Loading...
2009.03.17(Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 39-08 Cellco Partnership 1. Tax Map No. 295.18-2-11 Site Plan No. 50-2008 General Timber 2. Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 Site Plan No. 14-2009 Debaron Associates 5. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Subdivision No. 6-2008 Kelaco, LLC 23. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.17-3-45 PUD Site Plan No. 20-2009 The Michaels Group 35. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.20-1-8 Site Plan No. 9-2009 John Witt 43. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-2 Site Plan No. 10-2009 New Hope Community Church 45. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-37, 38 Site Plan No. 11-2009 Newmeadow Saratoga School 53. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-1 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 03/17/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on St. Patrick's Day. Happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody. The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 13, 2009 January 20, 2009 January 27, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 20, AND 27, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have a couple of Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SP 39-08: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested that we consider a further tabling resolution. We just talked briefly. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Okay. That makes it even easier. We were just discussing briefly, I think the preference would be to actually deny without prejudice, and have them re-submit. It would be cleaner, administratively, plus we're pretty sure they're going to be giving us a whole new application anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Refresh my memory. Is that the one on West Mountain, then, or is that the one in the neighborhood? MR. OBORNE-Aviation. MRS. STEFFAN-It's the one behind, on the Queensbury Central Fire Company on Aviation Road. MR. HUNSINGER-It's going in the neighborhood. We sent them packing to. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes. They had some issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, look for further sites, and apparently they're still doing research. (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any other information from the applicant, Keith, other than the request? MR. OBORNE-No. Well, the request for the six month tabling request had to do with funding for additional engineering and research, and at this point the applicant knows that I was going to recommend to you deny without prejudice. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And again, obviously it is the Planning Board's decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-And was there a public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a resolution. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that was here for that project, Cellco Partnership? What we just did is we just denied their application without prejudice. So they will have to file a new application. It would be warned in the newspaper. They would have to go through the whole public hearing all over again, and they would have to notify any neighbors, but at this point, there is no project. SP 50-2008: GENERAL TIMBER FOR SEAR DISCUSSION DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Do you want to come up to the table? MR. PHILLIPS-I just happened to be here. I don't think this was on the agenda, was it? MRS. STEFFAN-No, it's an Administrative Item. MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Administrative Item. Yes. Keith, I don't know if you want to bring the Board up to date on the meeting that you had, since our last meeting. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Staff had a meeting with representatives from the Town of Lake George, Rob Hickey and Tom Jarrett, along with a forester that was retained by Tom Jarrett. Staff and myself, we talked about the project in Lake George, and it's in excess of 300 acres of a timber harvest, which is not uncommon. However, it has been decided that it appears to be a Type I SEQRA, which deals with certain regulations and certain environmental assessment forms that need to be taken care of for this. It is my understanding that Lake George will, in fact, be changing their SEQRA status to Type I in the future. At this point, all we need to do is to ask the applicant for additional information for the project in totality, not just in the Town of Queensbury, but the whole project, and then, once that information is in and is deemed complete, and the Board is able to make a SEQRA determination, it shall do so. MR. HUNSINGER-Did the Town of Lake George continue to express their interest in being the Lead Agent? MR. OBORNE-It is my understanding that they will continue to express their interest, but at this point we need to go and gather our information. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I think that, and I do advise the Board that that is all we need to do tonight is to direct the applicant what to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I'm kind of confused. If both Towns want to be Lead Agency, what happens then? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that can be sticky. Either one Town would eventually have to acquiesce within a timeframe, or the DEC Commissioner would decide who would be the Lead Agent. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But that wouldn't happen until after all the information has been submitted, right? MR. OBORNE-Right. You have to gather your information, and then once you make your determination, the clock starts. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-The 30 day clock? MR. OBORNE-The 30 day clock. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add, Mr. Phillips? Just, if you could identify yourself for the record. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. My name is Dennis Phillips, and I represent the McPhillips family, and I think that the record shows that the McPhillips family has entered into a timber sale agreement with General Timber. I have been involved on behalf of the family, and I just wanted to mention that this Board has a letter from me, reciting seven reasons why, in the family's opinion, this would not be a Type I kind of action under SEQRA. That letter has not gone to Lake George yet, but it will, for the record, in Lake George. In the meantime, the family has no problem at all with providing a Long Form EAF that would be comprehensive for both Towns, and covering all 318 acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-I did speak with Keith earlier tonight, and I did say that I have an e-mail indicating some lack of information items, and I indicated to Keith that we would provide those items to both Lake George and Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Is there anything, for members of the Board, is there anything that you would want to see in addition to what was mentioned in the information from Staff? MRS. STEFFAN-I think just without having the information in front of me, just as long as they were answering Staff Notes from last month, because there were several outstanding items from Staff, and I think there was a VISION Engineering comment or two. Those were things that needed to be answered. MR. OBORNE-I think at this point we want to look at this and keep it simple and look at it myopically and just focus on the Long Form and the information that you need to gather in order to make your determination. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. As Keith said, we're really not taking any action tonight. It was more of an update, make sure everyone was on the same page, make sure the Board was comfortable with how this was playing out. Is there anything else that we need to do? MR. OBORNE-That's all I have. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we going to change the determination to Type I, then, tonight, or hold off on that, still? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. OBORNE-What was your question? Sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we going to change our determination to a Type I or hold off on that? MR. OBORNE-Not at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we really don't need to. MR. OBORNE-You have to gather your information and deem it sufficient. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. OBORNE-I do want to add one thing. Another resolution is to the Town of Lake George. In response to their request for Lead Agency status, if you could make a resolution stating that insufficient information was submitted for us to make a determination or an acquiescence to Lake George being Lead Agency. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn't we do that at the last meeting, though? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward that motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, REGARDING THIS PROJECT, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE SEQRA STATUS, SPECIFICALLY TYPE I SEQRA STATUS. SO WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I think we need to specify with the Town of Lake George's request to be Lead Agent. MR. OBORNE-Well, that should be a separate resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-A separate resolution? Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So now we need a resolution regarding the request from the Town of Lake George to be Lead Agent. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to make a motion, for the record? MR. OBORNE-Well, if you could make a motion or resolution to inform Lake George that what they submitted for their Lead Agency Status request was insufficient. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're really just trying to clean that up? MR. OBORNE-I'm trying to clean it up is exactly what I'm trying to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So they had sent the request to us for them to be Lead Agency, but they didn't submit sufficient information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And that would be the completed environmental form? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. OBORNE-Correct. Let me recap, just for clarity purposes. The Town of Lake George issued a motion, a resolution stating that they wanted to pursue Lead Agency Status for the project. We received, in the mail, a letter, in letterhead form, from the Town of Lake George, stating that request. Typically when you request Lead Agency Status, you submit a Long Form, for Lead Agency Status, denoting what other agencies may be involved. That was not submitted. So it was not basically a request that we could even remotely respond to. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So we're really taking no action. MR. FORD-And is it premature, as far as the information is concerned, for us to indicate a willingness or a desire to take Lead Agency? MR. HUNSINGER-It's premature. MR. FORD-That's what I thought. MRS. STEFFAN-So we will take no action on the Lead Agency. MR. HUNSINGER-The Town of Lake George's request to be Lead Agent. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make another resolution. MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 FOR GENERAL TIMBER, THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE HAS REQUESTED LEAD AGENCY STATUS BUT DID NOT PROVIDE A COMPLETE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO ACT. THEREFORE WE WILL BE TAKING NO ACTION ON THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 14-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DEBARON ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION LOT 4, DARK BAY LANE, OFF RT. 9L, WEST OF DUNHAMS BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,351 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS REQUESTED. CROSS REFERENCE BOH 1- 09, AV 11-08, SP 32-89, AV 1442, AV 12-92; SUB 2-69 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION CHAPTER 147 DENNIS PHILLIPS & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals per ZBA resolution per ZBA resolution of 3/26/08. Application is Site Plan 14-2009, Debaron Associates, Site Plan Review for construction of a Single Family Dwelling in a Critical Environmental Area. The location is Lot 4, Dark Bay off Rt. 9L, west of Dunham's Bay, existing zoning is Waterfront Residential Three Acres. This is an Unlisted SEQRA status. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,351 square foot single family dwelling on a 0.35 acre lot with shoreline frontage on Lake George. This project has been classified as a Major Stormwater Project. Staff comments: The Zoning 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) Board of Appeals has requested a recommendation from the Planning Board regarding the stormwater protection plan. The applicant has received approval to install two 2000 gallon precast concrete holding tanks for wastewater. Design notes and alarm sequences for the holding tanks are located on sheet S-5. The lot currently has an existing gazebo to the north, 88 sq. ft. cabin, one `U'-dock, two `I' docks and five retaining walls of differing length and height. All existing conditions will be incorporated into the site plan. Site Plan Review follows, and I assume the Planning Board has reviewed those issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. Again, my name is Dennis Phillips, representing Debaron Associates, and next to me is Tom Hutchins, also representing Debaron Associates. I'm with the firm McPhillips, Fitzgerald, and Cullum. Tom is with his own firm, Hutchins Engineering. Just in terms of procedure, I think I wanted to clarify, for the record, what I think we're doing tonight, based on the resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's my understanding that this Planning Board is going to take a look at the stormwater protection plan that has been proposed, and then is going to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board whether or not this site is suitable for stormwater protection. I say that because I know that before we can proceed to the issue of Site Plan Review, that we have to obtain the required variances that we're seeking from the Zoning Board, and only after those variance issue, as I understand it, are we legally able to be back in front of the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and so that's our understanding, and I'd ask Keith if that's his understanding as well. MR. OBORNE-That is my understanding. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. So, with that, what I thought I would do, so that this Board is not looking at this application in a vacuum, I thought that I could provide a little bit of historical information, because there's a lot of history to this project, and the history starts in the Year 1968, when Debbie Schiebel's father, and by the way, Debbie Schiebel is sitting right behind me in the front row, when Debbie Schiebel's father bought this property from a person by the name of Malcolm Mitchell, and it was a seven acre property that he bought, and at the time of the sale in 1968, Malcolm Mitchell imposed a number of conditions on the sale, for his benefit, and he said to Debbie's father, and his partners, I want you to subdivide this property into four lots on Lake George, and I'll let you subdivide the property into an additional 10 to 11 lots that are off Lake George, and I'm doing that because when I sell the land to you, I want to protect the land that I'm holding back, so that I don't have to worry about any kind of commercial development or that kind of thing on the lake. I have a tax map that I would like to just point to in regard to that. If I could walk over, I'll point this out to you. MR. FORD-Dennis, before you do that, I have a question. What documentation do we have that this was entered into, this communication and this agreement? MR. PHILLIPS-You have that documentation in your record. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-And it was in your packet. It probably is the paper that is on black paper, one of those old deeds, and hard to read, but anyway, what I've done is that I've outlined in red the entire property that was owned by Mr. Mitchell at the time, and so he sold the property, and I've got McCormick now, and that's the old Mitchell property that he reserved for himself, but he sold the seven acres to Debbie's father over on the left hand side, and then pursuant to those covenants, what I call the mandated subdivision, he created Lot One, Lot Two, Lot Three, Lot Four, on the lakeshore, and then he created another 11 lots behind the lakeshore, so that in all, it was a 15 lot subdivision, and Mr. Mitchell reserved rights of access to get to his property. So, that was in the, basically the vesting deed to Debbie's father. Following up on that, Debbie's father came to this Planning Board in 1969, with this plan of subdivision, and asked this Planning Board to approve the project as he proposed and as seen on that tax map, and this Planning Board did approve it on August 6, 1969. It was approved by the Department of Health on July 11, 1969, and then the map was filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office on September 26, 1969. This was a period when Queensbury had very limited planning and zoning. Obviously the reason we're here tonight is that there's been an evolution in that process, to the point where there are more rules and regulations today, but after he filed the subdivision map in the Clerk's Office, and by the way, you have a copy of that original subdivision map that was filed in the Clerk's Office as well in your packet. After that was filed, he began selling off lots, but before he sold off lots, he imposed, in 1971, 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) some additional covenants and restrictions that would affect not the shoreline lots, but would affect the other lots, the back lots, Lots Five to Fifteen. You also have those covenants and restrictions in your packet, and what he did is that he also set up a homeowners association so that there was a beach lot, and all members of this subdivision, owners of Lots One through Fifteen, have an entitlement to enjoy the use and benefit of that beach lot. Ultimately the beach lot was conveyed to a separate corporation, a homeowners association, but if people buy into this subdivision, they have the right to use and enjoy that beach lot. In 1974, Debbie's father conveyed the property that we're talking about tonight to her and to her sister and to her brother, and so as early as 1974, Debbie and her siblings became the owner of this Lot Four and of course in the meantime the Adirondack Park Agency Act came into being in 1971, and then the Land Use and Development Plan came into being in 1973. So, in 1976, a submission was made to the Adirondack Park Agency to ask that this subdivision be vested as a pre- existing subdivision under the Adirondack Park Agency Act. Indeed a vesting letter was sent. This was treated as apre-existing subdivision under the Adirondack Park Agency Act. So no additional approvals on the subdivision would have to be obtained from the Adirondack Park Agency. You have a copy of that letter in your materials as well, so that you have that for the record. In 1981, Debbie and her siblings conveyed this property to Debaron Associates, the partnership that now is before you making the application, and then what's interesting is that in 1990, Debaron Associates made application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, involving the construction of a home on this property. At that time, the variance application was fora 36 foot setback. Our application is fora 50 foot setback because we're trying to maximize the distance from the shoreline, but interestingly the ZBA in 1990 approved that variance application, but it got bogged down later on because of record issues, technical issues, and it was sent back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for reconsideration, but at that time I think that probably Debbie's father, I can only surmise this, was probably so frustrated with the process that he didn't take it any further, and that was just marked off the calendar by the Zoning Board in 1992. I think that's in your Staff Notes that you have before you tonight. The interesting part of this property is that from 1974 on, this property has been assessed as a building lot, and I have in the record before you the period between 2004 and 2008, to show you what a building lot does in Queensbury in terms of market value, assessment and taxes, and as of the end of 2008, the implied market value, factoring in the equalization rate on this property, was one million, five hundred and fifty-eight thousand, four hundred and eighty-one dollars. The assessment was one million, two hundred and thirty-one thousand two hundred dollars, and Debbie paid fifteen thousand, five hundred and forty-seven and eighteen dollars of tax on this property, and so I think that as the market value went up, as the taxes went up, I think that Debbie probably felt that it was time to have her structure on this property, not to reduce the taxes. It probably will increase the taxes, but at least to get something going that she's been planning to do since 1974 or in that vicinity. So, with that, that gives you the extensive historical background on this property. I think it's very telling, and so I'm going to turn the mic over to Tom Hutchins, now, who has designed a stormwater protection plan for this property, and I think it probably establishes that it can be done, which is the big issue, but I'll let Tom address all of those issues. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. We started with the Zoning Board last March, and at that time, we had proposed a little different wastewater system, which was deemed to be undesirable. It wasn't looked on favorably by the owners, by the neighbors, and by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it was as a result of that meeting, and you have those meeting minutes in your packet there, it was last March, that we headed down the path for holding tanks, and we have, indeed, received specific waivers from the State Department of Health, and a septic variance from the Town Board of Health for holding tanks in this unusual new construction situation. The house proposed is a 24 by 40 foot footprint, totaling 2,300 square feet of area. That includes a portion of the basement, the first floor and the second floor. It's a very small house. We have, in developing the site, we have concentrated upon minimizing the disturbance, maximizing infiltration of stormwater, and maximizing the separation from Lake George. What we did, as Dennis indicated, the prior variance from '91, they had the house 34 feet from the lake. We have sited the house just over 50 feet from the lake. We are asking for a variance for that based upon the zone. It's an RR-3 zone which is a 75 foot setback, but we have pushed it back beyond 50 feet, and it's really, it's the upper limit of how far back we can push it from the lake, because the parcel is something less than 100 feet in total depth. It has been deemed a Major stormwater Project. One of the requirements of a Major stormwater Project is stormwater controls are 100 feet from Lake George, as well as water supplies in certain instances, streams, wetlands, etc. Obviously with a parcel that's just under 100 feet in total depth, that's not feasible to get the stormwater, to get that separation. We have laid out a system entirely utilizing infiltration, as infiltration is the preferred method of dealing 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) with stormwater per Queensbury's regulations. We have conducted site tests, or site soils tests. The soils are granular in nature, conducive to infiltration, and we've done it essentially with two systems of infiltration trench, one on the low side of the house, which will be about 45 feet from the lake, not 100 feet, but it's not 20 feet either, and that is really as the greatest separation we can work into this site. The other system, which surrounds a small parking area in the neighborhood of 750 square feet, is just over 50 feet from the lake, and again, that's an infiltration trench. The trenches, I won't get into the details of the trenches, the information's on there. I'm sure you'll have some questions. The house area and the drive area are both handled with infiltration stormwater, two infiltration trenches, and again, we've done, we've been very cognizant of minimizing the disturbance, and maximizing the separation from Lake George, and with that, I'll turn it over to the Board. If you have any questions on any of the other specifics I've focused on, stormwater, but feel free. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-When I read the minutes, there's a couple of conflicts, and I just wanted to clear those up. I think it was the Lake George Water Keeper had identified that in order to execute the Site Plan as you've designed it, you would have to take all the trees down. Is that true? MR. HUTCHINS-No. Within our clearing limit. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but not the whole site. MR. HUTCHINS-No, not the whole site. We're not going to clear the whole site. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. One of the other issues that came up, when I read the minutes, was the amount of rock that's located on the site, and yet the description that you just gave was that, you know, the soils are granular in nature. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I can address that. There is a tremendous amount of rock in the vicinity, in the area. You get across the road, we're showing some exposed ledge. Frankly, the area where the house is going was filled a long, long time ago, and it was filled with granular material, and it is very suitable for infiltration, and depth range from five to six to seven feet to ledge rock in this material. So it has been there for a long time. You can call it fill. You can call it native material. There's large trees growing on it. It's been there a long, long time, but it's probably not been there since Day One. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the reason I ask that question is just that, you know, some of the information that was contained in the minutes would be contrary. Obviously if it was all rock the water would sheet off. So the infiltration wouldn't work. MR. HUTCHINS-And in those minutes our first trip to the Zoning Board, we were discussing a wastewater pump station with a force main along the road up across another lot owned by Debaron to another lot owned by Debaron, up by the tennis courts. If you're familiar with the area, there's a couple of tennis courts up there, and the concern is, from Point A to Point B, it's significant ledge, okay, and it would involve rock excavation to do it, and it would be a major, major project. So that's where the reference to rock has come from. I have been on the site with a back hoe, and I'm very comfortable that the reports I'm showing are representative of the soils we're dealing with. MRS. STEFFAN-That water can be infiltrated? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? MR. KREBS-I have a question. We had this infiltration garden, and it was within 100 feet, and the court said you couldn't have that. So are we going to get back into the same kind of a situation here where we have an infiltration and the court, somebody's going to take it to an Article 78 and we're going to go to court and then the court's going to say, no, you cannot put those in? I don't know that answer. MR. PHILLIPS-I can answer that, because I was here for that discussion, not as part of it, but listening to it very intently, and I don't know what the outcome of that ultimately 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) was, but I understood that discussion to mean that the applicant had one of two choices. Either go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance for the rain garden, or eliminate it from the plan, and I don't know what happened on that, but what we're doing, I mean, we're before the Zoning Board of Appeals now. So that if we get our variance, that will take away that problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and that was actually the discussion that we had was that, obviously the Article 78 and the judge told us that we needed to make an alternate decision, but, you know, do we want to have infiltration that close to the lake? One of the reasons why our zoning is very specific on that particular topic is to protect the lake quality, and so I think that was a two hour discussion that we had that, at our last Planning Board meeting on March 3rd on that very topic. So I'm sure that's on all of our minds, John brought it up. MR. FORD-And we did come up with a third alternative that they eventually passed. MR. TRAVER-I had a question regarding the existing storage cabin, right down near the water. Would you consider moving that further away? That would reduce the impervious right in the immediate vicinity of the shoreline. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I mean, that's really their call. It's got boat stuff and beach stuff. MR. PHILLIPS-I would say we would consider that, you know, if and when we come back on a Site Plan Review application, something we could consider. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. A couple of things. With regards to your stormwater analysis report, under the proposed, I'm looking at subcatchment one S, subcatchment two S, and those. I didn't see anywhere where you included the driveway and patio in there. It could be just a terminology thing. MR. HUTCHINS-It's probably a breakdown within that sub. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have roof road infiltration trench wall (lost words) woods, wall, road, but on your plan you call them patio and patio walkway. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, part of the patio walkway is to the infiltration trench, or to the house trench, part of it is. There's a high point back. MR. SEGULJIC-What are you calling the house trench, the one in front? MR. HUTCHINS-The one in front, yes, that swales around. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess what I'm saying, I didn't see it included in your calculation. It could be my misunderstanding, because I just didn't see that terminology anywhere. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, 2-S is listed as house and surroundings, and. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and you look at the descriptions, you have roof, road, infiltration trench and walk. I didn't see patio walkway or patio. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I'll have to, I have a number of things to clarify with Town Engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. The other thing is, as far as the steps go, did you include the steps down to the lake? MR. HUTCHINS-I did not include the existing steps. Those have been there for, those are existing. I guess that's not totally clear. They've been there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Under 147-9B(3)(f), it says for existing structures, you have to accommodate the first half inch of flush. I don't see any stormwater controls there. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Well, I can. MR. SEGULJIC-See, so that's what the Code says is you have to have some stormwater controls there for the first half inch. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and I don't have a problem with incorporating something in there, but bear in mind, we've got steps that are going to the lake, and we're here dealing with a setback from the lake for stormwater controls. So I can't get the water back up. MR. SEGULJIC-I think, because that's going to get included, too, because you're going to have to do because you're going to have to be within 100 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm absolutely going to have to be within 100 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-So I'm just pointing that out, that you didn't include stormwater controls for that, and my interpretation of 147, anything that's pre-existing, you have to include in your stormwater controls, under 147-9B(3)(f). MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Where are you seeing that? MR. SEGULJIC-147-9B(3)(f), and this is what a lot of what the last discussion we had was hung up on. Okay. So you have 147-9 Design Requirements and Performance Standards. B is Major Projects. Three is additional requirements for Major Projects, and you go down to f, at a minimum the control measures shall include those reasonable and necessary to infiltration the runoff from the first half inch. MR. HUTCHINS-To the maximum extent practicable. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The other thing is, with regards to your infiltration trenches, like, for example, the one in front of the house, you're calling for it to be three feet, four feet deep. The test pit says it's 54 inches. So if I did my math right, it's four foot, six inches, and you're supposed to have two feet below the bottom of the infiltration trench. You don't have that two feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Two feet to what? MR. SEGULJIC-To bedrock or water. You don't have that. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and I went through that. I don't see the requirement to bedrock as a Major Project. I'm reading from the same Section. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I believe on our engineer's notes he also points that out. His comment letter also points that out. MR. HUTCHINS-And I've discussed that with him. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, as a clarification, I don't believe you're supposed to discuss things with the engineer. You're supposed to go through Staff, correct, when you discuss things with the engineer. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I'll read that Section, okay. Infiltration devices shall be designed such that the bottom of the system will be a minimum of two feet above the seasonal high groundwater level to be realized following development. Where compliance with this requirement would prevent compliance with Subsection B(2)(e) of this Section, compliance with this requirement may be waived, okay. Now Subsection B(2)(e) says infiltration devices shall be designed to extend a minimum of 10 feet in surface below prevailing frost depths or four feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I believe it's been interpreted that bedrock is included, because where's the water going to go? The purpose of infiltration is not that it's going to hit the bedrock and then run along it. It's an aquitard. So from what I understand it's always been interpreted bedrock or groundwater. MR. HUTCHINS-If it's a concern, I can modify it. I don't think the reg requires that. MR. SEGULJIC-It's a concern. Okay. The other thing is, with regards to the house, you know, you have Test Pit One, which your bedrock is at 66 inches, and bedrock at Test Pit Two is at 54. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And you're calling for the basement floor to be at 334.8, and you have a 340 contour going through there. I assume what you're going to do is you're going to grade this off. You're going to come in and grade that off and build a house on that. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we're going to excavate. MR. SEGULJIC-Grade it off, excavate it. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you sure you're going to be able to do that? Because there might be bedrock right there, and what happens if you run into bedrock, and your bedrock is actually at, your bedrock is actually four feet below. You're not going to have enough room. MR. HUTCHINS-You don't know that. MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and those are things that you don't know until we excavate. If there's a patch of rock, you can't test pit every, you can test pit all you want. MR. SEGULJIC-You only have two test pits. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-If I was your client, I think I'd want more information, because I don't want you to come back to me with a change order. That's going to be a pretty big change order. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm just saying, looking at the information I have here, I have a concern. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think it's great you're going to have the holding tanks, but, as portrayed, I don't know if this stormwater management system is going to work in accordance with the Code. MR. HUTCHINS-Perc Test Pit One, okay, I've got rock at Elevation 330, 330.5. Okay. So I've got four feet of leeway with the basement floor elevation. Could we have done another test pit over here under the basement? Yes, I guess we could have. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you're going to be pretty tight when it comes up to that wall. MR. HUTCHINS-It's going to be tight, tight, tight. No doubt about it. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as having that elevation you're calling for. MR. SIPP-Yes. There's a foot difference between 66 and 54. So, obviously, it's coming closer to the surface on Test Pit Two, than it is on One. So, what is in the basement may be, who knows. MR. SEGULJIC-Then you might need another waiver for the height. MR. HUTCHINS-No. It's designed to 28 feet, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So I'm just pointing that out that if that bedrock is way up. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and surprises happen. MR. SEGULJIC-And we're trying to minimize those. MR. HUTCHINS-And again, we've got ledge at Test Pit One is four feet below the basement floor. MR. SEGULJIC-And to continue on, you don't have Test Pits in the area of your other infiltration trenches. MR. HUTCHINS-You're correct. I don't have a test pit up there. It's significantly higher. MR. SEGULJIC-So I'm just concerned that I don't know if the system's going to work, I don't want to say as designed, well, I'm having issues with where the bedrock is and your 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) infiltration systems are, and the fact that you need infiltration on the steps, because it's pre-existing. MR. HUTCHINS-To the maximum extent practicable. MR. SEGULJIC-Reasonable, I believe it was. MR. HUTCHINS-I think it says practicable. MR. SEGULJIC-Practicable. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But the more that we got, the closer we are to the lake, we'll do, we'll do whatever makes sense to the Board, with those steps, because it's going to be a very small infiltrated area. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-But the further away from the lake it is, the less of, the less of what we gather, but it's an existing access to the lake. MR. SIPP-Are the steps concrete? MR. HUTCHINS-The steps are stone, aren't they? DEBBIE SCHIEBEL MS. SCHIEBEL-They're stone. They've been there 100 years at least. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Are you willing to, under Staff Notes, to not remove anymore vegetation than you have on there, on the plan? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We're willing to comply with that Section, and we didn't get detailed, and I believe that Section does allow an exception for an access way to the lake, and we vision a walking access to the lake, which I don't think is unreasonable. MR. SIPP-Permeable surface? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes, and also, on the depth to bedrock for the holding tanks, you've got 66 inches to bedrock, and you've got a holding tank that's 76 inches in height. So you're going to have to have a hump there, right? MR. HUTCHINS-It's, well, the whole thing is on a side grate, so finished grade is higher than existing grade, yes, and again, with the test pit, with the rock as found in that test pit, there's two feet of leeway with the grading shown versus the test pit rock depth. So we've got two feet to work with, which is we can make that more, I guess. We can always grade that up a little bit more if we have to. We don't intend to because we don't want it to stand out like a sore thumb, but. Now, Tom, back to the trench. I can modify, if there's a genuine concern with the bedrock separation, I can modify that trench and shallow it up, make it a little bit wider and accomplish the same thing, except I don't meet the four foot depth criteria. MR. FORD-Wider rather than deeper? MR. HUTCHINS-A little bit wider and shallower, yes. You basically take a foot of it and put it up on the side, and I might even put an infiltrator or something in it to give it a little more volume. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, getting back to the septic tanks, those septic tanks, maybe I'm incorrect, but they're. MR. KREBS-They're not septics. MR. SEGULJIC-The holding tanks, they're six foot four inches in height, from outside edge to outside edge. Plus you have to have the, plus you're calling for a foot cover on that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, on the detail. MR. SEGULJIC-So that's a total of seven and a half feet, plus you probably have to have gravel under it, correct? So probably up to eight feet, if I'm correct. You've got to set it on something, some pea gravel or something I assume, six inches of that. That'll put you up to like eight feet. MR. HUTCHINS-I can summarize that, and we went through this with the Health Department and the Board of Health. The grade at the, the contour at Test Pit One is 336. The rock is 66 inches, which puts rock at 330.5. Finished grade is 339, which means there's eight and a half feet from rock to finished grade, and finished grade is sloping. So there's eight and a half feet to work with. The tank is 6.3 feet. We've got two feet to work with. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So you're going to fill over the top of those? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I guess where I'm coming from, I'm not satisfied, personally, I don't think I can make a recommendation to the Zoning Board at this point because I don't have adequate information. At this point, I'm not satisfied that this is going to work. I mean, I need more information. MR. HUTCHINS-What additional information would you need? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, something that's going to work. It's not my, I'm going to lean on our engineer to tell me that. Give me some insight on that. As I look at it, I have issues with the bedrock. I think, I can understand it's a tough site to work with. It's not the easiest site to work with, but we've got to do better. MR. HUNSINGER-And the question is, is that a Site Plan issue, or is that a variance issue? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as I see it, the Zoning Board is asking us for a recommendation saying we're satisfied with the stormwater, and at this point I'm not satisfied. I'd need more information, and I believe our Town Engineer had said that also, he had some issues with the. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and the comments from the Town Engineer are manageable, okay, in my opinion. We do have to come back. It would be nice to be able to come back to Site Plan and have them all addressed, but I received them yesterday. Obviously, I can't have information available to address that. MR. SIPP-Well, when he says that the sides of these infiltration trenches should be solid, that means you're going to have to increase the width of the trench, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Which one are you reading? MR. SIPP-Well, in his comments would be Number Two, infiltration devices should be analyzed using the bottom of the trench only with no side wall infiltration. MR. HUTCHINS-That's okay. We used side wall infiltration instead of the bottom because it was, the area's going to be essentially the same. MR. SIPP-Did you use the bottom at all? MR. HUTCHINS-We did not use the bottom. MR. HUNSINGER-So you only used the sides? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-But that gives you considerably more infiltration. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we use the (lost word). 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. SIPP-And I think we need a maintenance plan in order to be able to say that I would waiver this, that we have to have a plan for maintenance of these infiltration trenches. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and we can develop a plan for maintenance of the trench, and again, those are comments that came through that we received yesterday. MRS. STEFFAN-This question may have been answered somewhere in the materials, but there's a lot of this material. Is this going to be a seasonal home or a year round home? Is it planned to be year round? MR. PHILLIPS-I think it will be a year round home, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if we're only addressing stormwater tonight, the three issues I see is that to determine that the patio and the patio walkway were included in the stormwater calculations. Additional test pit information in the area of the trenches, infiltration trenches in the house, and then you have to include impervious features in stormwater controls in accordance with 147-9B(3)(f). MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. We do have at least one person. On the back table, there is a handout from the Planning Board, regarding public hearing information. There's just a couple of things that I just want to highlight. Anyone who wants to address the Board, you need to state your name for the record. Please speak into the microphone. We do tape these proceedings. From the tapes we do transcribe minutes from the meeting. They are literal minutes. So it is important that we get everything on record, and we do have generally a three minute time limit. You will hear a buzzer go off at the end of the three minutes. I would ask that people please adhere with our time restriction. With that, good evening, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM TOBIN MR. TOBIN-Good evening. My name is Jim Tobin. I live at 15 Dark Bay Lane. I have some handouts here. May I pass them out to the Board? One is a letter from a person who could not be here, and one is some technical information which I'd like to discuss with the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, and make sure you have a copy for Staff. MR. TOBIN-The first item I would like to read is from James Grande, and James Grande lives across the bay, directly across the bay. It's a large white house you may have noticed if you're ever on the lake. Jim could not be here because his wife is in Florida having a serious operation, and so he asked me to read this letter. "In 1984, I purchased a home directly across Dark Bay to the east of the applicant's property. This is my primary residence and I have several concerns regarding this application. My #1 concern would be for the lake itself. With the close proximity of this project to the lake and the amount of trees and other vegetation that will be removed or disturbed, in combination with the severe elevation change in the lot, how can we be 100% sure that a stormwater management system can be adequately designed and, more importantly, maintained that would ensure the lake would not be impacted? Will there be annual inspections by a governmental agency to verify the stormwater plan is being followed and maintained in future years? Secondly, ever since I can remember, the front parcel with an existing home (239.18-1-44) has enjoyed the benefit of this lot to the extent that they have built improvements on the shoreline which they have used as if it were one lot. This beneficial use should prohibit this lot from being used separately. Third, this lot is not in character with the lots which abut my property (McCormick's lot - 4 '/2 acres, Matthews' lot - 2.5 +/- acres), and developing a '/2 acre lot in a 3 acre zone seems ludicrous when this parcel would be combined with other parcels to be more in keeping with adjacent properties. How will this affect the property values of the existing homes to the east of this property? I am sorry I am unable to attend this meeting, but Mr. Tobin was agreeable to read my comments so my concerns might be addressed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, James J. Grande" Comments that I have. As an architect of 40 years of practice, I have reviewed this proposal before the Board and have noticed numerous areas in which the Planning Board may wish to consider. Number One, 20 years ago, the Board rejected an identical house on the same lot with a holding tank system submitted by the applicant's father. The lunacy of allowing installation of a holding tank within such close proximity to the lake is precedent 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) setting and down right foolhardy. Although a holding tank may contain an electronic alarm and safeguards which sound an alarm when there is a malfunction, who will be notified when the house is unoccupied. Who will be able to clean up the effluent before it reaches the lake and pollutes the drinking water. What safeguards should be imposed on the applicant to maintain the holding tank system in good working order I future years and who will enforce these safeguards? There is an alternative for the applicant to the holding tank. The applicant currently owns sufficient lots away from the lake to install a typical fill type septic system with proper design and proper design and proper routing system to remote lot, the lake will be protected from the potential overflows and the applicant will be protected from potential fines due to overflow. Since a reasonable alternative solution exists the applicant should be directed to consider this alternative solution for the effluent disposal. The holding tanks are required to be designed by the Health Department on a flow rate of 440 gallons per day which will fill the proposed 4,000 gallon tanks in eight days. The rapid filling of the tanks will require constant pumping of the effluent. Currently, there are no provisions made for parking or a turn around of the septic pump out-trucks. The road way is a narrow one lane wide, with no shoulders and certainly not built for heavy truck traffic. Will passage of traffic from the neighbors be blocked by the pump out truck, must we wait until the effluent is pumped out? Currently, the water sheets down the driveway and is relieved partially by a penetration through the existing stone retaining wall and then drops to the lower portion of the lot. The remaining sheet flow and sediment continues to the northern portion of the upper portion of the lot combining with sheet flow from an adjacent road to the west. No provisions have been incorporated in the design to accommodate this additional water and sediment flow. No design flow calculations have been included, I believe they have been included, so maybe I shouldn't even read this item. I'll look at them later. Currently, only minimal and ineffectual stormwater retention is proposed. The storm water retention is questionable since the bed rock is too close to the grade to be effective. An alternative method of stormwater retention is necessary. Currently, there are thirty-five (35) trees of a four (4") inch caliper within the boundaries of the property of which twenty six (26) are above a twelve (12") caliper. A caliper is measured at a four and a half foot height above the grade and diameter of the tree. So some of them are fairly large trees. This amounts to a major cut of one third of the existing trees. Is the view from the lake important? Will a clear cut lot be a desirable solution? A properly designed storm water retention system will require that additional trees be removed from the site for its construction. These additional tree removals have not been included in the eleven (11) removed trees previously mentioned. The height of the house as currently submitted exceeds the height allowable Queensbury Zoning regulations. Does the height of the proposed building exceed the allowable height of the APA? The APA method of measuring allowable height is different than the method used in Queensbury. There are two deed covenants which govern the height and setback required of a building on this lot. Presently, none of these deed requirements have been incorporated into the project and will eventually be resolved through future litigation. The proposed house is situated poorly on the lot and is within six feet of the road. Being so close to the road does not allow for an area which snow from the road can be plowed. The snow will pile along the south face of the house and not allow for access during the winter and will impede flow during the spring due to hardened snow pack. Lastly, other issues like improving the architectural design, materials to be incorporated into the house and impact of the house from the lake should be incorporated into the review process of this Board. Any questions? I read kind of fast there because I knew my time was running out. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. We have your written comments. Thank you. MR. TOBIN-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes. Good evening. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. First of all, I'd like to address, early on, you referred to we said the site may be clear cut. I think that showed up in previous minutes. I don't think we stated that. I think we were concerned about the level, but that may have been reflected in the minutes, but we'd like to address this Site Plan application and offer the following items for stormwater treatment for consideration for the Board regarding the discussion of variance. First, the percolation rate should be verified. I think Mr. Seguljic addressed this. The stormwater management design is based on an infiltration rate of 6 inches per hour. The base of the infiltration trench is within 6" of bedrock. Would the limited depth to bedrock, which is less than the requirement of the Ordinance, affect the infiltration rate? Secondly, the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) effectiveness of the infiltration trench should be evaluated. The infiltration trench will be located close to the foundation and could be impacted from construction and potential blasting. With the depth of the proposed foundation, which is built into bedrock, will there be foundation drainage and will that impact how the infiltration trench will operate? Third, stormwater management treatment must be enhanced if the separation to the lake is minimized. Infiltration treatment is based on contact time with the soils. That's why we have a 100 foot separation requirement. This proposal reduces the contact with soils in half. Therefore enhanced treatment such as amended soils should be added at a minimum. Amended soils, we recommend taking peat moss or compost, organics, and mix them with the soils to increase the contact time and the removal rate of the nutrients and pollutants. In addition, additional vegetation should be added for nutrient uptake. Four, there should be a required "no disturbance" zone which will increase the level of treatment if a significant variance is granted on setbacks for stormwater treatment facilities. This zone should be shown on the final plan and delineated in the field prior to any disturbance on the site. Five, what will be the effect of the existing drainage from Dark Bay Road which flows onto the property through the existing stone wall? Will this flood downstream facilities? Will this impact the proposed infiltration trench for their parking area? And also their parking area should, the infiltration which is directly connected to pavement should have some type of pre-treatment to remove the sediment which could clog that trench. The sixth item I think was also addressed regarding the existing ramp directed runoff right down towards the lake. We also agree that there should be some type of stormwater facility to provide management and also that is addressed in the Code regarding re-developed sites. So we feel that there is area for improvement in the stormwater and appreciate the Board's consideration of these, and we'll submit a letter for the record. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I do have some public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments? Yes. MR. OBORNE-"Dear Mr. Hunsinger: I am flying to Minnesota today and will miss the Planning Board meeting tomorrow evening. Since the house my wife and I have lived in for 36 years is the one nearest and most directly affected by the Debaron request for a variance to construct a house on Lot 4 of the Dark Bay Association, I am responding with this letter. I also play a second role in the affairs of our neighborhood as the President of the Dark Bay Association. Debbie and Steve Schiebel have been good neighbors and friends for many years and will continue to be so. We have no objection to the construction f the house but did have two concerns after carefully studying their site plans. Both of them have been resolved satisfactorily. Since the new house will partially block our view of Dark Bay, we are obviously interested in its height. The size of the proposed house is not disproportionate for a lot with nearly 200 feet of lakeshore, and in fact it would be one of the smallest along this section of the shoreline. At the proposed grade level of 325 feet for the basement, the ridge will be at 364.3 feet with the current design. Experiments with sight lines from the living areas of our house show that to be near the upper edge of what we would consider tolerable. We have been assured that its height will not increase, either through redesign or a higher grade level. Also, representing the Dark Bay Association as president, I was concerned about the original very complicated waste water plan. In that plan, a waste water main was to run uphill along Dark Bay for some way, then cross a spur of the lane to reach its destination on an upper vacant lot At the Local Board of Health meeting on January 5, which I attended and participated in, a much less cumbersome and more efficient holding tank plan replaced the original plan. Using two linked tanks, it provides more than enough capacity for the house and does not disturb the road in any way. With those two concerns resolved, I can support the Scheibels request for a variance without reservation, especially since the storm water plan is very carefully developed. The lot has been taxed as a buildable lot since 1969 when the development Dark Bay began, and the family has paid taxes on an empty lot at lakeshore rates for 40 years, so it seems unconscionable to me that they would be denied the opportunity to use the lot for its intended purpose now. Sincerely, Robert Foulke, President Dark Bay Association" "Dear Queensbury Planning Board Members: We have been aware and have received notices regarding the Planning Board review of an application submitted by Debaron Associates. We wish to express our concern with the removal of a number of full grown trees still left on the shoreline in order to build the proposed 2300+ sq. ft. house on the water's edge of Lake George. Having been a contractor, I have built several homes on sites similar to this. I would find it very difficult not to take down more of the vegetation proposed on the property in order to fulfill the needs of construction, ground water management, runoff management, and the holding tank areas which I understand have 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) been approved. Just by nature, the space allotted to do the work leaves little room for machinery. I also know there is very little soil covering the ledge, and the root structure of the trees is very shallow. The past few weeks we have walked on the ice and viewed the property trying to imagine the visual impact this substantial clearing will have on the beauty of the shoreline. The runoff and disturbance of the area within the required setbacks from the lake are detrimental to the quality of our drinking water. If the dwelling is deemed to be seasonal, who will be responsible for monitoring the holding tank and any apparatus involved in the sewage disposal if no one is residing there? Several years ago a proposal to erect basically the same type of building on the same lot was rejected by all boards involved. This ruling was accepted by the owners who have not changed. What makes this construction different now with the rules for the building of lakeshore homes being more stringent and rightly so, at this time? The owners have been paying taxes on this lot which they have known they are unable to build on. Now, suddenly the owners are trying to make this unbuildable lot a buildable lot when we all realize that pushing through variances has been proven to be detrimental to the Lake George shoreline and the water quality of the lake. As Board members, it is your duty to enforce the rules and uphold past rulings on this particular lakefront parcel. Sincerely, John Matthews 18 Cedar Point Lake George, NY 12845" That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Thank you. We will leave the public hearing open. We will cease taking comments this evening. What's the will of the Board? All we're doing this evening is making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. At least one member has said that he would want more information before he'd feel comfortable making a recommendation. MR. TRAVER-I think in view of the location within the CEA, I think we should explore any additional information to support the project before we make a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. FORD-I concur with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since this is a recommendation to the ZBA, you know, it's non binding on them. It doesn't prohibit them from moving forward, but it appears as though we would want to see more information before we would feel comfortable making that recommendation. Is it scheduled to go before the Zoning Board this month? MR. OBORNE-Tomorrow night, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Tomorrow night. Yes. That's what I figured. MRS. STEFFAN-I've prepared a recommendation, but it's just, you know, to look at comments and. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you can read it if you want. MRS. STEFFAN-This is what I drafted, just based on the discussions, and I don't know if it will help the applicant for tomorrow night, but, or the Zoning Board, but on behalf of the Planning Board, I'd like to make a recommendation regarding Debaron Associates, Site Plan No. 14-2009 from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Based on our discussion, we recommend that the applicant satisfy VISION Engineering comments of March 12, 2009, as well as Staff Notes from March 17t" before returning to the ZBA. We recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals review the Planning Board minutes regarding the concerns expressed regarding infiltration, both the quality of and the location of the infiltration trenches, the depth of bedrock, possible blasting requirements for the foundation and removal of vegetation and resulting impacts, and that's what I put together. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion, is there a second? MR. SEGULJIC-Open for discussion? I just think we need more information before, you know, I'd feel comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that's what the motion is suggesting. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but I think that there's other, I mean, because there's other things than just 147. I mean, I'm not satisfied with just saying addressing engineering 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) comments, because I think, as was pointed out under, not to get into the details, but under 147-9B(3)(c), it talks about pre-treatment. You have to have pre-treatment from any paved areas. I don't see any pre-treatment. The other thing is, I didn't think of this, as one of the comments from the public brought up, is you have that asphalt drive. You're going to have to be, that water, if I'm understanding your contours correctly, it would be coming right on site into your infiltration trenches. Have you taken that into account? MR. HUTCHINS-That's an item that we have to address and we intend to address. MR. SEGULJIC-And the thing about the house is going to be right close to the road. I mean, there's going to be issues there also. I just think there's a lot of issues. It's a tough site. There's no doubt about that. MR. HUTCHINS-This is a very difficult site, okay. MR. KREBS-But if I could make a comment about, at the same time, this was approved in 1969 as a subdivision. It was a legitimate lot when these people bought it. It was a buildable lot when these people bought it. I don't know when the 100 feet infiltration was put in, but it was after they originally subdivided this lot. I think we have, we just can't steal people's property, and we seem to want to do that all the time. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to do what's best. We're not trying to, has anyone said they can't develop the site? I didn't hear that from anybody. MR. KREBS-Well, if you refuse to recommend that they can get a variance, they cannot build. MR. SEGULJIC-I did not refuse to recommend. I said I need additional information. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we all recognize the fact that the applicant does have the legal right to build on the lot. It's a question of what can they build on the lot? MRS. STEFFAN-Right. They've certainly paid significant taxes on the lot, with the expectation on both parts that the Town wouldn't have taxed them that much if they didn't think that it was a buildable lot, and they certainly wouldn't have paid those taxes if they didn't think it was a buildable lot. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, going to the site and looking at your Site Plan, it's obvious that the Site Plan that you've designed, you're trying to minimize the impact on the lake. I think as Tom has pointed out, and some others, I think there's just a little bit more information needed for us to feel real comfortable with it. If it wasn't so close to the lake, it would be an easy decision to say, you know, to maybe make a recommendation, but, you know, given the number of questions that are still kind of outstanding, and I meant to ask this question of Staff before. In order for the Zoning Board to approve the variance request on the infiltration devices, they have to be specific. Am I mistaken in that? MR. OBORNE-They have to be specific in their approval? MR. HUNSINGER-The infiltration devices themselves need to be specified. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So if they were, if you go to the Zoning Board tomorrow evening and they approve the infiltration device variance, and then we change it, then you're going to have to go back, if I'm correct. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and at minimal I think I'd like to get a little more. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think the process almost forces you to have this stuff cleaner and clearer before we can make that recommendation. Does that make sense? MR. PHILLIPS-I was thinking about that earlier today, and when the Zoning Board referred this to the Planning Board for recommendation relative to the stormwater, and I was thinking that, in terms of can a stormwater plan be designed here that will substantially accomplish the purposes of the stormwater regs as a general question, as 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) opposed to the specific plan that gets approved, which I actually saw as within the domain of the Planning Board, when it came back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Because the only thing that the variances do is they clear the way for us to come back to you, and then work with you relative to Site Plan Review, and so, as I heard comments here, and certainly stormwater is not my jurisdiction, but, you know, on a fundamental basis, it seems to me as though stormwater can be done on this site, even if on some of these separation distance issues, you know, there's an area of interpretation, but we also can get variances relative to stormwater if we have to, so as to clear the way for Site Plan Review, and so it's one of those things where I think that we've been at this for a long time, and I think we'd like to get back to you, so that we can do the planning part of it, and if we could satisfy you, and I don't know whether we have or not, but if we've satisfied you on a minimal level tonight, that we can do some kind of stormwater system on this property, with the authority of a variance behind us to do that, you know, that's something that we would like to do, because I know that the Staff mentioned that, and the Zoning Board mentioned it in the referral, that maybe we have to do some tweaking relative to the stormwater when we come back here, with the idea that maybe the stormwater is not going to be a definite plan at this point, just because there may be other issues that come up in terms of this site, and, you know, we've heard them tonight, you know, with the vegetative cutting and that kind of thing. So I think that we were hoping that we could get from this Board tonight the communication to the Zoning Board that you think that stormwater could be achieved on this site, and even adding some of the things that the Water Keeper mentioned, in terms of soil content. I mean, those are all things that cost us a lot of money to do, before we can get back here and spend the money doing them, knowing that we have the authority to do that. So we were looking for, I think, a general recommendation that it appears the stormwater can be accomplished on this lot, subject to some tweaking and some modifications, but we, at least get by the threshold question of can we do stormwater here, and based on what Tom has put together, you know, it appears as though we can, but certainly we know there are a lot of details that have to be tweaked in order to satisfy this Board ultimately in approving the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I have a few issues with that. Number One, the trench that services the drive area, we don't know what the depth to bedrock is there. The design calls for four foot deep stone filled trenches. Can you put a four foot deep trench there? We don't know yet. We have stormwater running off, coming on from off site. The engineer himself has admitted he has to include those in the calculations. There's a number of, I wouldn't call them tweaking. They're issues. They're big issues for me. We can only look at what's before us. MR. HUTCHINS-Did you look at the site, Thomas? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-You did? MR. SEGULJIC-And I think looking at the site brings it all into perspective. It's a tough site, but we've got to do better. MR. TRAVER-I think one of the issues here for both us and the Zoning Board, is that with the various adjustments to what you've initially proposed, I agree that we may be able to develop a plan to manage stormwater on this site, even though it's very, very difficult. The problem that I see we have, in terms of making a recommendation to the Zoning Board, is that the Zoning Board is specifically asking us to make a recommendation to approve your plan, and we don't yet have a plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, you do have a plan. I mean, you do have a plan. It's been submitted through you, and Staff's commented on it and the engineer has commented on it, and we've talked about it, and we've talked about some modifications that you'd like to see as part of the plan. MR. TRAVER-Well, for example, looking in their discussion from the Zoning Board, they're talking about, at that time we will have requested a confirmation from the Planning Board regarding the stormwater protection plan as proposed or any tweaking they want to do to make it compliant. So, it's more than simply telling, at least, and Staff please correct me if I'm wrong, but what they're asking for is not merely the global approach of, do we think that there may be some way of controlling stormwater, but rather can we approve a plan to recommend to them that yes, this issue is resolved to our satisfaction, and I think for that, and what Tom is alluding to, to answer that question 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) that, yes, we have a plan that has been tweaked, or that will work on this site, we need more information. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think part of the reason why many of us are being more cautious is that in the past applicants have come back and said, well, I already got the variance from the Zoning Board, you know, I don't need to give you more details. You can't deny my Site Plan because I got the variance already, and I think that's part of our concern as well, in that, we want to make sure that we're on solid ground, if we do need to, well, I mean, we already know we need to change the plan, we need to add more things. There's more information needed. So I think that's part of the caution as well. MRS. STEFFAN-And I don't think that the Zoning Board would be any different than we are as far as, you know, relying on VISION Engineering comments or the scientific evaluation of whether the stormwater plan really works or not, and certainly you just got their notes yesterday, and you didn't have time to satisfy those. If you were here before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, we would absolutely have to get compliance with those issues before we would proceed. Tom, you've been up here enough times to know that that's often, you know, one of the conditions when we approve a plan. So we're kind of at a gray area right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone else like to put forward a different recommendation? MR. SEGULJIC-In my opinion we need more information. So we put forward a tabling motion requesting additional information? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's not a tabling motion, because it's a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Saying we need more information including, to make a determination we need more information including, but not limited to. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Can I just ask that if in that resolution, or maybe it's not a resolution. Maybe it's a recommendation, can you clarify, or maybe we can just talk about it, in terms of, because as somebody mentioned, we've asked for a variance from the Zoning Board that's got a distance from Lake George that we can site stormwater devices, and we have asked for 45 feet. We've asked to keep them 45 feet from Lake George. Now, should we ask for less in order to address this stair? I mean, it's, I can't engineer my way out of, the stair runs down hill. MR. SEGULJIC-No, and what the Chairman was getting at earlier is the ideal thing is that we have a plan, a stormwater plan that everyone's satisfied with, and then at that point we make a recommendation saying we're satisfied with the plan, and we send that to the Zoning Board, and then it's very clear as to where the infiltration devices would be and their design. Because the problem is if we say we're satisfied with what you have, there's a lot of unanswered questions here, and I think that's what, and correct me if I'm wrong, Staff, that's the ideal thing. Maybe not. MR. OBORNE-Let me think about this for a second. The Zoning Board of Appeals has asked for a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning stormwater. The only Zoning Board issue concerning stormwater is the infiltration device. My suggestion to the Planning Board is to make a recommendation specific to the infiltration device and its placement from the shoreline with the caveat that additional information needs to be provided in order for this to be given a positive recommendation. It sounds to me like you're not going to give them a positive recommendation. You're going to give them an incomplete recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Make sure the Zoning Board of Appeals knows that. If the Zoning Board of Appeals chooses to act on that recommendation, they choose to act on the recommendation. If they don't, they'll table it. They'll direct the applicant to get more information to the Planning Board in order for them to feel comfortable with a positive recommendation. I don't know what the will of the Zoning Board's going to be, but you have to give something to the Zoning Board. If it's incomplete, it's incomplete, and just keep in mind that they may act on it regardless. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And then when you come back for Site Plan Review issues, the applicant is well aware of what the issues are at this point, and they will come back here, assuming that they have their variance for placement of an infiltration device within 100 feet of a shoreline, and then you Site Plan Review from that. Again, that's my recommendation. MR. PHILLIPS-Could we just take a minute before you do anything on this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. PHILLIPS-We just had a discussion on the comments made by the Staff in terms of we're asking for a variance from the 100 foot separation distance, and Staff, I think, was talking about we're asking for 45.12 feet, something like that, for our, we're asking for that, yes, we're asking for that, and so I guess the issue is can the Planning Board say, yes, we can live with 45.12 feet, whatever we're asking for, subject to Site Plan Review? I mean, because if it's just a setback issue, as opposed to a functioning issue. So this is new conversation for us as well, and so we're wrestling with it, knowing how long we've been in this process. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, and I appreciate the kind of Catch-22, you know, where do you go first, and we wrestle with that frequently back and forth with the Zoning Board. So, you know, with sympathize with that issue for you. I don't think anyone on the Planning Board has said, you know, we're absolutely opposed to an infiltration device on this site that's within 100 feet of the lake, but what we're saying is we need more information before we know if the site as designed can work, and because of that we're not comfortable making a recommendation to the Zoning Board, and, you know, maybe we'll kind of let the Zoning Board wrestle with the conceptual recommendation, because that's really their bailiwick, and not ours. MR. SEGULJIC-I have something written up here, just to run by everybody. For the Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding stormwater management for Site Plan No. 14-2009 Debaron Associates, the Planning Board requires the following additional information, including but not limited to demonstration of compliance with Chapter 147, determination if the patio/walkway and adjacent impervious areas are included in the stormwater calculations, additional test pit information in the area of the house and proposed infiltration trenches. I think that would do it, because everything else, the pre-treatment and the pre-existing would get caught up in 147. MR. TRAVER-I think that those comments are appropriate to be a part of it, Tom, but I think what they're going to want is something a little more directly related to their request, which is the recommendation. If we say, for those reasons, that our recommendation is incomplete. MR. SEGULJIC-No, because my opinion is, first of all, they have to be in compliance with 147. 147 you need the two foot differential. You need to have pre-treatment from the parking area. Neither of those do they have. You need to have the pre-treatment, you need to have pre-treatment of the first half inch, or treatment of the first half inch for pre-existing areas. As someone pointed out, the adjacent road, has that been included in the calculation? Because that's going to change infiltration design. So if you say comply with 147, that captures a lot. MR. TRAVER-No doubt. MR. SEGULJIC-That's my opinion. MR. TRAVER-And again, reading the minutes of the discuss they had at the Zoning Board, they're looking for more than the setback issue. They're looking for a plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. That was my reading as well. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I don't know how we can, I know Staff had suggested some language. It seems as though it would be nice if we could give them something, and of course, they're free to do what they're going to do, but I do think Tom's points are well taken. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if the Zoning Board is comfortable giving it back to us for all these, call them Site Plan issues, then that's their prerogative. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-We're certainly not saying that they can't do that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-We're just saying, you know, we can't make a positive recommendation, and I think that's what you want to say, Tom, is not say. MR. SEGULJIC-For the Planning Board to make a positive recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Positive recommendation. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that's the language that Staff used as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Should I run with it, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MOTION THAT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD REGARDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES FOR SITE PLAN NO. 14-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, THE PLANNING BOARD REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING ADDITION INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 147 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT; DETERMINATION IF THE PATIO AND PATIO WALKWAY AND ADJACENT ROADWAYS ARE INCLUDED IN THE STORMWATER CALCULATIONS; ADDITIONAL TEST PIT INFORMATION, IN PARTICULAR DEPTH TO BEDROCK, IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED INFILTRATION TRENCHES AND THE PROPOSED HOUSE; TO ADDRESS STAFF NOTES AND ENGINEERING COMMENTS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Did you get the steps in there? MR. SEGULJIC-It's going to be captured in 147. MR. FORD-All right. MR. SEGULJIC-Instead of going through each one. MR. TRAVER-I'll second that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, what about the removal of the vegetation? What about Staff Notes? What about VISION Engineering comments? MR. TRAVER-Well, those are Site Plan issues, I think. MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but they're going to help the applicant prepare for the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-If I can amend my motion to include addressing Staff Notes and Engineering comments. Is that what you were getting at? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because then all the other issues would be included, because the Staff Notes were comprehensive and covered everything with depth to bedrock, vegetation, infiltration, it was covered. MR. TRAVER-I'll second the motion as amended. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. PHILLIPS-We have our marching orders. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Keith, will you be at the Zoning Board meeting? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, I will. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure minutes won't be available, but you can help. MR. OBORNE-Well, Sue and I were discussing that, and if Maria's listening, we're going to ask you in the morning to get Debaron minutes to the Zoning Board tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think the intent and the feeling of the Board is pretty clear. Okay. Great. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE I KELACO, LLC AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION CORNER WEST MT. ROAD & SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 11.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 34 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGNG IN SIZE FROM 4,257 SQUARE FEET TO 17,775 SQUARE FEET. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PUD SP 44-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE, DEC LOT SIZE 11.23 +/- ACRES SECTION 179-12-010 MATT FULLER & MIKE FARRELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 6-2008, Preliminary Stage, Kelaco, LLC, Site Plan Review for subdivision of land, corner of West Mountain Road and Sherman Ave., existing zoning is SR-1A. SEQRA Status is Type I, and I'll expand on why that's a SEQRA Status Type I. It is due to the fact that the New York State Board of Health has their own internal SEQRA issues with lots greater than one acre and more than five lots in the subdivision requires them to force a SEQRA Review of Type I Status. MR. FULLER-The 553 rule? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. FULLER- Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 36.2 acre parcel into 21 residential lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 7.0 acres. The western portion of the project is located in the Adirondack Park and effects portions of 3 lots. Staff Comments: According to the applicant's narrative, an Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional letter is forthcoming. There currently exists a single family dwelling on a mostly wooded 36.2 acre parcel. The predominant soils on site are Oakville loamy fine sand (OaB), 3 to 8 percent slopes. According to the Soil Survey of Warren County, these soils are generally not conducive for absorption fields as the soil is a poor filter for effluent. Soils of this class are poor filters due to the lack of minerals and microbes in the soil. Groundwater contamination is a possibility. The plan does not have provisions to modify these soils due to the high percolation rates and no provisions for soil amendments for effluent filtering. This is mentioned because all of the leach fields will be located in and on this soil series. Further, disturbed soils in general will need to be limed and have topsoil amendments as part of any landscaping and lawn plan. Plan review follows, and I assume the Planning Board has reviewed those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before I introduce the applicant, I have a question. I went to the site today, and I guess I'll ask it of the Board and the applicant as well. One of the requirements for the public hearing on a new subdivision is that there be a project sign displayed on the property, and I didn't see one today when I went to the site. MR. FULLER-I will take care of that. It should have been there. MR. HUNSINGER-But it wasn't, but can anyone verify that it was done? I mean, it's possible it was taken down. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. FULLER-That's what I'm wondering. I'd have to ask Dan. I didn't put it there myself. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I saw the posted signs. I, you know, drove back and forth three or four times, to make sure that I didn't miss it. MR. FULLER-No. That's a good question. We'll have to, I don't know that sitting here. I didn't put it up myself. MR. OBORNE-And if I may add, being that you're on a corner, you need to have them on both public highways. MR. FULLER-Yes, West and Sherman. Yes. We'll take care of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, that means we can't act on it this evening, because we can't hold a public hearing without that. Is there any people from the public that wanted to address the Board on this project? All right. Well, I think what we'll do then is, I mean, we'll move forward. We will take public comment, but we won't be able to act on Preliminary phase. We'll have to table it, but because people did show up to speak on the project, we will move forward and accept public comment, but we will end up tabling the project. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that fair? Everyone okay with that? Okay. The floor is yours. MR. FULLER-All right. With that, for your record, my name's Matt Fuller. I'm with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. I'm here with Mike Farrell of VISION Engineering, and what I'll actually do is propose to stand up and kind of go through the plan real quick. What we have, the Staff Notes point out, is a 36.2 acre parcel at the corner of Upper Sherman and West Mountain Road. What we propose is a 21 lot subdivision. Fourteen lots are proposed to be, they run from one to seven acres each. Fourteen of them propose to be off a new road, Katelyn Drive. Four of the lots off of Upper Sherman, utilize, and those are Lots One and Two and Seventeen and Eighteen, utilizing combined driveways, as required under the zoning. Three lots on West Mountain Road, two of which, again, will utilize the combined driveway as required in the zoning, and one that's kind of a standalone on its own down here, that is kind of separated from the rest of the parcel by the DEC and that area, APA wetland, the Staff Notes point out we are partially in the Adirondack Park, in the hamlet. We have had conversation with the APA and followed up with them, with additional information that they had requested about the mapping of things that we had done out there. So we've sent that up. The one lot, 21, is already naturally subdivided in the Adirondack Park, due to the middle lot there. So it'll be two lots, essentially, that are created in the Adirondack Park. Staff, some of the comments, the driveway, there is an existing structure on the property, and some of the clearing area that's shown is the existing driveway. To clarify how that'll be taken care of, it'll be very specific that when the road is built and dedicated, that driveway will go away, be seeded, planted, and eliminated in its entirety. So there will be, that's one of the things that it'll be my job to take care of. It'll be absolutely clarified that there's to be no (lost word) rights. No ingress, egress. The driveway that's on the plans that will be the new driveway for that house. So that is unequivocally the plan. As far as the open space and things like that, 56% of the property, just based on the clearing limits shown here, is going to remain vacant and open, and I can tell you from working with Ken and talking to him, his intent is to minimize the cuttings in there, because he wants it to maintain that look that he's striving for. So we would presume and hope that that would be our baseline, and that it could actually go up from there, you know, when the septics and things get located for the houses. So that's based on that. We did maintain a 100 foot buffer around the wetland area. That was something that had been talked about. I talked about the driveway. A couple of the Staff comments on my letter that was in there. Low quality forest in a minor wetland. Certainly, visa vie Glendon Brook, you know, this is a major ecologic structure. So that was my bad language, thanks for catching me on that, and as far as the low quality timber, it was from a harvest perspective, not to say that the forest was, to undermine or demean the existence of the forest. So, thanks for that, Keith, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mike. I did have a question on the Type I, but you clarified that. MR. FARRELL-Good evening, Board. Mike Farrell from VISION Engineering. Basically, Matt's gone through the whole entire project. It's a project, 21 lot subdivision, that meets all the requirements of the Code. We've prepared a Preliminary Stage set of documents 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) for review to take public hearing comments and address any concerns that the Board may have in our final set of documents. We believe that this is a good subdivision. It's in keeping with the existing land use in the area of the site. If you look at that area of Queensbury, pretty much these are the size lots that we're seeing. Certainly our client is prepared to strategically place houses on this site to try to minimize the amount of clearing. The limits that are shown on the plan today are based upon grades that we will have to achieve to bring drainage into our infiltration devices in the center of the road, and I can take any comments or any questions that the Board may have on the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess the first question I have is that, since Mike is from VISION Engineering, and VISION Engineering is our consultant, I'm sure we'll be having another engineering firm review this? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You should have Paragon Engineering notes. MR. TRAVER-That came through a-mail. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The letter's dated the 13t". I think it was forwarded on Friday. MR. OBORNE-It was forwarded on Friday, absolutely, and I'm surprised hard copies were not sent. Maybe they arrived today. I apologize for that. MRS. STEFFAN-That's okay. MR. FORD-I was waiting for the hard copy. MR. OBORNE-I certainly can share. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we'll certainly have them for the next, I mean, they're going to be tabled tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, if I may propose, because this is a little unique. What if we have the public comment and then we fill it in later? Because they may have a lot of issues. MR. FORD-I really would like to proceed that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we do have a handout on the back table for the process during the public hearing. I would ask that you identify yourself for the record, and that you address any comments to the Board, and that you keep your comments on the project itself. Having said that, who would like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ROBERT VOLLARO MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. For the record, my name is Bob Vollaro, 7 Glen Court, Queensbury, New York. I'm going to be just referencing some of the documents in 179 and 183, and I'll reference them very quickly. Reference 179-19-020, and if you have your books there, you can follow me on this, if you'd like. It says Residential Lots abutting collector or arterial roads, and West Mountain is classified in the Subdivision Regs as an arterial road. While lots fronting on collector or arterial roads shall be discouraged. Now that's in 179. The operative document for this subdivision is really 183. In 183-23, and I will go through this, this has layouts of streets and roads. Subsection C, Special treatment along certain highways. When a subdivision abuts or contains a regional arterial highway, the Planning Board shall require that no new lots shall front or have direct access on such highway. Very definite statement in 183. Recognizing that the intent of both 179 and 183 is to minimize lots fronting on these types of roads, the assumption being is there's a safety issue when driveways are intersected with arterials. In response to Attorney Fuller's inquiry to the APA concerning wetland boundaries in particular adjacent to the lower lot, I think that's being termed as Lot 21, now. Is that correct? MR. TRAVER-Yes. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. VOLLARO-The APA should issue a letter of nonjurisdictional determination, and that letter should be available to this Board before any approvals are made, if made at all, but then 183-24 J on driveways says that you would have to have a slope of less than 10% between the pavement and the setback line. If you look at the topography there, that's not going to be very easy to do. 183-23 I, dead end streets and roads shall not be longer than 1,000 feet. This is 1,068. I know that the Chairman has always been pretty adamant about 1,000 foot roads. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's one of mine, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Individual, I'm now going to move off to the individual residential wastewater treatment system design handbook known as the red book to most of you. High groundwater levels can be determined by observing the pre water surface in a deep hole during normal springtime or groundwater. This has to be done in March to June, March 15t" to June 30t". Now I don't know, we had, this was done in about November. We have people here, myself included, who know when it was done because we were there when the backhoes were moving. Now, I'd have to ask the applicant, were they witnessed at that time? MR. FARRELL-Yes, they were. They were witnessed last Fall. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On Design Handbook, again, 54 Site requirements, an expansion equal to or greater than 50% of the required basal area shall be available on the site. What they're talking about there is the drain field should have another 50% capability to be able to expand, and I don't know whether that's on your drawings or not. MR. TRAVER-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comment, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, the basic comment, going back to 183-23, to me, is the clarifying comment. Layout of streets and roads in Section C. When a subdivision abuts or contains a regional arterial highway, the Planning Board shall. That's not a kind of may, kind of shall, require that no new lot shall front or have direct access on some highway. Very definitive, almost no wiggle room in that statement, as far as I can see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. KEN POTTER MR. POTTER-Good evening. My name is Ken Potter. I live at Three Glen Court, and my comments are I guess of a more personal nature, in terms of things like water table, and water problems on Glen Court, which is south of their proposed lots on West Mountain Road. Two years ago, my wife and I became the proud parents of a sump pump. We found out what that little hole in the northwest corner of our basement was for. It was after a particularly wet autumn, winter, spring, and we had water in our basement, and shortly after we experienced that problem, the Rabl's, Number One Glen Court, Ray's back there, also experienced basement water problems. This is not the first time we've had water problems on Glen Court. Several years ago, the driveway, the front of the driveway on Number Five Glen Court, again, after a particularly heavy period of rain, washed out, from beneath. Probably 10 to 15 feet of their driveway simply collapsed and went into I guess you'd call it a gully on it would be the east side of their house. The house at the end of the cul de sac, which is Glen Court, the number would be the Sisson's house. What's their number? Nine Glen Court. They've had numerous water problems in their basement. It's the lay of the land, and perhaps the water table as well. I can't help but think that, you know, any construction, particularly that close to West Mountain Road, and in pretty much the RABL's and my back yard, sort of, would do anything other than contribute to more of the same. I don't have any scientific basis for that, but since we've had recent problems with water, you know, it cost my wife and I close to $1,000 to remedy those water problems. We might be in for some trouble again. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Who's next? Yes, sir. RAYMOND RABL MR. RABL-My name is Raymond Rabl, and I live next to Ken, and again, if we're talking about this particular one down on the corner here, I also had water in the basement and had to install a sump pump, and every Spring the sump pump runs. So I don't know, I know you did this water test back in the Fall, but I think that's the wrong time to do that. So I think you ought to go back now, or they ought to go back now and do a percolating test or whatever you do, because we definitely have water problems in that particular area, and ever since the sump pump was installed, from about end of March to June, it runs. MR. FORD-In the last week or so it's been running. MR. RABL-It's starting to right now, as the snow starts melting. MR. FORD-It has started already? MR. RABL-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. RABL-A little bit. Of course now we're having the slow melt and then we haven't had any rain, but if we had a rain storm now then it would definitely run, but both my basement and Ken's basement was definitely flooded when we discovered this thing, before we had sump pumps. That's all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. GERALD KANE MR. KANE-My name is Gerald Kane. We live at the closest property to this development. My questions at this point are very general because this is only days old to us, this whole project. First of all, we'd like to know if there are any variances that have been applied for. I heard the gentleman say that everything was according to Code. Will there be any variances, construction variances, that would apply to this project? MR. HUNSINGER-They have not requested any at this time. MR. KANE-Okay. Wetland protection. The lots, the two acre lots on the southwest side of that diagram over there, they go into the wetlands by about an acre a piece. We were told that once an owner owns a property, that they can do whatever they wish to the trees on the property. Would that be true of the wetlands? MR. HUNSINGER-No. Well, I mean, we can have the applicant address you raise them, if you want to just continue on with the other questions you have. MR. KANE-Okay. The others are very general. In terms of the project itself, general project, is there a time line for a start and a finish of the project, and is there a project sequence for how they would develop and how they would strip the lands? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KANE-That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. HEATHER USHER MS. USHER-Good evening. My name is Heather Usher. My concern is for the wetlands and the woods. It's mainly environmental concern. I am wondering whether a significant habitat review has been done by the DEC, and if anyone has checked on the species that live there currently. I've seen turkey and deer and maybe there is a blue lupine there. So, my biggest concern is the trees and the order in which they would be cut down, whether they could stand as long as the lots haven't been sold yet. Thank you. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. STEVEN BELLANGER MR. BELLANGER-Good evening. My name is Steven Bellinger. I currently live on 477 West Mountain Road. My main concern, too, was basically more or less for the wetlands also. We live right across from the wetlands, for the most part. We do see a lot of animal activity there. The other concern I'd have is just if anybody's had any time to look at the access and traffic that might occur. West Mountain Road already has a lot of traffic as it is, if there's an extra traffic that's going to be coming into play that could effect the plan whatsoever. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I do have written comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is from Christopher P. Anderson, 28 John Street, Queensbury, New York, Dear Planners: Regarding the West Mountain Road and Sherman Avenue proposed subdivision, it would be a wasted effort to appear at a meeting to express any opposition. After all, this is a wooded lot and this is Queensbury, which means bulldozed and develop it. I don't want to prevent people doing what they want with their land, but there is a definite pattern of subdivisions going in with wooded buffers, then the homes get sold and the owners clear the rest of the property. Let them develop it, but some things need to be reconsidered as the density of houses multiples in our Town. First remove Home of Natural Beauty from the Town letterhead. It think it is still a good place to live. Second, regulate the number of animals, dirt bikes and ATV's people can have a single residential home. I really don't care how many they have, if we don't have to listen to them. There is always a dog barking in our area. Under the current regulations, none, I'm sure 21 houses will bring 60 dogs. Third item, don't raise the water table in our area. Thanks for listening. Happy developing. Christopher Anderson, and that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You can come back to the table. I'm sorry, ma'am, did you want to speak? I'm sorry. Good evening. ROBIN MILLER MRS. MILLER-Hi. My name is Robin Miller, and I live on Sherman Avenue, right across from this project. My husband and I have raised our family. We've lived there for 25 years. Slowly but surely Sherman Avenue has turned into small communities all around us. We used to hike and cross country ski do a lot of things on that land. We know that there's a lot of animals there that we're very concerned with. Slowly but surely they're being pushed totally away from that whole area. The wetlands, you know, what is this going to do to the wetlands? Also, traffic. When we first moved there, we could back out of our driveway practically not having to worry about a car on the road. With the snow that we've had this year, it's been extremely dangerous for anyone on Sherman to pull out of their driveways. Now you're adding even more homes that's going to create even more, you know, there's going to be a serious accident, and we can't do anything, and, you know, the snow plows plow it, and we can't see coming out, and now you're going to add even more houses. I just think Queensbury has enough houses on the market right now that they can't sell, and I just don't think we need another housing development. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Last chance. Anyone else? Okay. Now you can come back. Since we will be tabling it, I guess I'd like to try to limit any questions, comments from Board members. Is there, I know most people haven't seen the engineering comments. Anything from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, the waste management systems. You have three or four different types, if I recall, mound systems, absorption. MR. FARRELL-Yes. There's three different types of systems proposed on the project site. MR. SEGULJIC-Because your perc rate is from 27 seconds, I think is the lowest, and the highest is two and a half or something. MR. FARRELL-One of the perc rates that we got was 27 seconds. There's a soil amendment, a shallow absorption system, and also a standard absorption trench 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) system. Based upon discussions with the Department of Health, they preferred that we would test the site as an overall project, with, I think we've got something in the neighborhood of eight and twelve test pits and percolation tests, throughout the course of the site, to get a general conformity of whether this subdivision will actually accept, the soils will accept the subdivision for these systems. The systems that we proposed are the three systems that we anticipate using. As we come back for the building permit process, we will be testing each individual site in accordance with New York State Appendix 75-A, which requires one deep test hole and two percolation tests in the location of each individual system on these lots. So all 21 lots will be tested and certified by a professional engineer that those systems meet, and it may be a shallow absorption trench. Lot 21, we did hit that water table that the neighbors were talking about. That was about four feet below the surface on Lot 21. The entire rest of the subdivision is located about 50 feet higher than the rest of the surrounding ground. So we did do a deep test hole out on the middle of the site on the higher elevations. We went 13 feet and still didn't hit water. The water is seeping out of the embankment down near the wetlands. It's visible when we did delineate the wetlands coming out of the bank, down at the lower elevations, but that water table is up over there near Glen. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only concern is, and I don't know if it's a concern of the Board or not, but, you know, some of the sites might have mound systems. Correct? MR. FARRELL-No, no mound systems. MR. SEGULJIC-No mound systems? MR. FARRELL-No mound systems. MR. SEGULJIC-Would they be amended soils, then? MR. FARRELL-They would be amended soils. There'd be amended soil systems. There'd be shallow absorption trench. No mound systems. MR. FORD-There are three different systems, though? MR. FARRELL-Three different types of systems. MR. FORD-Three different types, and the reason for those, for the record, for three different systems? MR. FARRELL-The reason for those is because the soil testing has not been conducted for each individual lot as required by New York State. We spoke with the Department of Health and the Department of Health witnessed the test holes on the site, and when we come back for the building permit process, and the building permits for each individual lot, the soil tests will be done then, and that's how the Department of Health requested that we do it, rather than test each individual lot today. So, if a system moves, if a builder wants to put a pool in, if something happens to the site during the course of getting the building permit in the Town, the correct location is being tested. MR. FORD-Let me rephrase the question. The reason for having, or recommending or having in your pouch of options three different systems is what? MR. FARRELL-Is based on the soil types that were observed and the deep test holes and the percolation rates on the site today. MR. FULLER-Alternatives, Tom, I think, to answer your question, based on the soils that were encountered. Depending on the soils when you encounter on the specific area where you're going to put it, then they'll decide, okay, of these three, this is what we're going to recommend. MR. FORD-Soils and water table. MR. FULLER-Correct. Correct me if I'm wrong. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-And correct me if I'm wrong. On Sheet C-13, you have a shallow absorption (lost word) trench detail. MR. FARRELL-Yes. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-That looks like it's above existing grade. You're calling for a one on three slope. My terminology is incorrect. In layman's terms, that's more or less a mounded system. MR. FARRELL-No, that's not a mounded system. That's a shallow absorption trench system, and it's not classified by New York State as a mound system. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in a layman's term, you're building, you put soil above the ground. MR. FARRELL-I'm not sure I used layman's terms. I used what the Code tells me to use, and that's classified as a shallow absorption system. Basically it's a standard trench system that's keyed into the soil six inches. They're actually one of the better systems to use. We're using that one on Lot 21. That's the only place that that one's going to be used. MR. SEGULJIC-But you're going to bring fill in and put it on top of the existing soil. You're going to end up with a system that extends above the existing grade. MR. FARRELL-That's correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, one of my concerns might be is that we don't know where those are going to be, if neighbors have concerns. Do we want to know, is it a concern of ours to know where those are going to be? MR. FARRELL-We do know where those are going to be. There will be one shallow absorption system, which, once again, I said the system is keyed into the soil. So the system actually does not sit above grade, as a mound system would. A mound system sits above the actual existing grade, where the infiltration is in the bottom of the trench, is keyed into the soil. So that's the difference between a mound system. MR. SEGULJIC-But people are going to have mounds in front of their houses, or potentially behind their houses. MR. FARRELL-Well, certainly we know where the one system is, and that's in Lot 21. MR. SEGULJIC-Does it make sense to have them show us on which lots potentially those types of systems are going to be? Because that could impact, maybe you want screening around them. Because, I mean, that's come up before. MR. FARRELL-It's just Lot 21. I mean, we have shown that on the plans, and it says just Lot 21. That's the only one. Everything else is 50 foot higher. MR. SEGULJIC-But it's possible it could be on more. We don't know that yet. MR. FARRELL-No, we do know that. We've dug deep test holes on the site, and there's no signs of groundwater at all. We delineated the wetland, and we saw where the infiltration is. The elevation in the sites from the wetland are about 50 feet difference in elevation. The groundwater table on the top of that site is probably about 40 feet down, which is the wetlands themselves. MR. SEGULJIC-So it's only going to be on the one site. MR. FARRELL-It's only going to be on 21. MR. SEGULJIC-It's just that it's come up before and then people say they want screening around it and let's get ahead of the curve instead of behind it. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it's a good comment. MR. FARRELL-I mean, we've got screening on the property line between that distance. MR. SEGULJIC-So your stormwater system is more or less the two roads slope from, they slope inward and you have the two stormwater detention basins at the low point? MR. FARRELL-Yes, there's only one road, and the road will basically bowl right into. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then you're going to have these rain gardens at other points. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. FARRELL-Yes, on Lot 19 and 20, and 18 and 17, we're proposing rain gardens. There may be a few other coming in for final design, specifically Lot 21, to control and treat. We may treat with a drywell, but we do have four feet to groundwater down there. So we'll look at different options on Lot 21. The rest of this site is contained up on the top, in those two infiltration ponds. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then the last issue is the 183-23 issue. What say you? MR. FULLER-That has been a conflict since before I was on that side of the fence, when I was on that side of the fence, and the Town Board still hasn't fixed it, because you've got certain provisions that say no access, but then you've got the other provisions in 179 that say when you're going to put lots on those arterials, you've got to have combined driveways. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-And I think the stance that the Town has taken, and I agree with it, is that that represents a conflict. That's an ambiguity. That conflict is interpreted against the Town, and there've been many developments on the arterials, and I think rightfully so, both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I remember some other variances up the road further a couple of years ago where they couldn't do that, and I think that's the way to go, is make them have the combined driveways. That's the stance that, as far as my knowledge, that the Town has taken with that conflict, because they directly. MR. SEGULJIC-Can Staff weigh in on that, at all? MR. OBORNE-Staff will weigh in when the time is right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-Yes. If I need to, I'll just rattle off to you the countless that we've done it, because I remember a couple of years ago being at the ZBA, and it was just up West Mountain, and again, rightfully so, the ZBA was pretty hard on them, and I think they actually made them go with the combined driveway, even though they didn't want to. I just think it makes sense. MR. TRAVER-Speaking of driveways, one of the concerns I have there is the topography of West Mountain Road in that area. The nature of the vehicular traffic, in the sense that everybody that seems to drive on that road thinks they're on the Northway, not on West Mountain Road, and the sight distances involved with these driveways. MR. FARRELL-The sight distances on West Mountain, to the north, for Lot 20 and 19, is over 700 feet down that stretch. To the south, it's approximately 800 feet. 21 is located near Glen. So that one is the same sight distance as Glen, and it has plenty of ample sight distance to the north. We will grade out the sight distance lines at, if you notice when you go out there, the ground topography does jump up along the whole road there. We're basically going to cut through to bring the driveways in and then grade off on each side to limit the disturbance and keep that buffer along the property lines. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Board members before we consider a tabling? MR. SIPP-Will you be addressing the cul de sac length and the driveway slopes? MR. FARRELL-The cul de sac length is 1,000 feet. MR. SIPP-Well, I think it measures out a little more. MR. FARRELL-I think it's taken so called from the center line of the road. I'm not sure how the Town is measuring the cul de sac length. Is it to the edge of pavement? But I believe it's 998 total. The station on the profile will tell you a different length because the station pulls from the center line of Upper Sherman Avenue. It doesn't pull from where the cul de sac actually starts, which is edge of pavement. So there's another 16 feet there that's lost. MR. SIPP-Are you, then, only measuring to the south end of the road, not the cul de sac itself? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. FARRELL-I'm measuring from the edge of the pavement on Upper Sherman Avenue to the end of the cul de sac. MR. SIPP-To the end of the cul de sac, the furthest point south? MR. FARRELL-The furthest point. MR. SIPP-And that's only 998 feet? MR. FARRELL-Yes. It's 900 to the beginning of the cul de sac, and that's minus 16 feet, which is the center line of Upper Sherman Avenue. The cul de sac goes around on a profile. So that's the difference in why it says it's 1110 feet, because the cul de sac, because that's just how it's done in the profile, but it's measured from the edge of pavement to the edge of pavement, which is, I believe, 998, if I'm correct on that. I could re-check that. MR. SIPP-What about the slope on some of these driveways? You're at 12 and 13 percent on a couple of them. MR. FARRELL-I'd have to go back and check that, but I don't believe, they've gone beyond 10. MR. FULLER-We'll check that. MR. SIPP-I think it's Number Four and Five, I believe. MR. OBORNE-Lots Four and Five, Don? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FULLER-The internal lots? The main house? MR. SIPP-What would be the east side of the entrance road. MR. FULLER-We'll double check that. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I think one of them is 13%. I forgot what I figured the other one's pretty close, 11 and a half or something, and that's the only two I did, but there's others that look just as steep. MR. FARRELL-Okay. We'll check those. MR. SIPP-The existing house stays and becomes part of what lot? MR. FARRELL-Five. MR. SIPP-Five. All right. So that house will be, will remain in that position? MR. FARRELL-Yes. They're changing the garages on that to enter from the side where the road would be built. MR. FORD-Can you re-address the issue about the standing timber and how that is going to be addressed, relative to clearing for the lots and septics and so forth? MR. FULLER-Yes. A couple of questions. I know the points that came up on that. Certainly, in the wetland up to that bank, the limit of that bank, within that wetland zone, there's not going to be any cut in there, and that'll be built into the restrictions. There'll beano cut zone in there. They couldn't do that now. So, there won't be, I'll say that unequivocally. There won't be any cut in there, and as far as the other areas, what I had said is the clearing areas we've got shown on there is the intent to stay. That's what we want to accomplish, and I think what, in speaking with the developer, Ken, his goal was actually to remove as few trees as possible. That's the look he's going for in the development, both along West and Sherman, you see that we've got the buffer areas we've maintained there. Some of the houses on the other side are right there, and we've tried to maintain that. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. FORD-And that's appreciated, but I look at the interior lots, along the main thoroughfare there, and that is of concern, the amount of cutting that will be required in order to put everything in there. MR. FARRELL-Yes, and we got the comments from the Staff, and we hear that, and we're going to take another look at the interior lots on the west side of the proposed road to see what we can save. There is a lot of trees out there, and it is the intent of our client to keep trees between the lot lines the best we can. Basically the grading in that area, I looked at it today, is about, we're trying to pick the grade up about one foot in that area. So we shouldn't kill the trees if we pick the grade up a little bit, but we need to maintain drainage to keep it away from the wetlands and getting on to the steep slopes and putting it into infiltration will basically put this entire site into those infiltration, which will put it back down into the earth and not discharge off site. So it may reduce water problems downstream. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-We'll be watching it very carefully. MR. FULLER-Yes, and we will have cutting limitations and things like that in the final restrictions. MR. SEGULJIC-Next time you're going to give us plans that have the buffer in between the lots, then? MR. FARRELL-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any lighting at all? MR. FULLER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Sidewalks? MR. FARRELL-No proposed sidewalks. MR. SEGULJIC-It would be a good idea to have them, though. MR. FARRELL-The sidewalk to nowhere? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, they've got to start somewhere. MR. FULLER-We thought about that. We talked about it a lot. MR. KREBS-I personally am against sidewalks in subdivisions like this. There's no reason for them. It's extra maintenance for the people who live there. Somebody has to clean the sidewalks, and it goes nowhere. If you're talking about making it more walkable, you can walk, I live on Masters Common North. I walk every day around there. There are no sidewalks, and there's very little traffic. There will be very little traffic here. Somebody's going to have to maintain, and pay to maintain, sidewalks when you put them in. MR. FARRELL-And we are planning on dedicating this road to the Town. So that would become the Town's issue. MR. KREBS-Right, and that's a very expensive process. They can't even maintain the main thoroughfares today. We don't need to add sidewalks in a subdivision that is a cul de sac that has no through traffic. MR. SIPP-Is there a possibility of joining these two subdivisions together? MR. FULLER-When we first came in, before we, if you remember back to Sketch, we talked about that, and we did explore that. Unfortunately there were no streets of, to the south, southeast right there, there were no streets stubbed. MR. SIPP-Isn't that on the? MR. FULLER-On either Cranberry. I forget the road right below. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. SIPP-On the south end, is that Town of Queensbury land? MR. FULLER-No. MR. SIPP-It says so on the. MR. OBORNE-Yes, where the wetlands are? MR. FULLER-The wetlands, yes. MR. OBORNE-Down in this area where my arrow is? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That's Town of Queensbury lands. MR. FULLER-But they're, I'd say, landlocked. MR. OBORNE-And then it's a very small little spit. It's not actually where the wetlands are. It's a small little spit coming out towards Glen. MR. SIPP-Well, you know, I'd like to see these subdivisions joined together so that you have a possible walking, bike riding area, in the summertime. I don't know as you necessarily need sidewalks, but the ability to put these subdivisions together gives a person more ability to do whatever they, bird watching, deer counting, whatever they may do. MR. FULLER-And, Don, I would agree with you. When you've got subdivisions that are on large parcels, connected to other large parcels that haven't developed, then by all means. Even when I was working with you guys, I would encourage the Planning Board to take those paper streets, we went through that issue a couple of years ago, and make sure they get dedicated to the Town for just that reason. Otherwise, even if you put the paper streets down, the neighbors on either side end up buying them at a tax sale or whatever, and stopping you from putting a road in there anyway. So, yes, we did explore it. MR. SIPP-I mean, you can cross country ski on sidewalks that aren't plowed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess we're looking at two resolutions this evening. The first one is acknowledge Lead Agency status. We did have a draft resolution provided by Staff. Would anyone like to introduce that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 KELACO, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, in connection with the Kelaco, LLC project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of quick questions. Endangered species, did we address that already? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's in Staff Notes, but we haven't talked about it. Well, maybe it was engineering comments. MR. OBORNE-It was engineering comments, and the onus is on the applicant to provide that. MR. SEGULJIC-They haven't provided it yet. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-They have not, but they're aware that they need to. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE KELACO, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled because the applicant failed to meet the Town's posting requirements for subdivisions. Therefore, I will make a motion to table this application to the May 19tH meeting of the Planning Board. That would give an application deadline for new materials of April 15t". This is tabled so that the applicant can properly post the property according to our Subdivision Regulations and also so that the applicant can satisfy Paragon Engineering comments as well as Staff Notes. Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure you'll get the sign up. MR. FORD-Both of them. PUD SITE PLAN 20-2009 SKETCH PLAN SEAR TYPE N/A THE MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING; MILLER ASSOCIATES; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HILAND PARK PUD LOCATION MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 11.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 34 RESIDENTIAL LOT RANGING IN SIZE FROM 4,257 SQUARE FEET TO 17,775 SQUARE FEET. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PUD SP 44- 2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE, DEC LOT SIZE 11.23 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-8 SECTION 179-12-010 JON CAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-PUD Site Plan 20-2009, Sketch Michaels Group, Site Plan Review for the subdivision of land involving a Planned Unit Development. Location is the north portion of Meadowbrook Road. Existing zoning, Planned Unit Development, PUD. This is a previous EIS dated 1/14/86. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 11.23 acre parcel into 34 residential lots ranging in size from 4,257 square feet to 17,775 square feet. Staff Comments: A Consistency Resolution for this project was approved by the Town Board dated 12/1/08 and is attached. This resolution states that this project `is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD as aooroved by Town Board reso/ution 272.87 (see attached). The applicant will submit a Freshwater Wetland permit at Preliminary Review. I do want to clarify the designation and the reason, in the future, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) that there will be a public hearing for this project is because this is Site Plan and a PUD. It's kind of a hybrid, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Even though it's just Sketch Plan? MR. OBORNE-Even though it's just Sketch Plan. I don't believe that, we do have a public hearing open for this, at Sketch Plan, but it required Site Plan Review. Hence why we erred on the side of caution and scheduled a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-And scheduled a public hearing. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Capper with Jim Miller and Dave Michaels. I just want to start out, and we'll be brief tonight because it's really Sketch Plan, but just a little bit of history of this project. Of course this is north of the Waverly Place Townhouse development that Michaels Group did a number of years ago, and at the time that we came in for that approval, we had proposed, in the interest of full disclosure, to show what we were planning for the corner piece, that this would have been three, 30,000 square foot offices, and 48 multi-family units in eight unit buildings, and we got Sketch Plan approval from the Planning Board at that time for that project, and subsequently they've re-thought that they want to do here, and so now it's much more similar to the Waverly Place subdivision with twin townhomes, 34 twin townhomes, and we think that this is a lot more of what the Waverly Place neighbors want to see, and compatible with both the Waverly Place and also the Amedore project which is just east of this. The other historical issue here is the relocation of Meadowbrook Road which happened I guess about a year, a year and a half ago. At that time, if you look at our plan you can see that their property doesn't go all the way to new Meadowbrook Road. It bordered on Old Meadowbrook Road. So when the County was in the process of acquiring property rights to re-locate Meadowbrook which was done for sight distance issue, because it was always, that intersection was too close to the top of the hill on Haviland. There were accidents. It was certainly a much needed project, a good project, but the Michaels Group was concerned that they were losing all of their Meadowbrook Road frontage for this project. So, at the time, we were going through the Site Plan approval which Rich Schermerhorn did for the commercial lots, and ultimately George Amedore bought the Townhouse project before Rich got started building it, but we were before this Board for subdivision approval for that project to the east, at the same time that the County was contemplating this relocation. So the Michaels Group got involved with the County and said, look, if you're going to relocate Meadowbrook Road, you have to provide us with an access because obviously this project can't access Haviland Road because their whole point is not to have an intersection on Haviland Road. So you're not going to get rid of the Meadowbrook intersection there and then create one for a residential property. So we worked it all out between the Michaels Group and Rich Schermerhorn and the County, and we brought with us the, just because it was a question that was asked by Staff, we brought with us a copy of the subdivision map for the Schermerhorn project which shows exactly what we have here, that the road was planned, at that time, and approved by this Board to go through the Schermerhorn project to grant the access to this. There was a question asked, in either the engineering comments or the Staff Notes, about whether or not we were creating a subdivision, and the answer there is no, of the Schermerhorn Lot One, Commercial Lot One, that the land in the back would be used for stormwater drainage but it's all, it's tied in. It's the same lot. The piece in the back could not be a freestanding lot. It's not big enough. So it's just part of the lot that split by this roadway, but when someday somebody goes in to develop that into either office or commercial, what have you, that would be used for the stormwater detention basin, just because the topography, it works out, and when the road was conveyed, the road property was conveyed to The Michaels Group, for ultimate conveyance to the Town, a stormwater easement was retained underneath the road, and that's all part of the approved subdivision plan that this Board looked at at the time. So in terms of planning, those issues were contemplated. The access was contemplated from New Meadowbrook Road, and it all got addressed at that point. So that's how we got to this point, and we are here, you know, yes, because it's a PUD we need subdivision and Site Plan, so we're here for both, but we first had to go to the Town Board to say, is this 34 unit townhouse project consistent with the PUD, because that's a prerequisite to coming before the Planning Board, and we took care of that at the end of last year and got the resolution and Jim's done the Sketch Plan. So let me just ask him to quickly walk you through the plan to familiarize you with it, and we'll take questions. MR. MILLER-Good evening. For the record, Jim Miller, landscape architect. As Jon said, this map shows Haviland Road and Meadowbrook, and here's with the realignment and the property is on the corner. There's Waverly, in this area, this is the subdivision with Amedore and the commercial lots of Rich Schermerhorn's. The site's about 11 and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) a quarter acres, and as Jon was talking about on this plan here, there's Haviland again and Meadowbrook. Here was the original alignment of Meadowbrook. This shows the realignment, and as Jon was talking about, when this commercial lot was created, there was an access provided for across that commercial lot that lined up with Beekman Place for the Amedore subdivision, and the intent always was that this would be dedicated to the Town when this roadway was developed, and as Jon said, the intent was that this would be developed as office or commercial. The drainage flows southerly, and that this small triangular piece would be used for the stormwater management for that parcel, but our subdivision, as Jon said, we're looking at doing duplexes and threeplex townhouses, very similar to Waverly and Amedores. We're coming in, we're looking at developing a divided boulevard entrance off of Meadowbrook, coming in basically to a simple loop that the lots would be developed off of. The concept for the townhomes, and Dave Michaels has got some conceptual drawings that he'll share with you in a minute, but one of the things that's a little bit different with these is that, you know, they're designed, it's lower density than what was originally approved, but they're designed to provide adequate space around the units. One of the unique things that was looked at with these units is introducing some side entry garages, which, one of the things with the townhouses, you see a lot of the garages in the front. So the intent was to break up some of these units by accessing from the side, so there's less driveway in the front. The project is served by municipal sewer and water. The area surrounding the parcel is homeowners association land from Waverly, and to the west of our property is the wetland and way back in here is a stream that flows down and eventually crosses Meadowbrook Road. The site drains from north to south, down towards the wetlands, down into this corner, and the proposed grading which was submitted, we're looking to do a balanced cut and fill on the site, and there'll be some cut taking place in this upper level, and filling down on the south. The units are going to be a mixture of conventional units, garden style, and then some with walkout basements on the lower level where the grade is falling away, so the units would be situated into the slope. So the storm drainage would drain southerly. The area to the south here, there's going to be a stormwater management area that would conform with all the DEC regulations, and since we're backing onto some of the lots in Waverly, the intent is that basins will be designed with some berming and landscaping, some groupings of some natural plants in there to provide some buffering as well as to accommodate the stormwater management. There was some question about some lighting. Lighting will be the same as Waverly, is there typically will be a lamppost and some building mounted lighting at each residence. There'll be no street lighting, you know, no lighting that will be owned by the homeowners association. This also is a conceptual landscape plan. We're intending to develop some buffering, along Meadowbrook as well as along Haviland, and actually the way the grading plan, this grade will be dropped to your, it will also introduce some berming along Haviland. We have a berm there that, from the roadside, is about four foot high, and then the grade drops down to the rear yards of these units, and then this will be planted fairly heavily to provide buffering, both for the residents from Haviland Road and plus the residences that are on the other side of Haviland Road, and I guess, with that, that kind of summarizes the plan. I think probably Dave can share with you some of the conceptual drawings for the units that they're envisioning. DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Thanks, Jim. Dave Michaels with The Michaels Group, and this is, when we had, you know, just to go back, we initially had Waverly gone before the Town as part of the overall Hiland PUD, there was basically four components to the Master PUD, and the first one that was approved was Waverly Place which is, we built and it's existing, and then there was a standalone office to the south, that is still vacant, but it was an identified parcel, part of this review. There was 12 acres of open space to the southwesterly corner, that was on a set aside, and then there was what we called Waverly North, our intention is to call this community Hiland Crossing, and then there was this parcel that was identified, and part of our, as Jim said, and Jon, we had a conceptual review for an allowed use of 48 multi-family homes, which were basically eight plexes, six, eight plex buildings, condo style, with three, 10,000 square foot office buildings, and it's been a number of years since we've finished and completed Waverly Place, and we decided that, after we work with the County on their request to see what we could do, and work is, you know, together, try to come up with a better scenario here for traffic and sight distance. They approached us and said we're trying to relocate and we worked with Schermerhorn and the County, tried to come up with a good solution, as a good neighbor for everybody to work out, but part of that work out was we had to, of course, be allowed access to this land. We did have apre-approved concept for a certain amount of density as part of the Hiland PUD, but we didn't feel the timing was appropriate to move forward. Now we feel it is the right timing to move forward. The community now that we're proposing is significantly less dense at only 34 homes. We 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) tried to lay this out, not jamming them in, but mostly two unit townhome buildings. Conceptually there'll be new architecture, a little different from what Waverly Place was, but still a New England type theme. So it'll blend in with the existing community, but what we tried to do here was design product that a good deal of the homes could be, incorporate side entry garages, which we think will do a lot for the aesthetics of the different buildings, instead of having all pretty much front load garages, and we have a couple of concept renderings to give you an idea. They would mostly be ranches and one and a half story, all master suites on the first level. This would be a typical ranch design showing the side entrance type garage access, and again, another ranch style that has a front load garage given a concept there. We're looking to, you know, add some additional architectural features to the exterior, probably some use of some brick veneer and things as seen here. Heavily landscaped, which has been sort of a tradition of our communities. We want them to look good. Divided entry going in. Again, we want to create a feeling of its own privacy. So we use minor berming and landscape plantings to create a feeling of entrance. We did work with the Highway Department. They reviewed our concept road layout, before we went too far, and we got a letter from the Highway Department that said he felt fine with our roadways as long as we allowed a certain width, and a certain distance in for the islands, and, Jim, the way he designed it with the slopes and the grades, we're very cognizant of Haviland and the views, but as Jim said, between the berming we plan on putting in place here and the drop in grade, it's not like these are right even with the road. The backs of the homes drop down significantly on the grading plan. So we feel that, as far as the community aspect, and as far as the residents themselves, that it will create a good compromise. I also met with Sherman Wood, who is the President of the Waverly Place Homeowners Association, a number of weeks ago, to show what our concept plan was for the community. We are going to be his neighbor. We did make the Waverly Place Homeowners Association aware that future development was going to occur here. It's right in the Offering Plan. When we had the turnover meeting, we did remind everybody that ultimately we will propose something here. They knew clearly that this could be up to three, 10,000 foot buildings and 48 multi-units, subject to Site Plan Review, of course, but we did meet with them and showed them our plan, showed them a number of concept studies that we did which were significantly dense, denser. We had five or six residential plans that were anywhere from 48 to 56 multi-families, but with no office, and we just decided that, hey, let's just tone it down. Let's just do the 34 homes, and space them so we could come up with some side entry garages and everything should fit nice. Totally is going to be focused on full maintenance, again, Homeowners Association, and they'll handle all the maintenance for all the homes, including sill removal and all the common areas. All this common center island areas would be fully maintained, including the entrance and the side boulevards and island areas, and the, getting back to meeting with the Waverly Place Homeowners Association, they did send a letter to ourselves, and I think it was sent to Craig Brown with the Planning Department. I don't know, has it been forwarded to the Board members, too? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it's part of the submission, absolutely. MR. MICHAELS-Okay, and so we tried to be diligent on that end of things, too. So that pretty much finishes my end of it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-I just wanted to ask, who owns that piece of property, now, that was Meadowbrook? MR. CAPPER-The Town still retains ownership of that. MR. KREBS-The Town? MR. CAPPER-Yes. That was one of the questions we were prepared to answer. So we don't have to acquire those rights, because the road's going to be dedicated to the Town ultimately, and the Town already owns that piece. MRS. STEFFAN-So does it own the lot orjust the road bed usage? MR. CAPPER-The bed of the former road. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but the lot next to it? MR. CAPPER-Is Rich Schermerhorn's lot. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but it is split by your entrance? MR. CAPPER-Yes, but it's still only one lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KREBS-And your entrance is also going to split that road, so they'd never be able to use that again, right? MR. CAPPER-Never be able to use Meadowbrook Road? MR. KREBS-The old Meadowbrook? MR. CAPPER-Yes. The reason why that's still there is because there's the water line and some fiber optic line. So that was too expensive to relocate. So it can't be built upon. MR. FORD-The pie-shaped lot is owned by? MR. CAPPER-By Rich. MR. FORD-By Rich. Okay. MR. CAPPER-But all as part of that Commercial Lot One. MR. FORD-That's what I thought it was. MR. MILLER-Yes, and he agreed that when that road is put across there, where that road sits on his lot would be dedicated to the Town. Because the whole road loop would be the Town road. MR. CAPPER-And that location was obviously put there to be a four way intersection, the way this Board wants it, with the subdivision across the street. MR. HUNSINGER-So how and why did we move away from the mixed use kind of development? Let me just finish before you answer the question. I remember you had on your plan, you know, the three, 10,000 square foot buildings with some, you know, multiplex residential, but we also talked about a lot of other concepts, including some, you know, live and work in the same building concepts, and, you know, we actually had challenged the developer to be creative and to be innovative and to try to create something that was unique and different, and, I mean, this is, fits nice with Waverly Place. I know Waverly Place was successful, but it's not what we were looking for way back when. MR. CAPPER-Well, we discussed this with the Town Board when we went before them recently for the consistency resolution, and this was the part of Hiland Park, and that's really what you're referring to, that had some commercial, proposed commercial office, commercial/office uses. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CAPPER-So when we went to get the subdivision across the street approved for Rich, that's the reason why we have the commercial lots, four commercial lots that still exist. I would envision that there's not really a market for commercial. You might get, you know, some small neighborhood retail, but more likely it would be small office buildings that are designed to look residential to fit in with the Hiland Park design, but, you know, fortunately or unfortunately, there's been no market. Those have been advertised for sale for the last few years. Obviously, the residential has been successful. Waverly Place sold out. The Amedore project is about half built right now, and there's still no interest in the office/commercial, but, I mean, it's a lovely place for an office. There are other offices in the area across the street. Jim's office is in one of the buildings at Hiland Park. So ultimately, there probably will be a market, ultimately, for office and, you know, maybe some Neighborhood Commercial as well, but in terms of The Michaels Group, they don't see office and commercial as, you know, a huge, it's not like the people are knocking down the doors to build that. So it seemed like what was most appropriate to do was residential, and honestly, we heard from the Waverly Place Homeowners Association when we were at this Board for Rich Schermerhorn, that they were not excited about the idea of having office and commercial, and they really wanted it residential. So to a certain extent, this is the path of least resistance, but also it's 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) compatible with what's already there, and it still does leave those other four lots for residential, for office and commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the Town Board kind of made that decision, but I just wanted to refresh everyone's memory, because I know there might have only been one or two other members of the Planning Board on the Board when the Waverly Place project was approved, and this is not at all what was thought about, contemplated and discussed at that time. MR. SIPP-Could I get a little specific here? What's the difference, I know what the difference in elevation is between Haviland Road and the back end of those lots that backup on Haviland. MR. MILLER-I think it's about eight feet. MR. SIPP-All right. Now what are you going to do there for stormwater? You're dealing with a heavy clay soil in this area. So you've got to have something that's pretty good. MR. MILLER-Right. The stormwater will drain to the west, and what's in the Sketch grading plan is all of the drainage from the, or the majority of the drainage from the roofs and the driveways and everything would drain to the street. So the drainage in that back area comes down to the west, and then we're looking at, you know, the final designs aren't done. If we need to have some kind of a settling or treatment basin just to handle that small amount, it would be located in that back corner, but this back area here just drains to the west as it does currently, and then everything else is collected down to the storm basin to the south. MR. FORD-Off the street? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Who owns the lot to the west? MR. MILLER-This back here? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MILLER-That's Waverly Homeowners Association. MR. SIPP-Okay. Now, beyond that, do you butt on to ACC property? MR. MILLER-Well, from this area back to the stream is Waverly Homeowners Association, and then from the stream over this way is the open part of the lands owned by ACC. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, if you go beyond that stream to the west, some place back in there, not too far, is a trail that's been cut through there, a fitness trail. MR. MILLER-Okay. On the ACC property? Yes, that would be back in here some place probably. Because I think there's a small house back in here, too. MR. SIPP-Yes, but it is possible to access that trail from where you are because you do own, the landowners own that. MR. CAPPER-Well, that's owned by Waverly Homeowners Association. MR. FORD-Waverly HOA. MR. SIPP-Yes, but they, well, they would benefit from it. There's a 15 station fitness trail back there. I know because my class put it in there, in 1984. Now how it's been maintained, I don't know. It was maintained quite well for a while, but it offers a place for walking, cross country skiing, nature trails. There's quite a bit of wildlife back in there. All you need is a bridge which we constructed one across there, but I doubt that it's still there, but there is a possibility of hooking on to that. I'm sure ACC would be very happy to let somebody get in there. Because that was the original idea of the whole fitness trail. Now, to the south, can we hook into Waverly Place that way by making a walking path? MR. CAPPER-The simple answer there is that Waverly Place Homeowners Association owns the common property. So it could be done with their permission, and the letter that 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) they sent in indicates that they're not excited about that idea, you know, so we were just trying to respect their wishes, but certainly it's up for discussion. MR. SIPP-Well, I have some comments on the landscaping, but that's down the road. MR. CAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, since this is Sketch Plan, I guess, you know, what we should focus on is typical Sketch Plan things, you know, layout, you know, number of units and that kind of thing. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as future potential uses for the west side of Meadowbrook in this area, is there anything else that's going to be proposed for that area? It's wetlands to the west of this. MR. CAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I'm getting at, does it make sense to have a stub road in there of any type? MR. CAPPER-No, there's nothing, that goes down into the stream corridor and wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-There's nothing that can go down there, because it's the Homeowners Association and then the wetland. MR. CAPPER-No, there's nothing developable. MR. SEGULJIC-If you come back here in a few years and I ask that question again. MR. CAPPER-No, Tom, there's nothing developable west of this. It's in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-Could you reinforce that gap on the western, is that too great a slope there? MR. MILLER-You're talking about this area right in here? MR. FORD-Correct. MR. MILLER-Well, what happens is the wetland has been mapped, you know, this hatched area is DEC wetland that comes across, and then there's a finger of Army Corps Wetland, and then for some reason they mapped some Army Corps Wetlands up the slope into that area. So that gap there is to respond to that wetland and I think we have, I think as part of when we're back in for Preliminary, we have some grading maybe within that buffer area, but in order to keep all the buildings and the paving set back out of the wetland buffer and the setbacks. MR. FORD-It's a setback issue. Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CAPPER-But the result will be that it will look less dense and it will be more green in that area anyway. MR. FORD-Yes. I assumed that's what it was, but I just wanted to clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you take into account that Meadowbrook watershed corridor study? MR. MILLER-Yes, we did. As a matter of fact, there was a letter from Dan Ryan, which we reviewed. We really don't have any problems with anything. As a matter of fact, he even stated in here that, you know, it looked like we're in general conformance with the recommendations of that study. MR. CAPPER-I know that, or I believe some of the public are here because it was advertised. Some of the neighbors may be here to comment. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Anything else from the Board? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's unusual to have a public hearing at Sketch Plan anyway. MR. OBORNE-Well, it is Site Plan Review also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Tonight is? MR. OBORNE-That's a great question. MR. HUNSINGER-It was listed on the agenda as Sketch Plan. MR. OBORNE-It is Sketch, PUD Site Plan. I would say, there's no tabling resolution that needs to happen. I just think you need to just go ahead with it as a Subdivision Sketch Plan, I mean, as a Subdivision Sketch Plan, and then once you get to Preliminary, I mean, there is a Site Plan aspect to this. MR. HUNSINGER-You lost me. MR. CAPPER-Can I clarify that? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. CAPPER-I know what the answer is from all these years, when Queensbury adopted the PUD, it talks about Site Plan. It should talk about subdivision, because a lot of a PUD has to do with subdivision. I believe that the proposed changes in the Zoning Code do address that. So it's really subdivision, but because it's a PUD, it's also called Site Plan. Just a Queensbury nuance. MR. OBORNE-That's what I'm dealing with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does the new Code correct this? MR. OBORNE-I could not tell you. I'm not too deep into the new Code at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-So we don't have to make any resolutions, and the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's my question. MR. OBORNE-You may want to do it clean and table to Preliminary, just to have it clean. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And then we'll deal with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CAPPER-We're pretty far along on the engineering. So we would like to submit for Preliminary shortly. MR. OBORNE-And I do apologize for the nebulousness. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's okay. When will you be submitting? MR. MILLER-Well, I assume at this point we would submit on April 15t", and try to get back probably in May, if we could. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we specify a date, Keith, as we normally would in a tabling resolution, or just table it pending submission of subdivision? MR. OBORNE-I would say table pending, yes, submission protocol, or something along those lines. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CAPPER-That's fine with us. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. FORD-I have an additional question. On each of the triplexes, will there be at least one side entrance garage? MR. MILLER-Yes, I believe so. MR. CAPPER-Yes, I think they all have two, all except for one have two. MR. MILLER-All of these have two, and then there's one threeplex that just has the one there. So they have at least one. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I'd like to clarify to you guys that the agenda is full through April. So at the very minimum it would be May they'd be coming back. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we need to close the public hearing, then, or do we leave the public hearing open? MR. OBORNE-I would leave it open. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen, whenever you're ready. MRS. STEFFAN-So I'll just make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 SKETCH PLAN THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Pending Preliminary submission of subdivision plans. Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. CAPPER-Thank you, everyone. MR. MILLER-Thank you. SITE PLAN 9-2009 SEAR TYPE II JOHN WITT AGENT(S) JOHN WITT OWNER(S) NORTH TRACT PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING PO LOCATION 3 HUNTER BROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES 187 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A COMMERCIAL USE IN A PO ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 17-03, SP 12-03, BP 03-794, BP 03-647, BP 03-084 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-010 JOHN WITT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 9-2009, John Witt is the applicant. Site Plan Review for the expansion of a commercial use in a Professional Office zone. Location is 3 Hunterbrook Lane. Existing Zoning Professional Office. It's a Type II, no action necessary. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 187 square foot office addition to the existing Orthopedic & Spine Physical Therapy, PC location at 3 Hunter Brook Lane. Staff Comments: With the relative small size of the project and the lack of major site plan changes the applicant is seeking a waiver from Landscaping, Grading, Stormwater Management and Lighting. The addition is 187 square feet with additional existing interior reconfiguration to encompass an additional 427 square feet. The purpose of this project is to expand office space for existing staff. Impermeability will be increase by 0.6 percent from 30.9 percent to 31.5 percent. This is well within the 70 percent allowable maximum impermeable requirement for the P.O. zone per §179-4-030. And one Plan Review. Drainage from addition roof may need to be clarified. To what extent is water directed to existing stormwater controls? And with that, I'd turn it over to Mr. Witt. MR. WITT-Okay. Thank you, Keith. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. WITT-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. WITT-My name is John Witt, President of Witt Construction. We have a proposed addition for the Orthopedic and Spine Therapy Office. It's nine feet, four inches by twenty feet on that north corner of the building. The addition, the existing building is 3812 square feet, and again, we're adding an additional 187 square feet. So it's a small addition, and the reason for the addition is currently there's no area for the office manager to conduct her business. She's in the kind of reception area, and it's been crowded. So there's not, the addition is not for additional employees or staff. It's just for their current staff to work more efficiently in the building. The impermeable area increase on the site is less than .6%. So it's very minor, as far as the storm drainage. The proposed addition falls within the allowed setback and does not necessitate additional parking spaces. We have requested a waiver for the landscaping, grading, stormwater management and lighting plan. Currently, again, it'll be easier just to kind of point. I don't know if you can see this, but this is the building itself currently. This is the proposed addition here. There's an existing sidewalk here, an existing sidewalk here. There's storm drainage that runs the perimeter of the building into a storm basin down here. So all the water currently comes off the roof here and comes into this same area. This sidewalk is all drained back from the sidewalk here is drained back and here is drained back toward the building. So really there's no additional stormwater put into the storm system currently, and looking at the site physically after all the snow has melted, there's no evidence of ponding or, I mean, there's grade drainage, the soil that's on the site peres at less than five minutes. So it's a very good perc soil. So I don't think we're, there's any need for any additional drainage there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? Yes, I thought it was pretty straightforward, too. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no takers. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Type II action, no SEQRA required. So, I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2009 JOHN WITT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 187 square foot office addition. Expansion of a commercial use in a PO zone requires Site Plan Review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/17/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2009 JOHN WITT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. a) 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 b) This is a Type II action - no further review required c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. d) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e) NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) This is approved with waivers granted for landscaping, grading, stormwater management and lighting. h) One other condition, that the applicant satisfies VISION Engineering comments. Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I was just discussing, there were two comments from VISION Engineering. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. One other condition, that the applicant satisfy VISION Engineering comments. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. WITT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) RAYMOND BUTLER, DELWYN MULDER ZONING CI-1A LOCATION 449 & 454 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,244 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH FACILITY INCLUDING WORSHIP AREA, OFFICES, CLASSROOMS, RECREATION AREA, AND PARKING WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES. PLACE OF WORSHIP IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 21-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-010 MARK DEL SIGNORE & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 10-2009, New Hope Community Church. Requested action is for Site Plan approval for Site Plan approval for places of worship in a Commercial Industrial One Acre zone. Location 449, and I believe this is a typo on the address. So, the location is on Corinth Road. Existing Zoning: CI-1A. SEQRA Status: Unlisted. SEQRA determination is required. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 13,244 square foot church facility including worship area, offices, classrooms, recreation area, and parking with associated utilities and site improvements. Staff Comments: There are two lots associated with this project, one 6.89 acres and one 4.29 acres. The smaller of the two lots has a one story wood frame house with detached garage and shed that are slated to be removed. Both parcels are relatively flat with a total change in topography of 4 feet over the 11.15 acres. Total area of disturbance proposed is 4.95 acres. The predominant soils on site are Oakville loamy fine sand (OaA), 0 to 3 percent slopes. According to the Soil Survey of Warren County, these soils are generally not conducive for absorption fields as the soil is a poor filter for effluent. Soils of this class are poor filters due to the lack of minerals and microbes in the soil. Groundwater contamination is a possibility. The plan does have provisions to modify these soils due to the high percolation rates but no provisions to amend the soil for effluent filtering. This is mentioned because the leach field associated with this project 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) will be located in and on this soil series. Further, disturbed soils in general will need to be limed and have topsoil amendments as part of any landscaping and lawn plan. What follows are Fire Marshal comments. There are issues with the entrance, compaction of the parking lot, and location of municipal fire hydrants, and/or private fire hydrants. Again, refer to attached Fire Marshal comments, and what follows is Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Good evening. Mark DelSignore, Tom Hutchins, and Pastor Robbie Langford here. Pretty straightforward application, I think. The description fairly represents what we're doing. It's two parcels. We're presently under contract. The Church is presently under contract to purchase each of them. One of the conditions, obviously, is getting the necessary approvals. I figured I'd talk now because I have a strong hunch that that 95% of what we're going to be asking is going to end up going to Mr. Hutchins. So I figured I'd give his voice a break for a couple of minutes. You probably recall we've been here before. We think we've finally found the right site in the Town. The Church has worked very hard to find the right site in the Town. They really wanted to stay here and be a presence in the community, and I think, for the most part, the drawings speak for themselves as to what we intend to do, you know, with respect to the issues that were raised by Staff, I think that they are primarily pretty easily fixed, in a way that should please the Board, and I don't know if Tom has anything to add to that, or Robbie. ROBBIE LANGFORD PASTOR LANGFORD-I just appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. Sorry it is so late, but we are very excited about the community, just love being here, and have been here for nine years, and the majority of that, eight of those years have been across the street, leasing a facility, and just feel like it's time for us to take the next step and to be able to have our own, move into our own property and be able to move forward from there. So I just look forward to sharing with you and answering any questions that you have. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Good evening. Tom Hutchins, again. I'm going to do a very brief description of the project and turn it over to, for questions. The site is just over 11 acres and we'll be disturbing just under five acres. The topography is very flat. You'll see contours on your drawings, but they're deceiving, because they kind of go like this. It's very, very flat. The soils are of a high sand content, and there's, we have since done test holes. You'll see in some of your comments that test holes weren't completed. We did this design in early January, and I recall in early January it was very cold and there was a lot of snow, and we decided not to try to get equipment back into the woods under those conditions. I have since done them. I've discussed it with both Mr. Oborne and the Town Engineer, and they're aware that we have since done the holes, and the holes are conducive to our design. There's public water available, which is good, something we didn't have in the previous application. Proposed structure is just over 13,000 square feet. It's a sanctuary, class area, youth areas, and other related uses, all for church use. There is a small kitchen for their use, and what we've shown on our plans includes the site layout data, wastewater, stormwater, parking, lighting, landscaping, and I guess that's it. Any questions, I'll try to address them as they come up. We felt that it was a pretty complete set of plans and we hope you feel the same way. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Did you see anything in the Staff comments that you thought you would have difficulty accommodating? There are a number of them. Many of them are, didn't appear to be terribly significant. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I do want to touch on some of those. Fire Marshal comment. We invited the input of the Fire Marshal, and with regard to the divided entrance, his point I believe says the Fire Marshal's Office prefers no dividers. However, the minimal acceptable driving lane must be 20 feet. So what we propose to do is widen the driving lane. In response to this comment, our intent is to widen this driving lane to 20 feet. The owners really like the island and they desire to keep it, if at all possible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I guess if we could, I don't know if Staff can clarify because it does say Fire Marshal's Office prefers no dividers, but before that, it says divided concrete entrance does not conform. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. It's the width. Once we go to 20 feet, then it conforms. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. TRAVER-Then it can be divided. MR. HUTCHINS-Then it conforms. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Because you can turn a fire truck. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-The surface of the parking lot will be appropriate, and I'll get a note on there as he adds, and I haven't discussed with him with regard to the fire hydrant, but there is a fire hydrant right here, and it's shown on all the plans. So I'm presuming that may address his concern. With regard to the other Staff comments, I don't believe there are any that can't be overcome. I've talked about the test pits. An area of 50% expansion of the leach field, that's an item we missed on the plan, but there's a mirror area immediately adjacent, and there's plenty of space available. With regard to soils, I have since done the test holes, and, as I said, there's no ground water issues found whatsoever. We've done percolation tests. They were one minute, twenty seconds, which under Town and State regulations is sufficient for us to install a conventional system without the amended soils. I showed the amended soils initially, because I've had some experience in the neighborhood as I'm sure we all have with soils that perc faster than one minute, significantly faster than one minute. This wasn't the case we found. So it would be our intent, based upon, that information that wasn't available, to install these as a conventional system without the amended soils, and with regard to stormwater, the design relies on the infiltration. I didn't want to say that word again, and I don't know that there are any other options, frankly, because there's no surface water bodies. There's no drainage structures in the road, and I can't think of what else we could do. The soils are very conducive to it. I don't see that as being an issue. I think we'd like to touch on the comment on lighting, and I know this has come up before, and we did submit a lighting plan. The Town's lighting requirements are a little bit difficult to understand, in that if they are a maximum or an average, and what we've done is we've designed the parking to the minimal amount of light that, and I didn't personally do it, but that the lighting designer that laid it out was comfortable doing. Less than one foot candle is not very much light. Your Code indicates commercial parking lot at a different value than indicated in the Staff comments, and I'm just, I'm not sure where Staff is coming. They say commercial parking lot and then they say churches as a different, and what we've done is designed it to keep it as minimal light as we can, and still be comfortable that it's going to be safe and accessible. MR. HUNSINGER-How often do you have events in the evening? MR. HUTCHINS-Frequently, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Probably frequently in the winter, right? PASTOR LANGFORD-Well, we have a fair amount of things in the evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. PASTOR LANGFORD-I think the main thing, we certainly want to comply with anything that we need to, that you guys are comfortable with, but more for us just in terms of safety and the ladies especially would feel comfortable at night walking out in the parking lot and could see around, you know, a patch of ice here or there, you know, just make sure it was safe. MR. DEL SIGNORE-I will say, in that regard, also, that if you look at the lighting plan, there are areas out in the center of the parking lot in a few places that are only half a foot candle, I believe, .5, maybe a .4 or two. Also, we talked with, we were speaking today, actually, with someone that is a little more knowledgeable with respect to lighting, and they said the only way that we could get some of the higher numbers down, right near the lights, obviously, would be to use higher lights and brighter bulbs. So we're dealing with that balance of the Board's preferences for the foot candle, but the higher poles, and bigger and brighter lights shining down, so the light disperses. I think the plan as presented is, it appears very reasonable and I would hope would be acceptable, taking into account the comfort and safety of people in the parking lot also. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. OBORNE-If I may, obviously the Planning Board is aware that they can waive the requirements of lighting. Just wanted to throw that out there, and as far as safety and lighting, there's very little correlation between bright lights and safety. In fact, it can be reversed on you. So it's a subjective, and it is a comfort, and I understand that. As far as getting, to become compliant, if you're required to do so, there are Lexan covers and diffusers that you can put on that'll get you down, but again, reviewing to the Code, and that's all. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn't seem to be excessively over lit by any means. MR. OBORNE-No, not at all, especially when it says commercial parking lot 2.5. MR. SEGULJIC-And they're at .4, I think. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't really have any problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-If anything, I might be concerned that some of the parking lighting is too low. MR. DEL SIGNORE-That was a creature of trying to keep the higher numbers down, also. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you have a min of .4, and there's fairly large area where it's .4, .5. MR. HUTCHINS-But our average is over one, which is your standard. MR. HUNSINGER-The Uniformity Ratio is okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Uniformity is close, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess, once again, you went to a lighting professional and this is what they came back with. MR. HUNSINGER-So, yes, are they comfortable that what's proposed is? MR. DEL SIGNORE-Yes. In fact, we had that exact discussion about the .5, saying is that light enough. Yes. MR. FORD-It's been addressed. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Yes. MR. FORD-Good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else? MR. HUTCHINS-And I'm just looking through engineering comments here. With regards to the issue on the water line on Corinth Road, I have, I didn't show the line on the plan. I have talked with Scott Bernard in the Water Department, and that information's available. Soil test data has been added. I can provide what he's asking for. He's asking to clarify storage volumes in one of the ponds in the model, which can be done. So, to go back to your question, Mr. Traver, there's nothing here that I feel is going to involve a significant redesign effort. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had was, you know, when I looked at the design of the building, you know, you're designing a really nice building. I think it's going to, you know, it's going to look nice, but then you set it back off the road real far, put all the parking in front. MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly what I was going to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you give any consideration to moving the building up closer and having the parking either on the side or in the rear? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUTCHINS-And it was discussed. The site isn't necessarily conducive to parking on the side with this building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So it would have to be in the rear. MR. HUTCHINS-And we did talk about it, didn't we? PASTOR LANFORD-If I could share, one of the biggest values for us, in terms of the building design, is if you notice there's a nice, large foyer, and for us it's really important for people to build relationships and stop and talk and so we don't just go straight in and come straight out. So, really, if we put it in the rear, we would kind of be losing the effect of our large foyer space. People would just kind of be walking in the side of the worship area but not really using that, utilizing that as much, and that's really a distribution point to children's areas, to youth's areas, and then into the worship area. So that's really important to us, if at all possible, to have the front entrance, but we did think about that, and we tried every way we could to try to work around that. Otherwise we'd have to turn the building, you know, the rear of the building towards Corinth Road, which obviously wouldn't look (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to elaborate on that, Tom, since you had the same thought? MR. SEGULJIC-No. I had the same thought, but I'm not, that's not my bailiwick. MR. SIPP-If you turned it 90 degrees and had the parking, for your back end would face the side boundary. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, the back of the building, per se, would face the side. MR. SIPP-Yes, the back of the church would face the side boundary, and your parking could be somewhat in front, or more in front than it would be if you turned the whole thing, or if you brought it upfront. PASTOR LANGFORD-We considered that, but with the way the property's laid out, there's actually another property owner to the east of the property, and so it kind of limits how much space there is available there to put the building, as well as parking in front. Especially if we ever wanted to, you know, expand out the worship area, as we had growth, if we wanted to expand that back, we would be up against the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I asked the question, and in looking at the map, I mean, the problem is we have an automobile dominant society, and if you start to play around with the entrance, you know, you start to mess around with the ingress and egress and, you know, pedestrian access, and you start to create conflicts between cars and people and, you know, I wanted to ask the question, you know, to see if it had been considered. MR. HUTCHINS-And obviously this site doesn't lay out well for side parking, because, I mean, if you rotate your building, your front door's facing the side. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and then it destroys the whole purpose of having the front of the building closer to the road. MR. HUTCHINS-So, yes, we did consider it, but it's really the preference to keep it. MRS. STEFFAN-Plus, didn't you want to have activity fields or something in the back, so that, you know, play areas or something? PASTOR LANGFORD-Yes, it just seems to lay out better that way, especially for the reasons we've mentioned, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Can we consider, then, you know, because my only concern is you have that beautiful church, and as you're driving by, you're going to see this big sea of parking, asphalt. Any way we can enhance the landscaping, then, along the road to try and minimize that view there? You've got a pretty good landscaping there. My problem is I never know what it really looks like. Could you try and make it so you could minimize any visual? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. DEL SIGNORE-Our only concern with that, that I can think of, would be that we don't want the landscaping to interfere with the sight line to the sign, the signage that we're intending to put in the median going, but beyond that, I think. MR. SEGULJIC-They already have some, what do you have in there? You have some pin oaks and some pines of some type. Maybe some lower shrub type things. PASTOR LANGFORD-We'll definitely want to do everything we can to make it look nice and aesthetic, obviously, you know, for our church facility. MR. SEGULJIC-What do I know about landscaping? I like trees. MR. SIPP-Rhododendron, something, four, five foot high, can be pruned. The trouble is, you've got to have an acid soil, which you don't have there, but you could make it acid. PASTOR LANGFORD-You've got some trees out front there, right, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we do. We've shown, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-So maybe some type of shrubbery in there, some rhododendrons or whatever mixed in there. MR. SIPP-Low growing yews or cedars. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I'm all set, other than the comment letter. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there are no takers, any public comments, written comments? MR. OBORNE-Well, let me check. Nothing, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. Well, before we move on to SEQRA, what's the feeling of the Board? There are fairly extensive Staff and engineering comments. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We'd need a signoff by the Fire Marshal, by VISION Engineering. There's Staff comments. Not all of them need to be satisfied at this point, but most of them do. There are no sign details submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sign details yet? PASTOR LANGFORD-We have just something very simple here, but we can at least show you an idea. We basically intend to transport the sign that we have out in front of our building currently. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEL SIGNORE-But we're not asking you to look out the window. MR. HUNSINGER-I drive by it every day. In fact, it looks a lot like the new Town sign that's right here on Bay. MR. TRAVER-And it's not going to be at 185 feet. MR. OBORNE-You would unhook this sign and put it right in your island? PASTOR LANGFORD-That's our intention. (lost words). 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-It's a perfectly good sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I can keep this? PASTOR LANGFORD-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Are people comfortable moving forward, or do we need to see it again? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess it's just that there's a lot of little issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. MR. SEGULJIC-There's a lot of little minor things and as much as I'd like to move it forward, I think you're going to have to come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But it should be pretty quick, I hope. MRS. STEFFAN-So what do we do, do we wait on SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if they're going to come back. How does everyone else feel? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. What was the question? MR. HUNSINGER-I asked if members were comfortable moving forward, or if we want to see them come back. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, again, the awkward part is some of the Staff comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I guess I don't feel strongly either way. I guess I'd kind of defer to the majority. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess, from my point of view, I would just like to have all the details wrapped up, so when they came back, if everything was in order, it would be a very quick approval. MR. TRAVER-Very quick. MR. OBORNE-If I may add, you'd have enough information to make a SEQRA determination also, especially with the test pit information that needs to be supplied. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good point. MR. OBORNE-So you just want to cover yourself. MR. SIPP-I'm going to need the test pit information, just for our information, make sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the weren't witnessed, and they weren't done in the appropriate time window. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and I did call the Town Engineer two days before I did them and I didn't get a return call, but, no, they were not witnessed. You're correct, but the window is coming up. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, very quickly. MR. FORD-I hope. MR. HUTCHINS-I do have the test pit log. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you submit new information yesterday? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Darn. Yesterday was the deadline for April. MR. HUTCHINS-I did request, after we submitted in January, if the review could be moved up a week, but it didn't happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We couldn't. There were too many. In fact, we even had three meetings in March. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I was thinking about the engineering review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-But that couldn't happen. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Well, it looks like we're going to have to bring you back in May. The first meeting in May. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Just so you're aware, the contracts on the two parcels, every month that passes on one of the two parcels, is costing the church money, and additional, basically, I believe it's worded as being additional payments for the holding of the property. It's not being attributed towards their purchase price. One contract we do have a one 60 day window that we're allowed to extend, in our discretion. So that would get us, in theory on one of the parcels, I believe into June. On the second parcel, that's the one that they're charging us money to hold it, I don't know what other offers they have, but nevertheless, I've gotten my (lost words) in against those people. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It doesn't appear that we're moving toward a denial. MR. DEL SIGNORE-No, I don't think so, either. I mean, I think that, I mean, I'm hopeful that maybe June would be a workable closing date on the properties, but it is going to cost the church a few thousand dollars. PASTOR LANGFORD-But we'll do whatever you guys. MR. DEL SIGNORE-But we want the Board to be comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to table it until April, would you still incur that cost? If we were to try to bring you in in April? MR. DEL SIGNORE-Every month that passes costs the church another two thousand dollars. PASTOR LANGFORD-But obviously that would be helpful. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Starting back in November. They held our feet to the fire pretty good. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, once these parcels are acquired, do they have to be joined? I mean, they're two separate parcels. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely they need to be combined, yes. MR. DEL SIGNORE-But that's before we can do any construction or anything like that. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. DEL SIGNORE-But we have to purchase the two parcels individually, and then we'll file the appropriate paperwork with the County. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Certainly not as a condition of approval for, you would want that, I'm sorry, let me re-state that, you would want that as a condition of approval, that by a certain date prior to a CO being issued that this needs to be combined. MR. HUNSINGER-How quickly can you address the Staff comments and engineering comments? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Relatively quickly, a week to ten days, a couple of weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not like Friday. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, if I can submit them on Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what we're wrestling with. I mean, it's a long list. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I can't submit them by Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. I think we need to table it until May. MRS. STEFFAN-Friday the 27t", were you saying? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was thinking as in this Friday. MRS. STEFFAN-As in the 20tH MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I could do Friday the 27tH MR. HUNSINGER-I know. He's going to kill me. I think we need to be safe and table it until May. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2009 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the May 19t" Planning Board meeting. That will mean a submission deadline for the applicant of April 15t". This is tabled so that the applicant can address and satisfy VISION Engineering comments, Fire Marshal's comments and the Staff comments. Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I have one additional request. I like the color scheme that you submitted, but the printout, the colors were strange, you know, the were kind of reddish and it was supposed to be tan. Is there any way you could bring like small samples to the meeting so we could see the actual color? MR. DEL SIGNORE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be great. PASTOR LANGFORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2009 SEAR TYPE II NEWMEADOW SARATOGA SCHOOL AGENT(S) DAWN WHEELER OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY MASONIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY ZONING UR-10 LOCATION 15 BURKE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NOT FOR PROFIT PRE-SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. SCHOOLS IN A UR ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 91-861 CO ONLY BP 89-118 NEW BLDG WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER LOT SIZE 4.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-1 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-010 DAWN WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 11-2009, Newmeadows Saratoga School. Requested action is Site Plan Review for a new pre-school in the Urban Residential zone. Location is 15 Burke Drive. Existing zoning is UR-10. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. SEQRA determination required, and let me check that SEQRA status, because I believe we have it down as a II on the agenda, and I will have to get back to you on that. Project Description. The applicant proposes a not for profit pre-school for children with special needs. This school will be situated in the lower portion of the Masonic Lodge located north of Northway Exit 19. Staff comments. The applicant plans to reconfigure a portion of the open area in the lower portion of the Lodge by erecting two walls in the activity area to create two classrooms for approximately 36 children ages three to five years old. Classroom One will be located in the eastern portion of the lower area and Classroom 2 will be located in the center area. Two walls will be erected to separate the two classrooms and an office area located to the west of classroom two (Note: The floor plans as drawn have south on top, north on bottom, east to the left and west to the right). In other words, you need to flip it upside down to have correct northern orientation. Both classrooms will have 18 children in each and include instructors and volunteers. Each class is broken down into groups of 12 disabled preschoolers and 6non-disabled preschoolers. The disabled preschoolers have transportation provided by the county and the non-disabled preschoolers will have individual transportation. The class hours are from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday. Quickly wrapping up. Twelve parking spaces are request and six are required per §179-4-040 for this preschool. The Masonic Lodge requires 16 spaces based on the 80 seat assembly area. A total of 27 spaces are denoted on plot plan with additional space provided for parking not yet denoted on plan. (Note: The term Lodge is ambiguous in the parking table and the Planning Board, per §179-4-040C, can assign a parking requirement. A reasonable use that is listed might be Places of Worship with the associated 1 space per 5 seating spaces in the main assembly area. With a seating capacity of 80 denoted on original Masonic Temple plans dated March 17, 1987, the result would be 16 spaces required for the Temple portion of this plan). The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater, grading and landscaping requirements, and what follows is Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MICHAEL WASHOWSKI MR. WASHOWSKI-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize for the late hour. MR. WASHOWSKI-That's okay. Thank you. Thank you for having us and we appreciate the opportunity to come before the Board. My name is Michael Washowski. I'm the Executive Director at Newmeadow School. We're located in Malta, New York. To my left is Dawn Wheeler. She is our Director of Operations, and to my right is AI Bryant who works with the Masonic Lodge and he's on the Board there. We appreciate the opportunity, once again, to come before you and I think the description that was read to you is, pretty much summarizes what we want to do. We're interested in renting the space from the Historic Society Masonic Lodge in order to conduct apre-school program for children primarily with autism, and it really represents an extension of our services up to the Queensbury area. At this point, as I said, we're located in Malta and we have, I think it's like 15 children who come from the Washington/Warren County area, and we've been approached by the early intervention folks in the Counties to consider moving our program north so that the children don't have to travel as far, and that really was the motivation for doing this, and I think at this point we have eight, nine students that are on awaiting list who would be ready to participate in the program once we've got everything in order. So I'd like to turn it over, if I can, to Dawn, who's been involved with the logistics of everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. WHEELER-Good evening. Thank you. Michael covered just about everything. Down in our Malta site we have 152 children right now, and as Michael said, a group of them does come from the Warren/Washington County area. So what we're hoping to do is move those children closer to home, and provide the same services that we provide down at the school in Malta. Our signature program is called Bridges. It's a program for children with autism, and that seems to be the program that parents are interested in and why they're willing to send their children, at this time, to Malta. So we're hoping to bring those services closer to home, and we've had quite an interest already from the school districts in the area, Glens Falls, Queensbury, Fort Ann, Argyle, Hadley Luzerne. So we're sure that it will be something that the community is happy with. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. WASHOWSKI-I think AI would like to say something. I'm sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. I thought you were finished. My fault. AL BRYANT MR. BRYANT-Actually, I'm AI Bryant. I'm the Secretary/Treasurer of the Board of Trustees of the Queensbury Masonic Historical Society. They actually own the building, and I just wanted to give you a little bit of background about that building. I'm sure most of you have already visited the site, but just to paint a picture. To the north, you've got the Methodist Church, which, besides being a church, also has a daycare center, and right next to that is the Catholic church, and you know they do the religious training and stuff like that there. So we're kind of like in the neighborhood, and then of course across the street, Aviation Road, is the school complex. The building at 15 Burke Drive was erected in 1990 by the Masonic Hall Association of Glens Falls, Incorporated, a Not For Profit corporation formed in 1897. The purpose of the facility was originally to house four Masonic Fraternal Organization. As membership in these organizations declined, it became evident that more than 50% of the facility was either underused or not used at all. In 1991, the lower level of the facility was occupied by Adirondack Pre-school, which was also licensed by New York State Department of Ed. The school was primarily dedicated to children with special needs. I think they specialized in children with Cerebral Palsy, and they operated successfully for almost seven years. When the State regulations changed and this function was handled by BOCES, this school vacated the premises. Since that time, the lower level has been used by Prospect Child and Family Center, and a number of churches, while they were working on their building, and it's kind of strange because this church, the New Hope Church, actually started in our building, and Northway Christian, John Tether on Homer, who came before you, six or eight months ago, he started in that building, and the Unitarian Church also used that building. Early on, the Masonic Hall Association recognized the need to open the building up to the community. Many Not For Profit government institutions, Not For Profit and government institutions, have used the facility without fee and most continued to this day. These institutions include Warren County, WICK Program, Alcoholics Anonymous, the Warren County Historical Society, the American Red Cross, the Shriners Hospitals, Boy Scouts and the Cub Scouts. In 2005, the Queensbury Masonic Historical Society, an institution chartered by the New York State Department of Education, and recognized by the Museum Association of New York, acquired the building. The Society is committed to preserving local history and serving as a research resource for genealogy and local historical topics. The facility is open to the public. From its inception, the Queensbury Masonic Center has been used for educational purposes, as well as to serve the community. Newmeadow would be a welcome addition to the long list of community and educational organizations that have graced this institution. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Now I'll ask if there's any questions, comments from the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, AI's presentation cleared up a couple of things. I was wondering about the relationship. Obviously Newmeadow handles autistic children, but the Prospect Center handles children with other disabilities, but they were using the site. So that's kind of interesting. Okay. MR. BRYANT-They actually, Prospect used the site when they were building their addition, and they needed to use it for about 18 months. It was mostly for the teachers that went out into the field. It wasn't necessarily for, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-The students. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one clarification. So it sounds like, theoretically, half the kids would be getting dropped off by a bus, and the other half would come in a car. So traffic would be pretty minimal, I assume. MS. WHEELER-It is. Transportation is provided by the County the child lives in for the children with special needs. So Warren County and Washington County would choose a transporter. Right now it's Stansky Corporation. You've probably seen their little yellow buses around, or mini vans is usually what they use. So there's usually three or four children on a bus. The children who would be the nursery school children, those 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) typically developing children, the ones without special needs, would be dropped off by their parents, as they would any nursery school. MR. HUNSINGER-And that was my question, was on the size of the buses. Because I don't know if it's a driveway or the road into the facility itself, it's not very wide. MS. WHEELER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not the full size school buses. MS. WHEELER-No. Usually the little 15 passenger buses, it looks like a van, a regular van. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. WHEELER-And what they would do is come in that main road where that car is now and just come around that large parking area and drop off at the side which, where our entrance would be, and go right back out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Could someone please address the Not For Profit status of this school? MS. WHEELER-We are a Not For Profit corporation, 501C-3, we have a Board of Directors. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Once you begin service delivery to this population in the North Country, do you expect that you will outgrow this facility in a relatively short few years? I mean, that would be my expectation. You are bringing your service to a large, unmet need, I suspect, and I'm just wondering, I guess it doesn't really have to do with this application, but I'm just wondering, sort of strategically planning, are you thinking in terms of how you might manage that increase in your case load? MR. WASHOWSKI-It's a good question. It's a hard one to answer, because it's hard to have a crystal ball to see what's going on, but in the field of Special Education, autism is being a type of disability that seems to be, you know, more prominent than before. So a lot more kids are. MR. TRAVER-Well, being diagnosed more. MR. WASHOWSKI-Being diagnosed more. MR. FORD-Yes, right. MR. WASHOWSKI-And, you know, if that translates into us outgrowing that facility, you know, it's hard to say. I wouldn't know how to really answer that, but I think the one way to look at is that autism is a prominent feature in the field of disabilities today. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MR. WASHOWSKI-And other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board? Okay. We do have a couple, at least one person that wants to speak. If you could just identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE FARONE MR. FARONE-Good evening, George Farone, 4 Sugar Pine. I am here as the trustee for Our Lady of Annunciation Church. Reviewed the records the other day. The Masons, and we look forward to the new folks as neighbors. The only concern we had was with possibly traffic problems. I think someone already brought it up there. This is an area where you have two churches, and you have a school across the road. It seems to be very busy around period of eight o'clock, nine o'clock, and with the additional traffic of, you know, another 12 children being dropped off, I don't know how many buses from the County, and you do have an interconnection between OLA's parking lot and the driveway 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) in the back with the Masonic Hall and also the Methodist Church. So our concern was people possibly trying to cut through parking lots and different things causing additional traffic in that area, and OLA also has school programming in the morning. Queensbury's been eliminating the afternoons for the children. So more and more of the classes are in the morning. It sounds like the last two classes in the Middle School, for the fourth and fifth graders, is being pushed to the mornings as well. So there's a lot of activity in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Sir, did you want to comment, too? Okay. Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any thoughts on the traffic issue? MR. WASHOWSKI-Well, you know, the one thing that we've already covered is that we are not bringing big buses in. So I don't know if that would have an impact on things. At this juncture, our population would be rather limited. So at least for the immediate future there would be, I wouldn't think there'd be any impact, and, you know, if there is, we'd be happy to try to work with our neighbors to figure out how to address it. MRS. STEFFAN-What's the start time for your school? MR. WASHOWSKI-Our kids arrive about 10 minutes of nine, start arriving around 10 minutes of nine. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, that's much later than, I think. MR. WASHOWSKI-We run a nine to one program. MR. SIPP-Queensbury School would already be started. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the big traffic problem in front of the Queensbury School is around 7:15. MR. SIPP-They would be started by that, the bus runs would be over by that time. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-The last bus runs at 8:15, and the afternoon one doesn't start until two, two something. So that it's a mess up there anyway. MR. BRYANT-Can I respond a little bit about the parking? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sure. MR. BRYANT-Before the building was built, we came before this Board and it was suggested in that meeting in 1988 that this structure connecting the two churches with our method of egress onto Burke Drive was all part of the approved plan. As far as the Church of the Annunciation goes, there is a do not enter sign just where that jog goes to the left there. Unfortunately you don't see the sign. This is not a spy satellite, but. MR. HUNSINGER-I did see it when I went out to visit the site. MR. BRYANT-Yes. Mostly traffic doesn't go that way. Sometimes it goes through the Methodist Church, if they're going onto Aviation Road, but the original purpose of that whole structure was so that the churches, as well as our parking lot, could dump onto Burke Drive, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that makes sense, because we've asked for interconnects. MR. HUNSINGER-So it was always intended to be sort of a one way MR. BRYANT-Yes. Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but that wouldn't prohibit people from using the church parking lots as a cut through to avoid Burke Drive. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. BRYANT-No, it probably wouldn't. The way the parking lots are designed, I mean, the Church is on Sunday. We never have activities on Sunday, in our building, and the Churches, generally they overflow into our parking lot anyway, and sometimes when we have a large presentation or some kind of activity, we flow into their parking lot. So, I mean, that's just the nature of the beast. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. BRYANT-We're all neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm comfortable with it. MR. KREBS-Yes, me, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, is it a Type II or is it Unlisted? MR. OBORNE-I'm looking and I'm seeing it's a Type II. If you can give me one second to corroborate that, please. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-I, personally, am glad to see this being offered closer to home for those needy children. MR. WASHOWSKI-Thank you. MR. FORD-And it is a good facility because, when I used to be the Director of Special Programs for the Glens Falls City School District, I used to visit that site many times and see our kids in there. MR. WASHOWSKI-Great. MR. SIPP-Would these all be autistic? MS. WHEELER-No. Down at our Malta site about 50% of the children with special needs are children diagnosed within the autism spectrum. MR. SIPP-What other? MS. WHEELER-The other children? MR. SIPP-Yes. MS. WHEELER-Speech and language delays, motor needs. We don't service the more severely. MR. WASHOWSKI-Like physically disabled. MS. WHEELER-Yes. We don't have children in wheelchairs or special equipment, that kind of thing. MR. SIPP-I was just reading an article in the times today about autism and the areas where it seems to be more prevalent, definite areas, certain parts, certain States, certain places within the State, and certain ethnic groups. MR. WASHOWSKI-Was this in the New York Times? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. WASHOWSKI-I'll have to get it. There's a lot of activity around autism in terms of research and application of theory and everything. MR. SIPP-There's also a lot of misdiagnoses according to the Times. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. WASHOWSKI-Well, that's the nature of the beast when you're talking about Special Ed. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to follow up on the traffic issue. I think, knowing that you're willing to work with your neighbors, if and when there's an issue that comes up, I think, you know, is helpful. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly based on your numbers, and the kind of transportation that's coming, and your hours of operation, I think that there won't be a dramatic impact at all to your neighbors. MR. FORD-Reinforcing, your numbers, again, will be? MR. WASHOWSKI-Maximum would be 36 students at this point, you know, if we filled up to that level. We have like eight on the waiting list now. MS. WHEELER-We're only looking, at this facility right now, we've only asked State Ed. for approval for two classrooms. MR. FORD-Two classes, and how many in each? MS. WHEELER-Eighteen. There'll be 12 children with special needs and six nursery school children, in each classroom. MR. WASHOWSKI-We have certified Special Ed. and nursery school teachers, along with a number of aides. MR. FORD-How many teacher assistants? MR. WASHOWSKI-It depends upon the needs of the kids. Some have one to one aides. Others are, you know, we have at least one full time teacher assistant and part time assistants as well, plus the one to one aides. So we have a lot of coverage. MS. WHEELER-In each classroom typically there are four staff, the Special Ed. teacher, the nursery school teacher, and two teachers. MR. SIPP-Are these State funded? MS. WHEELER-The funding comes, is shared. It's shared by the New York State Education Department and the County the child lives in. MR. SIPP-The County. BOCES funds? MR. WASHOWSKI-No. MR. FORD-No, it's the County. MR. WASHOWSKI-Actually, we've gotten letters of support from the BOCES in the area to continue such a program because it's not necessarily available at this point in the public schools. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Everyone comfortable moving forward? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2009 NEWMEADOW SARATOGA SCHOOL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a not for profit pre-school for children with special needs. Schools in a UR zone require Site Plan Review and approval; and 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/17/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2009 NEWMEADOW SARATOGA SCHOOL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. a) 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 b) This is Type II action, no further review is required. c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. d) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e) NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) The Planning Board will grant waivers for stormwater, grading and landscaping requirements. h) As a condition of approval, they would need to add one space to be compliant. Duly adopted this 17t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-And are we okay on parking? They have 16 spaces which seems adequate. Correct? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You can't approve parking below, only above. So, what, all they need to do, and all I'm looking for, just to make it clean, is to add one more space to their plan, and they could probably add 60. So, just to make it clean, if you could add as a condition of approval, that they add the one space per the Staff Notes. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. WASHOWSKI-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else to come before the Board? I see there's the handout this evening on the training at the end of the month. Just remind everyone that you do have to get in four hours of training during the course of the year, and this would knock out three. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a quick comment, Mr. Chairman. I guess one of my concerns is it seems as if the applicant and the engineer are communicating a lot more. Because I always thought the communication was to go through Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was a little surprised by that, too. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is that we don't have representation when they're speaking, and there was one application in particular that came in and said I clarified it with the engineer, but we don't have the engineer to clarify it, and we lose, so I guess what can we do about that? Send them a letter just admonishing them when it occurs? MR. OBORNE-Well, typically Dan doesn't respond. If they're in the same office, because they are in the same area, you know, it's difficult to not mention things. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Any time that the applicant says that we have talked to the engineer, disregard it. That would be my. MR. SEGULJIC-But my problem is that then it leads to us getting a letter that says everything's been taken care of when he's only, you know, we haven't had any. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I'll certainly bring it up to Craig's attention and to Pam's attention, Pam Whiting's attention that, you know, we need to do something about that, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I appreciate that. MR. OBORNE-I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-I assume the Board understands the concern and agrees. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. FORD-Absolutely. I agree with it. MR. HUNSINGER-We've talked about that ad nauseum. MR. OBORNE-And one other issue, and I know I'm adding and I know we want to get out of here, is that the applicant's receive my Staff Notes on the Friday before the meeting and engineering Staff Notes on the Friday before the meeting, and that really does not give them a lot of time to digest it, and being here only a year now, it seems that that would be one thing that probably should be changed. How you would go about it, I don't know. What's the thought of the Board on that. MRS. STEFFAN-It changes the whole queue. You have to change the whole schedule. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and we've talked about that before, and we've even sent letters and resolutions to the engineer to ask if he could get them done sooner. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the point's well taken. MR. OBORNE-Right. It really handcuff's the applicant, I think. MR. SEGULJIC-But on the other hand, aren't those comments for us to digest and get back to the applicant and say you have to address all these, or you only have to address three of these four. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. OBORNE-That's true. Absolutely. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and it's kind of like, you know, the public hearing. Again this evening you hear, you know, a commentor asking the applicant for information, that the purpose of the public hearing is for the public to give us information, not for the public to come and get educated. MR. TRAVER-And that's in the directions that we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Which is why I pointed out, you know, I mean, I don't remember to do it all the time, but I do try to remember to point it out at least once during the course of the meeting, so that they know, look, you're here for our sake, you know, not the other way around. MRS. STEFFAN-Should we start to look at having the engineer present on some, you know, at agenda control, you know, when we look at an issue, obviously, Chris, you look at whether we need counsel, but maybe we need to start looking at, do we have engineers present. I mean, they used to be present every meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-At every meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-And of course that cost us money, but like these lake projects, when we get into the 147 Code, you know, we're out of our element. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree. With some applications it would be helpful and I think it would help reduce the backlog, because then the engineer's right there and we can ask point blank, this is exactly what we're looking for, because right now it's just. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Well, we had a good case in point earlier tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That Lake George project with all the setbacks, and the infiltration close to the lake. MR. FORD-We ought to have him here when we have them back. MRS. STEFFAN-For Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess, Mr. Chairman, how would we handle it? Would we make a recommendation to (lost words) and say I think we need the engineer on this application and you can make that decision? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, part of the problem is, I think, you know, we need to give him adequate notice that we need him here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Once we get the agendas, right? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think that one is a pretty clear that that would be helpful. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let's give some thought to, you know, how, what would we look for, what would be the key elements that we would want to look at? With the legal stuff it's kind of clear, usually. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. The thing I was going to say, when we get the engineering responses, the comment letter, but that's too late or. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it may be, it may not be. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, tonight the Sketch that wasn't signed, when we had the guy from VISION Engineering, Mike from VISION Engineering. I mean, he was definitively assertive. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-And so in that situation, because there's a wetland involved, I think that we should have, for example I guess Paragon Engineering is our consultant on that job, it would be helpful to have them here, because we're dealing with a wetland. We're dealing with subdivision regulations in addition to, you know, wetlands, Army Corp Wetlands. There's a lot going on. MR. OBORNE-As far as the Sub Regs, you guys can handle that. MRS. STEFFAN-They're straightforward. When you get into the wetland issues and grade issues, and they start to come together. MR. TRAVER-But at what degree, having engineer and, my only concern is having, being careful about when we have, what applications the engineer is present for, because I can see where at some point it's more beneficial to the applicant than it is to us, and, you know, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but, I mean, if it gets to the point where it's primarily a benefit to the applicant, you know, then we're spending money that we need to be thinking about. So maybe as part of the establishment of the agenda, you know, it could become, evaluating the engineering concerns associated with a given applicant, might lead to a recommendation that could be reviewed maybe by somebody. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I just think some of these projects that we're spending two hours on, the reason we're spending two hours on them is because of the complexity of the plan. So, in those situations, I think that we would be supported by having professional help. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. FORD-And up and down the line wE information, and if that engineer had been have been able to clarify a lot of that issue. continue to report we don't have sufficient sitting here earlier tonight, I think we would MRS. STEFFAN-I think that we could have been out of here an hour ago if we had more. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. KREBS-I often have thought, too, that if we could get Staff comments and engineering comments to the applicant a week or so before they come to the Board, that they would have answers to a lot of those questions, and we would be able to process this much faster than we do today. Oftentimes they need to go off, like Tom said, I can't do that by next Friday, but if we gave them adequate time, we would spend less time sitting here and they would spend less time, and it would take less trips to the Board, which would ease up our schedule, because we'd get that information to them, so that they could look at it before they came to the meeting. MR. OBORNE-Well, if you take my notes and you put them next to Dan's notes and Mike's because writing a lot of these notes, too, Mike Farrell is, and if you find something that's engineering related and I'm also hitting on it, ask me and we could just eliminate that, that aspect of it. That two foot to bedrock is, like you said, it's two foot to bedrock. It's an impervious surface. It's intrinsic. Yes, it doesn't say it in the Major stormwater guidelines, but, come on, I mean, you're an engineer. Give me a break, and I've had discussions with Craig. Everything that I write down is vetted in our Department. Are we engineers? No, we're not. My background is stormwater. So I do have that down, and soils. As far as the engineering for water quality and doing these subcatchment basins, no. Those calculations are easy, but I don't do that, but when it comes to 147, you all have a pretty good handle on it, I feel, but that would be my suggestion. If you see engineering comments and you see my comments and they're similar, definitely ask me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-At least maybe that'll speed it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, after Site Plan Review or whatever, we might decide we need the engineer at the next meeting, and that's the easy answer, I guess. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I'll motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 17`n day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 64