Loading...
2009.05.19 ,:, ,.. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 7-2009 Greg Canale Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11 NPA, II Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 48-2008 Subdivision No. 6-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE Kelaco, LLC Tax Map No. 301.17-3-45 Site Plan No. 10-2009 New Hope Community Church Tax Map No. 308.15-1-37, 38 Subdivision No. 3-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE Ronald & Linda Ball . Tax Map No. 295.10..1-31.1 Aftab Bhatti Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12, 52.13 Site Plan No. 12-2004 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 14-2009 Debaron Associates Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 PUD Site Plan No. 20-2009 PRELIMINARY PLAN Freshwater Wetlands 3-2009 The Michaels Group Tax Map No. 289.20-1-8 1. 2. 3. 20. 25. 36. 44. 62. 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. o (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD THOMAS SEGULJIC LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, May 19, 2009. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from March 3, March 17, and March 24, 2009. Would anyone like to advance that resolution? APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 3, 2009 March 17, 2009 March 24, 2009 . MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 3. MARCH 17. AND MARCH 24. 2009, Introduced by Donald Sippwho moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-There's a couple of Administrative Items under Item Two. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 7-2009: GREG CANALE FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is Site Plan 7-2009, Greg Canale, for further tabling consideration. Did they submit any materials? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They're ready to go for their Site Plan. Right now they need to go through their Area Variances. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a sample resolution in our package. Would anyone like to advance that? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, 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 to use existing dwelling as a residence and professional office. Professional office in a PO zone requires Site Plan Review and approval. 1 .::1 .I' "\ ;. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/3/09 and the application was tabled to 5/19/09 with the public hearing left open; and 3. The applicant has applied for an area variance and sign variance and has been scheduled for the May Zoning Board cycle, 4. Therefore, Let it be resolved, MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Until such time as the applicant has received variance approval. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 48-2008: NPA, II FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan No. 48-2008 for NPA, II for further tabling consideration, and again there is a sample resolution in our package. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, what's the Area Variance for on that one? MR. OBORNE- The Area Variance is for, it's a dimensional requirement for drive aisle widths. They have reduced their drive aisle widths and they need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to gain approval for that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC- This is Northway Plaza, correct? MRS. STEFFAN-Northway Plaza. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That's so they could get the traffic and cars farther from the eastern boundary. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anybody want to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II. LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. On 3/24/09 this application was tabled to 5/19/09; and 2. The applicant. has submitted for an area variance and is scheduled for review at a May Zoning Board meeting; and 3. Therefore, let it be resolved that 4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II. LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by staff. Until such time as the applicant has received variance approval. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 2 / (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR 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 A 36.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 21 RESIDENTIAL lOTS RANGNG IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 7.0 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-633, SKETCH 9/23/08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA WETLANDS, DOH LOT SIZE 36.2 +/- ACRES SECTION A-183 MATT FULLER & MIKE FARRELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Before we go to Staff Notes, I just want to bring the audience's attention, most of the items that are on the agenda this evening do have a public hearing scheduled. On the back table there is a handout for public hearing procedures. If you intend to come before the Board, I would ask that you take a look at those and when I open the first public hearing, I will go into more detail about some of the requirements. Whenever you're ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Subdivision 6-2008, Preliminary Stage, Kelaco, LLC is the applicant. Requested action is Site Plan Review for the subdivision of land. Location is the corner of West Mountain Road and Sherman Avenue. Existing Zoning is SR-1A. This is a Type I SEQRA.. Just to bring the Board up to speed, you've sought Lead Agency Status on 2/17/09. You've acknowledged Lead Agency Status on 3/17/09. SEQRA review is pending. Parcel History, there's just been one residential alteration, and that's pending. 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 affects portions of three lots, see attached APA jurisdictional determination J2009-133 dated March 23, 2009. Staff comments. 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, 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, and as a result groundwater contamination is a possibility. The plan does not have provisions to modify these soils, although from what I understand there are three separate leaching. facilities proposed. Further disturbed soils in general will need to be lined and have topsoil amendments as part of any landscaping, lawn plan and vegetative erosion control practices. I'd just remind the Board this was previously tabled on 3/17, and a new public hearing will need to be opened tonight, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman,. members of the Planning Board, my name is Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, and I'm with Mike Farrell from VISIONEngineering, and we're here for Ken Collette and Kelaco, LLC. Just getting back to where we were when we last met, the Board had requested some additional information, in addition to putting up the sign, which I personally did. So I can attest, now, for the record, that the sign was present, having placed it there myself. I guess what we'U do is just, we had submitted a letter from April 15th. I'm going to briefly go through that, go through the information that you all had requested last time. Engineering comments have been addressed, APA, things like that. One of the things you asked about at the last meeting was the APA, and in our submission we did include the Non-jur letter from the APA. As you know, the lots that front West Mountain Road are partially within the Adirondack Park, partially outside of the Park, and then the representation that we did make to the APA, and we make here again today, are the two nearest the corner of Sherman and West Mountain, that intersection, that straddle the Park boundary, will be individual single lots and will not be further subdivided. That was part of what we had indicated to the APA, and that stands with this application. The Board also inquired as to existing potential habitat for the Karner blue butterfly. We did retain Deb Roberts who did go out and, just as of late, that discussion with DEC was ongoing. There was a follow up letter, and I did get a report back late yesterday from Deb. She sent the study that she did down to Jed Hayden. at DEC, and her report to me is Jed asked me to send this on to him and he will provide a letter of concurrence that the pitch pine, scrub oak barrens community is not present on the site. That, again, addresses the endangered species that the Board had asked. So we have followed through on that. We got you the signature page on the Environmental Assessment Form. VISION Engineering, I think, check by check, addressed the engineering comments that Paragon had asked, had raised last time, and our understanding, the report back to Staff is that there's no further 3 ~' ... (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19109) comments from Paragon, that we've addressed them, and if I'm incorrect, perhaps Keith can correct me, that the recommendation is for Preliminary approval at this time, and obviously we would support that recommendation. A couple of engineering comments were easement notes, and I, as I said in my letter, kind of took those up to be more legal matters. One being the comment. to Sheet C-5, comment number nine, a drainage .easement should be included through Lot 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21 for any flow from the overflow pipe discharge into Clendon Brook, and my response was obviously we can discuss this with the Board, but I didn't really see the need for a further drainage easement. The pipe is an overflow pipe. As we indicated the primary storage is up the street, so to speak, within the development. The ultimate discharge is into a well established wetland. That was done intentionally. Both to continue to supply water to that wetland and also, you know, to act as a backup to this system that VISION has designed. So that there's not any disturbance needs or really any ongoing disturbance maintenance requirements within the wetland. The wetland can't be disturbed. We're not going to disturb it. So, to have an easement within a wetland that you can't disturb, again, we could talk about it, but I just didn't see it to be a necessity. That can't be disturbed and won't be disturbed, and given this is the outflow to those, I think that that is the protection, really, that we need. Again, we can talk about that. The second was Paragon Engineering comment, Page Two, again, Sheet C-5, comment number 10. Their comment was we suggest that an environmental easement and/or protective covenant for Lots 11 through 21 be established for the steep slopes, wetlands and Clendon Brook. Again, you know, a similar comment to the last, I didn't see that degree of an easement necessary. Wecan talk about that, but, Number One, the steep slopes, the proximity to the wetlands, and the wetlands themselves, none of whiCh can legally be disturbed. So the belt and suspender, or something in addition to that, I didn't, again, think was necessary. You can't, the law prohibits you from disturbing those areas. To have the extra on, I guess in my thought, was unnecessarily duplicative, and then finally in my letter I talk about the signs. So we took care of that. I wanted to briefly talk about sorTIe of the arterial road discussion that came up last time. I think the plan that we've submitted meets what this Planning Board certainly has done for the arterial roads, the dual driveways, the lot frontage. We've accomplished both. I think. one is required. We've accomplished both of them, and if you have any specific questions for me, I'll deal with them now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, there's a, in the Staff Notes, in addition to some public comment that we received, there's a question about the sight distance, and I raised this the last time that you were here, with regards to the driveway, particularly on Lot 21. I know I have traveled on West Mountain Road quite a bit, and found that the, I'm not actual sure what the. actual speed limit is, but it'sbeen a matter of my, common my experience, that cars tend to travel rather quickly and that particular lot, with the terrain there, the reaction time that both the driver on the highway and a person exiting, again particularly Lot 21, is a concern. So, you know, Staff noticed this as well. Do you have sight distance calculations? MR. FARRELL-The speed limit on West Mountain Road is 45 through that section. MR. TRA VER-45? MR. FARRELL-45. The sight distance that the driveway will have will be approximately 200 feet greater than what is at the existing Glen Court sight distance. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, further than? MR. FARRELL-Further than, it's 200, the intersection for the driveWay is 200 feet from Glen Court. MR. TRAVER-Glen Court. MR. FARRELL-So the additionalsight distance that that one will have, based upon Glen Court sight distance, they both are right at the same location, is about 400 to 500 feet. I went out there today and took a look at it, but we don't have survey data that far down West Mountain. That we'll have to attain in our final submission to put sight distances on the plan, but itdoes meet the requirements for stopping sight distance of the travellan~s, in both directions, north and south. That's 400 feet, and that's, when you're traveling down the lane, you see an obstruction in the lane, it takes you 400 feet to stop, and that is adequate for both Glen Court and for the access to the driveway. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. TRAVER-So you're saying that the sight distance from Glen Court would appropriately be added to the sight distance from the driveway on Lot 21? MR. FARRELL-You can pretty much see right through. There's been a section cleared off of, to the south of Glen Court, it looks like to increase sight distance down through that section. We can cut back the embankment for the driveway exiting so that they'll be able to see Glen Court and see the sight line. So the sight line for the driveway would be greater than what is presently therefor Glen Court. MR. TRAVER-So you're saying you can adjust the grading to improve the sight distance? MR. FARRELL-We can adjust the grading along the right of way to, yes, we'll knock the grading down through that section to keep the sight line, down to the south, but the road does meet 400 feet for stopping sight distance for Glen Court and the driveway. MR. TRAVER-At 45 miles an hour? MR. FARRELL-At 45. It's 400 feet for 45 miles an hour is design. MR. TRAVER-What about 55 miles an hour? MR. FARRELL-Well, the 85th percentile, I'd have to check into what that speed is on that road. I do know that people do carry heavier speeds through that section, but 55 is 495 feet of a stopping sight distance. MR. TRAVER-So about 100 feet further. MR. FARRELL-Certainly that section of the road I would think .is a lower speed because of the US" curve that's there. It'~ not a straightaway. Most.of the time you'll see those higher speeds on the straightaway, and then when drivers come into that US" curve they'll slow their speed down somewhat. So the 85th percentile in that particular section of the road should be closer to 45, the speed limit. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it's just, from my point of view, that's the kind of data that we need at Preliminary, if we're going to do SEQRA, and, you know, that kind of information that you're talking a bout, the traffic distance, the speed limits and those kinds of things, that's just an example. One of the things that frustrated me about reviewing this Site Plan is how many responses were, our final submission will include this information on the plans, and it's just, this had an inordinate amount of that kind of commentary and I have to admit, I'm not used to that. I'm used to seeing an applicant come back and provide that information before we get done with Preliminary and before we go to Final. So, you know, the way the Board has been working over the last couple of years is that, when we get all of the Site Plan issues worked out through the Preliminary review, then we get to Final, and it should be pretty much everything the plan needs to be to put an approval on it. So I needed to express my feelings on that. I don't know how the rest of the Board members felt about that particular issue. MR. FORD-It is unusual with the protocol we've experienced. MR. FULLER-Just generally, the Board's preference can be that. I think my experience is, too, that you have a set of conditions, you know, and the Final subdivision approval should be a check off of those things that you listed and want these symbols on, this information on the final plat. I think that's kind of what we expect is these criteria have to be met before you get Final subdivision approval, but, you know, your point's taken. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. One of the things that we're. looking for is that when we get to Final, we'd love to have the plan as complete as it can possibly be, so it's just a matter of an administrative approval when we get to that point, and that's what we've been working towards over the last year and a half or so. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-You've certainly maximized the development on the site, and Ido have some issues on the traffic, and I'm not really sure whether this is too dense, and I know 5 \' (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) it's been designed to meet all the criteria of the Town, but when we start to look at these particular road patterns, and we've had some subdivision approvals that we did right across the street, that were not complied with, and we knoW that folks are traveling at a higher rate of speed than the posted speed limit, which doescause, in my mind, a safety hazard, and so I'm very concerned about the driveways that are specifically, even though one of them is a shared driveway, but I'm very concerned about the shared driveways coming out onto West Mountain Road. MR. SIPP-Has anybody thought about the fact that at the end of Lot 21, the driveway, the snow may be piled five feet high therein the wintertime, and you're saying a 40 inch high leve'., and five feet high snow bank is 60 inches. Are they going to have to edge out into West Mountain Road in order to see better? Have better line of sight? . MR. FULLER-I would just, I guess, anecdotally say from my own experience living up on Ridge, particularly this winter, you have to cut your snow banks down. That really doesn't affect what road you're on. I know, just with my house, I have a very similar slope. So, yes, you would have to cut your snow banks down, but, you know, unless your lot is level and in a development that's not traveled, and I think that happens, at least in my experience, again, anywhere. So as a practical matter, yes, I think you will have to watch after your snow banks, just like, you know, kind of we all do, if you live on Ridge or West Mountain or Sherman or really any of those roads. Some winters I don't . have to, and some winters I do. So, yes, to answer your question point blank, I think if, you know, if the snow banks were high, they'd have to break out a shovel and cut them down. MR. SIPP-Now, I'm also concerned, this is off the driveway, concerned about the need for some soil amendments or such in order to make these septic systems work the way they should. With this soil being so well-drained, I would hate to see the water table become contaminated, because this is goin9 to drain through these soils very quickly, and I think you need more than what I've seen on the plan in order to be sure that we're not going to have some problems like that. MR. FULLER-Such as? MR. SIPP-Such as more gravel, or not gravel, but amendments, whether it be clay soil or such, in order to slow down the percolation rate, which is, in some cases, like 20 seconds, I think. With this number, with 21 lots, I'm just afraid thatthe water table being contaminated. MR. FULLER-Well, I think in that regard, again, just based on experience, that is kind of a running theme, west of 1-87. Perc rates are fast, generally. I think certainly anything west of West Mountain Road, those perc rates have all been fast, in the new construction projects that I've worked on, closings and things. Sandy soils are prevalent over here. That, certainly I'll let Mike speak to the technical aspects of it, but that was the reason that they proposed the alternative, the one alternative that will deal with Lot 21, and then the two alternatives for dealing with the lots out there when they do the lot by lot tests, and that's really kind of the next step of where we would head after Preliminary is, you know, as far as returning a little bit to Gretchen's comment, and yours as well, you know, the next step that we have to get to is thei Department of Health, and we're not going to get to them until the Preliminary phase is done. So a lot of the engineering things that, one of the reasons a lot of those comments are in there is we haven't gotten to that step, and we're not going to get to them until the Preliminary phase is completed, and that's when comments like yours, Don, about soils and things like that, are going to be addressed head on, and on your SEQRA question, too, you know, with major subdivisions and a Preliminary and a Final, that isa .two step question. You're not forever barred on the Preliminary from that second approval. You actually have to, you've got to take a look at that SEQRA determination in your Final. It's generally included in your resolution, but that, there is a nod to that in the SEQRA process, and in both the Town law and Queensbury's Preliminary and Final subdivision process. You've got to re-visit that. So I guess the long way to get back. to the comment of the, that's why we provide the alternatives, is we've got to get out, lotby lot, when the construction starts to identify, even exactly on site, what the different densities, I guess, if you will, of the soil are, and if you have any technical questions on the numbers itself. MR. FARRELL-Predominantly it's Oakville on this side of Town, and, you know, all the subdivisions that are over there are utilizing septic with no, there's no sewer on this side of Town. These soils are actually good for septic fields. Not a lot of failures in that area. Groundwater contamination, I haven't heard of any at all in these areas. On top of, we're on top of the plateau of this property, which is approximately about 30 feet from 6 ~ (Queensbury. Planning Board 05/19/09) groundwater for the upper lots. Lot 21 certainly is, does have, a lower groundwater t~ble down there, and that will have to be addressed. There s a two foot separations requirement by the Department of Health. MR. SIPP-Well, as I remember it, the neighboring lot there, Glen Court, there were houses, I believe, that had water in their basement. We start adding more lots, you push down the water table, as you know, you put weight into a body of water, the water level rises. MR. FULLER-I don't know about the opposite side of a wetland, though. If you were dealing with, I know Moreau just went through ~his. I~ you werE~ dealing with ~roperty in between and on the same side of that, I won t call It the aquifer, but that side of the wetland, I think that would be more prevalent of an issue, but I think your concern may be voiced in another way, bath tubbing. You put things down, and the water comes up, and, again, not a scientist on this, but what my experience is, you don't run into that on the opposite sides of the wetland. It would be different if we were on that same side, but that's my understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project, and again, there is a handout in the back. on public hearing information. Just a couple of specific tips that I wantto point out. The purpose of the public hearing is for people in the neighborhood to present information to the Board. It's not a dialogue between members of the audience and the developer. .So you should address your comments to the Board. If you have a specific question, we will ask the applicant to answer your question when they come back up after the public hearing. I would ask that you, when you come to the table, that you speak your name for the record. We do tape the meeting, and that's so that literal minutes can be transcribed following the meeting. I would also ask that you keep your comments to three minutes, and we do have a timer, and when you hear the bell go off, that will mean that your time is up, and I would ask that you respect that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Who would like to address the Board? Mr. Vollaro. I'll just, for the record, Mr. Vollaro did have a written comments that were distributed to the Board prior to the meeting. BOB VOLLARO MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. I have a little laryngitis, .so you'll have to pardon that. Good evening. For the record, my name is Bob Vollaro at 7 Glen Court,Queensbury. This is a statement before the Planning Board on May 19, 2009. Rather than trying to discuss several important issues with this Board in the few minutes allowed for public comment, the three residents of Glen Court have submitted a comment letter which the Chairman has just discussed. The letter is dated May 7,2009, stamped in by the Town Clerk on that date, and hand delivered to the Planning Staff, again, on that date. This Board mayor may not have seen that letter prior to this meeting. If you have seen it, we assume you've read it. If not, it's due to Staff's position that public comment letters relating to applications before the Planning Board are distributed only on the night of the meeting. Perhaps the rules have changed since I left the Board, however, my recollection is that we resisted accepting related information on the night of the meeting. Things may have changed since then. The letter that has been submitted to the Board is based strictly on safety. There's some technical details. The technical data that was taken is in possession of Staff, in terms of stopwatch data. I have to. take major objections to the engineer when he talks about the sight line. The sight line is more like 290 feet, because when we placed ourselves in the driveway back seven feet from the roadway, with a height distance of 40 inches, with a stopwatch, we looked to the left, traffic coming north, hit the stopwatch, hit it again when they passed us, and we have 20 shots of data, and those 20 shots of data indicate that the average speed of those 20 passes were 4.46 seconds. You don't have to be a traffic engineer to use a stopwatch, a digital stopwatch, and that's the kind of data we collected. The other thing is there's several driveways that are on that road. About 14.10 feet of that road between where Glen Court intersects and where it comes into Upper Sherman, there are .four driveways on the west side of the road plus the Howard driveway on the east side of the road, that are not defined on the drawing. So when you folks look at that, you don't get a perspective for the dynamics of that road at all, at those speeds. The letter stands on its own. I think it references the various sections of the Code that address safety. We're really talking to safety, and I understand there's a dichotomy in the Code, there's a, if you take a look at it, at 179-19-020 A contradicts C, but that should be no reason that we 7 y (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) should ignore the safety of that road, even though there is a little bit of disparity in the . Code itself, and that's our position, and the letter sort of stands on itself with its data. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other takers? You've got some written comments? MR. OBORNE-The aforementioned letter I'd like to read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. MR. OBORNE-Date May 7,2009. To the Town of Queensbury, Subject, Point West subdivision, also known as Kelaco proposal of 21 lots Subdivision No. 6-2008. Note, this paper only addresses the three proposed lots on West Mountain Road. Signed stopwatch data sheet is available on demand, references subdivision of land, Chapter A- 183, Town of Queensbury Zoning Chapter .179, Town of Queensbury, and Preliminary project drawings Point West subdivision dated 01/15/08. "Opening Statement: This paper will address the Safety issues associated with placing additional driveways on an Arterial highway. Specifically this paper is concerned with a particular section of that highway, [West Mountain Road], best described by the intersection of that highway with . Upper Sherman Ave., then south to where it passes the center Glen Court, a distance of Approx.1400 feet. Paragraphs i3nd sections of paragraphs contained in the above references: A183-1.B. It is declared to be.the policyofthe Planning Board to consider land subdivision plats for residential...uses as. part of a plan for the orderly, efficient and economical development of the Town. This means....Land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril...or other menace;.... A 183-23 C. li3yout of streets and roads When a subdivision abuts or contains a regional arterial highway or collector highway, the Planning Board shall require that no new lots shall front or have direct access on such highw9y.... Note: There are no verbal conflicts in A. 183-23; the INTENT is clear! 179-19-020 C. Residential lots abutting collector or arterial roads. A. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury realizes that unrestricted access on to arterial and collector roads can hinder the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Subdivisions, especially smal/ subdivisions, have tended to provide direct access onto these roadways from each single family lot. Lots fronting on local roads rather than arterials or collector roads shall be encouraged, while lots fronting on collector or Arterial roads shall be discouraged. 179-19-020 C. Regulations. This paragraph is in direct conflict with Paragraph A. and with a .183-23 C. It seems obvious, at least to us, that the author's INTENT, in both referenced documents [A 1831179], was for reviewing boards to very carefully consider the potential impacts when adding driveways on an Arterial highway. While there may be a conflict in the code [179-19-020 A. vs C.] we do not think that should obviate the stated requirement, in both A183 &179, for safety. Helatingto a more tangible area, we . refer the reader to the referenced project drawings. Please note that ALL locations & dimensions should be placed on the drawings by the project Engineer. This should provide the town's planning staff and the Planning Board with a better appreciation for the dynamics on 1400 feet of West Mountain Road. There are 4 driveways located on the west side of West Mt. Rd. The address of these driveways, going north from Glen Court's entrance onto the highway are: 443,462/463 [shared], 477 & 489. The location of the driveway for # 470, [the Howard residence], which is on the East side of the highway, should be accurately placed on the drawings along with the 4 driveways on the west side. This will give the reviewer a much better understanding of the highway dynamics along that stretch of highway. Last but not least, the proposed single family residence on lot # 21 has its driveway located 50 feet north of the south western corner of the lot. We estimated a driver's position, waiting to enter the highway, by sitting 7 feet back from the edge.of highway with eye level @ 40"above highway level. Looking south [left] until a vehicle coming north was seen. * With a stop watch; start the watch when you first see the vehicle and stop it when the vehicle passed our position. We did that, for 20 vehicles; obtaining an average stop time of 4.46 sec. meaning the driver has <4 % secOnds before the on-coming vehicle crosses his position. At the same time, when attempting to turn left out of the driveway, the driver must also look to the north [right] to see if traffic is approaching, downhill from that direction. Considering the rapid closing times on this highway, this becomes a chancy maneuver. Turning right is not much better. Considering safety as one Planning Board's prime concerns, as stated in both . controlling Chapters [A 183 &.179], the decision for approval of all 3 new lots fronting on West Mt. Rd. Arterial must be very carefully considered. Lot 21 presents the biggest problem from a safety viewpoint. Given that there are conflicting words in chapter 179- 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) 19-020 should not obviate the need to maintain safe highways in Queensbury. Residing on Glen Court, we can personally attest to the potential hazard of entering on to West Mt. Rd. Vehicles routinely exceed the 45 MPH speed limit which amplifies the problem of safe entry on to this highway from a standing position. Respectfully, Robert Vollaro, 7 Glen Court; Queensbury Raymond Rabl 1 Glen Court; Queensbury Kenneth Potter 3 Glen Court; Queensbury" That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have any comments in response to the letter or the statements? MR. FARRELL-The statements are being, they're from a position of the driveway, and looking to the north and looking to the south. What I had discussed earlier was ASHTO's requirements for stopping sight distance for a 45 mile an hour road. So if there's an obstruction, if the car moves qut into the lane, a driver has enough time. to react, that's traveling on West Mountain Road, because of the limited sight distance for all driveways through this section, and certainly the sight distance that we're talking about to the north and to the south, we've. calculated that on aerial photography, butwe.need tosend the surveyors out there to actually shoot those lines, to determine where the clearing lines are, but the sight distance to the. north and the south from exiting the driveway will be better, will be a better condition than what's presently existing at Glen Court. So I don't ~ believe that there's been any traffic accidents at that particular intersection with the higher volume of houses on that road. This is a residential driveway and ASHTO allows for mitigation measures such as signage, driveway ahead, for limited sight distances, left or right, coming out of the driveway. The big one isthe. stopping sight distance. That's the one that the driver reacts to on West Mountain Road, if somebody pulls out and their car stalls in the road or they're slipping on ice or something like that, that's the stopping sight distance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FARRELL-And that road does meet that ASHTO requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Do I understand that you're going to be measuring those sight distances and providing that data? MR. FARRELL-Yes. We will have a surveyor shoot those sight distances, at each location of each driveway, and that was requested by the engineer, but we believe all of those driveways meet the sight distance requirements and from going on site and looking and measuring from aerial photography the stopping sight distance of the actual roadway is adequate for vehicles to stop. MR. FORD-What is your reaction to the timing that was determined by the stop watch? MR. FARRELL-I'd have to look at how the data was collected and what the data is. That's not normally how sight distance is calculated. Sight distance is calculated by a surveyor taking a transit and setting it up and shooting those sight lines, and then putting them on a plan. MR. FORD-So sight lines mayor may not have any effect on the actuality ofa vehicle traveling on that road at a given speed? . MR. FARRELL-The given speed would be the 85th percentile. That would the, what is normally traveled through the section. Because this is an liS" curve, the 85th percentile would be lower. Usually design parameters are based upon how fast people are driving. If they're driving 75 miles an hour, then you certainly have tolake that into consideration. Because this is an liS". curve through the section and it's also elevated with grade changes corning up to Sherman, those are all factors that are associated with sight distances. So there's a lot of different parameters, the grade of the road, the curves of the road, the horizontal and vertical alignment. So it's not just a timing of a stop watch. There's a few parameters that are addressed. + MR. FORD-Can you elaborate a bit on what you're referring to, as far as the percentile? Percentile of what? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. FARRELL-The 85th percentile is the cars traveling the road through the section. The 85th percentile is the speed that's calculated based upon a sampling number of let's say 100 cars, and 85 percent of those cars were traveling at 45. So there's a study that's done associated with intersection analysis. I've never seen it done for driveway analysis, but, usually it's intersections for roads that you have to calculate based upon the traveling speed of the road, not the posted speed. MR. FORD-And reinforce how you're going to address the information that was shared with .us during the public information section, how that will be addressed successfully? MR. FARRELL-We are going to send the surveyor to shoot the sight distance lines on all of the driveways shown on the. plan on West Mountain Road, and also Sherman, and then put those on a plan, and we've calculated, from the aerials, the stopping sight distance, in accordance with ASHTO requirements and that does, they do meet. MR. FORD-So there's nO indication that you'd be willing to, all of that is paperwork, and then there is no intent to do anything in terms of actual similar measurement to what was done with those 20 some cars? MR. FARRELL-No. The County may have a study for West Mountain Road. We'll certainly look to see if there's a study out there. Accident reports we'll look at for that section of the road. We'll talk to the Sheriff's to determine that, to see if any of these driveways, I mean, certainly there's a lot of driveways out on West Mountain and also Sherman and Luzerne.that have sight distance. that they maintain the adequate stopping sight distance, but they're not maintaining the right or left sight distance from exiting the driveway. So accident reports would give us a better indication of limited sight distance areas that could potentially have.a problem. So we followed the guidelines of ASHTO and New York State DOT in regards to sight lines. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-So if I understand you correctly, you were going to go out and survey the sight distance lines, then? MR. FARRELL-We'll have the surveyor go out, yes. The surveyor didn't shoot the sight lines. MR. SEGULJIC-Why hasn't that been done to date, then? MR. FARRELL-It's been brought up. We've calculated on aerial photos and stopping sight distance for the road. MR. SEGULJIC-But then you said the engineer brought it up. MR. FARRELL-The engineer brought up that he wanted sight lines on the plans, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But you haven't had a chance to address that, then? MR. FULLER-No, we're going to do that with the final plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. On the final plan you'll do that. I mean, it just seems like a valuable piece ofinformation given the concerns. MR. FULLER-And that's, we're going to send the surveyor outto have that, those sight lines shot and then put on the plans to determine the cut limits and where we can change grade down to gain better sight line, but from aerial photography, the 400 feet for stopping of a 45 mile an hour road is met through the section of the road, in both directions. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the dilemma that we're struggling with a little bit, I mean, you've certainly offered to get the information. So now it's kind of back in our court to decide, well, do we want that information before we approve Preliminary, or do we want it before we move forward. MR. SEGULJIC-Because we'd have to do SEQRAfirst before we do Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. Yes, we have to do SEQRA first. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) . MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess if the information is different, if they find information that's different, then we could re-open SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-We could, and we could, you know, talk about mitigation measures and, you know, alternatives. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess my only concern is, knowing that there was a concern about this before, the engineer had brought it up before, I'm surprised we don't have that information now. MR. FULLER-Well, no, they submitted a letter, and from our standpoint, the engineer said, that's acceptable. From your standpoint, this is the first time that this is an issue. When we were here last time this didn't come up. MR.SEGULJIC-Okay. Because I'm just trying to square this SEQRA issue, which is always the issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and, I mean, the other thing is,you know, theTown Engineer on this case said in his e-mail, I feel there is little reason not to preliminarily approve the project, even if it is contingent on meeting the previous comments. So he kind of said, well, it's okay to put it off until after this evening. Which kind of throws it back, again, it throws it back in our lap. What's our comfort level with it? MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I have a problem with the engineer saying that, actually, because the engineer shouldn't say that. That's our decision, not his. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-But in the final. analysis, if you give them Preliminary approval tonight, and they come back and they don't have proper, whatever they've spent in the interim period is their problem. We just won't approve a Final. MR. TRAVER-Well, it is a little unusual. In effect what we'd be doing is approving, in practice what we'll be doing then is approving Preliminary and Final the next time around, because that will finally be the plan that includes all of this data. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we frequently approve a Preliminary plan with . conditions, and so really the debate that we need to think about tonight is, .are these conditions, are the issues,. the outstanding issues, sufficient so that we cannot move forward on Preliminary? And I guess maybe I didn't ask the question in the right way, but, you know, that's really what we need to decide and, I mean, I agree with Tom. The engineer kind of threw it in our lap, you know, by saying that. It's okay with me, you know, but he sort of has to acknowledge that it's up to us. MR. FORD-I have difficulty answering the SEQRA questions with an I don't know. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It seems awkward to deal with SEQRA and then have to potentially do an extra step when we don't have adequate information, you know, to do SEQRA and hold out the idea that we're going to make a second effort and potentially re-open SEQRA, I don't think that's necessarily, wouldn't it be better to wait until we have enough information to conduct the SEQRA analysis without the challenge, the additional challenge, of making a case that we need to re-open it? MR. HUNSINGER-What are the issues that Board members have, other than the sight distance on the West Mountain Road lots and the soil conditions for the septics? Is there anything else that we should get out on the table? I mean, there's a number of Staff comments and engineering comments on other issues, but is there anything in particular that we want to? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my only other comment would be, and my concern is you have a nice lot of treed land there. A lot of trees growing on it. Why go through and cut every single, I mean, the way I interpret it, you're going to cut down just about every tree in that area. Why not leave some of the existing trees on people's lots? Is that possible to do? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. FULLER-Yes. I think the discuss we had last time is that we are going to do that, but we have to show you what the limits, the potential limits are of that cutting area. When they go out to build the lots, they're going to. MR.SEGULJIC-I mean, just clear it for thedriveway~ the house, the septic system. MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-That's not what that. MR. SEGULJIC- That's not what that's showing me, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but the data that was provided,. the information that's in our . package identifies that it'll be a two phase project, and the first phase of clearing will be for the road, and then when that phase is done, then the second phase is actually clearing for the development of each one of the lots, and they were trying to save more trees that way, the initial plan, according to what's in the documents here. MR. FULLER-Right. We just couldn't go through, tree by tree, and say. MRS. STEFFAN-And they are going to try to keep more trees than initially proposed, according to the documents. MR. SEGULJIC-Not that I'm trying to put the landscapers out of business, but. So let's just assume, play this out for me. Let's just assume sight distances do become an issue when you go out there. What would you do to mitigate them? MR. FARRELL-Mitigation, ASHTO allows for signage, for driveway signage. From the aerial photography, the stopping sight distance on the road is adequate. Sight distance to the north and south lTlay meet the 45 mile an hour speed limit, it may not, but signage is allowed as a mitigation measure by ASHTO. Stopping sight distance is the big one that you want to, that one we you need to meet, and that one we believe we meet. MR. SEGULJIC-So based on the speed limit on the road, you go to some chart and it says, you know, this car would stop, and so much distance, I need this much distance . out there. MR. FARRELL-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So if you don't have that distance, then you can mitigate it through the measures you just spoke of. MR. FARRELL-Stopping sight distance is, we would not want to mitigate that one. MR. SEGULJIC- That's critical. MR. FARRELL..That's a critical sight distance. Critical sight distance is traveling down the road, seeing an obstruction, and being able to stop before you hit it. That would be where the driveway is, if a car came out and stalled and was in the lane. Sight distance to the right and left of a car exiting the driveway, because of the low volume of that maneuver, mitigation can be cutting sight lines, cutting grades down, and signage for a driveway (lost words). You've probably seen this on roads where, you know, hidden drive and those type of signage are allowed for mitigation measures, for driveways, not for roadways. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I guess it's like a .Iot the issues we deal with, they're all incremental. Is it this one driveway that's going to make the difference? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. SEGULJIC-It's all the driveways that are there. I guess overall I'm okay with moving forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment that you were going to make? MRS. STEFFAN-There was a question on Staff Notes about the contours. You asked for waivers in two areas, one was for the scale which, you know, based on your comments was understandable. You wanted to get it all on one page so you put 60 feet to an inch. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) I get that. The contours, the 100 feet off site that's required, how come you didn't want to comply with that, you asked for a waiver? MR. FARRELL-The contours that we shot were the roadway. Sowe'd have basically the right of way for West Mountain and Sherman. That's what we instructed the surveyor to do. Going on to the adjacent parcels was, we're not developing those areas, and they're not impacting the drainage, so going on to the other landowners, we didn't have that done. The overlap was done on Sherman and on West Mountain. MR. FULLER-Yes, and we obviously don't have access or site control for neighboring private properties, and further, . what Mike said, our belief is that on those lots the development is far enough away, and we're not sloping anything towards those developments to make that an issue. That's why we requested that. MRS. STEFFAN-Otherwise we'd have more public comment. MR. FULLER-Who's on my land? MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Sidewalks was the other issue. I'm looking at these homes, they're four bedroom homes. I'm not sure who you're marketing these to. Usually with homes that are, with four bedrooms, you are marketing to families, and, in my mind, and based on some of the discussion we've had through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, sidewalks are recommended, and I know you don't want to put sidewalks in. I think it would be a great idea, if you're building a neighborhood for families. I don't know what the rest of the Planning Board feels like, though. MR. KREBS-I, personally, am against putting in a subdivision like this which is a cui de sac, any sidewalks. NumberOne, they're costly to put in. You have the ability to walk in the street. I do it in my street every day. I live on Hiland. I mean, on Masters Common North in Hiland, and there's only local traffic, and even more so in this situation where you have just a cui de sac. Plus the fact, there is the problem, who maintains sidewalks in the wintertime, and who maintains them when they fall apart? . Is it going to become the Town of Queensbury's responsibility, the individual landowner's responsibility? I just don't see a justification, in this kind ofa neighborhood, to put sidewalks in. MR. SEGULJIC-Gretchen, I would agree with you. Sidewalks are a good idea. I mean, because they lend themselves to people walking to the next house. It's just. Sidewalks . are good. MR. FULLER-If they're going to do that. I mean, I was in a cui de sac in Wilton, too. I guess from our standpoint, obviously, it's, where are they going to go? That's one thing. If we're going to, as Queensbury, if we were going to embark upon a sidewalk plan for that area, and there was a plan for that, I think that would be justified, but, you know, coming late and being one. of the later developments over in that area, to. hold us, you know, to a standard that has been there, that comment sidewalks are to be considered has been in the subdivision law for years. I understand the comment. MRS. STEFFAN-There's a large debate about this particular issue. MR. FULLER-I know. MRS. STEFFAN-When we were having the meetings for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,it was a very hot issue. Certainly in Downtown Glens Falls, they have sidewalks, and the homeowners are responsible for maintaining them. Certainly the sidewalks along Route 9 became a hot issue this year, and the Highway Department didn't want to clear them, and they ended up doing them. I understand that part, but when you're trying to build neighborhoods, and the new Comp Plan and the new Zoning speaks to this, that we're trying to build neighborhoods where people walk to each other's houses versus, ~ you know, on the sidewalk, versus the driveway and the roads. The Highway Department likes the roads a certain way, and they don't like curbs, you know, so we've gone for this streamline maintenance issue, which is good for the developer and it's good for the homeowner who doesn't have to shovel that part of the sidewalk, but at the same time, it's not friendly for pedestrians, for bicycles. Where do the kids ride their tricycles? It's either in the driveway or on the street. It just doesn't seem right. So that's why I threw it out. These are four bedroom homes. They're probably going to market to families like some of the others in the neighborhood. I just thought it was a good idea. MR. FULLER-And certainly the Comprehensive Plan talked a lot about building neighborhoods and things like that, and then the zoning turned right around, in a lot of 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) the districts, and made it one acre on sewer, two acres. if you're not on sewer, which is just going to spread the houses out further. MR. KREBS-Right. I was just going to say, in Glens Falls, the average lot is about 50 feet, at maximum, in width. So when you're asking a resident to maintain that, it's significantly different than you are some of these are going to be .100, 125, 200 feet frontage on a piece of property. MRS. STEFFAN-And they'll likely have snow blowers and they'll just go down the driveway and then they zip on the sidewalk. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It's just interesting, they have no problem clearing their driveway, though. Be creative. Who said you needed concrete? That's all I'm looking for. MR. FULLER-For a path? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Something. MR. FULLER-Well, I think the liability on that, Tom, would be astronomical. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, be creative. MR. FULLER-So you're talking a thatched path, or justa footpath? I would probably recommend, just from a legal perspective, that my client not consider that. I couldn't, and I'm just being, in all frankness here, that would be a huge liability concern. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we've done walking paths, we've done paths in Planned Unit Developments, but that was part of an overall master plan. MR. FULLER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I didn't say a path. I said it doesn't have to be concrete. That's all I said. MR. FULLER-Pavement? MR. SEGULJIC-I'm leaving it up to you. Rubberized. I don't know. Stone. MRS. STEFFAN-Any other Board members weigh in? MR. TRAVER-I can see both sides. I mean, I can see the maintenance issue in the wintertime. In the summertime it's great, but in the wintertime, you know, I can see the issue of, you know, all you need is one owner who fails to maintain their sidewalk and you don't have a sidewalk anymore. So, I don't know if there's going to be a Homeowners Association or something that might strengthen that kind of plan, but certainly it's preferable, but I'm not sure how practical it is. MRS. STEFFAN.There's part of me that just finds it remarkable that folks don't want to have the social responsibility to shovel their sidewalks, so that their neighbors or the postman or the kids can use the sidewalk. I'm just like, I don't get it. MR. TRAVER..Yes, I mean, again, I think when they are available, I think it's another area that kids can play, instead of playing in the street, and all that kind of thing, but I'm just thinking that in the wintertime, that some people may elect to walk in the road, rather than, you know, try to maintain them. I'm not sure. I guess I'm saying I can see both sides of the, I can see the pluses and minuses to it. It certainly would be much more compelling if the surrounding areas had sidewalks as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Or if there were a connection into the other dead end cui de sacs, you know, that are on Sherman. MR. TRAVER-Yes. . MR. FULLER-I've got to agree with you on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other comments, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-No, those are the highlights I have. 14 ~ (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-A. couple of members mentioned they were comfortable moving forward. How does the rest of the Board feel, on Preliminary? MR. TRAVER-Well, my concern, I guess, is mainly related to SEQRA. I think if we're having a potential hazardous situation, I think that's something that we need to be very cautious about, particularly when these driveways are to be discouraged, and, you know, understanding, looking at the plan, there aren't a lot of options, particularly for that Lot 21, but I think that calls for us to be especially careful that we have all that information, and I understand the idea Of re-opening SEQRA with new information, but it feels a little ~ awkward to me, as opposed to making a SEQRA determination when we have all the information to move forward confidently with that. MR. FORD-I couldn't have said it better. I've got that concern. I voiced my concern before about answering questions in SEQRA with an I don't know or maybe. MR. FULLER-Again, I'm certainly not going to argue if you've got concerns, but just looking at the EAF and the questions that you would have to answer on the environmental impact side, we're not talking about safety and things that are in addition to that, but just flipping through the EAF, you know, if you had some particular issues in here that we could talk about, because I don't see that, from a SEQRA perspective, just on sight distance. That's kind of a safety, more of a safety issue. If it was a, we're going to increase traffic dramatically or we're going to add pollution, things like that, slow traffic down, you know, to a major degree through more development, I think might agree with you. I guess my thought would be is it's not so much of an environmental issue as it is a subdivision issue, and I'd just throw that out to you, just, again, flipping through the EAF and getting my mind around what question is going to trip you up. I think the transportation question, is there going to be an impact, and then discussing some of the ideas in there, you know, major impacts to traffic patterns, are we altering traffic flows and things like that. I don't think we are. Two driveways, in the span of what we're going to have to satisfy you of sight distances, I think is reasonable. I don't want to make too much out of a small, it's a concern you have, and certainly I think we need to get out there and get the information and address it, but at the same time, you know, it is two driveways, and we've seen projects before that, variances and things, where they've changed that, have gone to increased driveways. So I see that point, and I'm certainly not going to try to, I'm just trying to give you my perspective. MR. FORD-We reserve the right to do a better job in our analysis with each succeeding project. MR. FULLER-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Don, what's your feeling? Are you comfortable moving forward, or would you like to. see more information? MR. SIPP-Well, I'm just counting up the number of times that I see our final submission will include this information, and I'm up to six, and I'm only on the third page. So I wonder, you know, I'd like to see a lot more of these questions addressed before we move on, plus I will get my plug in, which I probably should have, for sidewalks. I believe that you've got to start someplace, and we didn't do this 20 years ago, and in a lot of cases I think they're sorry. As to maintenance, I lived in Glens Falls for eight years, and I shoveled the sidewalk and it didn't kill me, on a corner lot. So I don't think it's detrimental to anything, and it is, it provides a safety area for kids to play on, and it provides an area ~ for people to walk on, and I think someday we've got to do something. We've got to start some place. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we're going to ask them to consider sidewalks, would it only be on the cui de sac or would it be for the whole project? MRS. STEFFAN-Cui de sac. MR. SIPP-Say that again, Chris? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's a good question. I mean, I think, you know, looking at the layout, I think the cui de sac is the area that would really benefit from the sidewalk. I mean, if you look at the, for example, the houses on 20 and 19, they have a joint driveway. So presumably that's not an issue there. As for 17 and 18, one and two, twenty-one, what would be the benefit of a sidewalk there? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's why I asked the question, yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's a good, it's a relevant question, but I think where it would be most appropriate would be on Caitlin Drive, you know, the cui de sac. MRS. STEFFAN-It is one subdivision, but the cui de sac is really separate than the rest + of the houses. There'll be no relationship among those families. MR. KREBS-But then I think we should also realize that if we're going to require this of this subdivider, then we should require this of every subdivider from now on, that they have to put in sidewalks. MR. SEGULJIC-That's a good idea. That's a very good idea. MR. KREBS-Then let's go back to the Town Board and ask the Town Board to make it a requirement. MRS. STEFFAN-But I don't think we can say something that universal because some developments are different. Some are senior housing where they don't have folks. I mean, that's one of the things that we do as a Planning Board. We evaluate every Site Plan based on its merits, and some fit and some don't. MR. FORD-Every time the sidewalk issue is brought before us, it's almost always pointed out that it has not been a requirement heretofore, therefore it should not be for this project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-And we need to take issue with that and settle it, one way or the other. MR. TRAVER-We've had the same comment made with regard to retaining walls and things like that, that previous practice should control future policies. MR. SEGULJIC-Here's my two cents on the sidewalks. They should really extend to 20, 19, 18, 17, and one and two, because that's really what we want. Those are the busier roads where we do need sidewalks. MR. KREBS-And that's going to be the only sidewalk for miles. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, until the next person comes in. We'll getthem one by one. MR. KREBS-What about all the ones across the street that are already there? MR. SEGULJIC-One by one we're going to take them down. Hey, we also stimulate the economy. MR. FARRELL-We'll also cut a lot of trees down on West Mountain and Sherman putting sidewalks in. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, show us what it's going to take. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, I think the cui de sac is the right thing. MR. SEGULJIC- The kid who lives in house 19 will have the chance to go visit his friend in three. We've got to start somewhere. MR. FARRELL-I mean, certainly on West Mountain, there's, I mean, it shoots right up off the road. I mean, if there was a sidewalk through there, you'd have to cut all that bank out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You can't. MR. FARRELL-To come up, and then it would stop at that residential property that splits our lot. MR. FULLER-Even up Sherman. Coming up Sherman is the same way until you get to were Caitlyn's going to be. MR. SEGULJIC-So it's really steep there, the driveway is then also? You said it was steep there? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. FARRELL-It's steep all along West Mountain Road. The topography jumps abut eight feet off of the road. There's not enough right of way there to put in a sidewalk without cutting the embankment back, and as you cut the embankment back, you're taking the trees out, because the embankment does have a lot of trees on it. MR. TRAVER-That contributes to the sight problem on that Lot 21. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-The stormwater would have to be pushed back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-You're just pushing everything back towards that wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-I don't know. Yes. Everything would sprawl further. It would have to, necessarily, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyway, my sense is that a majority of the Board does want to table this until we get more information, which is why I asked, you know, what other issues were out there, thinking that we could do Preliminary and Final in one evening, if, you know, everything is good to go. Are there any other issues that we want them to take a look at, besides those three? MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think we can grant the waiver now, based on the contours and scaling, those were addressed. Everything else was addressed, well, if they provided the information that was promised for Final submission, I think we would be satisfied to go forward with SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else we want to make sure that they address other than what's already been discussed? MRS. .STEFFAN-The things that I have on the tabling motion so far is to provide sight calculations or data for the driveways on West Mountain Road and Sherman Avenue, which is part of Staff Notes as well, to include vicinity driveways on the plan, so we understand, we can put the traffic information provided in context when we see .it next, and we also want a sidewalk plan for the cui de sac. Now, we talked about sidewalks. I only was interested inthe cui. de sac. Tom expressed something different. MR. SEGULJIC-If they have to cut back the grade, then I can understand. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, Don, are you, the sidewalk issue is okay on the cui de sac? MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Steve, does that sound reasonable, the sidewalk on the cui de sac works? MR. TRAVER-Cui de sac, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So those are the three conditions I have. Now, I don't know how to identify that we want the rest of the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's a long list of Staff comments and outstanding engineering comments, too. MRS. STEFFAN-But we also can't say something vague like satisfy Staff Notes and VISION Engineering comments because it's not specific enough. MR. OBORNE-Thank you, ma'am. MR. HUNSINGER-We learned something from the workshop, Keith. Maybe in the future you could number your Staff comments so we could refer to them by numbers. . MR. OBORNE-I can do that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because we've got a lot of, we have things that are related to stormwater. We have things that are related to culverts, driveways, erosion and sediment control. We've got a lot of different issues. MR. KREBS-But he does have them, at least, numbered by page. MRS. STEFFAN-That's true. MR. HUNSINGER-He does, yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. So you could just reference the pages. Staff comments from Page C- . 1, C-2. MR. HUNSINGER-Then we have to cross them with the Paragon comments as well. I haven't gone through and checked. Keith, are you aware of any specific comments that are in Paragon's comments that you didn't mention? MR. OBORNE-The sight distances, certainly. I think that's the one glaring. MR. FORD-The planting schedule would also be involved. MR. OBORNE-I think the emergency overflows. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think we do say Staff comments and engineering comments. MR. OBORNE-Is my sense that the Board is going to move forward with SEQRA tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MRS. STEFFAN-My sense is wrong. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, we're working-on a tabling resolution. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. KREBS-Mike, Matt, and Keith, I want to ask a question. Looking at this, rather than putting sidewalks around the front, can you put an easement across the back of these properties that would allow them to have a path, a walking path? I mean, I'd rather keep the children away from the cars on the street, even if they're on the sidewalk, if you could do it in the backyards as opposed to the front, it would give them a much safer place to play and travel. MR. OBORNE-Well, I certainly wouldn't be able to answer that question right now. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-My first kneejerk reaction would be that that would be a path, and that there may very well be some issues with that, as opposed to it being part of the road structure or road easement, something along those lines. MR. KREBS-Because there are paths, both at The Glen. In fact, they mow them every year, and people use them to walk. I don't know if you've. ever seen people out here at The Glen, you know, and also across the street, that condocomplex, I'm trying to think of the name of it right now, Waverly Place, has paths, and people walk on them. MR. HUNSINGER-Just to go along Keith's comments, you know, The Glen does it primarily for their residents. They don't put up no trespassing signs, but they also don't encourage non-residents to use them, and the Waverly Place, it's in the Homeowners Association property, and the Homeowners Association owns it. So you'd have to do something like that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Those are all issues that will need to be fleshed out obviously, I mean, as far as who is going to be responsible for those sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why they're typically put in the public right of way. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because the homeowner needs to be responsible for them. It's part of their property. The other thing, the other problem I see with that, Don, is that the leach fields are back there. You have to pave over a leach field, that's not recommended. MR. KREBS-Well, I wasn't even thinking of a paved, necessarily. I could be gravel. It could be crushed stone. Just a walkway. MR. HUNSINGER-You're thinking out of the box, though, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-Ilike that. That's good. MR. SIPP-Yes. The only problem there is that's a little tougher to maintain in the wintertime. ~ MR. FULLER-Or police. MR. SIPP-If you're cross country skiing, fine, but for walking. MRS. STEFFAN-Or it encourages ATV's to use it, but that's a whole other issue. MR. FULLER-That's an interesting idea, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Let me put it this way. I'm just looking for some way to connect these homes, other than having a road. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'm going to make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 36.2 acre parcel into 21 residential lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 7.0 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board may commence SEQR review 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3/17/09 & 5/19/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2008 KELACO. LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This is tabled to the July 21 st Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of June 15th. So that the applicant can provide: 1. Sight data calculations for driveways on West Mountain Road and Sherman Avenue. 2. So that the applicant can include driveways in the vicinity of this development on the plan 3. So that the applicant can provide a sidewalk plan for the cui de sac, 4. That the applicant will develop and present information identified in both Staff comments and Paragon Engineering comments. Duly adopted this 19thday of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show we did leave the public hearing open. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. FULLER-Further to your comment, can we take the step of filing Final? Obviously there's no guarantee, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FULLER-But if we get all that information, we'd like to, both, yes, at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we can consider Preliminary and Final at the same time. Yes. MR. FULLER~ Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Thanks, Matt. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2009 SEQR 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, ANDPABKING WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES. PLACE OF WORSHIP IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 21-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3111/09 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-010 TOM HUTCHINS & MIKE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 10-2009, applicant is New Hope Community Church. Requested action: Site Plan approval for place of worship in the CI-1A zone. Location: 449 & 454 Corinth Road. Existing Zoning is CI-1A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. 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, 0 to 3 percent slopes. Again, referencing the Soil Survey these are not conducive for absorption fields as the soil is a poor filter for effluent. These soils will have to be modified. This is mentioned because leach fields associated with this project will be located in and on this soil series.. I do want to state the Fire Marshal for . the Town of Queensbury has issued the following comments: The divided concrete entrance does conform now. So he is happy with that. The Fire Marshal's office would prefer a reference that the proposed gravel surface can support the aforementioned load on the plan. I'm pretty sure that will be noted. Afterthatis plan review. No major issues at all. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Board, and I'd pass it on to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. With me is Pastor Robby Langford, and Mike Borgos, Borgos and DelSignore. What I thought we would do is just briefly run through the Comments that Staff and the Town Engineer have presented, and turn it back over to the Board. We were here on March 1 th, and that was the directive I believe we left with. VISION Engineering's letter of May 15th, 2009, all the items identified are complete, based on revised plans we've submitted to them. The specific Staff comments, there were three that I wanted to touch on. Enumerated Number Two under the Fire Marshal issues. I have no problem putting a note on there saying, being a little more specific. We had addressed it in the response letter. He would prefer something a little more specifiC. That's fine with me. I'll gladly do that. There was a comment on Sheet Nine with regard to a light fixture, and the cut sheet that I submitted in my package was probably the wrong light fixture. I should have used the cut off wall pack instead of the straight wall pack, and I will gladly change those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And the immediate comment below that was accessibility to grade. There are two doors that show a step, and wewill revise those to have those accessible at grade, and with that, I have no other items to add. We did re-work the plans considerably. However, none of the locations, number of parking, there weren't substantive changes. There were some stormwater modifications, some wastewater 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) modifications, and we're quite happy with them, and with that, do you want to add anything? MR. HUNSINGER-The modifications that you just mentioned, were those in the submission that the Board reviewed? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-They were in response to the round of engineering comments. MRS. STEFFAN-The prior. So that's why you got the VISION Engineering signoff, because you satisfied those. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions or comments from the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly I think the things you mentioned that are in the Staff Notes and then the steeple height, I had four things that needed to be satisfied, but they could be conditions for approval. MR. HUNSINGER-You forgot the steeple height. MR. HUTCHINS-I forgot to address the steeple height. The steeple height, as scaled, is 42 feet, and I believe church steeples are exempt from Town height requirements. MR. OBORNE-They are. MR. HUTCHINS-And that steeple, per that drawing, scales 42. feet. It may vary a little bit with final building design, but to answer his question, it's 42 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-It's not going to be 50. It's 43, right? Isthat fair? MR. HUTCHINS-It's ultimately subject to the building design,but, yes, it's going to be in that range. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So there is no Code compliance when it comes to steeple height. MR. HUNSINGER-Apparently not. MRS. STEFFAN-How did that one slip by us? MR. HUNSINGER-I like church steeples. I don't care if they're tall. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Saratoga Associates gave us guidelines for lots of different things. I don't remember that one coming up. It's got to be shorter than. The Great Escape Sasquatch. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Although I'm not trying to plant any ideas. MR. HUTCHINS-We'll agree to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with it? Any questions, concerns, comments? You have the new cut sheet to submit? MR. HUTCHINS-I haveone copy. I will gladly follow up with additional. MR. OBORNE-Well, give them to me. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we don't need them, but they need them for the file. We already closed the public hearing. Did we complete SEQRA? MR. OBORNE-No. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and it is an Unlisted action. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think they did a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, they did a Short Form. Site Plan's are typically Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"WiII the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a . change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MRS. STEFFAN-uC7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?U MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-uWill the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-uls there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of, May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-They didn't ask for any waivers. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2009 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, 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 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. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/17/09 & 5/19/09; 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. 10-2009 NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four 8, Negative. Paragraph Four C does not apply. Paragraph Four G does not apply. This is approved with the following conditions: 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. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c. That there must be a note reference on the plan which says the proposed gravel surface must support the load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds; and d. That safety lighting must be Code compliant regarding the entrances and exits from the building. Please submit new cut sheets to the Staff; and e. Building access must be handicap accessible. All exits must be on grade or be accessed by a handicap ramp. Modify plan and denote this requirement; and f. Place the steeple height on the elevation drawing; and g. Town Engineer final review comments must be received by Community Development office prior to signature of the approved plans by the Zoning Administrator. h. 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. i. As-built drawings signed and stamped by a NYS licensed professional engineer verifying the project was completed in accordance with the approved site plan to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and j. NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item i to be combined with a letter of credit; and k. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) I. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff m. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] permit. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: MR. FORD-I just have one question. Have we sufficiently addressed the signage issue? MRS. STEFFAN-They did provide a picture. They're going to use a sign that they have. MR. TRAVER-We talked about that last time. MR. FORD-I don't remember discussing it before. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they included a picture in the package. MR. FORD-Right here. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had of Staff is they did submit specific color schemes. Should that be referenced in the approval, or is that implicit because it was submitted as part of their submission? MR. OBORNE-Did you direct them last, during their? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they did. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there was some discussion about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there was discussion, and they did give us a sheet. MRS. STEFFAN-But they provided it. MR. OBORNE-And you needed to update that sheet because it was ambiguous? MR. HUNSINGER-No. It's been submitted as part of the package. There's really no need to draw attention to it. MR. OBORNE-Are you satisfied with the colors? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. They're earth tones. MR. OBORNE- Then there's no need to pursue that any further. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set, good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. MR. HUNSINGER-A long time coming. MRS. STEFFAN-Glad you found your home. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD & LINDA BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) SAME 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) ZONING SFR-1A1RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1. ACRE & 7.05 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNNG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING NIA LOT SIZE 8.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10- 1-31.1 SECTION A-183 CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR OBORNE-Subdivision 3-2008, Preliminary, Ronald and Linda Ball. It's a two lot residential subdivision. West Mountain Road, opposite Lehland Estates is the location. It's a bifurcated zoning, Single Family Residential One Acre and Rural Residential Five Acres. SEQRA Status is Unlisted for this. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1 and 7.05 acres. There is an existing house on lot one (1) with a paved driveway. It should also be noted that both lots reside on a boundary between the RR-5A and the SFR-1A zones. The applicant has proposed two driveways, one with a total length of 580 feet with a slope of 10%, and the other with . a total length of 295 feet and 14% slope. If you do recall at the previous meeting, the Planning Board was open to the shorter yet steeper drive. That plan has been updated. Stormwater controls have been engineered for that, and with that, I'm going to turn this over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. SCUDDER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. SCUDDER-Charles Scudder, consulting engineer for the applicant, Ron and Linda Ball. RON BALL MR. BALL-I'm Ron Ball. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have anything else to add? MR SCUDDER-Well, I think you left the public hearing open. MR. HUNSINGER-We did, yes. MR. SCUDDER-And there were two or three issues that had to be addressed by the Town's Engineer, which have been done, and we have his letter here dated May 15th. There are 22 items, and I think each of them has been satisfied, and the Staff comments have also been satisfied. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Now there is something I don't understand here, something about the variance. Down at the bottom of Page Two, the engineer's comments. MRS. STEFFAN-On Number 20? MR SCUDDER-Should be labeled on the plans, the variances should be labeled on the plans, and I don't quite understand that. MR.OBORNE-I think on the final plans the variance that you received for density should be labeled on the plan. Just Area Variance, I don't know what the number is. I think that's what he's looking for. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-19-08, AV 19-08. MR. SCUDDER-That's a subdivision requirement? MR. OBORNE-It's not necessarily, necessarily a subdivision requirement. MR. SCUDDER-Well, we're happy to do it. I just didn't understand. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's the prior Area Variance that you received. Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I don't think it's necessary for me to review these 22 items. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCUDDER-We really don't have anything, I guess anything new. I can put this particular drawing up on the easel if that would help, but I think you have everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I'll just open it up for questions and comments from the Board, then. MR. TRAVER-One of the questions was the nature of the pavers that the applicant was going to use, and I see he, with some effort, brought in a sample for us to look at. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, we'd like to pass it around. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. It's not exactly what I, personally, was expecting. When I've seen these pavers, they've been more, you know, smaller, individual stones, but that's fine. MR. BALL-I have some photos, if you'd like to look at them, of a driveway that we've done. If I could bring them up to the table. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, if you could pass them down. So what's the block that you did bring in? MR. BALL-Well, this is part of the paver stone, and this is the driveway. This is in Hidden Hills, okay. This is one that, we've done many. Excuse me. If you see this outside border, this is called a soldier course. It's a little bigger block than that one, but that particular block is probably the biggest one that you see in here. Okay. These pictures are deceiving. They don't really give you the full example of how big they are, and how heavy they are. 1 MR. HUNSINGER-So this picture here, those are blocks that size? MR. BALL-Yes, that's, there's four different sizes there, okay. This particular one there is probably the largest one you see in here, but this one that's out on, the soldier course is much bigger than that one. We call it a soldier course. We just kind of line the perimeter of it. They're very heavy, very heavy. I would say, Charlie, how heavy would you say that is? MR. SCUDDER-Forty pounds, something like that, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. BALL-About 40 pounds, and these out here on the outside are heavier yet because they're bigger, but the thing is, I don't care what kind of grade you put it on, water will not flow. It will not flow. That gets absorbed into these seams, and so there's really no problem. It's very expensive to do. Very expensive. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you lay it over sand? MR. BALL-We put down a base of stone, what we call tailings, that's stone and dust, that we put it on a six inch base, for the whole thing, and then we put them on, and you can see, I think they're about two and a half inches thick, but if frost does get in there, if they . lift up, they'll settle back down, but this is in Hidden Hills. This is right near by. You can drive by, probably see it there, but we've got several of them in Queensbury. I just don't have the photos of them, and they withstand plowing, but the thing is, this could rain on it all day. When it stops, there's no water, and it will not flow down to the street. It will not flow. MR. HUNSINGER-So what kind of stone do you use, is it granite? MR. BALL-It's a manufactured, porous concrete product. MR. TRAVER-It looks like a concrete product. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's porous. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. BALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It seems somewhat denser than conventional concrete. MR. BALL-It is. Yes. We haven't experienced any problems whatsoever with them, and because of the drainage that's underneath it, the stone and base, it just dries right up after the rain, and I could tell you, I could have a grade like this, and you won't see anymore water coming down there than you do on each side of the driveway, but it's going to be difficult, it's going to be very expensive to do the whole driveway that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. BALL-But I want to do the first 50 feet that way, and if I can afford it, I'll do 60, or maybe 70, but I have to. MR. SEGULJIC-That's how we can tell how you're doing, then. MR. BALL-Yes, how I'm doing, then. We've done them longer than that. We've done, I think about an 800 foot long driveway one time, and it was probably 16 feet wide, and it was flared where it went onto the highway, and that was probably, I don't know, 30 feet maybe. Something like that. MR. HUNSINGER-So how hard is it to cut this material? MR. BALL-It's pretty hard. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BALL-You go through a lot of blades. Those blades are very expensive, but what we've tried to do is design it so there's very little cutting. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I'm just looking at this one here, and there's a lot of cutting on this one edge. MR. BALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I asked the question. MR. BALL-But it adds a lot of character to it when you do that, too. MR. HUNSINGER-It sure does, yes. MR. FORD-Do you plan a gap between them, or do you put them as close as you can? MR. BALL-Well, the tops of them are rounded corners. This is what they call tunneled, it's what they call a tunneled block, and you can see it's ribbed, and this will allow you to get more traction. That's why I want to use it on a grade like that. So when you're coming down or whatever. So you've always got this, it's like a little, it gives you more traction on that type of driveway. I don't think there's another product outthere that can match this. MR. HUNSINGER-And where do you get that? MR. BALL-We get this from a manufacturer called Belgarde, and if you want to go on a website, Matt's Landscaping and Stone, it goes into great detail about it, shows a lot of pictures and explains it, but very heavy, very heavy. MR. FORD-But my question, though, was, do you abut them as close as you can? MR. BALL-Yes, you do. You tighten them right up, and like if we did an area, say, like when we do patios, we use a little smaller for. a patio, but we use what they call a paramix sand, we put that in there, it hardens right up, or sometimes we use a mason sand, and that'll tighten it up if it's around the pool area, and that's in case if there's some movement, a child doesn't get his toe pitched in there, you know, a little small kid or something, if they're barefoot around the pool, but more than likely this would be set in, . just the way it is, laid in there, and it would be a flat surface, and I'm telling you, it will not ever get any runoff, will never get any runoff. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. FORD-That's great. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-My only question deals with clearing limits. When I look at your Site Plan, first sheet, on your clearing limits, you have lines and then there's no line. MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about the depiction of the steep slope area? MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon? MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about the steep slope? MR. SEGULJIC-No, are you drawing a dashed line, is that why? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I think it'll show up better on this drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, on the other plan it's there. MR SCUDDER-This is the same drawing, only it's to scale. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. Yes. Okay. I just wasn't sure what was going on in those open slots there. MR. SCUDDER-And we show the clearing limit going right down to the road. So we're showing it in the right of way, too, along here. This is 25 feet of road right here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, my only other comment is, when you were last time, you had indicated the only thing you would be doing is pruning some of the trees to allow emergency vehicles to get up and down? MR. SCUDDER-Just to get under. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to get under. So really you're not going to be cutting down many trees, then. MR. SCUDDER-These trees, they're indicated. MR. SEGULJIC-So just these then. Okay. MR. SCUDDER-These are all big pines. They have to come down, but we're not taking down any of the oaks or the maples or the birches, with the exception of that one right there, because in the drive lane. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I just want him to clarify that. Then, all right. Okay. Because although, I mean, personally, you know, it's not ideal, but given the alternative, it's much better. . MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. Any other questions, comments? 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 OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-This is Preliminary, though. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-So maybe you should close the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I just did. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Should we? MR. HUNSINGER-What concerns do you still have? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they would come back with Final? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we need to close the public hearing to approve Preliminary. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I'm sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-It'sa Long Form. MR. OBORNE-No, this is a Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it says Unlisted on the. MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is in a realty subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-He submitted a Long Form, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I recommend that you do the SEQRA under the Short Form, but if you want to go through the Long Form to make sure it's not required. It's not a Type I SEQRA. It's an Unlisted SEQRA. It's the will of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That's fine with me. I just usually do the same one that they submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Let's go Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Mr. Chairman, are you okay on the Short Form? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm fine with the Short Form. I mean, if there's anything that gets triggered in the Short Form, we can always go to the Long Form. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right, folks. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNS1NGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) . MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"ls there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ~ RONALD & LINDA BALL, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of, May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any outstanding issues? MRS. STEFFAN-I don't think so, just whether we were comfortable with the design of the , driveway as presented, and so that was the only outstanding issue. MR. HUNSINGER-All the Staff comments and engineering comments have been addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The only, the porous paver issue, I mean, we don't have it denoted that, is that important to us? MR. SEGULJIC-Not to me. MR. SCUDDER-On this drawing, excuse me, on this drawing here, there's a note down here, porous pavers, edge of pavement to Station 0 + 50 +/-. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought there was. MR. SCUDDER-This drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Which drawing number is that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, right over here, porous pavers. I did not see that. MR. SCUDDER-And over here, at the bottom there. Do you see that note? Just above your finger, I think. MRS. STEFFAN-Porous paver, okay. MR. OBORNE-If I may, as far as that porous paver goes, you may want to be specific as to the type. You plan on using the, is it Gen-Tech is it? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. BALL-Belgarde. MR. OBORNE-Belgarde. Is there a certain type that it is, Ron? MR. BALL-They call it the, my mind's blank here. I'm not sure. MR. OBORNE-If the Board would be comfortable or amenable to him supplying what style it is, what that one is, and if you put it on the plan, that would make it a lot easier for Code Compliance. MRS. STEFFAN-We can put it on the Final plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don't think there's any, well, typically there. isn't any conditions for Preliminary approval anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1 acre & 7.05 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11/18/08, 1/20109,3/17/09 & 5/19/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, now a question. Since it was not advertised for Preliminary and Final Stage, can we approve Final tonight? It sounds like the only addition isjust the reference to the porous paving material. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that is true. Can I defer the answer to that? MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, we do reference it. Do you mean specify? MRS. STEFFAN-The brand. MR. SCUDDER-The brand. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the brand. Yes, you do reference it, yes. MR. SEGULJIC..It's more of an administrative issue, though. Right? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-If you can give me just a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well,. one of the other issues that I wanted to bring up when it got to Final was that, you know, this subdivision's been through, before us in several different iterations, and I don't knowhow the rest of the Board feels about the condition of no further subdivision on the lots. We've. identified that this time around, initially they wanted a three lot subdivision, and we had approved it for two. They needed to get a variance, but there wouldn't be anything that would stop the applicant from coming back at some later point in time and subdividing it again. MR. HUNSINGER~Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-And we've been through, you know, a lot of discussion on making this a two lot subdivision. MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, in theory, if we say no further subdivision, there's nothing to stop the applicant from coming back and asking for a subdivision anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-That's correct, but the will of the Board is in writing at that point, and it's on the subdivision plat. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BALL-I'm not going to, believe me. I've waited too many years to get this. I'm not going any further. MR. HUNSINGER-Somebody else might, though. MRS. STEFFAN-But you would be okay with it? MR. BALL-I would be okay with it, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think that's appropriate. MR. KREBS-So do I. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially after what we went through in terms of the Preliminary discussion and engineering. MR. OBORNE-My recommendation is no, because it was not advertised. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I thought you would say. MR. OBORNE-So play it safe. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll play it safe. MR. OBORNE-I mean, you've gotten through the hardest part, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-So Final approval will be a five minute discussion. MR. OBORNE-It's a two step process you have to go through. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but can we put it on next month's agenda? MR. OBORNE-I think, with the nature of this project, that you may want to put that on, and it's going to take up a spot. So, yes, you may direct me to change the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-We could also add it as an additional item, at the Chairman's direction. MR. OBORNE-And that was my suggestion. I would specifically state that it's an . additional item on to the agenda, so it can be up to seven at this point. MR. KREBS-I think that's fine. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you understand what we were just discussing? MR. BALL-Somewhat. It sounds like I've got to come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you do. MR. OBORNE-Well, yes, you're going to want to probably do a resolution stating that you're directing the applicant to submit Final subdivision plans by a certain date for a certain Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Well, we'd like to come back at the .earliest possible time, and we can have our changes and additions done tomorrow. MR. OBORNE-Well, the earliest meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Would be June 16th. We'll add it as an additional item. MR. HUNSINGER-And again, the only change to the plan is the notation of the type of paver, the brand. MR. SCUDDER-And that business about the zoning. MR. HUNSINGER-And no further subdivision. So there's three, three items to add to the plan. MR. OBORNE-It's just a plat notation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just a notation. MR. SCUDDER-Plat notation of no further subdivision on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. Mr. Chairman, are you going to want all of the papers submitted again, or just, everything? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You don't have to bring the sample paver back next time. MR. HUNSINGER-And you said you could have that submitted tomorrow? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-All copies? MR. SCUDDER-I guess not all copies. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-How about? MRS. STEFFAN-How about the 29th? That's fine. MR. OBORNE-Would that give you enough turn around? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, let's make it, what's the agenda date, the 28th, right, Keith? MR. OBORNE- The agenda date is the 28th, for the final agenda meeting you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. So you're going to want to give that to us early next week or late this week. Can you give it to us by the 22nd, this Friday? MR. SCUDDER-Yes 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. OBORNE-Would that work for the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Will that work for you guys? You can get itdone by then, the 22nd? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, that's three items on the plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's it. MR. SCUDDER-Is that on every sheet of the plan, or ju~t on the Site Plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Just on the Site Plan. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready with the motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION FOR SUBDIVISION 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: This motion is to provide direction to the applicant to submit their final subdivision plan to the Community Development office by May 22nd, that's this Friday. Their final submission should include the following three notations: 1. No further subdivision. 2. To identify the Belgarde brand on the porous pavers identified. 3. To note the Area Variance on the plat. That we will put you on our June 16th agenda, and it will be added as an additional item. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We'll see you in a couple of weeks. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll See you next month. You're welcome. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 MODIFICATIONSEQR TYPE II AFTAB BHATTI AGENT(S) . JONATHAN LAPPER, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDE THE REMOVAL FROM THE PLAN OF THE APPROVED LANDSCAPED ISLAND AT MAIN ENTRANCE AND A CHANGE TO THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 85-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING NIA LOT SIZE 1.0,0.83, 0.39 +1- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51,52.12,52.13 SECTION 179-9-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you want to summarize the Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 12-2004, Modification Number Three. Sam Bhatti is the applicant. Modification to approved Site Plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 543 Aviation Road. It's Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to an approved Site Plan that includes the removal from the plan of the. approved landscaped island at the main entrance, removal from the plan of a parking space for landscaping, and a 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) change to the parking lot layout. Modifications to approved site plans require Planning . Board review and approval. If you want to go to additional comments. The freestanding sign has been added to the as built survey. Parcel consolidation must be accomplished. As a condition of approval, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to provide evidence that the parcels have been consolidated. I have received evidence by, I believe, e-mail from Stefanie Bitter showing that that, in fact, has been consolidated. Engineering fees must be paid. As of today engineering fees have not been paid. That should be a condition of approval. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with the parking requirements prior to approval. If the requirements of 179-4-040 cannot be met, the applicant must seek approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and this has been forwarded to VISION Engineering and it is my understanding that there may be an attempt to re-stripe to get that compliant, but I'll have the applicant discuss that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, very briefly, Jon Lapper and Sam Bhatti is here. When we were here last time, you gave us a very specific list of items to add to the plan, and we did and quickly re-submitted. When it was re-submitted, Staff pointed out that the parking striping had changed slightly because the surveyor, this is an as built, so the surveyor went out and showed what the striper had done this year when he re-striped it after the winter. One of the issues is that there's always been a spot that is partially on the County right of way,. on the State right of way, and that's been there since before Sam bought the property, but regardless, we would ask that this be approved, obviously . with the condition that the engineering fees be paid, but with just the additional condition that we will have the, we'll have it re-striped exactly as it was previously approved because nothing has changed with the pavement. So there's nothing that's different on the site, in terms of construction. It's just a matter of the painted lines, and Sam will have them re-striped, and we will submit a plan, hopefully for Staff to just verify that it is correct, based upon what was previously submitted, and what complies. So we don't have to clog your agenda to come back, because it's just that striping issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else, Jon? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. OBORNE-If the striping issue is not resolved, then there will need to be an Area Variance for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because you'd be short a parking space. MR. LAPPER-It was approved this way, without a variance, and I'm certain, Sam has assured me, that it can be striped the same way it always was. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Just to be perfectly clear, the one spot where the landscape was supposed to be on the, the would be the southwestern portion by the office, cannot be included as part of it. That is not on site. That's a determination of the Zoning Administrator. MR. LAPPER-He's not going to eliminate that spot. It's just not going to count. MR. OBORNE-We understand that. We understand that. Absolutely. It's not going to count. I just want to make it perfectly clear. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're confident you can meet the required spaces without counting that spot? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you know, Jon, specifically where the re-striping was? MR. LAPPER-I believe that the space would start closer to the sign. I think that this slides down closer to the sign. Yes. On the prior plans, when we looked at it, the spaces in the center started closer to that new sign. On this map you can see there's probably half a space wide. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So that would bring everything down, and then we could add, and we'll add two spots on the back, on top, and there'll still be a sufficient drive aisle, and that's what the old plan had. SAM BHATTI MR. BHATTI-That was approved. That's what we figured out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the will of the Board here? Questions, comments? Everyone happy? MR. KREBS-I'm happy. MRS. STEFFAN-Well. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Gretchen. MRS. STEFFAN-.I don't know what to think, because you've been back many times, and unfortunately we keep coming back to unfinished plans, and so this is another change, and if we give it conditional approval, then I'm not really sure what that does for our Code Enforcement folks. Like, for example, the fees were supposed to be paid. They're not paid yet. We said that when you were here last, we wanted that to be done. It's not done. MR. LAPPER-That's not true. This was not on the list of issues. We did everything that was on the list that you sent us home to do. The surveyorwent out, what happened was, when the striping guy showed up at the end of April, he striped it ashe saw fit, which was slightly different. He didn't have the Site Plan in front of him. Now it'll be re-striped with the Site Plan in front of him. So that is a new issue. It wasn't that something that wasn't done that was asked. It's Staff noticed there was a discrepancy. The surveyor went out, located everything exactly as it is on site, but when the striping company came, they changed the location. They changed the number of parking spaces slightly, and that's just going to get fixed. My only point was that that, since it was noticed by Staff, it could get verified by Staff, and we don't have to bother you. Obviously if the Board wants us to come back, we'll come back. MR. HUNSINGER-So it was only just striped last month? MR. LAPPER-Every Spring you have to re-stripe, because in the winter it wears off. MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. MR. LAPPER-And nothing changed in terms of the site. MRS. STEFFAN-Sowhat did they, did they just put the stripes back where they were? MR. LAPPER-No, they put the stripes where they are on the map now, the new map, which is slightly different than how they were on the old map. MR. TRAVER-So how did they remove the old freshly painted stripes? They just paint over them? MR. KREBS-Yes. Pave block over them. MR. LAPPER-What did he do? Is he going to use creosote? They're going to have to blacken, they're going to have to cover the new stripes. The question is how does he re- stripe? He has to cover it with sealant, I guess? MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. LAPPER-First. MR. BHATTI-Because that was other spot created here. Remember? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We also eliminated. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. BHATTI-That was moved. This was (lost words) and we moved that spot. This all got moved. MR. LAPPER- There was a spot near there which we moved because the Fire Marshal had asked for it to be moved, which was in an inappropriate location because of the fire access. MR. BHATTI-Yes, that's where it was, right here. MR. LAPPER-Next to the sign, on the east side of the sign, and that did get removed, but their question is that you would have to seal the spaces, the lines that are there now in order to re-stripe. MR. BHATTI-Yes. Because this got moved, and that whole thing got pushed back this way, and we figured out where we're losing spot two, but then we looked at the old drawing which got approved, and that was a two spot right here, and they got pushed this way, and this is a big issue, on the parking issue, you know, we construct the same we got approved a few years back. We're just going to go that way. Just pay for the striping and do it exactly the way it was approved, and that will solve the whole problem. MR. TRAVER-So do we have the applicant submit a letter from the striping company reporting that that work's been completed, as a condition? MRS. STEFFAN-I'm not sure how the Code Enforcement would. MR. LAPPER-I think we will submit a new map from the surveyor showing that it's been done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I think the. MR. OBORNE-You'd certainly have to show the plan that is compliant. Absolutely. MR. KREBS-Yes, that's what Jon just said he would submit a plan that's compliant. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, intent is great, but I guess I was thinking of some documentation that in fact the work had been completed, like a receipt for the engineering fees. ~ MR. LAPPER-Maybe Staff could come out and verify. MR. BHATTI-Or a striping company letter. Is that going to work? MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, Bruce will come out and do Code Compliance upon completion of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE- There obviously are other issues besides parking that need to be addressed. MR. LAPPER-We have to put in some trees. MR. OBORNE-Right, plant trees, but engineering fees need to be paid, and I think there was one more on here, as far as one of mine, talking about the stormwater basins, but Bruce did notice that they seem to be functioning okay. However, they're not really shown on the plan. With that said, parking and engineering fees are the crux. MRS. STEFFAN-Is it important that the stormwater, I mean, I'm believing that it's important that there's stormwater on the plan. MR. LAPPER-Well, that was never an issue, because when we first came here, Bruce had supplied a letter saying that these are the things that need to be addressed, but that was a very minor modification and it was functioning fine. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it appeared to be functioning was a statement in the Site Plan Inspection report. MRS. STEFFAN-Where's the tree thing? I'm looking for it, Keith, I'm not seeing it. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. SEGULJIC-In the very southwest corner. MR. OBORNE-It should be in the southwest corner, the property line of the Silo. There should be three of them, I believe, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but where is it in the Staff Note? MR. LAPPER-Six foot high spruce trees, three. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's shown on the drawing. It's shown on your plan. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-They haven't been planted yet is what you're saying? Okay. MR. LAPPER- That's right. MRS. STEFFAN-But the Staff Notes say that that's complete. MR. OBORNE-Well, it's been addressed. That's what my Staff Notes say. MR. HUNSINGER-It's been addressed on the plan. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. KREBS-Addressed, meaning it's on the print. MR. LAPPER-We agreed to add that to the print at the last meeting. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And once it's approved, Sam has to go plant. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, really the only outstanding issue on the plan is the striping. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, what do we want to do? MR. HUNSINGER-I think everyone s.aid they were okay. Right? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS~Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is a modification, it's a Type II SEQRA. Right? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So no SEQRA review. MR. OBORNE- That is correct. 40 (QueensburyPlanning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Unless it triggers something. MR. FORD-I have a question relative to how long it will be before these issues are complied with. MR. LAPPER-What issues, Tom? The painting? MR. FORD-The painting and the fees? MR. BHATTI-The striping? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BHATTI-Maybe after, sometime in June I will do it, next month. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to accomplish this by a certain time. MR. FORD-And the payment of fees? MR. LAPPER- The engineering fees, the Town Engineering review fees? MR. BHATTI-I will pay by the end of this week or next week. MR. HUNSINGER-So when would you have the revised plan for the re-striping completed? MR. LAPPER-I guess it sounds like end of June. He'll do the work first and then send the surveyor out to verify that it's there. Because it has to be an as built. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Well, it doesn't actually have to be an as built because it's a Site Plan, but I mean, so you could do it any way you wanted it. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I was asking for direction here. MR. OBORNE-I'd like to make sure that it works, on paper. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we need to see it first. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Two weeks. MR. OBORNE- That would be fine. MR. LAPPER-He can have it in two weeks. He's fast. MR. BHATTI-No, Americade is coming. MR. LAP PER-No, no, no, not to stripe, but just to have the plan done by the surveyor. He can just come and do a new plan, and then we'll give the plan to the striper to tell him to go do that. MR. BHATTI-Okay. So we have to bring the plan to Keith? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Bring the plan to Keith first. He'll look at it and say it's okay, and then have the striper come. So, two weeks. MR. BHA TTI.;Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I don't know if it has to be specified. I just wanted to get an indication. MR. BHATTI-Yes. No, that should be no problem, and then he can come and verify. MR. HUNSINGER-What we're saying is they need to submit a revised. MR. LAPPER-Site Plan. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-A revised Site Plan that shows compliant parking. MR. LAPPER-Compliant. Is that clear enough, Keith, to simply say they have to submit a revised Site Plan that shows compliant parking? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, we've talked enough about what the needed change is. MR. LAPPER- The Staff Notes say what the problem is, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So that ends up being a fourth condition? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modifications to an approved site plan that include the removal from the plan of the approved landscaped island at main entrance and a change to the parking lot layout. Modifications to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval; and 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/20/09, 3/24/09 tabled to 5/19/09 Public Hearing left open; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is approved with the following conditions: 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) The application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do . not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c) The applicant will provide a revised Site Plan that shows compliant parking, to be completed by June 30th. d) That the applicant will have his parking lot re-striped to meeting parking requirements, to be completed by June 30th. e) That the applicant will pay engineering fees by May 29th.. f) That the applicant will complete landscaping, to be completed by July 31st. g) These items will be provided to the Community Development Department. h) Town Engineer final review comments must be received by Community Development office prior to signature of the approved plans by the Zoning Administrator. i) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) 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. j) As-built drawings signed and stamped by a NYS licensed professional engineer verifying.the project was completed in accordance with the approved site plan to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and k) If applicable, Item f to be combined with a letter of credit; and I) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and m1 NOT APPLICABLE. The. limits of clearing 'Nillconstitute ~ no cut buffer zone, or~nge construction fencing shall be installed around. theceareas and field verified by Community Development staff At NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SVVPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pl~n] & NOT [Notice of Termination] see staff 0) The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] permit. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-It probably should say that it's going to .be submitted to the Staff, so it doesn't, rather than come back to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-These items will be provided to the Community Development Department. MR. OBORNE-You didn't want any dates on? MR. FORD-Can we specify a by date? MRS. STEFFAN-This must be completed by June 30th. MR. LAPPER-Can you plant the three plants by June 30th? It shouldn't be a big deal. Do you want more time? MR. BHATTI-Can you give me more time, because all the landscapers are busy, planting a big tree, and I have to call them to buy a big tree. The striping I maybe can do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, I had asked you when you thought you'd have the striping done, and you said June. MR. LAPPER-The striping you said was no problem. MR. BHATTI-The striping is no problem. MR. LAPPER-But the planting was, is on that list that has to be done. So what do you want, just for the planting? Middle of July, what do you need? MRS. STEFFAN-That's five weeks from now. MR. BHATTI-End of Julywill be good. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let me amend that so that the. parking, therevised Site Plan that shows the compliant parking, and then the parking lot re-striping must be completed by June 30th. The landscaping plan must be completed by July 31st. MR. BHATTI-Yes, that's good. MR. FORD-Payment of fees by? .. MR. LAP PER-Payment of fees. A week and a half, by the end of next week is fine. 43 .. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Payment of fees by the end of May, which would be, the last business day would be May 29th. MR. BHATTI-Okay, AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2009 SEQR 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REQUESTED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. 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, 179-9-010 TOM HUTCHINS & DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Note: This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals per ZBA resolution dated 3/26/09. The applicant's agent has submitted revised engineering plans, a revised Stormwater Analysis. Report, revised Site Development Data Page, and a 'Fact Packet' from Dennis Phillips, counsel for Debaron Associates. Application Site . Plan 14-2009 Debaron Associates is the applicant. Requested action is Site Plan Review for construction of a single family dwelling in a. Critical Environmental Area. Location: Lot Four Dark Bay off of Route 9L, west of Dunham's Bay. Existing zoning is WR-3A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. 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. I do want to note additional comments. The introduction of an additional infiltration trench within 100 feet of. Lake George on the adjoining parcel requires a separate area variance for that parcel. I do direct the applicant to contact staff to initiate that application. Note: All area variances associated with this project, whether on site or off, must be approved prior to Site Plan approval as. per the Zoning Administrator, and as stated earlier, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. I'm Dennis Phillips. I'm here for the applicant, Debaron Associates, and sitting next to me is Tom Hutchins, who. is the engineer for the applicant, and I thought that I would begin tonight by just reviewing a little bit of what is before you, because it has been quite some time since we were here last, and I believe you have, in this month's packet, a preparation that I did, dated April 15th, 2009, that gives you some factual background over this lot that is before the Board for the recommendation, and I have indicated in that packet that back in 1969, this Lot Number For was a lawfully created building lot by a predecessor Planning Board in the Town of Queensbury. It was also an approved New York State Department of Health building lot, back in 1969, and of course we know that since 1969, laws have changed, rules have changed, regulations have changed. However, when this was brought to the attention of the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Department of Health looked at its prior approval and indicated that its prior approval did not have expiration date on it. So when we made application, upon recommendation of the Zoning Board, to switch our sewage disposal from an on site sewage disposal drainage system to a holding tank, so as to better the environmental situation for this lot, the New York State Department of Health 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) approved that, granted us a waiver, and of course that went to the Board of Health, the Town Board acting as a Board of Health. They also approved that holding tank. So as far as the sewage disposal on this lot is concerned, we have both the Department of Health and so far the Town Board standing behind the lawfully created building lot back in 1969. The stormwater system that we have designed for this lot has been characterized as a major stormwater. I think that that was as a result of a Staff upgrade because of the location of this lot. Ordinarily a major stormwater would not be triggered until we had 15,000 square feet of disturbance. In this case, we have 37% of that, or 5600 square feet of disturbance. So we would be underneath the ordinary threshold, but because, again, because of our location, this was a Staff upgrade to a major stormwater, and that's why we're before the Zoning Board of Appeals. AS far as this subdivision is concerned, and you have this all in your record, in terms of a detailed legal histOry of the subdivision and Lot Four, this was a mandated subdivision going back to the original conveyances back in 1968,and that mandate was followed by our client's father, and one of the covenants was that no residence should be less than 900 square feet. Our footprint is 960 squarefeet approximately, and so we are meeting that threshold. When we looked at the regulations for this property, we came to the conclusion that the intent was 900 square feet on the ground, for the on the ground footprint. There was some deviation from that if it was going to be more than one story, which allowed for 800 square feet on the ground, but I think we have designed something that fits this lot, as opposed to something that is oversized for the lot. There has been some comment by the public on this application, in terms of some private covenants and restrictions. I have included in our packet to you, on Page Five, a quotation from those private covenants and restrictions, so that this Board would know that there is no restriction at all on the private side for us to do the project that we are seeking to do, and I've indicated that the private covenants and restrictions related to Lots Five through Fifteen of the subdivision. We are Lot Four in the subdivision. So some of the setbacks that relate to Lots Five to Fifteen do not apply to us, and so not only have I quoted those provisions, but I've also added the original documents to this packet four, so that you have it for the record. In 1990, the Zoning Board .of Appeals actually granted an approval for a variance for this lot, for a 36 foot setback. We, of course, are going back farther from the lake, so as to respect that separation distance from the lake. I've mentioned that in the packet as well. Also at the public hearing, one of the landowners of Lot Ten, in the historical subdivision, Mr. Tobin spoke. For purposes of the record, I've included a copy of his deed in the packet, so that the Board is aware that when he purchased the property, he took subject to the general scheme of covenants and restrictions, and, in fact, that was a contract that he entered into relative to the subdividers of this property. So you have that in the record. One thing that relates to some issues here, relates to the character of the neighborhood, on Page Eight of my submittal, I've given you some representative setbacks in this neighborhood, ranging from 17 feet to 41 feet, averaging oLlt to be 29.33 feet. Our setback is going to be at 50 feet. So we're greater than any of those setbacks. In terms of the overall neighborhood sheet that you have prepared by Mr. Hutchins, of the setbacks in the adjoining neighborhood, nine of thirteen, or 69%, are inside of a50 foot setback, and very close to the lake, and are closer to the lake than what we are proposing in this application. So I think that as far as this application is concerned, the reason we chose the 50 feet, even though we had limitations with this lot,.is that there is precedent in the Town, and in the Adirondack Park, for 50 feet in the hamlet areas and in the residential areas with moderate intensity. So as a matter of public policy, there are other 50 foot setbacks out there. The difficulty that we are faced with, in terms of this lot, is a change of law difficulty. It's not a difficulty created by our client. I guess the. only difficulty for our client was that she waited too long to get her building plans together, but of course those things take time, and in that timeframe, the law changed a number of times. So I don't look at this as being her difficulty. I look at this as being a change of Ic;lw kind of difficulty, and on Page 11, I show you the economic impact of what we're dealing with here, where the taxes on this lot right now are in the $14,000 per year range, and so our client's been paying forever on this property as a building lot, and now the time has come when she would like to realize the benefit of the gift that her father gave to her, you know, back in the, going back as early as 1974. So, with that, I am going to basically, that was to refresh your recollection as to what this was all about. I'm going to ask that this Board, after hearing what Mr. Hutchins has to say, I'm going to ask that this Board, in the context of all of the facts and circumstances, in the context of this very, very detailed. history for this property, I'm going to ask this Board to recommend to that Zoning Board of Appeals that the stormwater be effectively, the State of the Art for this particular piece of property, knowing that, ultimately, if a variance does issue, that we're back in front of this Planning Board for tweaking and more site specific kind of activity on this property. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tom, and I believe he's going to talk about some of the Staff Notes and engineering report. 45 . (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, once again, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I would like to briefly touch on what we've done as far as modifications to this overall plan. We took a good hard look at it, and we looked at comments from you folks, and from Town Engineering and from Staff and from the Water Keeper and from members of the public, and we've tried to put together the best practical stormwater plan we can for this particular situation. We've. revised the main stormwater infiltration mechanism which is a large infiltration trench that is, we.'ve shallowed that up. We've moved it a little bit closer to the lake, actually, but I think it's in a better situation. It's much.shal.lower, and we've also added a filter layer at the bottom of that, of some amended peat type soils, which will provide some.. degree of enhanced treatment. Perhaps Chris will comment on that later, but we have tried to improve that device.. We have improved the stormwater controls around our proposed parking area. There is now a grass swale and another infiltration trench. We've done seven additional test holes, yes, seven additional. We have nine test holes in this 5,000 square foot area. I think you'll find that the controls for the proposed parking area are vastly improved. We have improved, one of the engineer's comments was it appears that some of the runoff running from off site down the existing drive may actually run onto your site and into your stormwater controls, and the suggestion, not the suggestion, but the engineer's comment . was either these have to be diverted around your controls or accounted for in your controls. Well, what we've done is what we feel is a much greater and better step than simply diverting them around our site. Now this is runoff that's coming from off our site, and it runs toward our site, and instead of simply diverting it around, which one would argue we could do, we have added some stormwater controls to provide some degree of best practicable treatment we can for this runoff from off site. We've done that, on the southern side we have water coming from the road, and there's actually an opening, there's actually a gap in a retaining wall there now that this water comes down and runs through and shoots out, and we've added a series of three small, natural vegetated pre- treatment call them holding areas in that area, to provide some degree of treatment to that off site runoff, and we've also done, we've added another control to the, at the north end of our property, which will capture, again, runoff from the right of way road that is heading directly toward our site, that'll capture it in a wing swale. We've shown a deep sump catch basin which will collect some large sediment, prior to discharge to another infiltration trench. This infiltration trench is on the adjoining property, and there is some degree of common ownership across these properties, and so we felt, instead of simply diverting this off site runoff around our project, that we could provide some degree of treatment, and we thought it was a real good thing. This variance issue on the other lot, frankly, that didn't come to mind. What we were trying to do is the best thing we could with this runoff, and if that means we need a variance, well, we'll have to go there, I guess. MR. PHILLIPS-And my thinking on that is that that trench would be there by consent of the adjoining landowner, and if that requires a variance, and we'd like to actually hold that issue open and have a discussion with the Staff on it, but if that does require a variance, we believe that we have improved the stormwater for the entire area, by treating stormwater from off site that previously was not treated. So we would ask that that be part of your recommendation as well. If we need a variance for that, as part of the greater plan here, we'd be asking for a recommendation from this Board to the Zoning Board for this project. Go ahead, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-And I guess I'll briefly touch on the comments recently received from Town Engineering and from Staff, with engineering first. The first comment is with regard to the location of this trench, and we've talked about that, and we'll probably talk about it some more. The second item he had was with regard to soil testing for that trench. I have a test pit and a percolation test that's. 20 feet away. I was quite comfortable with that, in that it's similar fill material, and I was comfortable with that. If that's an issue, I guess I could do another test hole. With regard to a trench separation was his third comment, and as I said, we have revised the, we'll call it the lake side irifiltration trench, such that we meet separation to bedrock over the entire length. There is an eight foot section where we don't meet two foot separation to groundwater, but there is provisions in your Code to not meet two foot separation to groundwater to enable frost protection. That's why we've done that. His items Five, Six, Seven, and Eight are indicated as complete. His comments nine through thirteen he indicates as new items, and most of them I think are more Site Plan items than stormwater recommendation, but I'll touch on them anyway. Item Nine involves, or was regard to the retaining walls that we've shown, and their design and just how they're depicted, and I have no concerns with that, and I can clarify that if you would like it clarified. The design does include surcharge loading. Item Ten is with regard to rock removal, and subsequent test pits that were done after the last meeting do indicate that there will be areas along the west side of the house foundation that will likely require rock excavation. There won't be a 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) tremendous amount, one to three feet, but there will be areas that will require some rock excavation that, again, based upon the test pit we have in the area of the holding tanks, that would not require rock excavation, and it's very close, but it would not require rock excavation, and I'm not sure how he's basing his reference there. That's not to say that when you get it excavated you don't have a high spot here that you don't have a test pit. Whenever we have ledge rock, there's always high areas and low areas, and you never really know until you excavate your whole area, but it's likely, I mean, it's likely for the foundation that there'll need to be some rock excavation. He had a comment about consideration for a vehicle barrier. . Again, I think this is a Site Plan item, but we did talk about a vehicle barrier. We didn't think it was necessary. There is several feet beyond the limit of the parking area that is high and relatively level, and we didn't feel there was a tremendous risk of vehicles intruding there, but if that were insisted upon, we could certainly consider that. That was the engineering comments. As far as Staff comments, the specific comments were with regard to the infiltration trench, that it was moved slightly closer to the lake, and that's true, it was, and it was not done with anything to do with separation. It was done essentially in response to Mr. Navitsky's concern that it was very close to the. foundation, and he was concerned in its ability to perform, and susceptibility to construction damage. So we did pull it a little further away. Staff had a comment with regard to infiltration trench and the drive runoff, and I've talked about this. We thought it was better to do something with the diverted water than nothing with the diverted water, and his only other comment is with regard to the variance requirement for that structure, and with that, I think I've said enough. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the rock excavation, you think that's going to be limited, then? That's going to be in the area of the house, I believe. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I did show two to three feet in the two pits I have. Yes, it'll be limited to the westernmost portion of the foundation. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, is that going to be jack-hammered out, blasted, backhoe, ripped out? What do you think? MR. HUTCHINS-Native rock around Lake George generally isn't real susceptible to backhoe excavating. I mean, if you're measuring in inches, perhaps, but it's most likely that it would have to be drilled and popped. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and how deep do you think? MR. HUTCHINS-Three to four feet. Four feet. I don't know that they'll want it. I think there's a minimum, and I'm not an expert on rock excavation, but I believe there's some minimum that they have to drill, otherwise the charge won't hold or something. MR.SEGULJIC-And how about the slope, what's the slope across this site? MR. HUTCHINS-Which way? MR. SEGULJIC-From the road to the lake. MR. KREBS-Well, it varies. It kind of, it's flat for a while, and then it tapers down and it's flat again. MR. HUTCHINS-There's a flat portion, yes. The average slope is going to be. MR. KREBS-Tom, when we walked it Saturday, there is a flat area, and then there's a slope and then there's another flatarea before you get to the lake. MR. PHILLIPS-It's kind of like a terraced piece of property. MR. HUTCHINS-It's about 20 feet over the, yes. Around the center of the houSe it's about 20 feet from road to lake, because there's a 340, they're at 340 contour. It's about 20 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and it's about 80, what, it's about 80 feet from the road to the lake? MR. HUTCHINS-It's about 85 feet, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So what are you talking, 25 foot slope, 25% slope? MR. HUTCH I NS-Twenty-three. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. SEGULJIC..Twenty-three. MR. HUTCHINS-Twenty-four. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think when I did it, I came up with some places that were as high as 29, and some 27. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. If you've shot it down here, an average slope, from lake to road, yes. Where the house is, here to here, .is about 23, and I didn't scale the distance exactly, but I will. MR. SEGULJIC-And just so I understand, to complete this project, you need four variances, potentially a fifth variance, and then a waiver from a variance, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Is that right? MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we need the setback variance. MR. SEGULJIC-You need a shoreline setback. You need a rear setback. You need 'the variance from the infiltration within 100 feetofthe lake, and frontage on a public road, and in addition, you need the waiver because you're not meeting the two foot separation for the trenches. Correct? So you need, I think, five. variances and one waiver to complete this project, in a Critical Environmental Area. That's been recognized by the State of New York, it's an environmentally sensitive area we need to protect. MR. PHILLIPS-The interesting thing about that, I was reading .the Zoning Code earlier today, and under Article 20, Which talks about general exceptions, i.t said, it says development of any nonconforming lots of record which are located within Planning Board approved subdivisions shall be considered as complying with the setback requirements of this Chapter, if the setback requirements applicable at the time the subdivision was approved are met. I was thinking that .that provision probably was designed to cover these historical subdivisions, where, at the time this was approved, and at the time the subdivision was built out, as recognized by the .Adirondack Park Agency, we did not have layer upon layer of regulation, and this was not even a Critical Environmental Area then, as it is now, and I'm not contesting that at all. I'm just reciting a fact, but I know that, as we come before this Board, the layering of the additional rules since the creation of this as a lawful lot, has generated the need for a number of variances, and so we're kind of stuck with the fact that the law keeps changing, and that the house on this property was not constructed a long time ago. So in that sense, it seems to me that the idea and the notion of five variances and a waiver may seem like a cumulative effect kind. of thing, but in the context of history and law, and what your predecessors have done, I think that you also have to balance that against, this is probably a one of a kind kind of history for a lot in the Town of Queensbury. This may be the only lot in the Town of Queensbury that fits into this category. So I don't look at this as being, opening the floodgates for anything .that's going to have a macro influence on Lake George. It's just one of those historical things that, you know, we really can't do anything about it. This is where we are, and on our side of the table, what we've been trying to do, we wanted to make you happy. We wanted to go back to the drawing board and try to do the best engineering we possibly can do for this property, in the light of the history of the property. So I think that, I wanted to say that because I feel that, I think that this provision of the law tried to deal with that issue, you know, so that we all wouldn't be in this position, but it's still not as clear as I would like it to be. So, that's why we're here, but, you know, it very well could be that there is a provision of law in the Town of Queensbury that covers this situation, but in the meantime we're forging ahead, you know, with our variance application, because that's what we've been asked to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I understand what you're saying. The intent of that clause that you just read is so that if, 20 years ago, the side yard setback was 25 feet, and now it's 30 feet, and you're proposing a house that's 25 feet, that you're okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think most of the setbacks that you're requesting, you still would have required in 1979, because your rear setback is so close. Maybe you didn't need all of them in 1979, but you still would have needed some of them. MR. PHILLIPS-The big one that we didn't need then was the setback from the lake. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. PHILLIPS-And I think that's evidenced by the other properties in the neighborhood where they're as close as 17 feet from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. MR. PHILLIPS-SO I think that was the big one, and once that one's out of the way, every other setback would have probably even, in '69, would have.been okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have anything else, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just a comment on the soils. If you look at your Staff Notes, it's pointed out by Staff thatthe soils consist of a Bice, a very bouldery, fin~ sandy loam soil. This unit of soil is typically deep, well-drained soils with a permeability that is moderate to moderately rapid. Erosion can be severe on sloped areas. The applicant just indicated slopes on this site exceed 25%. So this site is subject to severe erosion. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I think to take a generalized statement from the soils maps, based on a soil series, and to say, without looking at the site, and then to say this site is subject to severe erosion, I think that's, that's a big stretch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there was no erosion present. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't believe there is an erosion issue on this site. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm just going based on the soil information, and the fact that you indicated, you know, slopes above 25% on the site. MR. HUTCHINS-Certainly. MR. KREBS-Yes, but the problem is, there are slopes that are much higher than 25%, and then there are large, flat areas that would absorb the water, and then you have a very steep slope again, and then a flat area out to the lake. So, if you look at the site, I don't think it's a problem. MR. SIPP-You said the disturbance was 8,000 square feet? MR. HUTCHINS-I think it's less than that. DEBBIE SCHIEBEL MRS. SCHIEBEL-Debbie Schiebel. I just wanted to make a comment. I've been there 40 years. I have observed no erosion, and I feel we havedone so much to try to be environmentally sound here, and having been on the lake for 40 years, and love it, and we do everything to keep that water safe. Believe me. We've raised our grandchildren there, you know, it's been in the family for 40 years now, but I'm just saying, just based on my own observation, I have seen no erosion on that property, and even, you know, putting your trenches and everything, I think we're going beyond what is reasonable, having lived on that property for 40 years, and watched and cared for it. I mean, there's never even any water running down the stones that you're worried about going down to the dock. There's been no runoff going down those stairways. So, I mean, we're doing whatever you asked us to do, really, is what we're trying to do, and this has been a three year process now. So I'm kind of at my wit's end, too. Okay, and I'm sure you guys have spent a lot of time on this, because, I mean, we have given you tons of paperwork to look at. MR. SEGULJIC-Let me just point out one thing. We are not asking anything beyond what the Code says. MRS. SCHIEBEL-I think the engineer here has gone beyond excellence here,in this work. Okay. MR HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Back to your question, it was 5600 square feet of disturbance. MR. SIPP- That's approximately 1/3rd of the lot is going to be disturbed. MR. HUTCHINS-No,sir. MR. SIPP-So you're somewhere around a third or more of disturbance. You're bound to have erosion. Now, when you re-seed this or it gets to the point of waiver, obviously you can't stockpile much of this disturbance on the lot. As such, you're going to have to remove some of it. You just don't have the space, and that area that is left, what is left, what is not trucked away or moved elsewhere. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and we've acknowledged that in our responses to that, because that did come up, that we don't have the luxury of a stockpile area on this site. When we go in and excavate it, it's going to have to go out. MR. SIPP-But you're going to have some exposed, bare ground. Let's put it that way. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. MR. SIPP- That something is done to prevent erosion of that soil, either by covering it or seeding it. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, and there's an erosion control plan submitted for the construction phase, which would address. the construction phase. MR. SIPP-AII right, but I also want to address the fact that, in doing the seeding, maybe in the final step, that there be no phosphorus included in the fertilizer used to get the seed growing, as you re-seed over the top of the holding tanks and so forth. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sure we'd be agreeable to something like that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question for you in the stormwater analysis report. The pages aren't numbered, but it's the sixth page. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And there's a table there, under additional storm events, and you show the pre-developed runoff versus the proposed runoff,and on the first two events, the two year storm and the fifty year storm, the proposed runoff is less or equal to pre- development, but then on the 100 year storm, the proposed runoff is greater than the pre-development. When I first saw that, I was like, well how could that be if it's less under the 50 year storm? How could it be more under the 100? MR. HUTCHINS-It's a function of how the device, that specific outlet of the device, as modeled, handles the, obviously 100 year event you get much greater inflow rates. It can happen within stormwater models, and to tell you the truth, I haven't quite convinced myself that it would happen in reality, but we are dealing with a stormwater model, and it can happen, depending upon the way the outlet of the particular pond is modeled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-So that's how it can happen. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess my only comment, as I was looking through the stormwater report, there's a little piece on maintenance of stormwater management devices, and this is always a question for me. The applicant always does a lot of planning up front to put in these, you know, intricate or elaborate, depending on the situation, stormwater devices, but they have to be maintained. In this particular situation you've identified, this is a $12,000 storm water management system, but the long term maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowner or whoever they sell it to, long term. How complicated is the sediment removal, as far as maintenance? What does it require? Is it an annual kind of a thing? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUTCHINS-I would expect that this catch basin that I'm showing catching the diverted off site runoff will be the highest maintenance issue. That's just my opinion, thinking about this. I think that's going to be the highest maintenance item. I think that's going to need to be cleaned out yearly. The other items, much of it is very similar to landscape maintenance, as least what we're showing. These are infiltration trenches. You've got to keep them clean. Sometimes the leaves build up around them. As far as re-building them in this particular situation, I don't see them being an item that needs to be re-built on a set basis. MRS. STEFFAN-So the most difficult one to maintain, what would that require? I mean, will there be silt that will have to be shoveled out or? MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else, Tom? MR. FORD-I'd like to hearfrom the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don't know if you were here earlier in the meeting when I outlined the procedures for the public hearing. They are in a handout on the back table. I would ask that you identify yourself for the record and speak into the microphone, as we do tape the meeting, and I would ask that you try to keep your comments to three minutes. Having said that, I guess, sir, you can be first. JIM TOBIN MR. TOBIN-I have an outline here, that may make it easier. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TOBIN-My name is Jim Tobin and I live at 15 Dark Bay Lane. As a resident of Dark Bay Lane and practicing architect for 40 years, I reviewed the. proposedstormwater management drawings submitted by the applicant's engineer and find the following omissions. Number One,. the sanitary holding tank is 37 feet from the domestic water service. A distance of 50 feet, distance separation, is required by the New York State Health Department if a suction pump is installed. Number Two, the catch basin distribution pipe and absorption pipe located at the edge of the road is of an insufficient si;ze for the volume of water sheeting all the way from Route 9 and the road to the south of the property. The catch basin and absorption field along the south property line is on adjacent property. Number Four, the distance separation between the&eptic field for Lot Number Three, which is the adjoining house, and the catch basin absorption field, the road runoff is too close. The water from the absorption field will flood the adjacent septic field. The exact location and elevation of the septic field must be shown on the drawings. Number Five, the silt fence shown on the erosion control drawings on Drawing S-3 is shown incorrectly on the south boundary, and will allow sediment to flow into the. lake. Number Six, no erosion control device has been shown for the water line ~ installation on Drawing S-3. Number Seven, the proposed water line extension into the lake requires excavation and blasting through the rock ledge at the shoreline, and the rock ledge in. the lake so the water line can be buried to a pepth of four feet . to prevent freezing. Also the total length of the water line are approximately 100 feet, 50 feet on land, 50 feet into the water, would require a structure enclosing a pump structure at the lake shoreline. No details on the waterline construction are shown on the drawings. 51 -, (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) This construction will occur in an area between the shoreline and the existing stone wall. This is the area where the applicant has noted on submitted documents that no vegetation or construction will occur. A detailed description of the water line construction must be submitted for review. An application to the Department of Environmental Conservation is required for any excavation placing fill within the water~ Number Eight, most of these items were mentioned by the Board, and I'm gOing to skip them, but they're required on the maintenance, and I think also a bond is required. So I'll just go by that real quickly. Number Nine, the proposed house is sited on a five foot high retaining wall, three stories high. The visual impact from the lake of a tall, narrow, 40 foot wide house on a narrow lot, devoid of vegetation, with an adjacent nine foot high retaining wall for the holding tank is a tragedy. If you know what nine feet is, it's higher than this ceiling. That's the retaining wall that's holding the holding tanks back, and the holding tanks are the size of Buicks. There are alternatives which could be addressed to reduce the bulk of the house. The holding tank could be re-Iocated under the parking area, thus omitting an unsightly retaining wall. Number Ten, lastly this Board should know that there is a deed restriction concerning the height of any building on this site. The deed restricts the maximum height of any building to two and a half stories. The applicant proposes a three story building. A building of two and a half stories could easily be designed to meet this restriction, if the applicant is willing to modify the design to be within the limits imposed upon the deed restriction. I,forone, would be willing to modify the position. If the applicant is unwilling to modify the height of the building, I'm prepared to initiate litigation to enforce the deed restriction. The deed restriction that I am talking about is a 1968, I believe, deed restriction,developed by the grantor, which is Malcolm Mitchell. It is in the deed. There is a subsequent deed restriction of 1973, I believe, which excludes this parcel from setbacks only. So the deed restriction of a two and a half story house is on. So if this Board approves it, if the Zoning Board approves it, and the building permit is granted, I will follow through on enforcing the deed restriction on this site. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-My name is John Matthews. I live at 18 Cedar Point, directly across the bay from the proposed property. I go back a long ways in history with this property. I was the contractor that built the original house for the Durantes. So I know exactly where the septic tank is and the drywell, and the fact is that the substantial amount of runoff from the collection basins that are in the area of the lower parking lot above the wall will directly impede this, the septic system that's there now. Now I do appreciate the fact that they're trying to increase the amount of absorption, but the design has to cover basically the whole hill, all the way to the top, because every little bit of water that hits that ledge rock, which it's all ledge, I mean, everything, there's basically no percolation from the road up to the top of the hill. It runs down and hits that stone wall, along the edge of the driveway, and runs right down onto that flat area next to the wall, and down the steps. Now I don't know what they're talking about no water running. I live there year round, and in the Spring and in the winter, when the ground is frozen and we get these really heavy rainstorms, I mean, the water just comes down that road in torrents. Now, so far there has been no erosion, but there haven't been any trenches dug and filled with stone and what not that are going to absorb all this water and put it into the loose fill that was dumped alongside the road after we completed the house for the Durante's. The other thing is, that this is a vacant piece of property. There's no pre- existing nonconforming foundation on it. We're starting right from scratch, today, 2009. A lot of laws have been changed. A lot of rules have been changed as far as what can be done along the lake. Now there's a lot of people today that have lots and properties very similar to this. They're not alone. There's narrow lots. There's shallow lots that are kept in families just for the use of a dock, because they know they can't build on them. Now, I'm kind of afraid that this situation, let it be known that it can be done, because of the ability to just get variances for this and get variances for that. There's going to be a number of applicants lOOking to utilize properties that haven't been able to be used for . the last 10 years because of the rules that are in place, and I've been a builder for 40 years or more, and I've seen what has been done around the shoreline, and there has to be some more stringent restraint on the shoreline. I mean, when I drive in and out of the Bay over by Rockhurst and I see the tremendous growth in an area which was nothing but little camps, now it's wall to wall big, 2400 square foot house, and there's absolutely no room for drainage or anything. So, and the same situation occurs on this lot. I mean, it's so close to the road, and there's really no room to take care of the runoff. They've done an excellent job with trying to put absorption beds, but the ground freezes in the winter, and the absorption beds freeze over. This mulch bed on the top, I mean, it gets 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) frozen, the water comes running down the road, where is it going to go? It's going to run right over the top of it into the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-I would like to see that you give this your best look over. It deserves it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Chris. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. First off, we'd like to recognize the efforts the applicant has made to address concerns raised by the Town and our office to mitigate impacts of the project. .I'd like to discuss a couple ,of items which we've, focusing on the stormwater. Regarding the infiltration trench, again, we feel, they have pushed it back from the house, but we feel that six and a half feet is still going to be impacting. the soils .there. When you bring construction equipment, concrete trucks, blasting, the soilswill be impacted. Also we still think there's going to be a foundation drain, if they're putting it into rock. Their submission referenced that, but we did not see that see that on the drawing. So where is that going to be drained to? We're basically reducing the required separation by greater than 50%, and the percolation rates are very rapid. They did, again, state in their submission that they would provide some enhancement of six feet of peat, which is good, but we did not see that on a detail. So that should be added. It was referenced, I think, in their report, or letter, and sometimes, we just don't want that overlooked. Also, perhaps additional vegetation should be added for nutrient uptake. They've referenced a no disturbance zone, but we think thpt should, that's basically the minimum area. They're only going to have a 35 foot no disturbance zone. That should be delineated and protected prior to construction and some enforcement conditions placed on that. Also we feel that the impervious ramp should be removed, that leads directly to the lake, and replaced. There's various methods. They could have pervious pavement. They can have mulch, they can have other items. In closing, the applicant has demonstrated the ability to engineer a site to meet Town approvals, however, there's a point when a property may not be buildable, especially when you have approximately 2500 square feet of livable area within shoreline setbacks on an undersized lot with steep slopes without suitable wastewater treatment area, and where a large part of the site will be altered, removing all soils and vegetation protecting the lake. So we hope that you consider this. Also it is being used for possibly its best use, which is lake access. Acouple of points that have been raised that this project, you know, rules have changed, the laws have changed, regulations have changed. Well, a lot of times they've changed because we know a lot more about the lake than we did 40 years ago. So we had .to change the rules and regulations. The difficulty on this property, again, it was said was due to change in laws, but we had to change the laws to address. environmental issues like stormwater. . That's why we had to change that. Project, will a single house have an influence, a macro influence on Lake George? No, but I think.you guys are seeing more applications for variances on stormwater closer to the lake. We see them around the lake, so, again, it's the cumulative impact that we are having. So those are simply the items on the stormwater that I'd like to address, but, again, there has been changes to the laws. That is a difficulty. Is there alternatives? I think there's other property that is nearby that they own. I mean, we'd all love to be on the lake. So, thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open for now. If you want to come back to the table. MR. PHILLIPS-I have one thing to add to what Mr. Tobin has said, and that is that if there is a height restriction, relative to this property, we will scour the deeds and look at that, and if there is a height restriction, we will abide by it, and so I can offer that up to Mr. Tobin, because we're not proposing to do anything to avoid any of the private covenants and restrictions. So we will take a look at that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-And I would think that, assuming we are able to get back to you for Site Plan Review, that's when we would be able to deal with that issue on the merits. 53 '. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-There were a couple of people that commented on concerns about the, one of the proposed catch basins. being too close to a neighbor's septic field. Could you comment on that. MR HUTCHINS-I presume what they're referring to is the Durante house, which is the adjoining one, and the septic system is in the general area. I didn't feel that it was too close. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we know where it is? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Well, we know generally where it is. It's on the other side of the drive. Yes, and it's up. It's on the other side of the drive, and up several feet, six feet. MR. PHILLlPS-Upgradient, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I'm sorry. If you look at S-2, and Mr. Matthews could probably tell us right where it is. I'm going by what I'm told, and it's up in the area, in there. Right. It's up by the, right, this is just a corner.of your, of the house. MRS. SCHIEBEL-It's right here. Right here. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, because it's right by where you drive in? MRS. SCHIEBEL-It's right up here, right off that corner, right in here. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So, it's reasonably close. It's up gradient a little bit. I can look at that again and see if I can come up with something better there, but, I thought it was better than diversion, but maybe it isn't. MR. SEGULJIC-It just seems to me as if the lot's just too small. I mean, once again, variances are one thing, but variances in a CEA are very serious to me. If there's a place in the Code where variances shouldn't be allowed, if it's anywhere, it should be a CEA. It's just, I just think every time you try to solve a problem, you're bumping into something else. You couldn't meet the septic requirements. You had to get holding tanks, which is great, but you couldn't meet the septic requirements. MR. HUTCHINS-Absolutely. Well, it's 85 feet deep. MR. SEGULJIC-You can't meet 147. You need a waiver from us to meet 147, and a variance to meet that. MR. HUTCHINS-That's why we asked for the variance. MR. SEGULJIC-On top of all the other zoning requirements where you need variances. When is a lot unbuildable? MR. PHILLIPS-I think a lot is unbuildable when it's not assessed as a building lot. Because, on the public access issue, if I want to access Lake. George, I can do it for a few dollars a day, whether I'm at the Million Dollar Beach or whether I'm at a State campsite, or whether I'm at some other place on the lake, but, you know, as far as this Town is concerned, going back to 1979, this Town has classified this property as a building lot. It's assessed it as a building lot. It's legally approved it as a building lot, and so I think that, I think that when this Town no longer treats this as a building lot, then maybe it's not a building lot, and so I think that's the answer to your question. There's a lot of history here. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. That's not the issue before this Board, though. We do not get into tax issues, and by the way, once you build a house, you think you're paying a lot of taxes now, build a house. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, I think you get into legal issues,though, and, you know, there's a tax issue involved here from the owner's side of the table. There's also a level of expectation where a father does a subdivision, gets it approved, grants a gift to his children, his future generation, and says, here, here's something that I gave to you, and so, you know, right now, under the Codes, Rules and Regulations and tax assessment of Queensbury, this is a building lot. If the Boards want to take that away from these people, and basically say this is not a building lot, then that leads into another legal pathway whereby somebody' has to pay for that, and so I guess that's how I would answer that question, and I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything like that. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think the Board ever said this is not a buildable lot. It's, if you built a much smaller house there, maybe it would be. Remember, all your requirements are based upon the.size of the house. If you scaled that house way back, a lot of these issues might go away. MR. KREBS-Yes, but they've got covenants that say it has to beat least 900 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Then they only have one issue to overcome. Look at all the variances they have to get to make this house. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, even with 900 square feet, with this property, we still would be going through, probably, a similar variance procedure. We would probably be asking for the, if not the identical variances, almost close to it. So because of the change in law since this lot was created as a subdivision lot, you know, we are in that variance mode, regardles$of the size of the building that would be constructed on this property, and, you know, I was happy to hear Mr. Navitsky recognize some of our planning because we've listened very carefully to what he has said to this Board, and to the extent that we could incorporate that planning into our stormwater engineering, we have done that, and it's not a perfect world, but we're trying to do the best we can in a non-perfect world. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that's exactly what I'm trying to do, and I have regulations that I need to follow and Codes and Ordinances, which you're not satisfying. Nor can you under the present design. MR. HUTCHINS-Nor can you on this parcel. With an 85 foot deep parcel, you can't meet the stormwater, we can't meet the Ordinance. MR. SEGULJIC-And it brings me back, a lot of these Ordinances came into effect to protect the lake, and as a matter of fact, the State of New York went out of its way to deem this a CEA, a Critical Environmental Area. MR. PHILLIPS-I'd ask Tom a question. Tom, if this had not been upgraded to a major by Staff, we wouldn't be here. for the stormwater variances, but we would still be before the Planning Board for the setback variances from the lake, and from the driveway. Is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-We would need a variance, minor stormwater requires a 100 foot separation for driveway controls. We would need a variance for controls for the driveway. MR. PHILLIPS-So that would be one. MR. HUTCHINS-From where you drive a car, your stormwater controls would have to be 100 feet the lake. MR. PHILLIPS-So that would be one variance that we would have. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But keep in mind, when you look at the Code, it says the Board has the option, has the authority to upgrade it to a Major project, .and there's five conditions at which you can do that, if it's in a CEA, which is Number One. So you can take a minor project and make it a Major project. So even if you weren't, you probably would have been when you came to this Board. So, I just, I cannot, with good conscious, make a recommendation to the Zoning Board to approve this. MR. HUNSINGER-Howdo othermembers feel? MR. KREBS-Well, I personally have a real hardship when this lot was approved by this Town's governmental body in 1969 and re-affirmed several times that these people cannot use this lot. This is confiscation. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. They can use the lot. They're using the lot now. They have docks on it, four docks, I believe. MR. KREBS-Yes, but they cannot use it as a residential lot, and that is what it is defined as. MR. SIPP-They could use it if they scaled back. If they scale back what they want, what the requirements are. 55 '. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. KREBS-The covenants require a 900 square foot building. MR. SEGULJIC-The State of New York, the Lake George Park Commission requires a 100 foot setback. MR. KREBS-The Park Commission didn'texist when this was approved. The APA didn't exist when this was approved. MR. SEGULJIC-So we can never change regulations when we find things out? MR. KREBS-No, but you can't go back and change the law. That would be like me saying to you, come to work for me,Tom,and I'll pay you $100,000 a year, but after you come to work for me, I say to you, no, I'm only going to pay you $25,000. MR. SEGULJIC-We didn't change laws. We changed regulations and Ordinances. MR. KREBS-You changed laws and regulations. Okay. Over the years. This was an approved lot. It's a residential, and this is my opinion. It's an approved lot. It has been approved. It's been reaffirmed that it's an approved residential lot. MR. SJPP-Yes, but then where does that leave us to build, now, a 5,000 square foot house? MR. KREBS-No, they're not asking for a 5,000 square foot house. MR. SEGULJIC-But they could under your rules. MR. KREBS-No, they couldn't, because they couldn't cover that much of the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except for, well, we can debate it all night. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but, you know, I think some of the information that's included in the package, I mean, it is zoned one way, but they've also been assessed and paying taxes on this property at a very high level, and I know most lakefront owners do pay a lot of taxes, but there's an implied, there's implied, permission's not the right word, but there's an implied agreement that this lot Gould be development. I mean, if it's assessed at, you know, the fair market value is $1.6 million,and it's assessed value is $1.2 million, and so the Town, at some point, made.a decision that this is a buildable lot, and so we can't just, I don't think, discount this out of hand, that it's definitely not doable. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, are you aware of how they assess properties on the lake? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. SEGULJIC- Then how can you say by the assessment it's a buildable lot? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's easy to find out. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know how they aSSess properties on the lake? MRS. STEFFAN-How. MR. SEGULJIC-They take the amount of lineal footage on the lake and I believe for the first foot up to 115 feet it's assessed at like $8500, and each foot after that has another multiplier. That's how they do it, and I don't think we should get into tax discussions. That is not our purview. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree with you, Tom. MR. PHILLIPS-If I could just interrupt, respectfully. In the packet, you have the answer to this question. The Dark Bay Association which adjoins this lot, and that's an Association lot which is a non-buildable lot, has an assessment of $115,000 on it. So you have that in your packet. So you have evidence of how a non-building lot is assessed on Lake George. This property is right next to it, and this property is assessed as a building lot, at the 1.2 plus level. So, you know, you have that example of how the Town treats a common area lot versus a building lot in your packet before you. 56 . (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I agree with Tom, but I als? agree with ~retchen. . What you pay in taxes is really immaterial to your Site ,Pla~, but, ~f you are paYing taxes as if it was a buildable lot, that is material to what we re discussing, and I a.lso have to believe that the covenants and restrictions that were established were estabhs~~d. whe~ the subdivision was approved. So when this Town approved that subdivIsion,: It approved the subdivision on the assumption that the smallest house that you could bUild on that lot is 900 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-No, that's not how it's done. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the covenants and restrictions that were approved as part of the subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. That's what it says, but that's not how they determine taxes. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know it's not. Properties are assessed on whether or not, on the use of the land. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, and my point is that they assume everything is buildable. MR. HUNSINGER-No,. they don't. If it's Land Conservation, they don't assume it's buildable. It's assumed that it's buildable if it's an approved lot in an approved subdivision. MR. KREBS-And the lot right next to it is not buildable. MR. HUNSINGER-It's assessed differently. MR. SEGULJIC-So that means we really have no say over this, then,is what you're saying to me? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we have all the say in the world on Site Plan Review. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm not following you, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, a lot of the issues that we're talking about, you know, some of the specific issues that we're talking about, you know,stormwater, you know, whether or not it's going to impact the neighbors, you know, that's all Site Plan issues. That's not, and it's not, whether or not you can build a house or not. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and we don't get involved with tax issues. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we don't. . MR. SEGULJIC-That's not, if they have an issue, they go to the Assessor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I agree with that. That's why I said what they pay in taxes is irrelevant, but if the Town recognizes that property as a buildable lot, as an approved subdivision, that you could put a house on, then, you know, there's been a precedent set. I mean, it's a question of our attorney, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think so. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just saying I agree with the comments that the both of you were making, not. MR. OBORNE-If I may, I just want to just focus this up. We were looking for a recommendation, based on the variances and the stormwater that are before you, specifically stormwater, and the variance associated with those infiltration trenches, and that's what we're looking at right now. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. I have a motion I'm prepared to make it. MR. FORD-May I weigh in first? I believe that rules and laws have been enacted for the preservation and protection of the lake that has changed over the years, based upon . experience and history. I believe that the stormwater and wastewater systems that are being proposed are in direct relation to the anticipated structure. Therefore I think it all relates to size of structure as it relates to the lot itself. If there could be an adjustment in 57 ';. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) the size of the structure, it undoubtedly would impact the necessity for the stormwater and wastewater systems being proposed. . MR. HUTCHINS-Is that something for me to comment on? MR. KREBS-Tom, I understand the storrnwater .part, but when you're having holding tanks, I don't understand what the, you know, that's probably the most environmentally sound thing we could ask them to do, and they've already agreed to do it, is to put holding tanks in. So you're not going to have any leach field. You're not going to have any water leaching into the lake with septic, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-But keep in mind why they have the holding tanks. They couldn't meet the septic requirements. So they were forced into it. Where I'm coming from, I hate to use this, but it's like putting, you know, the old trying to put ten pounds of sugar into a five pound bag is what we have here.. They need, once again, keep this in mind, four, I believe five variances and one waiver from a variance, because they're not meeting the stormwater requirements for the four foot separation. They need a waiver for that. If our Code doesn't mean anything in the CEA, I don't know where it means anything, and with all that in mind, I'm going to make a motion, if I could. MOTION THAT QUEENSBURY PLANNING. BOARD DOES NOT RECOMMEND A WAIVER FROM THE 100 FOOT INFILTRATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 147-9B(d) TO DEBARON ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Due to the following reasons: The project will potentially have an adverse impact on the. environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Inability of the site to meet the requirements of Chapter 147. The .site consists of Slopes ranging from 12 to 30%. The site soils are comprised of soils which have a potential for erosion, and adequate information has not been provided to justify recommending a waiver from the infiltration distance requirements. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion? MR. SIPP-I seconded it for a discussion. MR. TRAVER-My feeling is that there are too many variances required to make this plan work in this Critical Environmental Area, I think. I'm not sure what the solution would be to make this buildable, but I think the plan as submitted, requesting so many exceptions to the newly enacted rules to protect the lake, are just not in the interest of the lake, and therefore the Town and therefore the applicant. I just think that there may be a plan. I'm not an engineer. There may be a way to engineer this in a way that does not require so many protective actions to be overlooked with regards to the lake. I don't know what that is, but this isn't it, is my. feeling. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. SIPP-I agree with Mr. Traver, that there needs to be some give on both sides here. The size of the building must be changed in order to lessen the impact that these are going to have on the lake. MR. FORD-That boils down or sums up my comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments? Call the vote, please, Maria. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-So the motion was denied. Would anyone else like to put forward another motion? MR. KREBS-I'd like to ask a question, what size building, you know, from a square footage on a first floor, would you think is acceptable on this lot? MR. SEGULJIC- That's not a question for us. 58 -' J (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. TRAVER-That's more of an engineering. MR.KREBS-Yes. You're saying the building they're building is inappropriate for the lot. So I'm asking you what size building do you think would be appropriate for this lot? MR. TRAVER-Well, what we were asked is to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. So, I mean, I don't know the answer to that. MR. SEGULJIC-That's not an appropriate question. MR. TRAVER-We're only looking at what's here. We can't hypothetically discuss what might be submitted. We've been asked to respond to what has been submitted. What has been submitted is an engineering achievement, but it does require a great deal of setting aside some very important protective measures for the lake, and that's one of the things that we, among others, that we need to consider, and I, for one, I certainly can appreciate the position, you know, of the applicant, and I suspect that there may be a modification to this plan that certainly would be more acceptable, whether it ultimately would be or not, but the sheer number of exceptions to the regulations I find overwhelming. MR. HUNSINGER-If, during the course of Site Plan Review, let me throw out a hypothetical, let's say hypothetically. the Zoning Board approves the waivers as they're spelled out right now today. If, during the course of Site Plan Review, we modify the plan so that the house is smaller, so that they actually have less of a, the variances actually end up being less than what was approved, do they have to go back to the Zoning Board to get their variances adjusted? MR. OBORNE-As long as the variances have not changed. There's no variance for the size of the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they would. Right, but because of the way the site is, if we change the size of the house, it's going to change the waivers on setbacks. MR. OBORNE-Then certainly they'd have to go back. MR. HUNSINGER-They'd have to go back. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Even if it was less restrictive? MR. OBORNE-Yes, because the language in the varianceS are specific. MR. HUNSINGER-It's very specific, yes, and I think that's one of the difficulties in trying to advance a recommendation, because it's very specific to the exact proposal that's in front of us. MR. OBORNE-Nowyou certainly can, in your recommendation, the body of your recommendation, state that you have an issue with the size of the house and you may want to recommend a smaller impact, but that is no guarantee that the Zoning Board is going to act on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-One other tact, again, this is time, always, is that the applicant requests a tabling, they come back with a smaller plan. So that they can get a positive recommendation out of the Planning Board. MR. SIPP-I feel that if we allow this to go forward as is, and say to the Zoning Board, yes, we agree, we're setting a precedent, and this is one. third of an acre. Do we get down to one sixth of an acre and still have a buildable lot because the subdivision was made back in 1950? I mean, come on, if we set a precedent here, we're tying ourselves down to tightly, I believe. There is room for movement here on both sides, and I think We ought to take advantage of it, and I think the applicant has to re-think what's. going to happen here if they don't. MR. PHILLIPS-Could I comment on that, Mr. Chairman? 59 ~ ... (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. PHILLIPS-On the precedentside, let me comment on that. I think that, as far as this record is concerned, with a subdivision.. lot that has been approved by a predecessor Town Planning Board, in many Zoning Ordinances, once it'sapproved, that's it, and you don't even have to get variances for lots, not this one, obviously, but the other thing about this lot is that it's also been recognized by the Adirondack Park Agency as a pre- existing subdivision lot. I don't think most of the otherlots that you deal with have that determination and ratification by the Adirondack Park Agency. I think also the Department of Health. has taken a second look at this and has remained true to its original approval. I think that's outside of the. precedent range, .and so I think that the facts that are in this record arevery, very unique facts, and so I guess what I'm saying is that every Board makes decisions solely on the facts that are before them, and the facts that all Boards have them on this projectare very unique facts. However, I would say to, I would say this. .Because we would like to get back to this Board to continue the planning process, I would say that if I said to the Zoning Board of Appeals next week that we are looking for variances for this structure that is proposed, or smaller, and the Zoning Board said, yes, you can do this or smaller depending upon what the Planning Board does, then I would say that if we have that or smaller portioned in our record, we wouldn't have to go back to the Zoning Board, if we wound up downsizing this property, this structure, because. of the planning process. I'm kind of throwing that out and asking you whether you agree or disagree with it. MR. SIPP-Is that andlor, or just or? And/or? MR. PHILLIPS-I would say the structure as proposed or smaller. MR. OBORNE-I would say that'scumbersome. MR. SIPP-Right, that's not going to fly. I mean, you. had your cake, andlor doesn't do anything. MR. OBORNE..Again, we're here for a recommendation, which is in front of you, and I just want to keep circling back to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thanks, Keith. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. Well, I'm just trying to answer those questions, that's all, and I guess there are no easy answers to those questions, but alii can keep emphasizing here is that I think we have a history before you unlike most projects that you've seen. I don't see the projects that you do, but I know that, from my experience, the. facts of this case are very unique. MR. HUNSINGER-And I just want to elaborate on one of your comments, and this is, I think, kind of in response to Mr. Sipp's,blJt, you know, one of the. major differences between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board is our decisions are not judicial. So, in fact, we're required to look at every project as it stands on its own merit. Whereas, the Zoning Board, once they make a ruling, you know, the rulings are then built upon each other, and you do set precedent, by nature of being a judicial body, but we're not. So every ruling, every project stands on its own. MR. SIPP-Yes, I'm just saying that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I understand what you're saying, but. MR. SIPP-In this day of go to court, precedent is set very easily, and the next one, I mean, we've got several buildings in Cleverdale, one of which has been vacant for over a year now, which is oversized for the lot. It got snuck in there without Site Plan Revi~w, but when we went to review it and turned them down because of the pathway not, I think you know what I'm talking about, but that. set a precedent, and three houses down there's one that's bigger than that on the same size, one third of an acre. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-And, you know, if we're going to protect the lake, we've got to protect it some.how. Take a stand someplace. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a motion you want to put forward, Gretchen? 60 , ,I '.:4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I don't know if it's doing the trick or not. Okay. MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 14-2009 FOR DEBARON ASSOCIATES. IN MARCH OF 2009. THE ZONING BOARD OF.APPEALS HAS ASKED THE PLANNING BOAAD FOR A RECOMMENDATION. REGARDING THE STORMWATER. PROTECTION. PLAN FOR THIS APPLICATION. SPECIFICALLY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD. RE-CONFIRM. THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT IS ADEQUATE. AND. QUOTE. THEY'RE FINE WITH IT. MEANING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS FINE WITH . IT. AFTER . OUR MAY 19TH REVIEW. DISCUSSION. AND PRESENTATION. BY. THE . APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY AND ENGINEER. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDER DOWNSIZING THE FOOTPRINTOF THE HOME TO DECREASE THE IMPACT OF STORMWATER CONTROL ..MEASURES.. NECESSARY TO MITIGATE STORMWATER SHORTFALLS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE PLAN. . AS A RESULT OF THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT. WE RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE NUMBER OF . VARIANCES. REQUESTED IN. THIS CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-I'd like to absorb all that. I hate to have to ask you this, could you read that again? MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. If you want.me to summarize it, instead of reading it. MR.SEGULJIC-Summarize it, yes. MR. TRAVER-I don't think that motion addressed the request of the Zoning Board. mean, I understand what your intent. MRS. STEFFAN-No, because, you know, we can make a recommendation to the Zoning Board, but we can't tell them what to do. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, why I phrased it this way, is that the Planning Board, based on all the discussion we've had this evening, is recommending to the applicant that they downsize the house, which would, as a result, decrease the requests for variances, you know, they would probably be still asking for the variances, but to a diminished level, and also based on the discussion that we've heard tonight, there's also some changes that might be made to this stormwater plan, and so, based on us asking the applicant to downsize their house, and then subsequently to reduce the amount of relief they're asking from the Zoning Board, that in light of that, the Zoning Board consider the number of variances that they're requesting in a Critical Environmental Area. Again, we can't tell them what to do. MR. TRAVER-Right. I guess my comment would be I'm not asking them specifically to reduce the size of the house, because I don't know if that's the appropriate action to address. My concern is the sheer number of variances that they're requesting, and that's what needs to be addressed. . If they can do that by downsizing the house, fine. That may not do it. I don't know. So I hesitate to tell the applicant come back with a smaller house, and imply that that's going to address my concern, because I don't know the answer to that. My concern is the number of variances they're requesting. in. a Critical Environmental Area, and I have to rely on them to respond to that by coming back with some kind of amended plan, from an engineering standpoint, that requires fewer, you know, variances, to the, that's my own feeling, obviously. MRS. STEFFAN-That's fine, you know, and I took this approach because, based on the discussions, I mean, we obviously are not in agreement as a Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And so this is at least a movement in a direction. I don't know if it's the right direction, but it certainly made logical sense to me to make this recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? 61 " (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. TRAVER-The other comment I would make is that they specifically asked for our recommendation regarding whether or not that we're giving an affirmative with regards to stormwater going forward, and that motion does not address that. MRS. STEFFAN-That's correct, because they want to know whether the stormwater management project is adequate, and that comes right from their motion, and that, in other words, we, the Planning Board, are fine with it, and we obviously are not. MR. TRAVER-If we could be that specific in the resolution, I guess what I'm saying is if we specifically said we're not comfortable with it,1 would feel more comfortable with that motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that's what I was going to say. If we say, I personally, can't give an affirmative on the site as it's proposed. We therefore recommend that they review alternative scenarios. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-But the Zoning Board doesn't look for alternative scenarios. You mean the applicant look for alternatives? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in my mind what we're saying is, we don't like what's here now, but come back to us with something else. MR. TRAVER-So what you're saying, Gretchen, is that we need to be very specific and for example, make a motion saying that we do not feel that the stormwater is adequate, or that we do feel that the stormwater is adequate. Is that what you're saying? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that based onour discussions we cannot say to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the storm water plan is adequate, based on the discussion I've heard in the last hour, and that we're fine with it. MR. TRAVER-So why don't we say exactly that. MRS. STEFFAN-We can't say that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we have a motion and a second. I mean, we're in discussion. MRS. STEFFAN-I can read it again. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Why don't you read it again and then we'll call the vote. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-So the motion carries. MR. OBORNE-That's your recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. PUD SITE PLAN 20-2009 PRELIMINARY PLAN FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2009 SEQR TYPE NIA THE MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING; MILLER ASSOCIATES; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HII.,AND PARK PUD LOCATION. MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 11..23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 34 R.ESIDENTIAL LOTS 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 62 , .;, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) 3111/09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE, DEC LOT SIZE 11.23 +1- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-8 SECTION 179-12-010 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-PUD Site Plan 20-2009, Preliminary and Freshwater Wetlands 3-2009, applicant Michaels Group, Site Plan ~evi~w for the sub~ivision of land involving a Planned Unit Development. The location IS the north portion of Meadowbrook Road. Planned Unit Development is the existing zoning. SEQRA Status is Previous EIS dated 1/14/87. Parcel History, vacant land associated with the Hiland Park PUD approved on 1/14/87. 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 PUDas approved by Town Board resolution 212.87. I do have a letter from Mike F>almer, which is before you, discussing the access to the site upon completion, if it is approved, and I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dave Michaels, Tom Nace, and Jim Miller. We'll give you the eleven o'clock version. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, in light of the late hour. MR. LAPPER-We were here last time for a conceptual approval, and it went very well, and we, at that time, in the record, I don't know if anything was re-submitted, but we had a letter from the Waverly Place Homeowners Association to the south, supporting the project. The Staff Notes reference that we have the consistency resolution from the Town Board. We had been here a number of years ago when we received approval for Waverly Place, with a concept that we got through conceptual with a more intense office and residential, much more square footage and number of units, and came back with what we think is a better plan, certainly a softer plan. We have all of the, the engineering comments were very benign and mostly technical and no problem, and Tom and Jim will go over that. There are just a couple of points I want to respond to on the Staff Notes. What Keith just referred to, the issue about, there was a comment from the Fire Marshal to begin with, about whether our boulevard was satisfactory, and Dave met with Mike and they looked at Surrey Field and came over here, and we have the letter that is acceptable the way that it's proposed. So one issue that Staff raises is whether there's 34 or 35 lots in terms of that, the second entrance. There are 34 building lots, and the 35th lot is the common area. So that's something that this Board has to consider, but we believe that we're in compliance because it's not .a building lot. It's just the vacant, common area around it. Obviously there's access to Haviland Road here, but the whole point of re-Iocating Meadowbrook Road was to avoid that because of sight distance issues. The other important issue for the applicant is the boulevard entranceway. When the County came to re-locate the road, Michaels Group had to give up their frontage on Old Meadowbrook Road, which was obviously, when this whole thing was planned, when the PUD was planned and when we were here last time, this was designed to have.all that frontage. We certainly could have provided for two entrances, but what they did 'at that time, and we worked this out with the neighbor, Rich Schermerhorn, and with the County at thetime of the acquisition of those rights from Old Meadowbrook Road, was to have Rich Schermerhorn provide that access as part of his subdivision of what is now being built by Amedore, but there were four commercial lots, and those commercial lots can be office. They could be food service. They could be general store, and Rich doesn't have any current plan. I think it's most likely that it may be an office, but it also, you know, could be some sort of food service. There's, you know, there's enough people up there in terms of a critical mass, to justify that kind of an investment, but the issue for The Michaels Group is that what was suggested in Staff Notes on that short boulevard, to have an entrance to the. back of Rich's lot, is not something that The Michaels Group is excited about, because they want to have a residential driveway, this attractive boulevard to go to a residential subdivision. They understand that there's, at some point, going to be something non-residential in front, but they don't want to have the traffic of an office use or.let's say a pizza shop or a grocery store, coming down into their boulevard and then immediately making a right turn. So, ultimately this road will be dedicated to the Town. So it's not going to be precluded, because it's going to be a Town road, and if when, whatever Rich proposes and this Board decides how the entrance is going to go, that's where it's going to go, and it's not that you couldn't tell them to put it there, but it's 63 '. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) certainly nothing that The Michaels Group wants to provide now, because it's just not their concept of doing an attractive residential subdivision, having, you know, tractor trailers or whatever, making a sharp turn to deliver to wherever that site is. MR. LAPPER-So we're not precluding it, but we just don't want to provide for that at this point. It doesn't .seem to The Michaels Group that that's appropriate for this type of development. That said, .there's nothing else in. the Staff Notes and the engineering comments that are any problem for us, but we wanted to have that discussion with you, so we could move this forward, and one other, of Course we. heard the discussion earlier tonight about sidewalks, and that Was. something that was rnentioned here. So what Jim had proposed on this plan is to include a sidewalk along that boulevard entrance, so that the kids could walk to the bus stop, but not to have a sidewalk on the inside because it just doesn't seem necessary, as it's not exactly a cui de sac, but a circular drive just for this project. So that's a compromise that we're proposing. There was also a discussion about whether to connect the walking trail, and the problem, the. Waverly Place walking trail isn't located anywhere that it could be accessed, because it only goes to the southern end of their northern roadway. So it doesn't go to the property line. So we don't really have a way to do that,. but we think that, we hope that you'll see that sidewalk that's proposed as a compromise,. because it would get the kids to the bus stop, or get, you know, anybody else that wanted to take a walk, to where everybody else walks. MR. FORD.. That would go from where to where? MR. TRAVER-That's just at the entrance. MR. MILLER-It goes from this intersection along out to, right to Meadowbrook. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Jon, you said that the new part of Meadowbrook Road is a Town road. The County built that, didn't they? MR. LAPPER- The County built it. MR. MILLER-The sight distance problem was on Haviland. So that's why they did it. MR. LAPPER-So those are essentially the issues that we'd like to talk about, and everything else we're agreeing with, but let me turn it over to Tom and Jim to just go through the highlights of the engineering and Staff comments. MR. NACE-I don't know. There really wasn't anything significant that was in the engineering comments. If there's anything in particular there that you have questions on We could certainly answer it. One of the issues that .came up was basements and elevation in relation to groundwater, and the groundwater is fairly shallow in there. We will be doing something similar to what was done on Waverly, the first phase, which was to put in foundation drains for each of the foundations and pipe those separately on HOA property to a daylight, down toward the wetland, to the west, but if there are other engineering questions or engineering comments there that you would like our input to, we'd be glad to address them individually. MR. TRAVER-I didn't really have any engineering concerns, but I wanted to get back to our favorite subject, the sidewalks, and I appreciate the sidewalk that you have included in the plan. I'm just wondering if, you know, if you would consider having, on the inside, additional sidewalk on the, I guess I would say it would be the. MR. KREBS-Interior side? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Not on both sides, but perhaps on the interior, all the way around. Leaving this as is, but just add a section in the innermost, and that would be the smallest amount of square footage, but again, it would. 64 , ;. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) JOHN MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Our feeling is, on that subject, and doing communities like this already, I mean, as an example, I went into Surrey Field today to meet with the Fire Marshal with Tom, and there's 56 homes in Surrey Field, not the 34 we're proposing here, and I was there, in my car, for a period of about 15 minutes, and not one single vehicle entered or went through at the time, and because of the density of the project, and because of what's already been done by us at Waverly Place, what's already been currently underway through Rich's project sold to Amedore Homes, all the communities in that area don't have a designated sidewalk in front of the residences, and based on the number of homes, that it's very private,secluded back, we feel that the roadway itself is not going to represent any hazard whatsoever, and be totally conducive for that purpose, Sidewalks, you know, in our opinion, work very well when you have more new suburban type living, inner city Saratoga area, etc., where there's denser populations and existing city buildings, where pedestrian designated sidewalks are there and maintained and densities are awhole lot different, different scale. There's not the open space areas like there are out in the Hiland area, and we feel they're really not necessary. On top of it, it really presents a major design problem, because on those inner loop houses, by the time you get, you know, if you're. dealing with the road right of way, and then you have the sidewalk and maintaining it, the distance between there and to the front of the home and landscaping and the driveway, it's going to be pretty much dysfunctional. If anything, those residents would probably not like to have people walking that close to their home on a sidewalk, you know, for the residents that are located in the center. So, for all those reasons, we're pretty, you know, what's already been done around us in the immediate proximity, part of the Hiland PUD, and for all those reasons we really feel strongly that our sidewalk, as. proposed, we feel is more than adequate, and adequate to the standpoint that we have to sell the homes and we know, we feel we know what our residents, prospective residents, are going to want and desire. We did contact the Waverly HOA. You have the letter on file. They were quite, one of their key sticking points wasthey really no interest in connectivity between the two parcels. If they were open to that, we would be certainly open to it, to provide that. Their biggest concern is that of liability. It's an HOA that owns and maintains that walkway, and they have to, they have the issues of liability. So we, at least, were proactive. We approached them. Asked them about it, got their comments, and, you know, with everything in hand, that's really where we're at on that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-What if, though, they became the same homeowners association? Did you have that discussion? MR. MICHAELS-That, with the way these HOA's are set up and boards and designations, and offering, Jon can speak to it further, but. MR. HUNSINGER-It's not possible? MR. LAPPER- There's a legal reason that it's not possible, because they have different reserves, just because of the years that they were built and the level of, you know, just different building design. So if it's one HOA, they all have to pay the same monthly maintenance, and these are different, just the way, the size of the developments. This budget is going to be different than that budget. So it wasn't set up to merge. MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn't you create some sort of inter-cooperation agreement so that, you know, there could be trails on this one and they could cross each other? MR. LAPPER-Certainly that could be done, if that was something that the other guys wanted, and Dave didn't go to them and say, hey, you know, we don't want to build a connection, so put it in your letter. Dave just said this is what we're doing, what do you think, and they said, you know, we like the plan. We like the density, but we're just telling you right now, we don't want to have anybody connected to our trail, we don't want to have to deal with liability. MR. HUNSINGER-But was the offer made, well, you know, you'd be able to use this bigger plan, you know, you'd be able to use the walkway that we're going to build on this? MR. LAPPER-I think they sort of cut off the discussion and said this is the one. thing we want to tell you, and we're going to tell the Board, we don't want to see, and we don't have any part of that anymore. This has been turned. over. The residents control the Board of Directors. The Michaels Group has nothing to do with it anymore. 65 .:' (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that. MR. LAPPER-So this wasn't coming from us. We're just reporting what they said. MR. HUNSINGER-It'sjust always that, you know, it seems like, you know, we always get stuck in these positions where the good ideas can't move forward because someone puts a block in the road, and it just seems unfortunate that, you know, because the goal was always to have interconnectivity between, you know, whether they just be for recreation or for, you know, travel or whatever. MR. LAPPER- They actually have a sign on their property which says this is for residents only, public stay off. So when we're walking around, we stay on the road. MR. MICHAELS-And the interconnectivity works a lot easier when it's owned and maintained by the municipality itself, and that really provides the ideal conduit for interconnectivity, but the minute you go private, and they're walkway that we built, located on the lands, on their private lands, well, I have to say I think it's something that works well for them over there. It's used. It sets back considerably from the road. So it really made sense to go on HOA property, .I think. It's sort of a tradeoff, unfortunately. MR. LAPPER-That's true. MRS. STEFFAN-So this will have a homeowners association? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because on this, we talked about sidewalks earlier, but there's enough perimeter around the edge, I thought about a walking path. So you're saying that that's not a good idea on this one? MR. KREBS-Not necessarily connecting it, but there's no reason why you couldn't put a walking path there. MRS. STEFFAN-No, just having a walking path on this one. MR. LAPPER-I guess that would be an issue with the wetlands and the buffer. MR. MICHAELS-Well, we have, Schermerhorn's property is on the, to the left and right of the easement going in. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes, actually, the way this plan is laid out, the only common space is just this area down on the South side. Well, there's a small piece in here, but all these lots go, extend back to, right to the property line. Here, for example, there's a fairly, there's a berm and a slope along here. So it would be hard to put along there, but that, these are all part of the individual lots, but down here it's common. MR. MICHAELS-Just to bring up another thought that I'd be willing to meet with their Association and propose whether they'd be interested or not, but, you know, an HOA relationship like you were Suggesting, Chris, where, that could be worked out. We would be very open to the idea of, off the back side of the parcel to the west, you know, where that open area is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MICHAELS-And Sherman Wood, who's the President of the HOA, talked about how people have an interest in walking behind Waverly Place also, versus just along the sidewalk that's along the main roadway. So, you know, I have an interest, and would be happy to propose it because I think it. would be an added .amenity to our project as well as maybe to him, and we could maybe forward some key dollars to that, which could benefit both, and there could be a, something worked out between the two HOA's. MR. HUNSINGER-Because that is one of the goals of the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to have, you know, even if it's not a, to have some sort of off the road connection between neighborhoods. MR. SIPP-Crushed stone type of thing. 66 f ,.. ." (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Waverly Place one's paved. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. This one here, if it was in the back, I would envision it just strictly walking, and it would be more in the idea of, you know, five foot wide, but probably a crushed stone gravel, crushed stone would be easier to maintain, really just serving as a walking, more of a nature, a feeling of a nature trail. Because it's beautiful area back there. It backs up along the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MICHAELS-And I think it's something that their Board,might be, might be interested in. We'd have to work that out with them, but I think, as far as us going forward, you know, trying to work something out, where we could put these trails in as part of our game plan going forward, we'd be very willing to do one, and would make that effort. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think thatthat's a far better idea. There are folks that walk on Meadowbrook Road, but there are no shoulders. It's, cars are driving fast because it's a straightaway, and, you know, the danger level picks up the more people you have along that particular route, and so if we could get them off the road and walking in separate parcels. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don't know if they still do it, but people used to drive, just so they could walk up and down the road. MRS. STEFFAN-But also the wetland, the property in the back of that lot, between that and ACC where it goes down, I mean, it's pretty. There are lots of wildlife. There's lots of birds in there. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, it is. MR. FORD-At our previous meeting, Mr. Sipp, didn't you talk about a class that you brought in there and established a trail system? MR.SIPP-Yes. That was going across the stream onto ACC property, but you could do the same thing here. The class at BOCES, I assume, is back in operation. I haven't visited them recently, but they would do the clearing work, and in a place they could survey, to lay it out, use their knowledge of elevations and so forth. It would be a good learning experience. It's a lot cheaper, because all you do is pay for the gas and the chainsaws and the fuel and the construction equipment. We've done a lot of work. for non-profit organizations, but (lost words) because the homeowners is a non-profit organization. So, I could contact the new man down there. He's done work in the City park, in Glens Falls. His class did a lot of that tree work. So we do have the equipment and a lot of bodies. It's something to look at, because I think it lends itself, that whole area lends itself to a wildlife preserve, because it is wet, and yet there are dry areas also. MR. MICHAELS-Well, it's something we're very willing to look into, and approach the President, Sherman Wood, and bring this thought process up and see what could be worked out between both Associations once they're up and underway. Because like I said, I think it would be a definite added amenity for our project also. I think it would be a plus for both. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and especially, even if that commercial lot gets developed, and it issome kind ofa food related thing, I mean, folks could walk there, and that's part ofthe whole. concept with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is that folks could actually walk places instead of having to drive. MR. FORD-Right now, with the Amedore site, it's very tentative, and until the HOA has taken it over, it hasn't really been established whether or not that walking trail between the common land and the golf course is going to actually be put in. MR. LAPPER-There was a walking trail on the plan that was approved. That actually hooks up to. The Glen. MR. MILLER-Yes, that's what it was for, because The Glen, they walk up through there now and they requested that that be put there so they could still have route. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that was actually one of the wins of that particular project is that that path was there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just the Staff . comment about bus and transit access should be discussed with the Glens Falls Transit. MR. MILLER-I mean, we could check that. I mean, this is only a34 lot, you know, subdivision, and, you know, I doubt they're going to re-route any bus routes for this, but that was the intent of that sidewalk out to Meadowbrook, you know, obviously it's for school buses, but, you know, if there was a bus route or something there, it certainly would be conducive to a stop there. MR. LAPPER-I think the bus runs along Haviland, but not Meadowbrook. MR. MILLER-I think you're right. MR. KREBS-Yes, it goes to ACC. It goes from Ridge Road over Haviland to ACC. MR. MILLER-Okay. I think you're right. MRS. STEFFAN-These particular townhouses, are they marketed to seniors or families or? MR. MICHAELS-It'll be mainly active adult, you know, otherwise known as empty nesters. MR. LAPPER.Like Waverly. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. It's a market we feel very comfortable with. The product, I did present it last. I have a couple of renderings, but it's all new designs, and we think it'll be a good improvement off what we've learned and done in the past, but it's all first floor living, master suites. We don't envision kids being part of the households. It's really for those that, a lot of people that already live in the Town, the big house, the kids are gone and they want to downsize. They want something full maintenance, yet in a good location. So it's ongoing. We keep learning, you know, we feel our new plans and ideas of how we want to do the exteriors and designs will try to be a constant improvement. MR. FORD-You said all single level? MR. MICHAELS-Single level. There are a few designs that could be a story and a half with a master on the main level, but there'd be a stairway up to a, let's say a loft or a bedroom upstairs, but no designated two story traditional master bedroom up, no. MR. SIPP-Are these all full basements? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Full basement. What's the asking price? MRS. STEFFAN-Have you got a crystal ball? MR. MICHAELS-You need it in this economy. I would say we'll probably end up somewhere mid two's to mid three's. MR. SIPP-AII three bedrooms? MR. MICHAELS-There'll be two bedroom, two and three bedroom. What usually ends up, you have two bedrooms and a flex room like a den or study that can swing as a guest room. That's how we end up selling most of the homes. MR. MILLER-Regarding the basements, because of the grade, the way it drops off, you know, to the west, the southwest, a lot of the units, we've kind of got them tucked into the slope so they have open, walk out basements, and some of them are kind of in between, which they refer to as a garden style where you have more full windows, but, you know, you don't have a walkout. So half the units are like that. 68 l '" :, (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were none. Any written comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-And that's all that can be done, is investigate it. MR. MICHAELS-I'll talk to them this week. MR. LAPPER~Dave's going to commit to try and talk them into it. MR. OBORNE-Did the Planning Board want to have the applicant pursue any internal pathways on the lot? I heard some discussion about that. I just wanted to make sure you want to get that at Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS.,I think the problem he pointed out, though, Keith, is that the lots on the north side go right to the road. So there's, you know, unless you're going to be putting something across somebody's backyard, the only common area is down here on the south side. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I raised the issue of the interior sidewalks and I think the applicant answered much of my questions regarding that, ..and then when the discussion occurred with regards to the marketing, and the fact that there probably would not be a lot of children in this area, that impacts on my concern about sidewalks as well. I mean, granted we can't control that, but. MR. HUNSINGER-They're not four bedroom houses. MR. TRAVER-Right. There you go. I guess maybe we can control it, then. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Their earlier discussion tonight was they were proposing four bedroom houses. So the assumption was it would be mostly for children, you know, families with children. MR. LAPPER-And they know what they did at Waverly, and who the purchasers were there, too. So they expect it'll be somewhat. MR. FORD~There'sgoing to be an exploration of that nature trail. So, I don't have a problem with that. MR. MILLER-There was one other thing. One of the engineering comments had to do with lighting, and there will be no commonly owned lighting. It's going to be similar to 69 ... ~>;.. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) Waverly where the residents will have a driveway light as well as building mounted lights, residential. So it'll all be individually controlled by the homeowners. There's no common lighting throughout. MR. MICHAELS-What we do there,though, is designated, well, there's of course the house coach lights, etc., but the designated lantern will be a themed streetlight lamppost forthe driveway and entry area that'll be themed for all the homes to be the same style, and that'll also be on an electric eye. We set it up as a non-switch. So that it's on, and it works really well because you always have plenty of light. MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of wattage do you put in those lights? Because, I mean, they could still create aglare. MR. MICHAELS-They're, typically they're anywhere from 45 to 60 watt, the new fluorescent screw in bulb type deals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No, I bring that up because I put a new, we have a lantern at the end of our driveway, and I put in one of those anti-vibration bulbs, you know, it's sUpposed to be a longer lasting bulbs, and the glare from that light is awful. So that's why I asked the question. I mean, even though it's only like a 60 watt bulb, you know, I mean, you can still get, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO. APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 PRELIMINARY PLAN FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2009 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; 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. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/19/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 20-2009 PRELIMINARY PLAN & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2009 THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is approved with the condition that the applicant will explore an interconnect sidewalk or a recreation trail with the Waverly Place Homeowner Association. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. LAPPER- Thanks. MR. MICHAELS-Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be considered this evening? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 19. 2009, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/09) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman . ... ... 71