Loading...
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