right about here, and this right here is the path that you’re talking about. I’m pretty sure that’s the path, the old path that used to go around Glen Lake. We still have that in place because we still like the path, mom and dad do. So this area here is about an 11 foot drop off, and it’s real quick. I don’t see how elevation in this area here is going to make much of a difference, because it’s all relatively flat. There is a, between the two properties, there is a set of pine trees that runs right along here, and there is a little bit of a brim, a little, small area here, but I don’t see how that’s going to impact the building project because the building project is all on flat surface. MR. HUNSINGER-So the driveway currently the water sheds away from the lake? MR. CLARK-Yes. There is no water that runs towards that lake at all, anywhere on that property. MRS. BRUNO-And you mentioned a public road that somehow? MR. CLARK-Yes. You’re talking about, Birch Road is way over here, but they have, the property is kind of landlocked, in that you are able to drive over here, and there’s a right of way through this property, and there’s a right of way that’s over this property here to get to Birch Road. So you’re going to actually do a loop right through here, to hit both roads, and there’s a right of way. MR. FORD-Could you, again, reinforce the slope of the property? MR. CLARK-What do you mean by reinforce, go through it again? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. FORD-Yes, please. MR. CLARK-Okay. This area here, there’s a small hill that goes down, goes around. MR. FORD-Now runoff from that hill would go in what direction? MR. CLARK-It all runs off into this area here, okay, and then when you get down in here, it’s kind of the back door. If you show the other picture, you’ll see the back door. Pretty much the driveway flows over into this area here. Very little water runs down the driveway. It does not flow downhill and right out the driveway. It does not do that. It never has. It’s always run down and runoff into this area here. This area right here is really kind of a sharp turn, and it goes around a set of trees, and it almost kind of banks a little, and it banks and it flows down into this area here. So this is taking all your rainwater in this area here, coming from all directions. Even in the back here, it runs this way. Now, what it slopes down to, right about in here, to go out the, where it slopes down to go out the back of the property, that’s the only part of the area that really slopes down and out, and the next door neighbor, this gentleman here, has been building this new construction, and he’s filled in and gradually sloped that down, so it’s less, what you’re seeing on the drawings, I put six, seven feet. It’s actually less than that now, when it comes to a slope. It’s probably more like four feet of gradual down, and then he’s got it all sloped. So in this area over here, right about here, Birch Road comes down here, there’s a marsh area that sits over here, and when he, hopefully, I don’t know for sure, but his (lost word) back in here, hopefully it’ll flow down towards that area, but he’s, typically speaking, we’ve never had a problem with water running into that area from our property. MR. SIPP-I still want to know where the snow goes. MR. CLARK-Where does the snow? Well, we snow blowed the driveway, and we’ve, actually. MS. CLARK-I snow blow the driveway, so I can tell you myself. I maintain the house in the wintertime. So when I have a truck, I start the truck from here and I run the snow up here, I run it up in here. Okay. If I’m pushing the snow blower, which is what I’m doing right now, it gets blown this way, on the way down, and this, back into this area right here, where all the water is taken, right into this direction, right on down. It never gets pushed into the neighbor’s driveway because I can’t do that. That wouldn’t be right for me to do that. So I have to throw it off to the side, or if I bring the truck up, I’ve got to push the snow into that area, or push it into this area. MR. FORD-Thank you. I understand the slope better. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, what you just described really makes sense, looking at that picture, because you’re not going to push the snow up towards the house. You’re going to push it away from the house. MS. CLARK-No. I push it, I have to, there is no place to put it otherwise. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. Okay. Where are we here? Questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I just think we need to have the stormwater calculations for at least the new impervious areas. Personally I’d like to see also the driveway, and then also I think we need the stormwater controls during construction. How does everyone feel about the contours? MR. SIPP-We definitely need contours. Is this lawn maintained by a service? MS. CLARK-We maintain it. MR. SIPP-How much nitrogen fertilizer do you use? MR. CLARK-We don’t. MS. CLARK-We don’t. MR. CLARK-We rarely do that, no. MS. CLARK-The front doesn’t get anything. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. CLARK-No. MR. SIPP-Doesn’t get anything. MR. CLARK-No. MS. CLARK-And the back, if we do use it, we use the fertilizer that’s safe for lakefront areas. MR. CLARK-And the front right now, right in front of where we’re proposing, my mom has just put in some grass or turf, and that’s really, really green right now, and as time goes on, that’s going to get like the other side, which is a little less fertilized, let’s put it that way. MS. CLARK-We don’t use fertilizer on the lakefront, no way. MR. CLARK-We don’t use fertilizer along the top edge. MS. CLARK-No way. MR. CLARK-We do mulch a lot. My dad goes out and we mulch all the leaves into the grass, but that’s pretty much our major fertilizer. I have lots of leaves, from the big oak trees, and we don’t want to part with any of the big oaks, too. So none of the trees that you see close to the waterfront, they will not be coming down at all. The only thing that you may see come down are the trees that are against the house, and really they shouldn’t be there in the first place. MS. CLARK-If I may give you another idea about the land contour, because I know that’s what your concern is. Okay. This area right here, this goes up, right in here, all right, and there’s a, like a little berm that’s in here, from about this first tree, it begins to gradually come up as you move back here, so it’s pretty high back in here. So it’s not like the water’s going to run off into the neighbor’s property at all. MR. FORD-I’m not worried about the neighbor’s property. I’m worried about the lake. MS. CLARK-Okay. Well, with the lakefront, he’s proposing to put that system on to catch the water off the roofline on the lakefront and bring it on back into that, the hole in the ground, whatever that’s called. I know, we’re all laymen here. MR. OBORNE-Filtration device. MS. CLARK-Filtration device. MR. SIPP-Do you some plans for a rain garden out front there to soak up some of that water? MS. CLARK-Plans for a rain garden? MRS. CLARK-There’s plants all in the front. MR. SIPP-We don’t know, we can’t see them. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re in the picture, Don. MR. CLARK-I may have taken that one out. Yes, there was a picture of the front of the house, and I did take it off. MS. CLARK-Well, no, here it is. See. See all this front area? This is all vegetation that my mom planted in here, and there’s actually, it drops down here, and then it drops down again, because there’s a walking path in between. So there’s lot of vegetation in here, and there’s lots of vegetation in here. Does that make sense now? MR. SIPP-Yes. I know where, I was talking about taking the stormwater off of the roof, putting it into another device. MR. SEGULJIC-They proposed a drywell. MR. SIPP-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Did we get engineering comments on this? MR. HUNSINGER-We did. MR. SEGULJIC-We did. I didn’t see those. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this the one that was e-mailed? There were only really three comments. MRS. BRUNO-They were pretty broad, though. MR. HUNSINGER-It all relates to stormwater. MRS. BRUNO-We were just discussing, earlier this evening, people that don’t come in regularly, such as yourselves, you’ve got a couple of houses, how the process may be a little overwhelming or baffling because you’re not accustomed to it. One thing that’s been happening, and I’m sure you’ve heard it, along with the whole green movement and everything, is the care of our waterfronts, and it sounds like you folks already do a pretty good job of that. In our zoning, and this is true in many towns, I think pretty much everyone’s starting to adopt it. Stormwater regulations, and you’ve got the right idea with the infiltration basins, but they actually layout what they require, and you might want to write this down, because you might want to read it in our Zoning Code. 179-6-080 refers to the stormwater runoff, and one of the most important statements, and I think this is what Mr. Seguljic is getting at, is all stormwater management plans shall be designed so that post development runoff is equal to or less than pre-development runoff, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Board. I doubt we’re going to waive it, because we tend to really look at that closely, because of our concern for the water and the environment. Post-development runoff is equal to or less than pre-development. Even though, I guess we need to see the contours even though we see it visually. There are all kinds of calculations. I don’t know if I have a stormwater report. Unfortunately, things have gotten very tedious in the calculations, and there are computer programs that run it and everything and again, it becomes difficult for people like us, you know, just to come and do our, you know, look for a project for your house. I’m just trying to give a little bit more background why this might seem daunting. I’m sure it is, but kind of why, I know you’re looking at us kind of like where’s that coming from. Part of it is, a lot of it is straight from the zoning, and it sounds like you’ve been doing a lot of research, and unfortunately there’s a lot more out there. MS. CLARK-A professional builder, I’m sure this would be a lot easier for all of us. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Exactly. MS. CLARK-We don’t. We’re, you know, trying to do this ourselves. MRS. BRUNO-Quite frankly, not all the builders know about it either. It’s, you know, we see things after they’ve been built, and it’s just, you know, you wonder where they’re coming from sometimes. MS. CLARK-Well, we’re interested in doing the right thing as much as possible here, because we do have a great concern and care for the lake. We’ve been there since we were children, and we don’t want to see it ruined. We’re all active members of the Glen Lake Association, and, you know, we’re concerned. MRS. BRUNO-That’s good to know. MS. CLARK-And show that concern. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d be happy to share, this was a stormwater management report that we approved this evening, just to give you an idea of kind of information that’s in it. MR. CLARK-Thank you. MS. CLARK-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think any of us have ever really looked to see how much the different consultants cost, but unfortunately you might have to go in that direction, finding somebody either locally or otherwise, to do the calculations. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MS. CLARK-Is there any way that we could do the calculations without? MRS. BRUNO-I don’t know. I’ve never done them myself. MS. CLARK-I know, but would you accept layman’s calculations, so long as they were right, instead of having it all done by an engineer? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why we wouldn’t, because it does get reviewed by the Town Engineer. So, I mean, he would review it and make sure that the calculations were done correctly. MS. CLARK-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And I should probably give you a qualification. In giving you that sample, I’m certainly not telling you to hire that firm. I mean, that just happened to be the top of the pile. MR. SIPP-A certain amount of water comes off per square foot. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that something that Staff does is provide, do we have a list of consulting engineers that? MR. BAKER-We do, it’s called the yellow pages. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There you go. MRS. BRUNO-For some reason I thought, and this is more of a question for Staff. When this whole thing started to really, the ball was rolling more with the Code changes and all of that, eight, ten years ago, I thought they were needing even engineers to become certified specifically in stormwater design. Is that an additional? I’m just wondering if that would weigh on the engineering or not. MR. SEGULJIC-There are people that get certified in just stormwater. MR. OBORNE-Stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, for sedimentation and control, but they’re few and far between. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So it’s not a requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. BRUNO-I just want to make sure that we don’t send these folks on their way thinking one thing and then it turns out. MR. SEGULJIC-No. They just have to have calculations that prove it’s going to work, and, as the Chairman pointed out, I think that the Town Engineer would have to be our backside. MR. OBORNE-I would make a suggestion to possibly use rusle, because it is a small area that’s the revised urban soil loss equation. You can get that equation on line. There’s certain parameters. You might have a problem finding the charts, but, you know, look into that for your area because it’ll tell you what type of soil it is, what type of permeability, etc., and you can come up with a cubic square, cubic foot, cubic feet per second of runoff, or CFS per runoff, based on that equation alone. MS. CLARK-Okay. That was a website you say? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just r-u-s-l-e, capital letters. That’s just a suggestion. I don’t know if Dan will go for that or not. That’s a small, small area. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the things that I’ve always felt strongly about is we shouldn’t require applicants to always have to use an engineer to do simple projects, and if you were two miles away from the lake or even one mile away from the lake, we wouldn’t be as rigorous in the review, but since you are on the lakefront, we do want to make sure that we’re controlling the runoff, and we do need to see some kind of documentation of the calculations to show that the stormwater will be handled properly. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And just continuing that vein, one other thing you really should do, you should really have a test pit where you want to put that drywell. MR. CLARK-I’m sorry, what was that? MR. SEGULJIC-A test pit. What are your soils like there? How deep are they? I don’t know the characteristics of this area. I would assume you have enough soil. MR. CLARK-Glen Lake there’s very little soil. MS. CLARK-It’s rock. MR. SEGULJIC-So let’s say, for example. MR. CLARK-It’s cobblestone and sand. MR. SEGULJIC-You propose a four foot deep drywell, and you have to have at least six inches below. So you need four and a half and if groundwater is, or bedrock is three feet. It’s not going to work. MR. CLARK-There’s no bedrock, though, in that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just saying you should look at the soil characteristics to make sure it’s going to work. MR. CLARK-Right. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t want you to go through all that expense and find out it’s not going to work. MR. CLARK-Okay. What’s our next move from, at this point, when it comes to getting this information, that we come back to you? MR. SEGULJIC-Getting all this information together. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you submit your new information to Staff. MR. CLARK-To Staff. They’ll review it. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’ll go to the Town Engineer for his review, and he’ll make another comment letter. Staff will make comments, and then it’ll come back before the Board. MR. CLARK-Okay. MS. CLARK-Once this process gets cleared, how long do we have to go through the building of it? I mean, is it a year? Is it two years? We understood that the variance was two years, but I’m not sure about this. MR. HUNSINGER-When we approve a Site Plan, generally speaking, unless it’s otherwise specified, you have one year to start the project. MS. CLARK-Okay. So we could start the project next summer, if this gets delayed to the point where we’re into the winter months? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. CLARK-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Typically what we do when we table an application is we table it to, you would have almost a month to submit new information. The deadline to submit thth information is the 15 of the month. So for the next meeting, it would be the 15 of July, for us to consider this in August, and the first question I will ask you is, you know, do you think that’s going to be enough time to get what you need and submit the information back to the Town? MS. CLARK-He has the summer off. MR. CLARK-I will do the best I can. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean I realize some of it’s out of your control, but, I mean, if you told me, if you were sitting there and you said, gee, I don’t think there’s any way I’ll th have, you know, this new information to you by July 15, then we would table it until September to give you more time. th MR. CLARK-I will try my best to get it by the 15. th MS. CLARK-If we can’t have it by the 15, we can always let you know and then table it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MS. CLARK-All right. We haven’t lost ground? MR. HUNSINGER-No, you haven’t lost ground. MS. CLARK-Okay. Very good. MR. CLARK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re not done. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? I will open the public hearing and we will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess I will consider a tabling resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to table it for the stormwater design? MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater controls for the, you said it best, Tom, for the new impervious area, and stormwater controls during construction. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2008 ROBERT & ANNE CLARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For the following additional information: 1. For stormwater controls, 2. Stormwater design and calculations for the new impervious areas, 3. Erosion and sedimentation controls for pre and post construction, 4. Installation of a test pit in the area of the proposed drywell. 5. Tabled to the first meeting in August, August 19, 2008. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry to make it more complicated. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions? Are you all set? MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand what we’re after? MS. CLARK-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact Staff. MRS. BRUNO-And if you do real well, maybe you’ll be employed further in the community. MR. CLARK-Thank you. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MS. CLARK-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 7-2008 SEQR TYPE II LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) DAVID HATIN OWNER(S) LARRY CLUTE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 35 MEADOW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE WETLANDS. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF SHORELINE. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIRED FOR DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100’ OF SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32-08; BOH 8-2008 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA DEC/NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.69 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.17-1-27 SECTION 179-9-010[D] DAVID HATIN & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Staff comments on this project are as follows. The Town of Queensbury map shows New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands on roughly the western third of the property. The wetlands are located to the rear of the property and are more predominant on the north end and less so on the south. With that in mind, the house was located toward the front and south end of the property. A tree clearing proposal has been submitted and describes before and after descriptions of the proposed lot. The proposed clearing appears to be only what is necessary for the project. Concerning stormwater, to date no report has been submitted. This application has been submitted to VISION Engineering for review and comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, gentlemen. MR. HATIN-Good evening. My name’s Dave Hatin. I’m’ the applicant for this project. Larry Clute is the owner who is seated at the end of the table, and Tom Center is the engineer who designed the stormwater management plan for this project for me. To put it simply, it’s a single family dwelling on an existing lot. The house was situated so we disturbed the least amount of property as necessary to do the project. I did receive a nd septic variance for the project back on June 2. A variance was granted last week for setback variances to the wetlands by the Zoning Board, and tonight we are here basically to approve the disturbance within 50 feet of the wetlands, hard surfacing and the filling. There is an issue with the stormwater management plan as far as DEC is concerned, which I have a letter that I’ll hand to the Board from Mark Migliore that I received this afternoon, concerning the approval of the stormwater. He does not want to see a retention pond on this property. He has asked that we eliminate the retention pond and basically follow the contours around the retention pond, and create somewhat of a flat area and discharge stormwater to the north, what I would call the northwest area of the driveway, through a roof leader, and that is stated in this letter. So I’ll give it to you for the record, and Tom Center, I had a discussion with him today as well. He can probably explain it better in engineering terms, if you’d like, as to why Mark Migliore does not want this retention pond, what I would call the rear of the home from Meadow Drive. That’s really the project in a nutshell. I’ll hand out this letter from Mark Migliore. Thank you. MR. CENTER-As Dave said, in my conversation with Mark, you know, we discussed his letter and the removal of the stormwater pond, and to break it down in very simple terms, his concern with the pond, for stormwater management, would be the disturbance that the pond, the construction of the pond, the maintenance of the pond, after it’s constructed, in New York State DEC’s eyes, and his in particular, as being the administrator for the wetland protection, is more of a detriment to the wetlands than allowing the house and the driveway to discharge across the new grassed lawn and into the wetland. They feel that there is less of an impact to the wetland from the stormwater coming off a single family residence in a driveway through that grassed lawn, and whatever, you know, the buffer edge, the 15 foot no disturbance, and then into the wetland, is more than enough protection for the wetland for him, rather than construction of a pond with steeper side slopes than the existing grade, and the potential for it not to be maintained properly. His experience throughout the State in protecting these wetlands, is that these ponds, and I’m not saying that the applicant here would not maintain it, but future homeowners may not maintain it. Somebody could just go in and slice off the top of the berm or the weir, and then it’s discharging straight into the wetlands. They feel that it would be more of a detriment if that were to occur later on 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) down the line, than just allowing the house to be built without the pond, with the buffers that are intact, with the grading that he’s looking for, and the existing grade that’s there, allowing it to go into the land. In their opinion, and these guys are the experts, you know, for the State. They see a lot of this. The single family home stormwater management is really not a detriment to the wetland. In this case in particular, you’ve got an entire subdivision that surrounds this wetland. These protections are not on any of the homes, I don’t believe, or required for any of the homes, and they feel that it’s more of a detriment for this pond to be built, the potential for runoff into the wetland and the potential for it not to be maintained and to cause harm later, and they strongly feel that, and they’ve written it in their letter quite strongly, that they want it removed, and as part of their conditions for their approval of the application that’s before them, they’ve considered that the plan is complete, barring the fact that once the pond is removed they found that the plan would be complete and they have no problem approving it. So that’s kind of the nuts and bolts in layman’s terms. He goes through a lot of explanation in his letter, but our conversation, and I reiterated what I just said to you folks to him, and said, am I relaying your message properly? And he said yes. He is the stormwater professional. He’s got the credentials, and he works for the State. It’s his responsibility. He has a group of people working for him and they have found that single family residences and driveways with the proper buffers provided, and they feel that this buffer is adequate, that it does not provide a detriment to the wetland. MR. FORD-It’s all about soil permeability and he’s, in design. MR. CENTER-It’s not necessarily permeability. I think it’s the grass acting as kind of a scrub for the water as it goes through, before it gets to the wetland, to take any solids, to take anything off there. They don’t feel that there’s a lot coming off of a house and a driveway, and basically that’s all that’s going to be going in that direction is the runoff from the house and the driveway. It’s not like you’re building a huge road, and it’s, you know, all the water’s collected and discharged. This is kind of spread out, roof leaders to splash pads. They’ve got their 15 foot buffer that they require, the no disturbance 15 foot buffer, and then the adjacent area, and they feel there’s enough adjacent area, prior to this water getting to the wetland, that it won’t provide any detriment, have any detriment on the wetland, and that’s kind of how he explained it. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. How does that change your proposed contours, though? MR. CENTER-It changes it only in the fact, and I did it real quick. I didn’t get into the edge of the driveway, but just by taking the pond off, the only thing it really changes is the contouring. You still have to do some fill here because of where the house, and coming out of the house and the groundwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-We will work that out with him. I don’t think it’s going to change it much. Again, his major concern was the side slopes on the back side of that pond. MR. HUNSINGER-So this 82 foot line would remain? MR. CENTER-The 82 would probably remain, because, you know, we do need to grade around the house in order to have that walk out basement, and the finished floor elevations. MR. HATIN-Chris, just to answer your question, also, when I originally proposed this, I did a sketch with him, based on the current contours, and what we had agreed on is that we would go down to the two foot contour and that the filling would be, that there would be a silt fence put at the 15 foot mark from the edge of the wetlands, which would basically identify the no disturbance line, so that nobody could go beyond that, other than to take down some white pines that are beyond that, to eliminate those from possibly coming down on top of the residence, if they ever should fall, because they are shallow roots, and open up that area for the hardwoods that are going to remain. Other than that, there would be no disturbance in that 15 feet. So basically that natural buffer that’s there now would remain. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a comment in the DEC letter about the 15 foot buffer planting recommended by Warren County. MR. HATIN-Yes. If you’ll notice on the original plan that was submitted, there is a note about planting dogwoods and, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at it. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. CENTER-That would be on S-1. MR. HATIN-There’s a note to plant it with dogwoods, arrowwoods and pussy willows. Leave all deciduous trees. So that note was added to the plans, and that was one of his requests. MR. FORD-How many white pine will actually be removed? MR. HATIN-From the entire parcel, it’s about 20 trees. MR. FORD-But within that 15 foot? MR. HATIN-Within 15 foot there’s a clump of four trees. In fact, I don’t know if it shows in one of these pictures up here. It would be to the left of this picture. You can just see two of them right there in the background of the upper left hand corner, and then beyond that there’s a group of three or four I believe, but I think those two were beyond the 15 feet, if I remember right. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The only other thing is stormwater controls during construction. MR. HATIN-If you look on the plans, there’s a silt fence shown, at the 15 foot mark. If you’ll notice, there’s first solid line back from the DEC delineations on S-1, that says silt fence, and that basically shows the line of silt fence there. MR. SEGULJIC-It does say silt fence. MR. HUNSINGER-So the silt fence would be basically across the whole property. MR. HATIN-Across the whole property at the 15 foot mark. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HATIN-To identify it. MR. HUNSINGER-What about removal of trees between the house and the southern property line? Are there any trees in there? MR. HATIN-There are a couple of small pines, I believe, but very few. I don’t know if you got a good picture of it. There’s a picture where it showed the string line that I’d run on the south property line. I remember seeing it. Right there. You can see the string in the lower left, that goes out, and there’s one white pine. The large tree is a white pine. The other trees are not white pines. Those would stay. MR. HUNSINGER-So that line is the, that string line is the? MR. HATIN-South property line. MR. HUNSINGER-South property line. MR. HATIN-No, wait a minute. That is the, no, that’s the road line. So, I thought I saw another picture that they had up here where they showed the south string line, south property earlier. No, that’s still the Meadow Drive string line. MR. HUNSINGER-Would that be it? MR. HATIN-Yes. That would be it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, yes, there’s a little clump of trees. MR. HATIN-There’s a clump right there that are in close proximity to the foundation. I actually, I don’t know if anybody went out there, the foundation’s actually staked out in ribbon, in orange ribbon. It shows about where the foundation would be. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve got to be honest. I didn’t feel a need to go out there. I used to live about three houses down. I’ve been all over that site. MR. SEGULJIC-Where do we want to go from here? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. FORD-We should proceed. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the VISION Engineering comments, have those been addressed? MR. HATIN-They were addressed at the Town Board variance. I do have a copy of that plan if you’d like to see it. It was submitted to the Town Board that night, and all his comments were addressed that night. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying you have a signoff from him, then? MR. HATIN-Yes. The Town Board did approve it with all his comments addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he did have a comment about the fill materials and the perc rates. MR. HATIN-Right, and one of the conditions of the Zoning Board, or excuse me, the Town Board, Town Board of Health, septic variance was that soils would be perked at time of placement to verify the seven to ten minute perc rate, which we had planned on doing anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I don’t think there’s anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application, but we will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Seeing there’s no takers for the public hearing, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are people comfortable moving forward? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s a Type II. I think it was a Short Form. MR. BAKER-It’s a Type II, there’s no SEQRA required. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. No SEQRA required. The applicant did submit a Short Form, though. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. We provide a Short Form with every application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there any particular issue that anyone has a, any SEQRA issue that people have a problem with? That requires investigation? MR. FORD-Not that hasn’t been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will entertain a motion for approval or denial. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2008 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 7-2008 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling adjacent to the wetlands. Site Plan Review for hard surfacing within 50’ of shoreline. Freshwater Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100’ of shoreline; and 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)NOT APPLICABLE. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2008 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 7-2008 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five does not apply. 1. That Sheet S-2 will be revised in accordance with the DEC letter to Mr. David Hatin dated June 24, 2008 and signed by Mark S. Migliore. th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I think we have to deal with the issue that S-2 needs to be revised in accordance with the DEC letter. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. HATIN-Thank you. SITE PLAN 27-2008 RECOMMENDATION ONLY SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 21 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF 450 SQ. FT. OF LIVING SPACE, NEW 2 CAR GARAGE & NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ANY HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON- 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. ALSO, REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/11/08 APA/DEC/CEA APA, LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-7 SECTION 179-9-030; CHAPTER 147B DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Summarize the Staff Notes, they are as follows. The project description, first of all. The applicant proposes to remove a 220 square foot screen porch and 450 square feet of asphalt. The applicant also proposes to construct a 620 square foot garage, a 440 square foot addition, and a 180 square foot foyer/covered porch. Furthermore, a new wastewater system is proposed to be installed. This project has been classified a major project per 147-8 by the Zoning Administrator. Stormwater management and erosion controls are part of this project. Staff comments. As mentioned in the project description, this project is considered a major project. The applicant proposes to install stormwater infiltration devices within 100 feet of a shoreline, which requires a variance and the Planning Board is asked to make a recommendation tonight to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this action. I’ll stop it right there, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Chris. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Tom and Dusty Putnam, who unfortunately aren’t here tonight. They’re blessed with the birth of their first grandchild and they’re in Atlanta celebrating that. So they wanted to be here, but obviously they had another baby to worry about. As I was thinking, this is their baby, this project, but that’s their grandbaby. So I guess that says something about a grandparent. Don Schermerhorn is a representative also of the project. Don is the construction manager for the project, or project manager, and he serves as an agent, also, for the Putnams. This project is located on Route 9L, between Dunham’s Bay and the Town line. It’s an existing single family, single story structure on an acre lot in the WR-3 zone. The proposal is to add a little living space, and in doing that, they will be adding to an area that is within the 75 foot setback. This is a pre- existing, nonconforming structure, as in that area of the Town and that zoning district requires a 75 foot shoreline setback. Within the existing structure is a screened in porch which is currently, that currently exists at 29 feet from the setback. That structure will be removed. The addition as shown on the Site Plan, the shaded areas of the structure, that represents the addition in the proposed improvement portion of the drawing. That will be newly constructed at a horizontal distance of 42 feet from the shoreline in that one area. All side setbacks would be in conformance. That part of the addition somewhere totals 440 feet or so, and then there’s an additional garage. The garage addition is outside of the 75 foot setback. So that technically isn’t anything that requires any special approval from the ZBA. As Keith said, we’re here initially, we haven’t been to the, we’re going to the ZBA tomorrow night, and the process evidently suggests or requires that the Planning Board offer opinion or recommendation on these variances. Also mentioned was the variance related to Chapter 147, your stormwater portion of the Ordinance, which says that there can’t be infiltration devices within 100 feet of, in this case, the lake. Now that presents a difficult situation because houses are within 100 feet of the lake, legally, and stormwater is generated off the impervious surface of the house. So what do you do with stormwater if you try to manage it. In this case, this was a house that was built many years ago, perhaps before the 60’s, but didn’t really have any stormwater management. This project will implement certain stormwater management, not only for the additions, the additional impervious area, but for the existing area as well. So we’re stuck in a little hard spot there in that stormwater is generated within 100 feet, and that’s where we need to manage that, the infiltration devices as shown on the plan. So that does require a variance. A variance is a portion of that Chapter 147 section. So this is where it applies, where it’s needed and where it applies. So those are the two variance items that we’re dealing with here. There are other improvements, most importantly there’ll be a new septic system, and that will all be part of the Site Plan, obviously, that we will go through following approvals, if granted by the ZBA. So that’s the project in a brief summary. Again, my understanding is that we’re looking for a recommendation at this stage, to go on to the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify. So once again, recommendation tonight. If everything works out, they go to the Zoning Board, get approval and then they come back for Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-For Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Now as far as the recommendation, it’s just for the one? MR. OBORNE-Just for the infiltration device. MR. SEGULJIC-Within 100 feet. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I have a few. I mean, overall I think I agree with what you’re trying to achieve here, and I think it’s just getting everything in line. For example, I didn’t see, well, I guess this comes under Site Plan, I didn’t see any erosion controls under 147, but I guess that would come under Site Plan. MR. MAC ELROY-I think you’ll see. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You didn’t address 147-10C. I may have missed it, all your stormwater controls. You don’t talk about how you have to re-seed within so many days of having an area, finishing work there. You can’t leave areas open for more than a certain amount of time. MR. MAC ELROY-On Sheet S-5 there’s a series of notes, additional erosion control and grading notes, talking about, Sheet S-5. It’s a detail sheet. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m on Sheet S-5. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. The right hand side, there’s a series of notes on the right hand side of the drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but it doesn’t say. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay, a specific note that you’re? Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, 147-10, Erosion Control Measures, where it talks about, within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of the lake. It goes on and on and on. It says which has been cleared or may be left devoid of growing vegetation for more than 24 hours, it essentially says you have to have protective cover. Those notes I don’t see in there. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Perhaps that specific language isn’t there. MR. SEGULJIC-That specific language is not in there. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Well, we will get that specific note on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-And then, when you look at 147-9(3)(f), which is the requirements under a major project, it talks about how, if you’re a major project, you have to look at your existing runoff, and at a minimum control the first half inch. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And in your stormwater control plan, correct me if I’m wrong, it states in here, in addition to providing stormwater treatment for all of the new proposed impervious areas, the stormwater facilities outlined in the report will also treat runoff from their driveway and about 60% of the existing home. So we’re missing the other 40% of the home. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, whether that 60% of the runoff, or 60% could constitute the first half inch. What you’re trying to get is that first flush situation. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I read it as 60% of the existing home. If you could just clarify that. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. MAC ELROY-We’ll clarify that, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I didn’t see any, there was no controls for the walkways on site. MR. SIPP-Are these walkways solid? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, yes. They’re existing walks that lead from the house down to the dock area. MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t see any details on your stormwater laterals, how deep they’re going to be, how big they are. I think you said they’re going to be four inches, but I didn’t see how deep they’re going to be in that area, and you didn’t have any test pit information for that area. I can understand it’s going to be behind a retaining wall, but is there enough soil there? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. We have done test pits in the area of the proposed stormwater, and it just, it doesn’t show on that particular sheet, but that’s a comment also that, I don’t know if you’ve seen Dave Ryan’s comments, but he’s made mention that and certainly we’ll address those issues. MR. SEGULJIC-And then your stormwater plan, one of the things under 147, you have to have the maintenance plan, and I can agree this is going to be a pretty simple, straightforward stormwater control system, and you talk about the maintenance of it, where you talk about cleaning out the system. I forget exactly where that is, but my problem is you just say clean it out every few years. I mean, we really should nail that down, say clean it out every year, because we can’t enforce something like that. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you don’t have any details on the, you make a general note about how the stormwater’s going to run down the side of the house, and be directed towards the, I don’t want to call it a drywell, but your catchment system is going to go into the laterals, but you have no details on the swale. So I guess what I’m saying is I’m fine with everything, but we’ve just got to. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I mean, it’s a graded swale that is directed toward the catch basin, or the drywell on the easterly side of the property. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as I looked at it, you just have, I’m looking at Sheet S-3. You just have lines going down saying remove asphalt and replace with shallow grass swale. What’s that shallow grass swale going to be? You just have a simple detail on that. So I guess, once again, my overall theme here is just follow 147. MR. MAC ELROY-Good. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess, I mean, can we make a recommendation to the Zoning Board saying that as long as they follow 147 and the requirements? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there’s any number of ways that we could address the recommendation. Certainly that would be one, to say that, you know, we’re okay with what is Conceptually proposed. MR. SEGULJIC-Conceptually proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s additional details that need to be addressed in Site Plan review. I mean, I don’t know how we want to word it, but. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, specifics? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, the Zoning Board wants a recommendation on the installation of infiltration devices within 100 feet of the lake. That’s not the problem. That’s not the questions you’ve raised. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with that, so long as they fill in the details. MR. HUNSINGER-I think, you know, in terms of a recommendation, we can say that, I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves here, but provided the stormwater management otherwise meets the requirements in Chapter 147. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. TRAVER-Which we can handle in Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Those are my comments on stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Tom. Good catch. MR. SIPP-My only comment would be on the walkways, the stormwater, what are you going to do with the water off of those walkways to the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-I think as the last applicant had explained, a certain amount of filtering that goes through that vegetation, that grassed area could be sufficient. If necessary, we could add infiltration trench along the side of that. It’s a pretty minimal area. So as long as that’s directed, you know, one side or the other. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’ve got a fairly steep slope there that this walkway follows down. It’s going to move fairly fast, so (lost words) infiltration trench alongside. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. FORD-Must they be paved? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, they are. They’re currently. It’s an existing walkway that’s there. MR. FORD-That wasn’t my question. MR. MAC ELROY-Must they be paved? No. MR. SIPP-Is there any plantings along the edge of the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-Any plantings? MR. SIPP-Yes, trees? MR. MAC ELROY-There’s existing vegetation along there that won’t be affected by. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a nice set of trees up there. MR. OBORNE-That’s the best picture I have. MR. SEGULJIC-They just have a natural shoreline. There’s no seawall that I know of. It’s actually very nice. MR. SIPP-Thank you. MR. FORD-How about reduction in that paved surface? How about reduction of the paved surface? MR. SIPP-I agree with that. You have those (lost words) that are permeable now. MR. FORD-Just planting a seed. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. There’s no one left in the audience. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing as though there are no comments. Are there any written comments? MR. OBORNE-None. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. MAC ELROY-Could I ask a question. Did you receive a letter, it may have been directed to the Zoning Board. So maybe you wouldn’t have seen it anyway, but the neighbor to the west, who’s the most adjacent property, has written a letter, but that may have been directed to the Zoning Board. So you wouldn’t necessarily have it in this file. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s nothing in the file at this point. MR. MAC ELROY-And that would be for the project file, or the Planning Board project file? MR. OBORNE-This is the Planning Board file. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Okay. So that makes sense, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Seeing how there are no verbal or written comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with the comment that was previously made? I’ll just make it again, that the Planning Board is generally supportive of the proposed stormwater infiltration devices as proposed, provided the stormwater management otherwise meets the requirements of Chapter 147. These requirements can be addressed during the normal course of Site Plan Review by the Planning Board? MR. TRAVER-That sounds good. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could I just note that, in particular, I’d like to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know if the Zoning Board needs to know the particulars of the Code, or is there another comment? MR. SEGULJIC-No, just the fact that how, when I read the regulation, it just talks about how, you know, they have to control the existing, they have to control stormwater runoff from existing features also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t know if we necessarily need that in the, I mean, the applicant needs to know that we have that concern, but I don’t know if the Zoning Board does. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I’m fine with that. MRS. BRUNO-I have a question for Staff, actually. They had the pre-application meeting, and at the bottom of the notes, it says, I’m assuming the CB means Craig Brown, to do denial letter. What is that in reference to? MR. OBORNE-Correct. That is, every applicant gets a denial letter, in order to be placed in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. TRAVER-It makes it official they need a variance. MRS. BRUNO-I see. Okay. Learn something new every day. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion, questions or comments? Then I will make a resolution for recommendation of Site Plan No. 27-2008 for Tom and Dusty Putnam. MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 27-2008 TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF. MOTION TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2008. THE PLANNING BOARD IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER INFILTRATION DEVICES, PROVIDED THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OTHERWISE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 147. THESE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes addition of 450 sq. ft. of living space, new 2 car garage & new wastewater system. Planning Board review is required for any hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline and for the expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA. Also, review is required as the project has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 27-2008 TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF. MOTION TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2008. THE PLANNING BOARD IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER INFILTRATION DEVICES, PROVIDED THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OTHERWISE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 147. THESE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess in layman’s terms it means we don’t have a problem with it, is really what we’re saying. MR. TRAVER-I believe we just said that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to take care of that engineering motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Before we review the calendar and announcement of other meetings, we would like to, we had discussion during our workshop at six o’clock regarding the submission of comments from the Town Engineer. Did you have a specific motion in mind? MR. SEGULJIC-I have a specific motion in mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTS THAT THE TOWN ENGINEER SUBMIT ANY ENGINEERING COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING STAFF BY NOON OF THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED PLANNING BOARD MEETING SO THEY CAN BE INCLUDED WITH STAFF NOTES. THAT THE RESOLUTION BE PROVIDED TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: MRS. BRUNO-So that they can be included with Staff Notes, you were talking about, to make it more clear. MR. OBORNE-For the outgoing packets. MRS. BRUNO-Right. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess further that the resolution be provided to the Town Engineer. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan thnd MR. HUNSINGER-Next meetings are July 15 and 22. That means that our Site Visits th would be on Saturday, July 12. As always, if you know you won’t be attending either of the meetings, to let Staff know and the rest of the Board know so we can have coverage. nd MRS. BRUNO-July 22 I’ll be camping. MR. HUNSINGER-So you won’t be here? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So let the record show that Mrs. Bruno will not be in attendance at the nd July 22 meeting. MR. SIPP-Neither will I. MR. HUNSINGER-Neither will Mr. Sipp. So we would ask for alternates to be available nd on July 22. Any other business before the Board? Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-How about reviewing the agendas. Do we have that scheduled? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do we know who’s scheduled for the next agenda review? MR. TRAVER-I think I should have it in here. MR. HUNSINGER-I never actually had the list. MR. FORD-I don’t. MR. TRAVER-It looks like I’m scheduled for the July review for August, according to my notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we know who is scheduled for the June review for July? MR. TRAVER-It says Tom Ford, on my notes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, because we switched. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t talk about this at the workshop, but I did get an e-mail from Craig Brown saying that you needed to be in before Thursday. Is that possible? MR. FORD-That looks like tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if that’s an impossibility. MR. BAKER-Staff would prefer tomorrow. MR. FORD-Yes. I just need to call and set up an appointment. Is that it? MR. BAKER-That would be fine. MR. TRAVER-The preferred is the third, what’s the preferred day of the month? Or is there a preferred? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, typically the first draft agenda comes out on the. MR. BAKER-It’s usually preferred to do completeness review the week following submittal deadline. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. TRAVER-The week following. MR. OBORNE-After the last Zoning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s it, then. It’s the Thursday after the last Zoning Board meeting. MR. OBORNE-We set our final agenda on that day. We have a final agenda meeting on that Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-They are posted on the calendar that was provided to us. It generally, yes, it generally falls at the last Thursday of the month. MR. TRAVER-The last Thursday of the month? MR. FORD-Could I be provided with another calendar? MR. OBORNE-I think we can provide you with that tomorrow, sir. MR. FORD-Thank you. st MR. TRAVER-So for July it would be the 31? The last Thursday? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, that’s good for me to know, because I can plan ahead of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then typically once the draft agenda is proposed, Craig will then, or Pam will e-mail it to me, and then I take a look at it, and, you know, say yes or no or ask questions. MR. FORD-Is that on the schedule for tomorrow? th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is. June, well, it’s the Thursday, June 26, is the final agenda meeting. MR. FORD-Okay, but it’s now requested for tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, no, by Thursday. So I think, is Thursday morning okay? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s how I took it. MR. OBORNE-In fact, Mr. Ford, that’s fine, also, because I have to work on my debriefing notes for the ZBA tomorrow, and that usually takes me about an hour and a half, and I usually come in at nine. Any time before 11. MR. FORD-On Thursday? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. Because I’m loaded right up, if it’s got to be tomorrow, somebody else is going to have to do it. MR. OBORNE-Well, it doesn’t have to be tomorrow. MR. FORD-Okay. Then I’ll be in Thursday morning. Nine o’clock? MR. OBORNE-Okay. Sure. I’ll be there. MR. FORD-I’ll see you then. MR. HUNSINGER-And then you’re all set for July? st MR. TRAVER-July 31. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/24/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I will be. I might arrange it tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Okay. Any other business for the Board? MR. SIPP-Is the van still available? MR. HUNSINGER-The van was available, but I guess it has some mechanical issues. MR. OBORNE-There’s mechanical difficulties. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There was something with the steering, is what I was told. I’m assuming that the van will be available for our next drive around. Is that a fair assumption? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business? Any further discussion? Hearing none, a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2008, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 49