2008.09.25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-1998 R. George & Charlotte Wiswall 1.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.19-1-14.1
Site Plan No. 37-2008 Steven Cardona 2.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-34
Freshwater Wetlands 8-2008 Richard & Amy Molloy 16.
Tax Map No. 301.6-1-10
PUD SP 1-1988 Overlook Homeowners Association 21.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 290.62-1-21
Subdivision No. 7-2008 David Miner 22.
SKETCH Tax Map No. 308.6-1-1.1, 1.2
Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald & Linda Ball 24.
REVISED SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
TANYA BRUNO
THOMAS FORD
STEPHEN TRAVER
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’d like to open this evening’s meeting of the September 25, 2008
Planning Board meeting, and with that, I’d like to call the first applicant forward.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 MODIFICATION SEQRA TYPE II R. GEORGE &
CHARLOTTE WISWALL AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER OWNER(S) ESTATE OF
CHARLOTTE T. WISWALL ZONING MR-5 LOCATION 66-68 GLENWOOD AVENUE
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO INCREASE
ONE PARCEL FROM 1.07 ACRES TO 3.15 ACRES AND DECREASE ONE PARCEL
FROM 15.13 ACRES TO 13.10 ACRES. THE RESULTING 3.15 ACRE PARCEL IS
THE PROPOSED LOT FOR SALE AND TRANSFER TO ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNER ROBERT O’CONNOR, DVM AS PER THE ESTATE OF CHARLOTTE T.
WISWALL. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A
APA/DEC/CEA DEC/NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.07 & 15.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
296.19-1-14.1 SECTION CHAPTER 183
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just identify yourself and tell us about the project.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. My name’s Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker,
Firth. We’re here on a boundary line adjustment for the property of Mr. and Mrs. Wiswall
who have since passed, at 66-68 Glenwood. As part of Charlotte Wiswall, many of you
knew her as Polly, as part of her will, she wanted to offer Dr. O’Connor the ability to
purchase kind of a buffer around his property, at a significantly deflated cost, just to kind
of protect his property from any development that may happen in the future. Years ago,
when The Landing was constructed, as you’ll probably see on the big map, that lot was
subdivided off to build that structure, right next.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t have Wiswall on here.
MR. FULLER-Okay, and then, so now what we’re doing is we have to come back for a
boundary line adjustment as part of a prior subdivision. I have the large map that you
have. I’m going to go over the small map. So hopefully through my arts and crafts
efforts it’s a bit easier to explain. What we’re doing is taking the current boundary on the
highlighted map is in bold, and it’s just this corner of the large lot, but it generally snakes
around the O’Connor property, down towards Glenwood Ave., along the other lands of
Wiswall property, and then back up and then out, all the way out back, and what we’re
going to do is the little colored map I have that says Other Lands of Wiswall, we’re
proposing to take that boundary and extend it out around the large parcel, adjoining The
Landing property and then back around the O’Connor parcel. So just instead of doing a
subdivision and creating a whole other new lot, we thought it would be wiser to not create
two lots, keep it as one lot, and extend that boundary, and that’s what we’re doing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any questions about that? It seems pretty straightforward.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-No, the maps actually, Matt, were really helpful, just so you could have
the deed, you know, you could see that these were separate parcels and what was trying
to be done. So the maps were very instructive.
MR. FULLER-Thanks.
MRS. STEFFAN-The highlighting was worth it.
MR. FULLER-I had trouble staying in the lines, though. I apologize.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s kind of a conceptual thing.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, are we okay with moving this forward?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 R. GEORGE &
CHARLOTTE WISWALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for
the following; The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment in order to increase
one parcel from 1.07 acres to 3.15 acres and decrease one parcel from 15.13
acres to 13.40 acres. The resulting 3.15 acre parcel is the proposed lot for sale
and transfer to adjoining property owner Robert O’Connor, DVM as per the estate
of Charlotte T Wiswall. Modifications to an approved subdivision require
Planning Board review and approval
2. A public hearing is not required for a modification; 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
6. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 R.
GEORGE & CHARLOTTE WISWALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. This is a
Type II action. No conditions on the approval.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2008 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN CARDONA AGENT(S) KEVIN
MASCHEWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 175 ASSEMBLY
POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND TWO SEASONAL CABINS TOTALING 2,303 SQ. FT. WITH
A NEW 4,046 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, SEPTIC SYSTEM &
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEVICES. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED
AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT, AND AS SUCH, PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 58-08; SP 32-06,
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
SP 62-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/10/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA, APA LOT
SIZE 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-34 SECTION CHAPTER 147
KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you’d come forward, identify yourself and tell us about your project.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Good evening. My name is Kevin Maschewski. I am the
project architect and builder representing Adirondack Designers and Builders. The
project on Assembly Point entails demolition of three existing structures, two seasonal
camps and one primary residence. Of all three, neither one of the structures presently
comply to setbacks. So therefore they’re nonconforming on the setbacks. Septic
systems, there’s really no known engineering back up on the septic systems for the three
structures. Out of total of the three camps, there’s seven bedrooms. What we’re
proposing is the demolition of the three structures and replacement of one roughly 4,000
square foot single family residence. In doing so, we’re complying with all setbacks. We
did require a lakefront setback, which we had received from the ZBA last night, and there
was another variance for the stormwater retention device, the rain garden, to be within
100 feet of Lake George, again, granted last night at the ZBA meeting, but the new
residence, four bedrooms, we are putting a Code compliant four bedroom septic system
in the rear of it, away from the lake. Everything, relative to Code compliance, height,
floor area ratios, we comply to all those. It’s a pretty well engineered house, pretty well
engineered piece of property, and we’re hoping that we can get going this Fall for
construction. I do have Steve Cardona, the property owner, to the right of me, and all the
way over to the right is Joe Danable from Environmental Design Partnership involved
with septic design as well as stormwater management.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that it?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-One concern is with the old existing septics, that they be identified and
removed. Do you have a plan to do that?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. What we’re intending is exposing, opening them up. Mr.
Cardona here can explain. I think he knows what’s under there, with different
investigations, but as a standard rule, when I get into construction, we get the, we locate
them, pull the tops off, get the septic people in to pump them out, get them pumped out
and then get them out of the ground, put them in trucks and haul them off the site, but
Steve can give a little indication of what’s there.
STEVEN CARDONA
MR. CARDONA-Yes. When I moved in on the property in 2005, I exposed the tank for
the primary residence, and it was a concrete tank, and the reason for me exposing it was
to put a clean out in there, so in case of overflow, whatever, I had an access to do that
for, and in doing so, I did not expose any of the leach lines. I could see in what direction
they run out. Some of the neighbors have been there for many, many years and told me
that a lot of them are hand dug leach lines, stone, stuff like that. I will say one thing.
They’ve, the main house one has operated wonderfully since I’ve been there, even
through all the winter thaws and ice and everything. When I had water running into the
basement of the property, our toilets were still flushing and everything was going down
well. Needless to say, I know where that one is. I know about approximately the size of
it. It’s hard to judge depth, but it was about four by eight square tank, and like I say, with
a leach line running out of the one end. So that one is easy to identify and expose and
remove. The other two camps, which were seasonal camps, I was given a pencil
diagram of where it might be. I excavated to try and find that, same purpose, to put a
clean out, and never did find it. It wasn’t where they said it was, but I did see the leach
line coming out of the house, but I didn’t proceed to follow it, but my guess is it’s probably
steel. It’s also the two camps, the two cabins, seasonal cabins, both share that particular
tank and leach field. Again, information from the neighbors, apparently one of the
renters in there left the toilet running or something and a flood appeared in the yard. He
showed me where that was, so my guess is that’s where that tank is, but in both cases,
it’s no problem to have those removed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. FORD-Now the tanks as well as the leach fields themselves will be removed?
MR. CARDONA-Again, I don’t know what extent of the leach fields are. They could be
just a couple of lines going in some direction or something else, but the main house, due
to the elevations of this, the property, my guess is that the leach lines on the main house
septic system are down pretty deep, and it looks like it’s going to be pretty close to the
footprint of this new home. So my guess is we’re probably going to end up hitting these
things or exposing them while digging the foundation for the new home.
MR. FORD-You have a septic expert here, do you? Is that you’re, I know that’s not your
title, but is that one of your functions?
JOE DANABLE
MR. DANABLE-I’m more of an expert in stormwater management.
MR. FORD-Stormwater.
MR. DANABLE-Septic’s a lesser extent of my expertise. For the most part, yes, all of the
septic tanks on site are going to be removed, the existing ones, and unless it involves a
significant amount of disturbance to areas of the site that aren’t proposed to be
disturbed, it would be okay to leave certain portions of leach line in the area, as long as
they’re not connected to any of the new septic system.
MR. FORD-Just decommission them and?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, wouldn’t it be smarter to remove them?
MR. DANABLE-As I said, chances are they will be removed with the excavation. We just
don’t want to get too close to laying too close to some of the existing site features along
Assembly Point Road that aren’t proposed to be disturbed, but if they are within that
area, they will be removed.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess where I’d come from is I’d like to see them located on the
plan to find out what exactly is there and remove them.
MR. DANABLE-We can do that.
MR. FORD-I agree. That’s where I was going with the question.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. SIPP-Have you read the VISION Engineering comments?
MR. DANABLE-Yes. I have removed the comments, and do you want me to go through
and respond to all of them at this time?
MR. SIPP-Are you using the drain alongside the driveway as your main source of
stormwater management?
MR. DANABLE-The infiltration trench with the under drain is not the main source of
stormwater management on site. That portion of the stormwater management system
was not even calculated within our stormwater management design. The two main
portions of our stormwater management are the rain garden located at the center point in
front of the property, roughly 20 to 30 feet off Assembly Point Road, and then again to
the rear of the property off the back of the driveway near the turnaround is a shallow
grassed depression. Those would be the two main sources of stormwater management
on site.
MR. SIPP-And that’s going to take the runoff from the roof?
MR. DANABLE-It will take the runoff from the roof.
MR. SIPP-The steps.
MR. FORD-The driveway.
MR. DANABLE-The majority of the driveway.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, then didn’t VISION Engineering identify the design was not
sufficient?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, because in looking at the VISION Engineering comments and
looking at the Staff Notes, you obviously have some work to do to come back and revise
some of the plan, and I’m certainly feeling that if you satisfy those, we can move forward,
and certainly the septic issue certainly seems warranted.
MR. DANABLE-We feel comfortable talking to VISION Engineering about the driveway
slope and the stormwater management, and feel like with some minor revisions to the
plan we can accommodate that stormwater to an acceptable form with them.
MRS. STEFFAN-And since you’re working to 147, the Major Stormwater Project, I mean,
I think that all those issues can be satisfied.
MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t have stormwater control, it looks like, for the portion of the
driveway along the road.
MR. DANABLE-That is correct. There is no way to manage that system. It all drains to
Assembly Point Road and then there’s an extremely steep slope on the other side of
Assembly Point Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’d just like to point out the fact that 147 states you have to go,
since you’re in 147, all pre-existing features also have to have stormwater management.
I believe it says you have to treat the first half inch of rainfall. So you’re not going to be
doing that. So I’d like to see a good reason as to why not.
MR. FORD-Or better yet, make a plan that takes care of it.
MR. MASCHEWSKI--Okay. We can certainly address that, and I did read that in the
notes. I guess we just, the way the rain garden was designed obviously required a
variance. So I think if we’re going to need to incorporate stormwater management, we’re
going to have to figure out how to get it that close to the lake, that’s all.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Is a rain garden infiltration?
MR. DANABLE-A rain garden is infiltration, and my understanding was, from the
variance meeting last night, that we were granted a variance to have infiltration within
100 feet of the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-Within 100 feet.
MR. DANABLE-What a rain garden actually does is it, it’s excavated down six inches
below the proposed final grades, and then it’s filled, backfilled with a topsoil. This topsoil
will actually allow infiltration but slow it to a much greater extent than it would be if it was
an existing sand. It’s also planted with a variety of plant species that help absorb that
water, what they consider the first flush, that first quarter inch of rain where any of the
potential contaminants would get into, to groundwater.
MR. SIPP-All right. With that rain garden, I’d like to see some of the plantings identified,
not just perennial planting area. I’d like to see some test pits in that area to see what you
have down at a depth of three to four feet.
MR. DANABLE-I think what’s going to end up happening is if you look where that rain
garden is, it’s superimposed over the old camp or the old house. So when we actually
excavate out, remove that structure, we’re going to have a hole there. The goal is to,
when we excavate for the main, the new house, is bring some of that soil indigenous to
the site, bring it down, and use the soil there, backfill, do our compaction, but right now
it’s basically, it’s over the old structure.
MR. SIPP-That’s fine, but I’d like to see some names put out, these typical perennial.
MR. DANABLE-For plants? Absolutely.
MR. SIPP-And I’d also like to see names of the deciduous and the evergreens, not just
typical as you have here. You’ve got one of these existing trees, which I saw there
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
Monday, is right in the foundation. Obviously that one’s going to be removed, the
poorest of the bunch. Is that the one that’s going to be removed?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-On Sheet Two of your plans, in the lower left hand corner, is the list
of recommended plantings to be incorporated into that rain garden. Those plans would
accommodate deciduous trees and perennial shrubs that would be put into that garden.
MR. SIPP-I saw that, but I’m not terribly thrilled with some of the, I wish you would
identify the deciduous and the evergreen trees you’re going to put in there.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We can do that.
MR. SIPP-Maples, oaks, ash, willow.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We’d be using trees that are native to the Adirondack Park.
MR. SIPP-Right, that’s what you want.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I may, back to the rain garden. What happens when the ground’s
frozen?
MR. DANABLE-The rain garden is designed, has been designed to accommodate the 25
year storm event in frozen ground conditions. There will be no infiltration and there still
will be a certain amount of area there for volume to be stored.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it will be able to handle a big rain storm that comes through in
February?
MR. DANABLE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else at all? Okay. Any wells within 100 feet of the septic
system?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, I do not believe so.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see that verified. I don’t see anything on this plan indicating
that there are or aren’t. So I’d like to see, I mean, I would assume most of these houses
get their water from the lake, but I don’t know. So footnotes on there if you would.
MRS. BRUNO-There was a mention in the application, too, about the FAR worksheet,
but I tried doing a little bit of math, and it’s not my strong point. So I tried it a couple of
different ways thinking perhaps I was missing something. I got the FAR worksheet
looking right, although there was one number that’s just been carried over wrong from
Warren County, very minor, but the Site Development Data I found very confusing. That
was what I tried a couple of different times of trying to see what you were saying, and I
couldn’t get anything to flesh out.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-What page would that be in the application?
MRS. BRUNO-That was Three, Page Three.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Page Three, the top box?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, the top area, you know, I added up the existing cabins, came up with
a different number. Tried subtracting a few things. If you could just clarify what you
meant, maybe I’m just missing something very straightforward.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, it was broken out to obviously existing, and then.
MRS. BRUNO-So the three existing cabins do equal 2,397?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, correct.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Because that’s not what you’ve got on the next page. Your
existing area in square feet, 853 plus 780 came to 2363, not 2397. So that didn’t match
the next page.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. The only thing that may be different is the actual, the Site
Development Data includes any concrete steps, any stoops, anything outside of the
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
structure. The Floor Area Ratio is actually just the living space under the roof. So I think
you’re going to find just a little bit of a variation on that.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So you did the full footprint of all the steps and everything?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Anything site related, correct.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So that includes stairs. Total square feet, 2,806. Could you just,
3,111 and 2,806 didn’t come out to, it came out to 5,917, which isn’t what you applied for.
It was just kind of convoluted.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and I’m trying to digest this, too, because I didn’t fill this form
out.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I guess perhaps what we can do maybe is it sounds like you’re
going to be coming in front of us again, is just do this really straightforward. I’m not sure,
maybe Staff can advise, but.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I actually did the form on Page Four myself, and it’s the Floor Area
Ratio, the FAR. I think what’s confusing on the way this form was done, and I could re-
write it and basically do what’s existing, and then assuming we’re taking everything out,
and then have your next column which is all new, and then you could look side by side
and see the difference, as opposed to.
MRS. BRUNO-Exactly, right, not having to do the math ourselves.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I agree. Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-And I’m not sure, for the steps and everything, I usually don’t think of that
as part of the footprint.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct, it’s not.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s not.
MR. OBORNE-No.
MRS. BRUNO-So that doesn’t have to be added on to your building footprint. Just do it,
just keep it equal to the next page. It was over thought.
MR. SEGULJIC-It seems like a very simple calculation, but it’s not. Like for example,
when I look at it, I don’t think you included your garage, which I believe has to be
included in the first floor calculation. I believe you have to include your garage. I believe
you have to include your garage in the Floor Area calculation.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t believe he did.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-In the primary structure, first floor.
MR. SEGULJIC-You came up with 19 something or other.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-1925. So the garage needs to be added into that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just pointing out that the Floor Area Ratio should include the garage.
I don’t believe it did.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes. So actually Staff didn’t catch that either, because it does equal
404.6, which is what we have on our cover page, but you’re right, Tom, if I remember
correctly, the garages do go in.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are there any, do you have any attics in this house at all, are you
proposing any attics?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s a lot of cathedral ceiling. If there’s any attics, it’s not, you know,
it’s three feet tall, maybe.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, you understand what I’m getting at, living space up there,
though. So there’ll be no living space up there.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, there can’t be.
MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s talk about the basement?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-There’s no natural light.
MR. SEGULJIC-What about the basement?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Basement is a standard eight foot deep poured concrete, no natural
light windows. No egress.
MR. SEGULJIC-No egress at all?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No egress. There’s no capacity for living space.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it can’t legally be lived in, then?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MRS. BRUNO-The two pages that are missing, I’m assuming, are the sections, that’s
why you didn’t include them? Staff was asking why Six and Seven weren’t included.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-On the architectural drawings?
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, that was more construction, cross sections and entire house
structure cross section. Actual table or Page Number Six is just general notes and
window tables.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, one of the concerns, as always, is that, I realize this is a four
bedroom house, but I don’t know for sure, but I would assume in the summertime, over
th
July 4 weekend, you’re going to have a lot more people staying there, and it’s only
designed for a four bedroom house. What the red book says is that you have to take into
account any rec rooms, it says in your septic design you have to take into account
expansion, attics, sleeping porches, rec rooms, all those types of areas into your septic
system design. Have you done that?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We accounted for every room possible to be a bedroom. There’s a
gym. Mrs. Cardona is a trainer, physical, personal trainer.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s not going to be a roll out couch in there or anything? No one
can sleep in there? I mean, that’s what the Code says.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t want to speak for Mr. Cardona, but I know his kids are
already grown up and moved out, and it’s just he and his wife. The bonus room above
the garage is a home gym. All the other bedrooms are accounted for. I’ve been through
this enough with design architectural that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I just want some assurance on that because it’s designed for four,
and I could see where other people could sleep, and that’s what the Code says.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, right. No, and I understand, and, you know, I guess part of our
proposal here is looking at what is existing, and then looking at what we’re proposing,
and there’s seven bedrooms existing, and you don’t even fill those.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just saying I think overall it’s a good thing. You’ve got the
septic system like 200 feet from the lake now, if I did my math right.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m sorry?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s 200 feet from the lake.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. It’s back.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any hot tubs proposed?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No.
MR. CARDONA-In fact even the main house, you know, usually you have those garden
tubs in the master bedrooms and stuff, you never use them. So if you notice the plan,
there’s only one tub in one of the.
MR. SEGULJIC-I know very well because my wife talked me into getting one of those.
MR. CARDONA-Outer bathrooms. So it’s mostly just shower stalls and stuff like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s just, the Code says you have to add 250 gallons to your septic
if you do. The roof leaders on the house, on Sheet Two, it’s unclear to me as to where
they’re going. I just see two roof leaders going to the ground. On Sheet Two I see them
on the top drawing.
MR. DANABLE-Yes. The roof leaders are shown at six corners of the building. I’m
talking the front corners of the building at each of the outer corners, they go into a four
inch flexible solid pipe that either connect into the infiltration trench and piping system
alongside the driveway or connect into a piping system that daylight into the rain garden
area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I just didn’t see that anywhere. That’s on the plan?
MR. DANABLE-That’s on Sheet Two on top.
MR. SEGULJIC-I see the dashed line.
MR. DANABLE-Here’s the round leader here, goes in there. This round leader ties in to
here. This one here.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-This one comes down, opens into the ground, and goes into the
swale to the open grass swale here. It doesn’t go underground.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-These two here drain right down into the open grass swale behind
the house.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s Test Pit Three. Okay.
MR. FORD-What’s the proposed depth of that swale?
MR. DANABLE-The bottom is roughly two feet at it’s closest point.
MR. FORD-Roughly?
MR. DANABLE-The top of the bank is 344.5. The bottom is 343.5, I’m sorry, one foot
deep. It’s very gradual, side slopes, so you maintain access to the rear yard.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I didn’t see any notes about erosion control in accordance with
147, 147-10 talks about the, you know, if there’s going to be any open areas from
th
October 15 to April.
MR. DANABLE-We have since added that to the plans.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So all 147-10 talks about open space.
MR. DANABLE-Yes, the entire Section is right out of the Ordinance from Chapter 147
has been added to the plans.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what about 11 where it talks about maintenance?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. DANABLE-We can get that on the plans if it’s not there already.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then I believe your stormwater plan has to be stamped by a
PE, and I didn’t see a PE stamp on it.
MR. DANABLE-When we come in for a final.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It shouldn’t be a big deal, right?
MR. DANABLE-Yes, that’s not a problem at all.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. What are we adding, a maintenance?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, 147-11 Maintenance requirements. Now just a couple of
questions on your stormwater plan. In the plan you indicate that your design is going to
remove 80% of the total suspended solids and 40% phosphorus. Is that just off the
urban development guide, or is that, where did that number come from?
MR. DANABLE-That number comes from the manual and it’s designed to meet those
regulations that’s required.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to have 80%. I can see the TSS removal. It’s the
phosphorus removal I’m kind of questioning. It’s great, but I kind of question it. Can you
really get 40% removal?
MR. DANABLE-I think so. I can confirm that when I get back to my office.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. On your septic design sheet, Sheet Three, on your Eljen in drain
dimension and specification sheet, on those blocks you have there in the table, in the
second one down, you say design flow, you say less than 1,000 gallons. I don’t think
anywhere on the sheet you say what the design flow is, and then see distance to
seasonal high water table impervious (lost word) or bedrock, you have two foot
minimum. I believe it’s supposed to be three foot minimum. Do you see where I’m
talking?
MR. DANABLE-Yes, I do. On the tables, and then again in the (lost words).
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe you in the notes you acknowledge three feet, but on this table,
you did not.
MR. DANABLE-That could be a typo that can be addressed.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. I’m just pointing it out. All right. Anything else from the
Board?
MR. SIPP-The walkway in front of the garden, is that solid as it goes down the steps? Is
that concrete? What is the concrete pad there for?
MR. CARDONA-The concrete pad is the existing driveway that’s there now. Is the
walkway right in front of the, leading up to the street?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Are we talking about the one along the south property line?
MR. SIPP-South side. Yes.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s an existing little patio, concrete patio.
MR. SIPP-And from that goes a concrete walk down to the steps, down to the level of the
road?
MR. DANABLE-There is planned to be a pathway up from the lake, going to the steps,
around the rain garden coming up into the house.
MR. SIPP-Is that solid, that walkway?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-No.
MR. SIPP-What is it made of?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. MASCHEWSKI-We haven’t really figured that out yet, but we’ve got a couple of
different options of maybe landscaped stepping stones, to step with the grass between it,
or I’ve done before on sites and I know zoning likes it is a little pea stone, a little Number
One washed pea stone, something soft on your feet if you walk on it bare foot, but it’s in
no way going to be a solid sidewalk.
MR. SIPP-And the steps?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-The steps will probably be solid.
MR. FORD-What material?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Probably some form of a stone. What I’ve been using is, if we’re
going to do some big blue stone stepping stones, either some form of shale or rock is
we’ll do like a blue stone tread, and then, yes, I can buy blue stone treads that are six
inches high, seven inches high. So it would just be a solid piece of stone. We can either
get clean edges on them for a more manicured look and landscaping, or just more
natural rock edges on it, but it could be, it plans to be slabs of rock.
MR. SIPP-Well, going back to this rain garden, which is probably my fault for missing it,
but I get five items here which I would not particular recommend for a rain garden. We
need to know the Adirondack, native plants, such as royal fern and cinnamon fern,
cardinal flower, mountain ash. I don’t think they’re really recommended for this particular
area.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, the only answer I could say to that is the engineering firm’s in
Clifton Park.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the issue.
MR. SIPP-The Fund for Lake George, or the Lake George Association can give you a list
of native trees. Also the number.
MR. FORD-Not just add to, maybe you could substitute from those that were just
identified.
MR. SIPP-Such things as the blue flag iris and the red dogwood are already on there,
and the winterberry holly, but some of these others are not on that list, and also we need
the number. Is there one of these and one of those and two of them? How much, and
also the trees, the variety of tree. Are they sugar maples or red maples?
MR. DANABLE-We’ll work with Mr. Cardona on that and come up with a landscaping
plan. It’s supposed to be functional and also serve as a landscape feature.
MR. SIPP-We’ve seen them before.
MR. CARDONA-Yes. I actually, during the boathouse project that I was in here for
recently, I dealt a lot with Lake George Park Commission, and they gave me a list of the
native plants for that, which we did use some of them down along the water line.
MR. SIPP-I see you’ve got some nice poison ivy.
MR. CARDONA-Poison ivy. We have some grape vines and a lot of those berry bushes.
MR. SIPP-Your neighbor told me you use some weed killer on them?
MR. CARDONA-I’ve never used weed killer on them.
MR. SIPP-I guess he must have done. He said he used weed killer and it didn’t kill them.
I assumed a lot of it ran into the lake.
MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of other things here before we open up the public hearing.
Your test pit data. Under 136 F, I think you’re out of the dates with your test pit data, and
also we request that, I’m not sure if it’s request or require, I think it’s require, that the
Town Engineer observe the test pits and I look at your notes, that’s not noted, and keep
in mind, you’re in a Critical Environmental Area. So we want to make sure this is done
properly.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. DANABLE-Yes. I was actually out there, and we did it prior to the end of June.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-June 27.
MR. DANABLE-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-The way I could interpret it, it says within six weeks of the removal of
frost within the ground, is one way to interpret that. So June is way out of that. If you
could clarify that for me, and then I believe the Town Engineer has to observe them.
MR. DANABLE-Clarify the date on which they were dug?
MR. SEGULJIC-If you were within the Code or out of the Code. I think you’re out of the
Code. I mean, you might think you’re in the Code. Tell me why you think you’re in it.
MR. DANABLE-We will confirm that.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Actually, I had asked Craig Brown what that specific date was, and
th
he had said it was June 30. Anything thereafter would have to be witnessed by the
Town Engineer, which obviously is VISION, but we were actually told by Craig Brown
th
June 30.
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe all test pits have to be observed by the Town Engineer.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I don’t think so. We can request that.
MR. SEGULJIC-We can request that?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but I don’t think that that’s required.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It’s not required then?
MRS. STEFFAN-Because we’ve done it often when the water table’s high or when it’s.
MR. DANABLE-We’ll clarify it.
MR. SEGULJIC- Because it’s a big issue here. You’re in a CEA and we all want to
protect the lake.
MR. DANABLE-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-One other thing, I mean, is it possible to get more trees overall on this
site?
MR. CARDONA-What’s there is pretty much what was there when I purchased the
property back in ’05. As far as the proposed trees?
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if I’m correct, there aren’t a lot of trees on this site correct?
MR. CARDONA-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could we get some trees on this site? I mean, trees are good.
MR. CARDONA-Yes. Like I say, within the building of this project and laying it out, some
of the trees we haven’t, I have a lot of trees around the perimeter of the property.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I mean, as I look at it, you only have about a half a dozen
trees on this site. I mean, can we get more trees on the site? I’m talking more from a
water quality protection. I mean, you put a tree there, it’s going to absorb more of the
water. It’s going to be good for stormwater, right?
MR. DANABLE-The plantings we are showing are very heavy right in the front of the
property, where the main amount of water would be coming down. We didn’t get into any
of the foundation plantings that would ultimately be put in.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not even really looking for foundation plantings. I, personally, like
trees. Trees are good.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. CARDONA-Right, but we have to be very careful with what trees we plant and how
tall they get, because we’ve had a real problem with the, in the thaw, with the trees falling
and the ground unstable. A lot of the pines and stuff have fallen around these properties
on other properties when we get these heavy northwest winds during the Spring thaw.
MR. SEGULJIC-Like the hardwood.
MR. CARDONA-Yes, the hardwoods are fine. There’s a lot of hardwoods that are
actually on the back side of this property that are actually in my property line on the very
back side. They’re not shown on the plans, but there is a big tree line that actually, what
has survived has been the hardwoods, and there’s some over by, in the back area by the
shed there, too, that have survived.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, trees do fall over, but a lot of times it’s because we cut the trees
that supported them and they take away the support, but if you could just, I’m asking for
more trees, if you could do that, and then the last issue is with regards to construction,
and one of my big concerns, and you’re probably aware of the project in Lake George
where a lot of fill went in the lake. I’m going to be looking very closely at how you’re
going to protect this site, especially during heavy rains, to prevent all of the fill you’re
going to bring on this site from running into the lake. I think you’re going to need more
than silt fences, because I think we would agree. People don’t maintain silt fences
properly. I could bring you out to the lake now and show you a number of places where,
look at the wind blowing that silt fence out.
MR. DANABLE-We can show something on the grading. There’s geo textile covering.
MR. SEGULJIC-Cover the site with a sheet of plastic when you’re working on it. How
much is plastic? You can buy big sheets of plastic for pretty cheap.
MR. DANABLE-Well, the problem with that is if the wind gets underneath it, it’s a sail,
and it’s in the lake, but I would think a geo fabric material that’s made for landscaping,
lay on top of it, and then a material that allows the water in, but still maintains the gravel.
There’s products out there.
MR. SEGULJIC-But during the construction, you have these open areas, and then we
have a big rainstorm come through and it just washes all that fill into the lake. So if
there’s something we could do about that. Any other comments? I guess with that I’ll
open it up for public comment. Is there anyone here to speak to this project? We have
one taker.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We had
submitted a comment letter, but I’d just like to summarize a few points. First of all, in
general, we support the proposal of the project to install stormwater management at a
site where none exists, as well as the concept of the rain gardens. We’d like to offer the
following for consideration by the Board. First item, in their stormwater management
area number one, I believe it is, is the rain garden where a cabin currently exists.
Subsurface soils are very important for stormwater infiltration to function properly. What
soils and to what depths will the soils be replaced in this area? Again, that’s where a
cabin is. They’ve got to remove it. We don’t know what the soil conditions are. Will
there be compaction which would affect the soil’s ability to infiltration. They referenced
that earlier. So we feel more information should be provided to determine if that will
actually function properly. The second item, regarding the proposed rain garden, they
talked about amending the soils, bringing in six inches of topsoil. We feel that there
should be 12 inches of topsoil brought in for the stormwater treatment. As they
referenced, the soil is amended with usually 25 to 30% organics, which help take out the
pollutants and actually bacteria is important for the removal of pollutants. So we feel
there should be more information provided on the rain garden soils. Third item, the
infiltration trench along the driveway is at a grade as it appears exceeding 10%. That
exceeds recommended slopes for infiltration. Also, if the trench is two feet deep carrying
stormwater down, how is that going to bring the stormwater up to the surface when it
enters the rain garden? So some detail should be provided on that. Fourth item, on the
south side of the property, there’s some re-grading. We think there possibly could be a
swale on the south property line to kick stormwater towards the basins, to make sure that
that’s protected from flowing off site. They referenced a stormwater management report.
However, I did not see that in the file for review. So I do not know if that was submitted,
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
and we agree with the points on the septic system, that that should be shown and
potential removal of those systems from the site. Lastly, there was discussion about cold
climates and infiltration, and the Code requires 10% of surface area for infiltration to be
put subsurface below frost line so that during winter conditions, when the ground’s
frozen, you’ll actually still have infiltration.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if I could just clarify that, so what you’re saying is, if the frost line is
four feet, it should be down 4.1 foot?
MR. NAVITSKY-It should be down to that frost line, yes. It should be.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying the rain garden should be that deep?
MR. NAVITSKY-No. What you do, what people have provided is you’ve got your surface
area for your rain garden, and you can either provide, you know, a gravel area that you
could get infiltration through the gravel, during cold climate conditions. Sometimes they
have a pipe riser at one end, so that you go down and you have a gravel area or some
type of infiltrator or a drywell below frost level, a pathway to get it down there. It could be
gravel. It could be a pipe, but there is a 10% requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-But just for the record, they did submit a stormwater control report.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Maybe I overlooked that in the file or something.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? Okay. If you could come back up. All right. How does
everyone feel about the application. I sense we should table this?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments at all based on the public comment?
MR. CARDONA-Just that, in that area the big emphasis is the rain garden. Right now, in
living in this property for the last three years, and undergoing some of these frosts and
these water runoffs and stuff like that, the property has perked pretty well as is. I’ve had
some water come through that basement, but if you notice in the front of this property,
there is a four foot retaining wall along Assembly Point Road, which sort of speaks, acts
as a dike and has kept, you know, I’ve never had water flowing over the top of that or
anything like that. Perhaps just proposed to, once the removal of the existing home, to
extend that wall of the same nature, just up the driveway a little ways, and dead end it
kind of at the entrance, or the, I should say at the exit of that swale, may help provide a
lot of retention and runoff and any of the concerns as far as the construction project goes
for any soils or anything running into the lake right now.
MRS. STEFFAN-That sounds reasonable, though, but you have to work that out with the
engineer.
MR. CARDONA-Right, because the nature of these properties along Assembly Point
Road is everybody has these retaining walls in one nature or another to hold these
properties back. The land is keeping in.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, where we’re coming from, you heard our comments.
We’d like you to address those and come back and make a presentation. Okay.
MR. CARDONA-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-So with that, are we ready to make a motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Hold on.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me while I make a comment. On Sheet Three, just a note,
under the wastewater system’s basis of design, under soils analysis, and the second to
last sentence there, you say, of the existing sandy loam soil in the SX minute inch design
range, and I can see what happened there. It’s just a, you forgot to fill in that.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. DANABLE-The next to last sentence?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, under soil analysis.
MR. DANABLE-Above. Okay. The perc rate never got transferred.
MR. SEGULJIC-Never got put in there.
MR. DANABLE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that was the wastewater Page Three?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2008 STEVEN CARDONA, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Tabled to the November 18 meeting, which will have an application deadline of October
th
15. So that the applicant can satisfy the following issues:
1.That the applicant will satisfy Staff Notes.
2.That the applicant will satisfy VISION Engineering comments.
3.That the applicant will locate the septic systems, all three, on the plans, and
arrangements for removal.
4.That the applicant will provide planning detail for the site, including the rain
garden. We suggest checking with the Lake George Association for native
plant lists.
5.That the applicant will identify the water source for drinking on the plan for this
particular site, and, if there is a well on site, or the neighboring properties
within 100 feet, please identify it on the plans.
6.The applicant will revise the site development data to include the garage
square footage in the calculation.
7.That the applicant will add maintenance requirements as identified in 147-11.
8.That the applicant will revise the seasonal high ground water notation on
Sheet Two.
9.That the applicant will clarify the test pit data to ensure compliance with Town
of Queensbury requirements.
10.That the applicant will denote large trees that currently exist on the site. To
denote large trees on the site and also to enhance the planting plan.
11.That the applicant will identify plans to ensure site runoff is minimized during
the construction phase, i.e. based on what we discussed perhaps geo fabric.
12.That the applicant will revise Page Three of the plans and complete the
wastewater system basis of design numbers.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of notes. I think it was Five, we talked about the drinking
water.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-The Code says that you can’t have a septic system within 100 feet of a
well. So I’d like them to identify if there’s any drinking water wells within 100 feet of their
septic system.
MRS. STEFFAN-So are you talking about on neighbor’s properties?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, on all properties.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will modify Item Five.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. The only other thing I was going to add also is to consider
additional plantings for this site.
MR. TRAVER-Trees.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that they had that message, but, okay. Let’s modify Item Ten.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in two months.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2008 SEQR TYPE II RICHARD & AMY MOLLOY
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 5 VAN COURT APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 1,368 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100
FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REIVEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 59-08; SUB 9-84 VAN HOWE SECT. 1
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA NWI WETLAND LOT SIZE 1.16
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.6-1-10 SECTION CHAPTER 94
RICHARD MOLLOY, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could identify yourself and then tell us about your project.
MR. MOLLOY-My name is Rich Molloy. I’ve got a PowerPoint presentation to walk
through.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Great.
MR. MOLLOY-Okay. The reason I’m here today is to request a Freshwater Wetlands
Permit for a proposed addition at 5 Van Court in the Town of Queensbury. The reason
that we need this application is we’re proposing a 1369 square foot addition that will
encroach upon the 100 foot Freshwater Wetlands setback requirement. So the
presentation I’m going to do today is I want to present an overview of the existing and
proposed plot plan and the floor plans, an overview of the property and the wetlands
shoreline setback, an explanation for the reason we want to do the addition, and the
reason we chose the location we did, talk about some stormwater management
considerations that were raised in the Staff Notes, and present letters from the DEC and
the Army Corps of Engineers. I think I’ve got, there are hardcopies submitted with the
application, and then in addition, provide supporting letters from three neighbors
adjacent to the property that were not included. I’ve got hardcopies to distribute. Okay.
The first slide, it shows the location of the property that is owned by my wife Amy and I at
5 Van Court. This is a DEC map. It just shows the location of Town of Queensbury. To
the left of the plot is West Mountain Road. To the north I would say of that plot is
Aviation Road. Potter Road is at the bottom. Our crossing road is at Pinion Pine Road
and this small cul de sac is Van Court Drive where our house is located, and the home
was built in 1986 in the Van Howe Subdivision, Lot 25. We purchased it in August 2005.
It’s a 1.14 acre lot, and shown by the orange, and that’s the stream. It’s a seasonal
stream with a wetlands area around it that was identified on this DEC map. Here’s a look
at the existing plot plan. For 1.14 acres, that’s 50,350 square foot lot size. The existing
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
house footprint, including the house, the garage and the solarium, is 1670 square feet.
I’m sorry. That also includes a covered enclosed porch in the front of the house. Sorry,
I’m going to back up. The building footprint includes the shed, 1670 square foot includes
the shed as well. The total impermeable footprint, 5762 square feet, is 11% of the total
lot. Okay. The existing floor area is 5.7% Floor Area Ratio, okay, and that includes the
first floor, second floor, covered enclosed porches and the shed and the attached
garage. Okay. This plot plan shows the proposed addition. You can see in the top right
corner, in the blue text, we’re adding to the footprint 505 square foot. Basically we’re
going to enter off the back of the garage, or extend the back of the garage and the back
of the house to basically close in that rectangle. In addition to that, we’re going to build
up above, a second floor above that area. So with that increased footprint, increases the
house footprint to 2175 and the impermeable area to 6267, which is an increase in one
percent of the impermeable area of the lot. So it’s a total of 12 percent, and the existing
floor area total results in about a three percent increase in the Floor Area Ratio which is
8.5%, which is less than the 22% Town requirement. Here’s just a look at what this
property looks like. If you look in the bottom right corner, that’s the front view from the
street. Basically the gray area, or where you see the siding drawn, that’s the addition
that you see from the front. If you go to the top left, the side view, that’s from the
neighbor’s house, looking at it basically from the north and east, and the rear view, right
to the top right drawing shows the look of the house from the stream. Okay, and from the
side view on the other side, the bottom left corner, you can’t see the addition from that
location. Okay. Here’s the first floor plot plan. In gray is the existing house. That area
behind the garage, on the first floor is going to include a master bedroom and a bath and
closet. The second floor, two existing bedrooms. We’re going to add a playroom and
two bedrooms and we’re converting that, one of the bedrooms into an office. When we
bought the house in 2005, we bought it believing three bedrooms, but what we found out
was the third bedroom in the basement did not have a legal egress. So we found this out
in early 2007 and from then decided to modify the house. So four bedroom is the plan,
once we’re done.
MR. FORD-What are you going to do with that basement bedroom?
MR. MOLLOY-Well, we’ve been told it’s not a legal bedroom. So it’s not a legal living
space. We have no plans to add an egress. We’re not clear what we’re going to do. It’s
got some indoor/outdoor carpet and a pull out couch and I suppose it could be converted
to a workroom but honestly I haven’t really thought about it. We’re trying to extend our
living space up into a normal part of the house. We’ve got the kids upstairs and we’re
two floors down. So, okay. All right. Here’s the plot plan showing the setbacks. I’ve got
A1, A2 showing the setback to the Lot 24 which is adjacent to the top right corner, and
Lot 26 is the other, down at the bottom left corner of that image you can see B1 and B2
are those distances. Those are all within Town requirements. We discussed these last
night at the Zoning Board. I think what’s at issue tonight is the setback to the shoreline.
In blue is the, the rear of the property is designated by the stream, that dotted line. The
Army Corps of Engineers came in and flagged the wetlands in the dark blue line, and
several measurements were taken from the back of the property to that, I call it a
shoreline to the wetlands. C1 is the existing corner of the house, and that’s 76 feet.
That’s 76.5 feet. C2 is the proposed corner of the addition, the closest point to the
wetlands, and that’s 67 and a half, and the corner of the pool fence area that was
approved back in 1990 was, and maybe that was before that was designated a wetland,
but that’s 55 feet. So what we’re requesting is to build an addition that’s sort of the
average between the setback of the existing structures that were already approved by
the Town.
MR. FORD-So one corner of the addition will take you four and a half feet closer to the
wetland?
MR. MOLLOY-Yes. Just a couple of feet closer to the wetlands than the existing.
MR. FORD-Four and a half feet.
MR. MOLLOY-Is that what it was? Yes. Approximately. I’d have to go back. It’s just a
few feet there. Okay. So what we did is we looked at several different options where to
put this addition to try to see what was most feasible here, and I’ve got Options One and
Two here that we really didn’t think were good ideas for us, although they would avoid
some setback issues. Option One would require us to remove an existing sunroom, and
there’s a cathedral ceiling in the wall of the house, closest to where we’ve shown Option
One. In order to put a two floor addition there, to get us our square footage, we’d have to
do some major renovations and a major disruption to the living space. Option Two, in
addition to that, we’d have to move the meter box and the gas lines. Option Two has the
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
same issues in addition to moving the, that’s off the front of the house, and there’s a
kitchen there. There’d be some costly upgrades and major disruptions of living space
there, and also movement of the septic. We felt Option Three, being that it’s behind the
garage, we could do that addition without really disturbing the living space to a large
degree and only really increasing the footprint by the smallest amount. All right. Now to
get into stormwater management considerations, I don’t have a formal plan for you all. I
know there were some staffing notes that requested more information. What I’ve done
here is I’ve taken a contour map from the Van Howe subdivision that was put together by
Van Dusen and Steves in 1985, and I’ve kind of superimposed lines of constant
elevation on the 2008 survey. You see there’s dotted lines. Okay. Here’s the dotted line
that represents 486 feet elevation, and it basically loops around, comes this way. So this
is pretty much a flat plane. Okay. Down at the street it’s 484 feet. So there’s a two foot
pitch down. This is about 30 feet from the front of that garage, where that grade begins
to fall off. In the back they draw the bank of the stream, where it starts to pitch down,
between 12 and 15 feet toward the wetlands area. It’s well overgrown with trees and
brush beyond this fence, and then there’s a sharp drop off at this location, toward the
stream area. Now, this red line is my attempt to show where, when the pool was added,
they built up to flatten the area. So it’s a revision to the old 1985 map, so basically you
have about 486 feet in this area, dropping off rapidly 12 to 15 feet towards the stream in
the back.
MRS. BRUNO-Do you know approximately when the previous owners had put the pool
in?
MR. MOLLOY-I believe it was in 1990.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That’s close enough.
MR. MOLLOY-Yes. Okay. So that shows how the water would drain off the property.
Now the next two slides show the existing structure and where the water drains off the
roof lines, front versus back, and then what we propose to do with the new addition. So
here’s the garage, it’s a first floor garage. It’s set up 20 and a half feet from the house.
Here’s the house. Here’s the ridgeline. So if you take this ridgeline as the dividing point,
this portion of the roof and this portion of the garage would drain this way, toward the
front of the house, catch in the gutter system that runs all the way along the length of the
house, and it drains in this corner, and that’s a total of 524 square foot of roof area. Now
the back of the house is, you’ve got 545 square foot of house that would rain down onto
this roofline, catch in this gutter, and drain off the back corner, and then on this smaller
roof, 373 square foot, which could drain in this plot where we’re planning to build the
addition up. So it’s about 36% to the front, 64% to the back. Now here’s the look at the
house with the new, with the addition on it. The first thing to notice is the ridgeline of the
addition moves closer toward the back. So it, a larger percentage of the water from the
existing house roof now is distributed back to the front. In addition, we have this roofline,
this roofline from the new addition that would runoff to the front, just naturally, and then
you have the hip roof facing out this way, that we would catch in the gutter system and
run down. Total of 1107 square foot draining to the front. To the backyard, we actually
have, we have about 2011 square foot from this house, from the existing house, more
from this side of the roof, and then this lower addition roof. That total is 890 square foot.
It’s actually less roof drainage to the backyard than the existing house. Of course we’ve
now built over 505 square foot of land, but we feel with only one percent increase in
impermeable and a reduction in the amount of rainwater that would come off the front of
the roof, we feel that we can handle this with gutters at this corner, and into the page at
this corner of the house, basically if you go back one slide, back to where the existing
point was. So we would have two runoff points in the back of the house. So I think, to
summarize all that and all those numbers, we’ve reduced the amount of rainwater off the
roofs that will go to the back of the house by about one percent, but we’ve increased the
amount of impermeable area in the back of the house by one percent. We think that’s
manageable from a two point gutter system. All right. So that’s pretty much what I had.
To summarize, we’re requesting an addition. We’ve got a growing family and a family of
five in a two bedroom house now. We’ve chosen the location of the addition based on
the best balance between cost and disruption to our house, and we like the area. We
need the room. We don’t want to move out of the area, but we think this is the best
solution. Our encroachment on the wetlands is about equivalent to the average of the
two existing Town approved structures, that setback. I think we’re 67 and a half and the
corner of the house is 76 and a half, the pool is 55. What I have not presented, but I can
refer to this next, is the wetland area. When we first found out about this when we
submitted our building permit application, we were told there were wetlands back there.
We contacted the DEC. They sent a note, which is attached to your package, that said
it’s less than 12 and a half acres so it’s not under their jurisdiction. So they pointed us to
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers flagged the wetlands.
There’s a note in there from Kevin Bruce, the biologist, that notes, they require no
permits provided. We are not entering the wetlands, digging into the bank or dumping
any soil into that area, and we have no plans to do any of that. The addition represents a
one percent increase in impermeable area in the roof area, draining to the back of the
house, but the new addition is now reduced relative to the existing structure. So we think
with a two point gutter system we should be able to handle the rainwater without much
problem, and in addition to that, we have, I’ve passed out three letters of support from
neighbors both on the back of the stream adjacent to us, I’m not sure what lot that is,
they’re on Bishop’s Court, and then Lots 25 and 27 adjacent to the property, all
supporting our request for the application and having no issue. So that’s all I have.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board?
MR. FORD-Just for the record, your closest point on the two story wood frame house
had been 76.5 feet from the wetland, the flagged area, and this, the newest proposed
addition would reduce that length to, the closest point to the 67 and a half. So we were
talking about a couple of feet or four feet, it actually is nine feet closer.
MR. MOLLOY-Yes, sir.
MR. FORD-For the record.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MRS. STEFFAN-How did they make out at the Zoning Board last night?
MR. OBORNE-They got their variance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. My only issue is just clarifying the stormwater management on the
plans, indicating what you’re going to do, because I guess you’re going to put the
downspouts into a diversion swale and drag those out front?
MR. MOLLOY-Yes. You’re right. We didn’t put in the building, in the plans submitted to
the Town, the location of the gutters and the downspouts.
MR. SEGULJIC-Locate the gutters and how you’re going to, I guess a diversion swale. I
mean, it’s your design, but.
MR. MOLLOY-And I’m not familiar with the diversion swale. What I thought we would do
is run gutters and downspouts in two corner locations in the back of the house and then
just run catch gutters along the eave of the hip roof and downspouts toward the front
corner.
MR. SEGULJIC-Even better. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have drywells that your gutters go into?
MR. MOLLOY-In the ground, no, we don’t. We’re just draining down into the ground
now. That’s the way it currently is. I think there’s just a regular old gutter system on the
house.
MRS. BRUNO-Excellent presentation. You could have faked yourself out as an engineer
until you just said that you didn’t know what a swale was.
MR. SEGULJIC-How does everyone feel about this? I’m not hearing a lot of concerns
here. I’m hearing no concerns.
MR. FORD-I’m feeling good about it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. The Staff wanted an engineered stormwater management plan.
MR. OBORNE-Well, those notes are from my esteemed colleague, the Senior Planner,
Stuart Baker. I’m not sure they’re required, if you’re satisfied with what they have done
with the stormwater.
MRS. BRUNO-Did we have engineering review on this, because I don’t have a sheet.
MR. OBORNE-No.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MRS. BRUNO-Was there a particular reason for that?
MR. OBORNE-I can’t answer that. I do not know why.
MR. SEGULJIC-To me, considering the scale of the project, and the fact that, you know,
the concern is the wetlands and the water he’s going to divert the other way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now around the wetlands area, it’s obviously undeveloped, but are
there trees all along that property? How do people use it?
MR. MOLLOY-Yes. It’s dry now, so it’s not a really rushing brook at all times, but there is
a couple of pictures I took. It’s really hard to get down there. It’s really well overgrown.
There’s spruce and oaks and large trees and lots of brush down there. So it’s by no
means a clear walkway to get down there. So I think there’s lots of root systems there to
help distribute that water as it drains down.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because you had stated beyond the fence is treed.
MR. MOLLOY-Yes. As soon as you hit that fence, you’ve got trees all the way down,
and here’s just a, well, it’s maybe not the best picture here, but this was standing down
the stream and looking at it. There’s trees all over that area.
MR. FORD-When were these pictures taken?
MR. MOLLOY-July. That’s an attempt to look back at the house.
MR. SIPP-Normally you don’t have any wet spots on your lawn?
MR. MOLLOY-No, sir.
MR. SIPP-This is an Oakville soil and it’s a quite sandy.
MR. MOLLOY-It is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Everybody all set?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone wish to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’re ready for a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2008 RICHARD & AMY
MOLLOY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
1)A freshwater wetlands application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,368 sq. ft. residential addition.
Disturbance within 100 feet of a designated wetland requires Planning Board
review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 9/25/08; 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
94], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
5)MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2008 RICHARD & AMY
MOLLOY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies.
Paragraph Five, this is a Type II action. It is approved with no conditions.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MOLLOY-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You’re all set. Good luck with your project.
MR. MOLLOY-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s been a request to change the schedule a bit. So right now if we
could we’re going to go to the Overlook Homeowners Association.
PUD SP 1-1988 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE II OVERLOOK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING PUD
LOCATION OVERLOOK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO THE
APPROVED SITE PLAN. CURRENTLY EACH HOMEOWNER OWNS THE
FOOTPRINT OF THE UNIT AND DESIRE TO OWN THEIR PORCHES, PATIOS AND
DECKS. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.28
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.62-1-21 SECTION ART. 12
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FORD-And I’m President of the Overlook at Hiland Homeowners Association. I will
recuse myself at this time.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could identify yourself and tell us about your application.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. I hope that you’ll see this as an extremely simple request.
Everything that is on the site existing right now is approved, and has been constructed,
and the only issue here, this, of course, was part of the Hiland Park PUD, and the only
issue, as we stated in this very simple cover letter, and the Staff correctly characterized
in the notes, it’s a matter of ownership. So it doesn’t change any of the improvements. It
just seems, basically for liability, but also for control, the homeowners would like to own
their patios, decks, and porches, and right now it’s all on Association property because
the way this, sometimes we do townhouse projects where there’s an actual footprint like
this when it’s just the actual building footprint, and sometimes there’s a lot drawn around
it, and at Overlook it was done just underneath the footprint of the unit. So the people
that, you know, you’ll have a deck protruding out from your unit, but that’s actually on
Homeowners Association property, and it just doesn’t seem for, you know, obviously it’s
ensured either way, but just for control and liability, it seems like people should own their
own deck and it shouldn’t be the responsibility, communally, of the whole Association
what goes on on your deck. So because there’s nothing that’s being proposed to be
changed, one iota, in terms of what’s on the site, we view it as simple, but of course it
requires a modification because it’s an approved subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments, questions?
MR. TRAVER-It seems very straightforward.
MR. SEGULJIC-Straightforward.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s kind of weird not owning your own deck.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, that is very weird.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are we ready for a motion, then?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have a motion that I can just, there wasn’t one in my package.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m surprised you don’t have one. Quite frankly, I don’t have one
either.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Did anyone else get a motion?
MR. TRAVER-No, I’m sorry, I don’t. I just noticed that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but it is pretty straightforward.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD 1-1988 OVERLOOK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Approve the modification without conditions.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much, and good night.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A DAVID MINER AGENT(S)
KRISTINE WHEELER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION LUZERNE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.20 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2
RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 9.16 & 1.04 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AD SUB. 4-07;
AV 64-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 11.15 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
308.6-1-1.1, 1.2 SECTION A-183
KRISTINE WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could introduce yourself for the record.
MR. OBORNE-I would like to remind the Board that this is the application that the Zoning
Board is seeking a recommendation for, concerning the size of the frontage on Luzerne
Road, and I had dropped off a Zoning Board Staff Note to give you the flavor of what is
occurring at this point.
MS. WHEELER-My name is Kristine Wheeler. I’m engineer for the applicant, David
Miner, on this subdivision. The Miners have owned this parcel of property on Luzerne
Road on the north side, between the Clendon Ridge subdivision and Burch Road, since
1985. There’s an existing house that was built in 1986, with the pool on it at 596 Luzerne
Road. He did an administrative two lot subdivision in 2007, for the home at 590 Luzerne
Road, which has a shared driveway as shown on the plan, and he’s looking to subdivide
a third lot between the Persutti family and the new home built in 2007. The home built in
2007 will remain on the 9.16 acre lot, and the proposed third lot is on 1.04 acres.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Comments, questions?
MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any plans for further subdivision of the 9.16 acre lot?
MS. WHEELER-I’m the engineer for him right now, and I’m his daughter actually. I feel
comfortable performing engineering services in this context, for family members. I do not
feel comfortable doing that for investment purposes. As a result, he would have to hire
out engineering services, and can’t afford to do so. So there’s no intention to further
subdivide this property under his ownership. Any further subdivision would be under
another applicant and another owner.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, we’re doing a recommendation to the Zoning
Board. Then also a Sketch Plan Review?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s a Sketch Plan Review. Correct.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-You’ll have to excuse us. We just got this tonight. I just want to read
this and then we’ll discuss it. Any comments? I think my questions was, one of the
questions I had was addressed in the letter. We talked about the driveway to the west,
because you’re going to be 250 feet.
MRS. STEFFAN-From one.
MR. SEGULJIC-From one, and 160 from the other.
MRS. STEFFAN-And 160 from the other. I think the other issue right there is there are
minimal sight line issues concerning this proposal. That part of Luzerne Road, the sight
distances are quite good.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-It is not tremendously dense there, and so I’m not seeing a big issue
with it. I don’t have a lot of concerns with it.
MR. FORD-I concur.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s moderate relief versus substantial relief.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any other comments?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it sounds like we’re okay with that? So we can take that
recommendation. We’re just working up a motion. That’s all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’d like to make a recommendation.
MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 DAVID
MINER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
That the Planning Board recommends that because of the minimal sight line issues
concerning this proposal as submitted and because the requested relief is moderate, the
Planning Board believes that the proposal is reasonable and deserves favorable
consideration.
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s the first item. Now it’s Sketch Plan. Any comments
with regards to Sketch Plan? If this is just a two lot subdivision, wouldn’t that just be
administrative?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I thought two lots were administrative? No.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t believe they’re administrative anymore.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anymore. Okay. This was a previous subdivision, also.
MS. WHEELER-It’s not administrative, because, yes, there was a previous subdivision.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any questions, any questions on Sketch Plan? Any comments, I
should say?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-The only issues that I would have are related to what the Code says on
the requirements for being on an arterial. So, the issues that the ZBA is dealing with are
the issues that we would be dealing with.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the only other comment would be, if you could discuss the
possibility of no further subdivision, get your feeling on that.
MS. WHEELER-As a deed restriction?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, wouldn’t it be for this?
MS. WHEELER-Or no further subdivision of the 1.04?
MR. SEGULJIC-On the nine acre subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-You can’t require that, sir.
MS. WHEELER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not require it, I’m just asking to discuss it.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a single family area, single family 1A.
MR. OBORNE-It’s definitely well within the zoning.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And there is a lot of access on Burch Road. I mean, look at all that
access on Burch Road. So they could develop it with access over there.
MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t even see Burch Road. Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-That’s probably where it would come from, actually, unless you took down
the, do your parents live in the two story wood frame?
MS. WHEELER-The one in the middle currently.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious. It’s not really relevant.
MS. WHEELER-They were in the one on the left. Now they’re in the one in the middle.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have any other comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-No other comments.
MR. OBORNE-I would ask the applicant to get in your preliminaries as soon as possible.
We could move your process along quicker.
MS. WHEELER-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 REVISED SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
RONALD & LINDA BALL AGENT(S) CHARLIE SCUDDER OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING SFR-1A/RR-5A LOCATION WEST MT. RD. OPPOSITE LEHLAND
ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 8.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO
TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE & 7.05 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-08
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1
SECTION A-183
CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just introduce yourself and tell us about your application.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. SCUDDER-Charlie Scudder, consulting engineer, agent for the applicant.
RONALD BALL
MR. BALL-Ronald Ball, property owner.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is also a revised Sketch Plan.
MR. SCUDDER-Sketch Plan Review. A couple of things that perhaps ought to be
stated. We’ve finally arrived at the point where we’re going to have one additional lot
here. We’re a two lot subdivision, and I have before me Mr. Ryan’s critique and his
comments, which I assume all of you have also, is that right?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-And while this is only Sketch Plan, I think a couple of these things could
be laid to rest. First of all, there isn’t going to be any well. We’re going to have public
water service here, and pursuant to that, there’s already a lateral coming across West
Mountain Road because the main is on the east side of the road, and the lateral comes
across and there is a curb stop on the west side of the road that serves this parcel. So
there’s no need for a well, and as to the electric service and the water service laterals,
that is the service laterals, these can be laid right in the old farm road, which is clear all
the way up, and that’s our intent. So there isn’t going to be any additional clearing
required, and when we get to the next meeting, that’ll all be shown clearly on the revised
drawing. So several of the comments that pertain either to the well or to the water
service lateral or the electric service, which will be underground, are moot. We did our
soil work yesterday. Mr. Ryan came up and witnessed the deep hole test, and while he
was there, he chatted with us about some other things, and while we were there, Mr. Ball
said that he hadn’t noticed that there’s a big three foot diameter maple tree which would
be on Lot One, not Lot Two, and he really wants that on Lot Two where he intends to
build a house for himself, and so that caused us to call Craig Brown and see if we could
have a brief meeting with him right on the spot, and we did and we could. So we talked
to Craig about modifying the boundary line on Lot One, so that we could capture that
maple tree, and Craig advised us that as long as we meet the 100 foot minimum width
average width for Lot One, what did I say? I beg your pardon, 150 foot width, that that
could be done, and we talked with Dan Ryan at the site also about his suggestion of a 50
foot three percent slope at the intersection with West Mountain Road, and I should, if you
look at the site, it’s obvious that to achieve that three percent grade for 50 feet is going to
require a fairly deep cut, and a fairly deep cut also means more disturbance because you
have to feather the side slopes back farther, and there doesn’t seem to be a need for it,
and so I think he’d be amenable to our reducing that 50 foot length to 25 feet length, and
we’d give one car ample room to sit on a flat slope there, in anticipation of moving out
into West Mountain Road. So we’re going to propose that. The other thing we did, we
did today. My surveyor and I located the area to be cleared around the home site, and
we picked up the major trees, most of them are pine trees, by the way, and they would
constitute a hazard for a house that was built there because they’re very large, very high,
and sooner or later they’d be coming down. So we’re going to take those down and clear
the site around the house, the immediate home site, and that will all be plotted. So I
think with that I’d ask for the Board’s feeling about all of this.
MR. SEGULJIC-Comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-When you talk about the clearing of the trees, that was the, the one
comment that I noticed when it was looked at by the Zoning Board that there was some
concern about keeping it as wild as possible and trying to not cut anymore than
absolutely necessary. So just keep that in mind.
MR. SCUDDER-We have that in mind, and understand that I’m talking about just where
the house is going to be and these big trees that would, you know, dominate it and pose
a threat to the house, you know, but there’s no intent to cut down a tree that doesn’t have
to be brought down.
MR. FORD-How far out from the perimeter of the house would you anticipate making
your cut?
MR. SCUDDER-Removing the trees, you mean?
MR. FORD-Yes.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. BALL-I believe, to the back side of the house it’s probably safe to say 70 feet. To
the front of the house probably the same, but nothing more than 70 feet. Seventy feet
would be the closest that I would clear to the house, and these are only big pine trees.
There are some hardwoods there.
MR. FORD-White pine?
MR. BALL-White pine, yes.
MR. SCUDDER-White pine.
MR. BALL-And I also, I didn’t realize it until yesterday when I was up there, there’s a
beautiful maple tree. This is how concerned I am about keeping the trees there. I want
to redesign the side border so I can keep this maple tree, and I know it’s going to be
more of an expense to me, but that’s how dedicated I am to keeping these trees, and I
know to put the driveway in to get that less than 10% slope it’s going to require a lot of
trees out of there, which I’ve always been against, but if this is what I have to do to get
approval on the property, then I’ll take the trees down, but I really don’t want to. Because
you have to zigzag through the forest to get to, from the street to the house, and in order
to get there, to keep that 10% grade, there’s an awful swath of trees that’s got to come
out of there, but I do want to keep as many as I can, and I’ve already indicated we’ve
especially looked at where the septic is going to go and what trees, I told them I want to
keep this, this. We could put the system here, just to keep the trees, but the big white
pine, that’s where the first big storm come through and knocked them all down, a lot of
them, and they’re still, a lot of them are still sitting there. I haven’t had a chance to grind
them up yet, or take them away, but my wife fears the big pine trees are going to blow
over on the house.
MR. FORD-As you clear for the house, the wind gets a clearer shot at them as well.
MR. BALL-I know.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, the immediate home site is pretty much clear right now, but it’s
surrounded by these monstrous white pines. There are some white birches.
MR. BALL-They’re aged. They’re at their limit, I believe, where they’re going to start
dying off, which could be like 70, 80 years old, and you could go up there on the property
right now, and I could show you a dozen of them, huge stubs. They’ve blown right over.
They’re laying all around the property. I’ve cleared a lot of them out, right where the
house is going to go, but there’s still an awful lot of them on the property. They’re all
over the place, aren’t they, Charlie?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. BALL-They’re all pine.
MR. SCUDDER-But I don’t want to leave the impression that the land is bare or going to
be bare. There are still plenty of trees.
MR. BALL-A lot of them.
MR. SCUDDER-But unfortunately a lot of them are white pines, but there are a number
of maples and some birch, and perhaps ash and things, predominantly pines.
MR. SIPP-All right. Roughly speaking I have about 520 feet of total driveway length.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s right.
MR. SIPP-This is all going to be 12 feet wide and at least try to get below 10% slope.
How are we going to maintain this in the wintertime?
MR. BALL-First off, my intentions are to pave it, and being that far away, it will probably
be done with a tractor.
MR. SIPP-Well, in Ryan’s, he asked for a cross section of the driveway in order to give
us an idea of what you’re going to handle the driveway off of the road with, how are you
going to handle it.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. SCUDDER-Well, the soil is porous. I did a percolation test, a couple of them there
yesterday for wastewater, and the soil was pretty much the same everywhere on that
site. So I’d prefer to use ditches with stone filled ditches, stone wrapped with filter fabric,
and infiltrate the water into the ground that way, and these can be run along the side of
the road at appropriate places. There shouldn’t be a lot of runoff from a 12 foot road,
and especially given the amount of land that the water would have to run over.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but I think what he’s referring to is possibly washouts, in other words, if
you don’t control the water as it comes down that road, it picks up speed. The faster it
goes the more it cuts.
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. SIPP-Therefore I think he’s concerned with how do you slow it down, keep it under
control so you don’t get this kind of action.
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. SIPP-I don’t know. In a snowstorm or a fire or the need for an emergency squad,
that’s a long hike, unless it’s properly taken care of. Especially at the bottom now, if
you’re going to reduce the grade there, you’re going to make it steeper some place else.
Am I right?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, we have to transition, the problem I see is in order to flatten the
slope we have to deepen the cut, especially on that switchback, and I thought about
floating the idea that maybe the Board would grant us a waiver on the slope and let us
increase the slope, maybe to 12% or something, but on second thought I decided not to
do that. We don’t have a very good batting average around here.
MR. FORD-You got this far.
MR. SEGULJIC-The electric line and the water line, I mean, how are they going to be
laid in there?
MR. BALL-There’s an old tractor trail or tractor road that’s been there for years, and the
curb stop is right in line with that, because I believe years ago someone was going to
build a house up in there, and he put the curb in, or the curb stop, and he used that road,
and that’s where I would run the power and the water up that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s already a clear shot there?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, it’s cleared.
MR. BALL-Straight up.
MR. SCUDDER-I think some of you have driven up that.
MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I’ve walked up.
MR. TRAVER-When we looked at the original, when we were preparing to consider the
original plan.
MR. SCUDDER-Did you drive up there? So it is drivable, but it’s not comfortable. You
have to.
MRS. STEFFAN-I parked at the end and walked up.
MR. SCUDDER-You have to put it in low. Since this plan was drawn, we have surveyed
that and located the road more precisely and we’re going to run these two underground
services right up that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-That’ll work well.
MR. SIPP-My concern is how will this house look from Aviation Road?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ll see it from Mt. View Lane.
MR. SCUDDER-You won’t see it from Aviation Road.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ll see it from Mt. View Lane.
MR. SIPP-Mt. View Lane, or Bonner Drive, how about Bonner Drive?
MR. SCUDDER-You wouldn’t see it this time of year. There’s too much vegetation. You
wouldn’t see it.
MR. SIPP-The house is, is this a ranch house, single story?
MR. BALL-I’ve been up there I don’t know how many times. I can’t see any roads from
where the house is going to be.
MR. SCUDDER-No, the question was, is this going to be a certain type of house?
MR. BALL-Yes. Is it going to be a certain type? I think it may be a two story. My wife
doesn’t want me building a two story. She wants a single story, and we can’t even agree
on the color of the house.
MR. FORD-It’ll be a single story.
MR. BALL-Yes, you’re probably right.
MR. SCUDDER-Have you yourself been up there?
MR. SIPP-I’ve been up there, yes, but if it’s a two story house, I’ve got to think you’re
going to be seen. If it’s a single story, maybe not.
MR. BALL-Well, I can’t tell you what it’s going to be.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, you can certainly see it from West Mountain Road if you look up
that old driveway.
MR. SIPP-But I’m saying if you went out on Mt. View or Bonner Drive.
MR. BALL-I don’t believe so. I really don’t.
MR. SIPP-How about Lehland acres?
MR. BALL-I don’t believe you could see any houses. I’ve been up in there with my
backhoe, and my backhoe sits up in the air quite high, and I’ve looked around, but you’ve
got to look over the tops of the trees, and you can maybe pick up a little speck of
Vermont mountains, and if you look the other way, you’re looking over the tops of all the
trees, and I think I’m looking towards Saratoga, but I can’t be for sure, but.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think you may be able to see, I mean, when you go down, certainly in
the winter, when you go down Mt. View Lane, the property next to yours, there is
somebody cutting a road up on the mountain, and you can see it very clearly in the
winter. You can even see it now where the woods have been cut out.
MR. BALL-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think that somebody, or, if you drive down, you might see the
roof of your house, but over time, as the trees go up around, it’ll disappear, and we may
put a, you know, we may put a condition on your approval that you’ll have a natural color
roof instead of, you know, pink tile or something like that which we’ve seen on Lake
George, but, you know, just that kind of thing, natural colors, so that there are some
design guidelines that will help it to blend in to the mountainside.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think the Board’s just saying have visibility considerations in your
design.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. BALL-I certainly am, and I’m not saying that just to get your approval.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I think a single story home would be better. I think it will make your life
easier.
MR. BALL-If I wanted to, I could move the house much closer to the road, and it would
be a shorter driveway, it would be a lot less expense. That’s why I’ve got it so far away
from the road, and to keep it that way, keep it secluded. I mean, it’s very easy to take a
tree down, but it’s much harder to keep one growing, and I know I’ve probably, this won’t
be my last home, but maybe the next person, he might want all the trees down, I don’t
know, but if he wants all the trees up there, well, I found a good buyer then, because the
trees are there. Somebody could always take them down, but my intentions are, you
know, and you have to believe me on that.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, you’re going to landscape it, aren’t you?
MR. BALL-I mean, the proof of it is I’m having to go back to Matt Steves to have him
redesign it.
MR. SCUDDER-No, but aren’t you going to landscape your, I mean, that’s your
business, isn’t it?
MR. BALL-You bet I am. That’s our business. That’s it.
MR. SCUDDER-You’re going to put in some shrubs and trees, ornamental trees.
MR. BALL-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-So you wouldn’t mind putting just kind of the limits of disturbance, like are
mentioned.
MR. BALL-There’s going to be very little lawn.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, but since you’re coming back, if that’s just kind of added into the
plan, where you think, I’m not being very articulate this evening.
MR. SEGULJIC-Clearing limits.
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Place clearing limits on the plan.
MR. SCUDDER-Let me say, Ron’s going to take down the trees that he feels he has to
take down, and that’s it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So just show that on the plan.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s it. I mean, we can identify, we’ve located the trees with our
instruments. We can plot them, size them, identify them, and say this one goes, this one
goes, this one stays, and so forth.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all we’re looking for. So I think the Board is saying, we’d like to
see some clearing limits, and the consideration of visible impacts.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Keith, do those clearing limits help, if they are to sell the property, is there
any stipulation that the next owners can’t clear beyond that, or is it just more of a
suggestion?
MR. OBORNE-If an owner wishes to, he could take down every single tree. There’s no
stipulation that trees have to stay up, in the Zoning Code.
MRS. STEFFAN-If there’s a deed restriction or a plat notation, then those are
enforceable, but a plat notation’s enforceable by a Code Enforcement person from the
Town. A deed restriction is not enforceable by the Town, but a neighbor would have to
call the police and say, my neighbor has a deed restriction and they’re violating it, and
then the police would get involved, and that rarely happens.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/08)
MR. OBORNE-Now I will say typically when the final plans are in the office, they do
show, as you know, the limits of clearing, and if they’re so egregious that it’s beyond that,
well then that’s a problem.
MR. SCUDDER-But I want to make one point here, that the limits of clearing may be
plotted and drawn and shown, but that doesn’t mean they’re aren’t going to be trees
within that limit, inside that limit, because they are certain trees we want to keep.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. SCUDDER-The birches, the maples, the oaks.
MR. OBORNE-Well, let me re-phrase that as the limits of disturbance.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay, rather than clearing.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. We intend to show that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Okay. Anything else from the Board?
MRS. BRUNO-Sounds good. Glad to hear you like your maple.
MR. SCUDDER-So to capture the maple, we have to adjust the property line on that first
lot, within the limits prescribed by the Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you when you come back.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
th
Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
On motion meeting was adjourned.
Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman
30