Loading...
2011.01.27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 80-2010 Hayes & Hayes, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening, I’d like to welcome everyone to a Special Meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, January 27, 2011. I will call the meeting to order. On the back table there are two pieces of information. The only project before us this evening is the Hayes and Hayes, LLC Site Plan 80-2010. There is signup sheet on the back table. If anyone wishes to speak at the public hearing, I would ask that you please put your name on the signup sheet so that we can conduct an orderly public hearing. When everyone has signed I will call people up when we get to the public hearing portion of the project. Also on the back table is a handout that’s titled Public Hearing information, which just gives you a brief outline of how the public hearing is conducted, and I’ll get into more details at the point of the meeting when we come to the public hearing. SITE PLAN NO. 80-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES, LLC AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NR [NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION SOUTH SIDE DIXON ROAD, EAST OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVEN (7) DUPLEXES. LAND DISTURBANCE IN EXCESS OF 0.25 +/- ACRES IN THE NR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LAND DISTURBANCE IN EXCESS OF ONE ACRE IN THE TOWN MS4 DISTRICT REQUIRES COVERAGE UNDER SPDES. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 4-10, BP’S 2010 34-40, ADMIN. SUBDIV. 5-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NYS DEC LOT SIZE 8.50 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION 179-6-010, 179-9 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize your Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 80-2010. Hayes & Hayes, LLC is the applicant. Requested action is Site Plan Review for land disturbance in excess of a quarter of an acre. The location is the south side of Dixon Road, east of the Northway. Existing zoning is NR, or Neighborhood Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes seven residential duplexes with a proposed total land disturbance of 3.01 acres. Land disturbance, again, in excess of .25 acres in the NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant has commenced construction on all seven duplexes with six grouped together along the eastern portion of the parcel framed out; the seventh unit, located on the western boundary has only the foundation poured. Access to the parcel is off of Dixon Road and the final road configuration will be adjacent to the Lands of Miller; entrance currently utilized to the east will be abandoned according to the site plan. Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment controls to be reviewed by the town engineer, please see attached comment letter. What follows is soils. Site Plan Review. There’s a few issues that Staff would like to have taken care of, and they are as follows. A vicinity map is required. Number Two, the existing proposed utility systems are not located and should be on the plot plan. Land use district boundaries within 500 feet of the site plan are required. Existing access road to the east should be abandoned and stabilized. Staff recommends a 12 inch scarification of the existing road bed prior to seeding to promote road vegetative stabilization. Also additional buffering along the eastern property line may need to be clarified. On Page EC-1, 1 of 2, I’m asking that we remove that from the submittal as there is a revised EC-1, and my additional comments are as follows: Land disturbance in excess of one acre in the Town MS4 District requires coverage under SPDES. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain if a project NOI has been submitted for coverage under SPDES General Permit 0-10-01 to the Department of Environmental Conservation. VISION Engineering comments before the Board at this point. Fire Marshal comments are attached. NOA 4-2010 resolution attached. Valid building permits for the seven 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) duplexes have been issued, and finally duplexes are an allowable use in the NR zone and are not subject to Site Plan Review, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Tom Center, project engineer, and Mickie Hayes and Jaime Hayes behind us. I want to just briefly explain, in terms of the design of the project, how we got here. When this property was before the Board with this applicant in 2004, the biggest concerns that the Board and the neighbors had was that in order to get a single family subdivision here, there was going to be a lot of tree removal, a lot of disturbance. It opened the trees buffer the Northway from the homes on Hughes Court and there was another issue on the very south side of this property where there’s a pre-existing drainage ditch that comes off the Northway. That’s the low area of the site, and there were concerns about stormwater in that area. So, ultimately, in 2009, when the Town Board changed the zoning to make duplexes a permitted use in the zone, that created an opportunity to build the duplexes and arrange them in a way that they would be centered on the site so that most of the trees would be undisturbed, and the project could also be shielded from Dixon Road, just having that entrance drive there, not that it would be invisible, but that, using the existing clearing area, you know, granted, more clearing is required, but they use the existing clearing area to do, where they designed to put the homes, and leave as much as they could with the trees. That said, the area right behind the people, the neighbors on Hughes that buffer that cleared area have a six foot stockade fence, but obviously the project is visible. So since we made this submission, Keith asked us to make another submission to show a buffer, a proposed buffer, because we’d talked about that at the ZBA, and I think that’s something that you just got, and that’s not, you know, our last effort on a buffer, if there’s something else that this Board wants to change, but that was an effort to say this is the area where it’s cleared, in between that fence and this construction, and so we’ve now made a proposal for everyone to see. As Mickie had said, he went to the neighbors to buffer this. Can you just hold up the plan from last time? Hold it up so you can show the Board and the audience. This is what was proposed in 2004, which is essentially disturbing the whole site to put in single family homes, and by comparison, this is what we’ve got now. There had to be some more clearing than just the buildings to get the septic systems in, but it’s a vast difference from what they had originally proposed with the single family subdivision. So, with that, I’m going to turn it over to Tom Center to go through some of the technical issues and respond to the comments from Staff and from VISION Engineering. MR. CENTER-In response to the Staff comments that we received, the first comment, in regards to the soils, all these septic systems are proposed to be modified soil systems as all previous projects were modified soil systems, because the soils are fast draining, less than a minute perc in most areas, and we’ve done over 27 perc tests with DOH in the different facets of what we’ve proposed. So we have a pretty good idea the better soils are up in front, but no matter where you went, the soils were faster draining soils. So we do understand and I believe the building permits have all the septic systems as modified soil systems. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, can I just stop you for a minute? The test pits, according to the drawings that we had, were done in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Were any new test pits done, or was the database on old data? MR. CENTER-No, we used those test pits. That’s a pretty good cross section of the soil from front to back. You can see where the soil changes, as you get closer to that drainage culvert in the back side. We use the same test pits from there. I did the perc tests myself. Mr. Nace performed the test pits with Department of Health oversight for the subdivision at the time, and the soils, I mean, nothing’s been done to the site as far as major excavations, anything like that. So those test pits are, also show, they show mottling at anywhere from four to four and a half feet in that area, but the only place that we did find groundwater in the front portion was almost 10 feet below grade. So, you know, we’re using, our design uses the mottling as the seasonal high groundwater, and that’s why the design of the structures are higher based on Code Enforcement, Building Department input required French Drains and sump pits for each residence that were installed when the foundations were constructed, even though, the actual groundwater is at 10 feet, we all realize we design to the mottling layer, and we did keep the basements at close to, you know, where that mottling layer was. MR. FORD-Could you give us a little more detail, Tom, when you refer to the modified soil. MR. CENTER-Modified soil septic systems are, New York State Department of Health requires any soil that has a perc rate faster than one minute per inch you have to come in and cut out the soil, bring in, mix with that soil a loamier sand, modify it to a perc rate between one and five minutes. You do perc tests and then the system is installed in that soil that you modified. We do it all over, anything west of the Northway usually, in some of these subdivisions that we’ve 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) had before you, in that area, in the well drained sands, it’s a typical detail, standard. It’s accepted. It’s in 75-A. MR. FORD-Soil is modified to approximately what depth? MR. CENTER-The soil is modified to I believe four, five feet is the whole cross section, because you have the two feet higher than groundwater, you know, the two feet separation. So you’re actually going right down to the, almost to that mottling layer, and you’re modifying the soil for the width, depth, and below the system, and that’s, you know, that’s a typical detail that we use for modified soil systems. So we use them quite a bit in West Glens Falls area. MR. FORD-And that occurs both for the septic, the tank itself and the leach field? MR. CENTER-For the absorption field, it’s for absorption laterals, yes. You’re doing this, you’re modifying the soil only where the absorption laterals are going. MRS. STEFFAN-And so the purpose of that is really two fold. It’s a drainage issue, but it’s also so that there’s sufficient bacteria in the soil to be able to break up the? MR. CENTER-It’s basically for the absorption system. It has nothing to do with the drainage. You’re trying to slow down the effluent that goes through the pipes through the water, before it gets to, you know, any potential source, and like any of our minimums, there’s factors of safety built into those. They require 24 inches of separation from the bottom of any system to seasonal high groundwater, or groundwater, and I believe the actual detail is you modify to approximately four feet from the existing grade, or from the finished grade of the system. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. CENTER-The next comment in regards to the soils and amendments for landscaping purposes, the existing topsoil is going to be used to cover any of the Oakville loamy sands, and lawn and vegetative growth are part of the NOI and Notice of Termination. Grass has to be established in order for us to file the Notice of Termination for the SPDES permit, and the NOI, of course they have to do whatever we have to do to get grass growing in order for the permit to be terminated, so that we know that lawns will be developed and before the project is finalized we meet with, Bruce Frank goes out there, goes through a whole process before they’ll sign off on the MS4, because you are in the Town, it has to grow grass, so any amendments that are needed are kind of field fit to what the topsoil is that you have out there and grass is grown. In regards to the comments on EC-1, we will provide a coversheet that has the new coversheet with the labels with the vicinity map on the plan. It will also have the districts, the other one was the districts. There’s only two districts within 500 feet of the project. It’ll also have the districts. We’ve added a proposed water line which will go, it’ll tie in to the same point where it would for the subdivision across Dixon Road, come across, and then come up the west side of the access drive, and it will terminate at a hydrant right at the curve, based on which I’ll get to the Fire Marshal’s comments in a minute, and then that’ll be a six inch line to the hydrant, and then a four inch line from the curve out to the six houses in the back, and that will be the water supply. We’ll coordinate that with the Town of Queensbury Water Department. The next comment, the existing entrance to the east will be abandoned and lawn established. We will add a note to any re-submitted drawings that will say that that area will be abandoned and lawn re-established. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I just ask a comment on that, question on that? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So, when we went out for site visits, this past week, did we drive in the driveway to the east as referenced? MR. CENTER-No, you drove in. MR. HUNSINGER-Because with all the snow, you really couldn’t tell. MR. LAPPER-But that’s where this driveway is. You drove in the new driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-I believe the driveway to the east must have been a, I’m not real familiar with it. It must have been a construction entrance during foundation pours for concrete trucks and things. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. CENTER-So probably when the snow goes we’ll identify that area. MR. OBORNE-You can see it on the overhead here where the arrow is. That’s the driveway I’m talking about. MR. CENTER-Yes. Actually, I think that’s where, initially where we drove in when we did the test pits. Way back when, that was just an existing access to the property, right off the road there, but we will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-On EC-1 you refer to construction entrance. MR. CENTER-Yes. I don’t show it on there. It wasn’t a formal, it was before this drawing was created. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MR. CENTER-It was the initial entrance to the site, prior to any work being done, and they used it, but it’s not being used now. They’re using the entrance to the west. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. There was confusion because it has construction entrance and then it’s got an arrow to the current entrance. MR. CENTER-Yes, and that’s based on the SWPPP and the NOI, we have to show the construction entrance and the details for the construction entrance on this drawing. That was an entrance that was previously used prior to any drawings being created or the SWPPP being written. So I wasn’t, I couldn’t remember until Keith just showed the, where that entrance was, and that was a previous entrance to the property. It’s not in formal use now. It won’t be used, and we will abandon it and establish lawn. Number Five, regarding the buffer, we’ve sent that additional drawing to the Town, showing summit ash and pine, eastern white pines. If Keith can call up the, these will be placed, just to give you a perspective from both sides, one from the project site, looking out. The buffer would approximately go along that line that we’re looking at right there. That’s just kind of looking from the northern end of the road from that most northern house. Now we’re looking to the south boundary where the trees go back in. The buffer would go from tree line to tree line, and then the next pictures are from, and that’s looking north from the area, the south, one of the south houses. That’s looking back. It’s a little bit better if it’s on a larger screen, but that’s looking in between, I believe, three and five Hughes Court, the view from the road. This would be five and seven I believe, we might have skipped one, and this is seven and nine, just to get a perspective from the road what you’re looking at, but that buffer will go from tree line to tree line. What we’ve done to make that buffer work is pull the pond in tighter and longer, maintain all of our separations, our 20 foot separation from the septic absorption systems to the ponds, and maintain the stormwater for one of the ponds, get it back into the groundwater, or into the ground as it does now. Let’s see. Additional Staff comments. We do have a draft NOI, which will be re-submitted, addressing the Notice of Intent concerns. The Fire Marshal’s comments. We spoke with the Fire Marshal in regards to fire apparatus access road. These are SR-1 I believe. I don’t know the new terminology for single family or duplex is still a residential construction that does not require, it’s exempted from access, fire department access, but, looking at that and talking with Mike, we have, each driveway here is approximately 37 feet from the access road to the house. They’re two car wide. The very end, there’s an additional 18 feet off the end of the road where a three point turn could be made. The only additional access point that could be made would be doing the similar thing on the very curve to create, the same thing here. There’s six different options they have. They can go in any driveway to take a fire engine and back in one driveway and make a three point turn to get out so they don’t have to back around the whole, you know, 300, 400 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How wide’s the road? MR. CENTER-The road is 24 feet wide, and the next thing, talking about the hydrant lay length, we have no problem supplying a hydrant right at the curve to limit the amount of supply line that will be laid, and putting it right in the middle allows them to actually hook the hydrant and lay into any of the six houses, rather than putting it on the very end. They’d have to drive past the fire in order to get to it. It’s a much, you know, it’s a more convenient spot. There’s a hydrant on Dixon Road to the west for that, could serve the first house, or they could go past the first engine and go to the hydrant if they had to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A six inch line? MR. CENTER-Yes, any line to a hydrant has to be a minimum of six inches. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-So, could you show us on the map? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That might be eight out on Dixon Road. MR. CENTER-I believe it is. Hydrant line connects here. There’s, the additional hydrant to the west is up here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-And it’s going to run along the edge of the road all the way out to a hydrant right here at the curb, at the outside of the curb. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But in the Fire Marshal’s letter, it said that the main was 900 feet from the development. MR. CENTER-Well, yes, 900 feet if you were to go from the hydrant to the furthest house. MR. FORD-And you’re putting another hydrant in. MR. CENTER-And this hydrant here is about the middle of it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you could double lay them with 900 feet because it’s less than 400 feet. MR. CENTER-Right, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, one of the other statements that you just made was that a fire truck could make a three point turn. What happens if there’s cars in the driveway? MR. CENTER-There’s six different, they’re two cars wide. There are six different driveways to choose from. There’s also the very end also. MR. TRAVER-In your discussions with the Fire Marshal, did he feel that was adequate? MR. CENTER-Yes. We talked about it for an engine, and then, you know, worst case scenario, they can come back this way. They’re two cars wide. It’s a 24 foot wide driveway. It would be no different than if somebody parked, you know, if we gave a turnaround, you could have cars parked in the turnaround, too, no matter what you try to put. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That isn’t what’s going to happen, though. If there’s a fire down here, he’s going to pull in with a fire truck and he’s going to back out because he loads the hose as he backs out, so there’s no need to turn the fire truck around. In fact, and if he can’t back out, he shouldn’t be driving it, but he can do that. MR. CENTER-I mean, there are six different options for him to go to. MR. KREBS-Spoken as a fire chief. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, as long as the Fire Marshal’s willing to sign off on it, then it’s okay, because certainly the comments initially didn’t look very promising. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-You can see why, though, because where he was going across Dixon Road. MR. CENTER-Right, and once we discussion, you know, 37 foot long driveways from the access road to the house, you know, he can pull up halfway into one, back up straight into the other one and then make the three point turn to get out or at the very end he can pull in and back into the 18 foot extension of the road that we’ve allowed so that somebody, a normal car backing out of those driveways can make that three point turn and get out. So, you know, there should be plenty of room to get an engine back out of that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-At least you’ve got hydrants. A good part of the Town doesn’t even have hydrants. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. CENTER-Number Three, or actually Number One for the VISION Engineering comments. We sent them a copy of the stormwater management report and the draft Notice of Intent for his review. We’ve also, you know, we can revise the submission in response to engineer’s comments in regards to the groundwater. I went through and looked through the groundwater versus the bottom of the foundations. We’ll supply that information to the Town Engineer for his review. MR. LAPPER-You probably should mention about the French drains. MR. CENTER-Yes. We spoke about that previously, about every basement has a sump pump and a French drain underneath it currently. MR. TRAVER-Why don’t you install that, if it’s 10 feet above groundwater? MR. CENTER-Well, because of the mottling layer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. CENTER-Because mottling shows anywhere from three and a half to four and a half feet, in that vicinity. So we have to design to the mottling. That’s why the foundations are higher. That’s why the buildings were built the way they were, to account for that mottling layer. Even though there’s only, you know, groundwater’s at 10 feet. I believe, and we also talked about the Hughes Court, there’s a stormwater management area where I believe, you know, 30, 40 years ago they did some dewatering. Dan did a study of that area. These are all perforated pipe. So that may have been prior to that stormwater system being in there, you know, if groundwater fluctuated, it might have been in that area. They did some dewatering, that ties into Halfway Brook and outlets over there, but it’s not a very well functioning system to tie into. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not on this property. MR. CENTER-And that’s not on this property, either, but that may have affected the groundwater in the area 50 years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Where is it in location to the property? MR. CENTER-It’s out on this side of Hughes Court and down this way and over to the other side of Dixon Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-So it’s not adjacent to the property. We’ll delineate an area for topsoil, stockpile and staging areas, with a revised submission. Number Six, we’ll address, topsoil and seeding has been addressed in the report. Like I said previously, the NOI and NOT requires that areas must be stabilized prior to terminating any project and we can work with Bruce Frank in the field to make sure that all those, before any sediment fence, before any temporary structures are taken out, we have to have grass growing and stabilized, and Number Seven, we’ll make sure that the stormwater management report and SWPPP notes on Drawing EC-1 address the concerns. I believe they had to do with maintenance of the drywells, swales and eaves trenches, which is typical and our report states should be, you know, swales shall be mowed. Drywells shall be cleaned. We also have the drywells that are set up six inches higher than the bottom of the ponds to account for sedimentation to keep any sediment that may collect in those drywells out of the drywells, so that actual top of the rim of the drywell is higher than the bottom pond. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things on the drawings that I guess I was concerned about is that there aren’t, there weren’t any test pits right at the hammerhead that you have, where the, at the end of the road where the property abuts the Hughes Court homes, you’ve got drywells there, but there were no test pits done there. MR. CENTER-Well, looking for, walking from Test Pit One to Test Pit Two, to Test Pit Eight and Twenty-Six, as you go all the way out to the far back, which I didn’t put those on there, but you get to Test Pit Nine, you can see where the groundwater starts to come up as you go from, you have deeper sands in the front of the property, and then you have more groundwater that comes up as in Test Pit Nine, I believe, it’s at 43 inches, and then Test Pit Two it’s at 57 inches. Test Pit One was at 60 inches. So as you see, as you’re coming towards, groundwater is, or the mottling layer is deeper as you go towards Dixon Road from back to the front, and we feel we’ve got it covered. We did a lot of digging around there and I tried to put on the ones that apply t he most to the swales, and what we were doing out there. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. FORD-Would it be a-typical to have both French Drains and a sump in a given basement? MR. CENTER-No. That’s how you get any groundwater that may collect, either, A, coming off the roof and down a foundation wall, collected in a French Drain to get it to a sump pump underneath the basement so it has a path of least resistance to get to that sump pump so you can get it out. MR. FORD-And where will that sump pump evacuate that water? MR. CENTER-Like most of them, they will be somewhere out in the backyard. They normally run them as far away from the house as possible. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, that’s one of my concerns when I mentioned the drywell at the end of the road, you know, I was on the Planning Board back when the initial project was proposed, and I know this is a totally different project, but some of the public testimony was about the poor drainage on Hughes Court and people with water in their basements and I just remember one comment that was pretty remarkable, in that the water table was so high in that area that folks couldn’t have in ground pools, and so when you’re using, you know, drywells to contain stormwater runoff, that’s why I was concerned to know, you know, if there’s a test pit area. MR. CENTER-We’re capturing, we’re not creating any new stormwater. We’re capturing water that already falls on the site, and we’re putting it back in the ground as close as possible to the source that it comes from and that’s how this design is kind of laid out in the shallow swales to spread it out. The ponds are for worst case scenarios when you have a lot of rain, giving it a place to go until it goes into the ground and it infiltrates, absorbs, evaporates and what not. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s there. MR. LAPPER-I think you should explain where the concern is. MR. CENTER-I think the concern, looking on the map, is more in the back portion, in this area of the property where this ditch comes off. I believe there’s a catch basin that goes and ties into that Hughes Court, to that stormwater management district that runs here, further down this way, and off to the lower, it would be the northeast portion. So all that is concentrated, in this area, like I said, as you get back here, you know, it kind of maintains that same three feet or less to groundwater, to mottling. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I do remember walking back there and it was spongy under your feet. MR. CENTER-Yes, and that’s all coming off the Northway and coming, you know, through the property. We’re not sending anything back towards that area. We’re maintaining it. Anything that comes off the road is coming right off the road into the long swales. The drywell is more or less to allow the water that does pond in there to, in the wintertime, it gets frozen ground, to get back into the unfrozen soil. MRS. STEFFAN-I think you can understand my concern that, you know, you are dispersing the water differently than it would have been, and if you’ve got French Drains around the houses and you’ve got sump pumps. MR. CENTER-And those are worst case scenarios issues. MRS. STEFFAN-But I wouldn’t want water disbursement on this property so that folks on other properties could have consequences. That’s why I was asking the question. MR. CENTER-And it’s all being maintained on the same parcel. It’s relatively flat, you know, especially out in this area. Everything here rises slightly, coming across, but still it’s a relatively flat area. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KREBS-But again we have the State being irresponsible and providing no stormwater direction from the Northway, okay. MR. LAPPER-And sand that isn’t great for the septic system, has to be modified, works really well for the stormwater. MR. KREBS-I had another question. I noticed when I was out there that all of them have access to the basement back toward the back. Is that a complete door, or is that a? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-Well, seeing the elevation of the foundations are quite a bit out of the ground, as you can really see, partly to make sure we’re out above the mottling, but when that happens and you’re say four feet out of the ground (lost words) put a bigger window to get better air circulation and also it creates actually a legal egress, so if somebody ever had to get out of a fire approved thing, you could drag somebody (lost words) egress they’re designed for that. So there’s just more space. MR. KREBS-Or also, the fire department, if there was a fire in a basement, could go in that way also. MR. HAYES-These guys can tell me better, but I believe that they’re designed so that a fireman can drag somebody out of the egress window. MR. CENTER-And it’s a lighting issue, too. It’s getting light in the basement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So those openings are just for a window? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Yes, and they’re only able because the foundations are out of the ground. Normally you only have the 18 inch model. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We thought maybe it was to access the basement, but then we saw it looked like you were going to put stairs inside underneath the stairs going downstairs. MR. HAYES-No, there would just be stairs from the inside. That’ll just be out into the lawn area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-And the sump pumps and the French Drains were a request from the Building Department. They were very explicit. They wanted to make sure they were double done with a French Drain and the sump pit and they’re high, so it’s kind of. That was a request from the Building Department. They said they want those in there. We agreed to it and we did it. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-In looking this up in the past, I have, in the minutes of 6/22/04 some references to Test Pits 15, 16, 18, and 25. Now, at that time, 15 had mottling at 32 inches. Sixteen had mottling at 28 inches. Eighteen had mottling at 27 inches. Where were these? I cannot find them on here. MR. CENTER-I didn’t include them. They were on the back portion of the lot down in this area. MR. LAPPER-That’s the area we avoided. MR. CENTER-Where we’re not disturbing. MR. LAPPER-That was a good reason not to go there with development. MR. SIPP-Now, are you raising the foundation of these buildings up to eliminate any problems that you may have? MR. CENTER-Yes. The bottom’s of the foundations are set above that mottling layer. MR. SIPP-How far? MR. CENTER-Anywhere from six inches to a foot or so, based on the cross section of test pits that we have that go through that area, and looking at where mottling is and taking that elevation and kind of extrapolating where, how it rises towards the back. The houses have been set an elevation actually that you worked out with the Building Department. MR. HAYES-Yes, and being that that’s where the mottling was, most of the floors really are six or seven feet above groundwater. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. LAPPER-The basement floor. MR. HAYES-The basement floor. MR. SIPP-Well, if they’re six or so feet above water, why are these other houses being? MR. HAYES-Well, their foundations are going, a lot of those are right to the ground. These are four feet out of the ground. MR. SIPP-Four feet. MR. HAYES-Yes, a lot of the foundations are four feet out of the, the foundation itself is only four feet into the natural earth, instead of the typical seven feet. MR. SIPP-I am reminded that not too far from here, say 10 years ago, there was a property of probably 15 houses on Peggy Ann Road which is not too far from there, and they were put in, and the basements were put in at normal height, and in two years the Town had to take the project over and re-do the drainage in the whole area. Now it’s not that far away, and I’m just wondering, is there a possibility of this happening again? MR. CENTER-Well, that’s why the elevation of the basements were raised. The bottoms of the foundations were raised, and the Town required the sump pumps and the French Drains underneath, and again, we’re above the mottling layer with the bottom of the basement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s no natural gas service out here in any of this area, is there? MR. CENTER-I do not have that information. Do you have it? MR. HAYES-Yes. There is natural gas. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where is it, on the houses over here? MR. HAYES-I believe across the street, yes, and I’m not sure about Hughes Court, if they have it or not, and Queensbury Town water. MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone get a chance to sign the sign in sheet that wishes to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Thank you. Any other comments that you want to make? Any additional questions, comments from the Board? Keith, would you grab the sign in sheet for me. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and on the sheet there is a list of information on the purpose of the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for neighbors and interested parties to make comments to the Board. I would ask that you direct any comments to the Board and that you limit your comments to the project in question. I would also ask that if anyone wishing to address the Board to state their name for the record and we do tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. Since there’s really only about 10 people that signed up, I would ask that you keep your comments to five minutes, and we do have a timer over here. So when you hear the beep, that means your time is up and I will remind you, if you continue to go over. The first name on the list is Rick and Mary Garrett. If you’d like to come up to the microphone. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DR. RICK GARRETT DR. GARRETT-Good evening. My name is Dr. Rick Garrett. I’m a resident of 18 Hughes Court in Queensbury. We’re not exactly directly next to the project. Also my wife Mary has deferred her time for me to speak. So what I’d like to do is I’d like to just give the Board a little bit of a flavor of our neighborhood. Ever since we moved in in December of 2000 we were welcomed by a basement flood, and we have had high water. I have paid for two new septic systems since I’ve been there, in 10 years. I’m very concerned that with the elevated foundations of this new project, where the water from that septic system is going to run. Is it going to run up? Is it going to run down? Is it going to go right into our neighbor’s back yard? I don’t know much about engineering. I know very little about it, but I do know that my personal experience is, is I’ve spent, you know, as many people have in the area, several thousands of dollars to try to maintain a basement that is functional, and to keep our water flowing so we don’t have back up. We have also had a wet basement ever since I’ve been there. Hydraulic cement is the order of the day. Every Spring we, you know, we love the area. We love our neighborhood. We’ve stayed there for 10 years. Sometime we’ve wondered why we’ve stayed there 10 years because of this constant battle, but my main problem is, is that we’re very concerned about the water level that may result in our neighbor’s back yard from this elevated several buildings that 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) have been, you know, proposed and are being worked on right now, and that’s about all I have to say. I’m just very concerned about our neighbors, not myself directly, but you know what, as I said, I’ve spent, I have had two new septic systems placed in 10 years. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the reason for that, is it just that it failed? DR. GARRETT-High water. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. DR. GARRETT-High water. MR. KREBS-Is there any storm drainage in your, on your streets, or is it all infiltrating immediately into the ground? DR. GARRETT-I think it’s all infiltrating. I really don’t know, sir, but I do know this, that there used to be a manhole cover right at the foot of our driveway, and that was covered up, and I think it must be the latter of what you were saying. I really don’t know. We are, our house, 18 Hughes Court seems to be everybody’s drainage ditch, from Queensbury Place to Bentley to our place. We’ve had duck ponds, for God sake, in our back yard. We’ve had six inch puddling in our back yard, and as I say, we’ve worked very hard to try to keep up our basement. We do have a semi-finished basement in one section that has, the floor has been soaked many times, and by putting gutters in, we did help ourselves a little bit that way, but as I said, our problem at Hughes Court, the only problem that we’ve had is the water. So thank you. MR. FORD-I have a question about when you had the two septics replaced. That included leach fields? DR. GARRETT-Yes, leach fields, right, everything. MR. FORD-And at that time, was that soil modified in any way? DR. GARRETT-The latest one, which was this past year, we had to have the modified soil. Morningstar said that you have to do this. There was engineering there that looked very carefully at this. That was about the same time that they added the new water system, I guess. They added some new water lines down Hughes Court. So I did a couple of extra, I worked a little bit extra on my lawn this year, too, but that’s okay. I like being outside. It’s wonderful, but they did do the modified, they did have to do a modified. MR. FORD-Do you recall to what depth? DR. GARRETT-Four feet. MR. FORD-Thank you. DR. GARRETT-All right. Well, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mary, did you have anything that you wanted to add? MARY GARRETT MRS. GARRETT-Hi. Mary Garrett, 18 Hughes Court. The only thing that I wanted to say, and I don’t have the things in front of me, my papers, I forgot them at home, but I was concerned about the dates that they did those test pits. If somebody can dig up the information, most of them seem like they were done in the winter, which I don’t think is a really good indication of the groundwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The next person signed up, and I’m sorry, I really can’t read the last name. It’s Jim. Good evening. JIM ROUND MR. ROUND-Jim Round, 34 Pershing Road. Again, the main concern, I think, is the groundwater here, okay. A lot of, you’ll hear some anecdotal stuff about people have lived in this area a very long time that this used to be a, there used to be a pond out there that they used to take boats out on, okay, and just to give you an idea of how much water they’re talking about putting onto this property, there’s, with an average of three occupants per apartment, okay, that’s what they really are. This is an apartment complex. You call it what you want, high end, low end, okay. On average, three people per apartment. There’s 14 apartments, okay. Eighty 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) gallons a person is the daily average usage of water, okay. U.S. Government site gives you that. On a daily output of water for these 14 units is going to be 3,360 gallons that this property is going to have to absorb, and we’re talking a property that has, you know, major water problems, and that’s a low end. That’s three people, okay, in each unit. On a weekly average, that’s 23,000 gallons, okay. Monthly, 100,000. In a year, conservative estimate, 1.2 million gallons. Now, they’re disturbing three acres of property. To give you an idea of what 1.2 million gallons of water is, three acres, a foot deep. Okay. So, with a property that already has a big water issue, you’re talking, conservatively, 1.2 million gallons of water on it. It just doesn’t make any sense to put this many buildings on this property. Okay. On a high end estimate, if you went 100 gallons, four people per building, you’re talking two million gallons of water. I don’t think their catch basin is going to hold the amount of water that they’re putting on this property. Okay. They’re building these buildings four feet out of the ground. Apparently there’s a water issue. All right. Look at the test pits, 2004. They’re not to Code today. None of them are up to Code, none of the test pits they dug. They all should be re-done. I think it’s 100 inches in certain months of the year. My other big issue right now, too, is that fact that we’re here after the fact. They’re talking about clearing at least another third if not half acre of land. Shouldn’t that have been done, the permits or the variances been issued prior to breaking ground, and now that they’ve broken ground it’s okay to allow them to clear this property? Kind of seems backwards to me, and they’re putting holding ponds onto the property. Is that what I was told, besides the holding tank, they’re putting holding ponds on it? I just have one other question. Really, besides the fact that you’re putting rental property into a residential community, this should have been one acre, one building. They’re building seven properties, if you look at the footprint, you know, six of them can’t be on what, an acre and a half? It’s just really bad oversight. None of this fits into the characteristics of the neighborhood. Everyone I think here has a big fear that it’s going to destroy our property value. Largest asset I have, and the one last question I have, are they going to stock the pond so I can fish in it and skate on it next winter? Because that’s what you’re going to have on this property is a pond. Are they going to build a big moat to hold the water on their property. Are we going to be able to skate on the pond next year, does anyone know? Is that going to be allowable? MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. ROUND-One point two million gallons. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-John Strough? Good evening. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Before I start with my handout, I talked to Dan Ryan of VISION Engineering, does work for the Town and I did have Dan, a few years ago, because of some other water issues we’re having in the same area, over on Lyndon Avenue and that area, the whole area has had water issues here, but I had asked him, I said, we surveyed that stormwater system, and we do. We’ve got it pretty well mapped out, not all of it, but there is a tie in, or a potential tie in, not on Hughes Court, it’s on Dixon Court. It’s right in front of this place. There’s a stormwater tie in, a potential tie in, right there. So, you know, if you want a further elaboration on this, ask Dan Ryan or Town Engineer to help you out with that. I called Mike Shaw, and I said, Mike, for years you’ve been talking about putting a sewer up Dix Avenue, Dixon, rather, and he said, yes, we’re going to do that, the School’s going to need that in a few years, and that motel there needs it and I want to do that. It’s on my list. So what are we talking, a 10 or 15 year, and I said, well, that works out pretty good, because what the Hayes could do here is put a community system in, in the higher ground, over near Dixon, and not only that, but what is a system, about 20 years for the average infiltration type of system. So they could tie in to the sewer system if they had it all over by Dixon ahead of time. One thing we don’t want is a Surrey Fields situation, and this looks like a Surrey Fields situation. We can mitigate that by building a community system and orienting that system towards Dixon, and I don’t think it would cost them much more than these fourteen individual systems, and that way they’d be all set to tie in when the sewer went through on Dixon. Not only that, but, I mean, they wouldn’t have to tie in right away. I mean, there’s a lot of people that say, well, I still have, you know, six or seven years to my system. Right. You don’t have to tie in right away, but down the road you do. Well, this would be perfect. All right. In any event, getting to my handout, has this project violated Town Code? Yes, it has, okay. Well, we have what we have, but it did. I want to make that clear, you know, and I put it right here for you. Our Town Code says anything over a quarter of an acre requires an Article 9 Site Plan Review. Clearly it violated that. Also, our Town Code does not allow clustering in this zone. If you look at the table, Table Four, and you look under Neighborhood Residential district, clustering is not listed there. It’s not an allowed 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) use, but this is clustered. So I think you’re going to have to provide a waiver for that, but to say that this is all in accord with Town Code is just simply not true. Also I would like to make the argument, or at least something for you to consider, since we all know the intent of a duplex, singular, as listed in the table, was for a duplex to be located on a pre-approved subdivision lot, without any Site Plan Review. That was clearly the intent. Now, there may have been some ambiguity there, but we know, and we all understand the intent, and Mr. Schachner has said if it’s ambiguous you’ve got to give it to the developer. Okay, but now you, as a Planning Board, have to look at the impacts. What we have here is not a duplex. It’s basically an apartment complex. You could make the argument, because it says apartment complex or a larger unit configuration, leaves it open. So if you want to narrow it down, well, it doesn’t fit the definition of apartment complex. Well, it does defacto, okay, it may not du jour, but it does defacto. So, in any event, I’ll leave that for your consideration, because our apartment complexes have to refer to our Subdivision 183 Code, okay, for its review. All right. Next page. The previously identified impacts. I called the Department of State. I called the DEC. I told them about the situation. They seemed to be a little bit aghast. They also said we don’t get directly involved in municipal affairs. I said, does this sound kosher to you. Well, you changed the Code and, you know, okay. Probably they didn’t have to address those impacts that were addressed previously, though, and I said not today. Can I have a couple of more minutes, or can I come back? MR. HUNSINGER-Final comment? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Number Four, Number Five, and Number Six, ask you to look at some other things, especially Number Six Other. I’ve made a list of things, since it is an Article 9 Site Plan Review, I’d like you to look at, you know, garbage containers and other things. I mean, this is in a residential area. I’d like it to fit, and I know you would like it to fit, too, and we’ll probably end up making it fit in the end and making most people happy, not everybody. The other thing I want to say, unless you want me to come back. Okay. On Chapter 136, I don’t remember exactly where it is, you have to dig down, what is it, four, five feet beneath what’s the proposed depth of the infiltration bed, which is two feet below ground and then the infiltration beds are usually two feet. So there’s four feet, and our Code says you have to dig down underneath that. None of these test pits are deep enough to meet that criteria. Furthermore, if you take a look at 136, it says that test pits have to be done in March, April, May or June. The test pits that we’re looking at here were done in December and January. They don’t meet current Code. The test pits don’t meet current Code, and I do have more to say, but I’m already violating your rule. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate it. Carol, and I’m sorry I can’t read the last name, 15 Hughes Court. CAROL LA POINTE MRS. LA POINTE-Don’t let this pile scare you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. LA POINTE-My name is Carol LaPointe and I live at 15 Hughes Court, Queensbury. If I may, I’d like to paint a picture. When I’m through, I don’t think there are many people in this room that will not be able to see the picture inside the frame. Queensbury had zoning which did not allow duplex without site plan review. In 2005 there was another proposed development on this same piece of property. It received a positive SEQRA. They cited cutting the trees, exposing to the Northway, which presents health issues. Now this stack of papers right here was all given to the Planning Board during the last project that they had on the other side of the field. This cites the issue, and does the people in Queensbury and this Board want to put families out there if there’s a health issue for children perhaps the noise, the emissions and everything else? If it wasn’t good enough for the back part of that lot, why is it now okay? They were thinking about putting a 500 foot to 1,000 foot barrier out there. They didn’t do it until just recently, and this project has gotten in under the wire, under the cover as it is. Now, I just don’t see how anybody can look at that being the same distance from the Northway, and the water problems that we all have. We have a sump pump in our cellar. All the time it’s running, probably every day, at least every other day, and this is winter, and there’s a pipe going right into our pit that’s about this big around and it’s about half full, and it just keeps draining right out into there. We keep it going and it keeps going into a drywell, but if that pump should ever fail or we’re not home or something, we’d be in tough straights, and I think most of, almost everyone in that area is having water problems, and that’s something that, you know, where’s the Town (lost words) help the people who are long time residents area, and I don’t take the fact that there might be rental units as being negative, because good people rent, but I don’t want to put anybody out there. If we didn’t want it to be exposed, exposing us to the Northway, I don’t want it exposed to anybody that’s down there at the other end either, and I think that’s a serious consideration, and thanks. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Ed LaPointe? ED LA POINTE MR. LA POINTE-I’m going to stand up for a few seconds, okay? MR. HUNSINGER-As long as you talk into the microphone, that’s fine. MR. LA POINTE-Can everybody hear me? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s so that we can hear you to tape, yes. MR. LA POINTE-I’m sorry, you want to hear that on this side. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you can pull the microphone out if you need to. If you could state your name for the record. MR. LA POINTE-What I have, I have the same sheet that you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Your name, sir? MR. LA POINTE-I’m sorry, Edward LaPointe, 15 Hughes Court. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LA POINTE-Okay. This is the same sheet that you have, and at one of our other meetings, and I can’t remember when, the Planning Department said this is not the same site and they don’t need a site plan, because this is a different project, okay. So my argument, and some of these other folks have taken my thunder about the water. This is the drawing that I got back, I’m guessing around 2002, 2003. These are the same drywells that they put in, they haven’t done anything different than what is on the new plan. In other words, if the Planning Department said that this was a new project and it doesn’t need a site plan review, and that the duplexes were allowed because it’s a separate thing from what it was before, yet all these drywells are in here. Now I’m going to read when they were put in. Okay. This is their writing from the agencies. This was done, this is 3/15/04, issued for Preliminary subdivision review, it’s on the bottom of th the map, 6/21 the Town Engineer reviewed it, added test pits 25 and 26 on the 30 of June, and 7/2/04 Final subdivision submitted. The zoning law had not changed in the Town. It didn’t change until 2009 for this duplex, that somebody on the Planning Department said it’s a new separate program and it doesn’t need a site plan review and it’s zoned for the duplexes, and we’re sitting there like this. How the heck can we have it? We talked to the Town Board, three days or four days after they started to do the construction. They didn’t know anything about it. They didn’t know anything about it. I can’t hardly believe that one Department doesn’t tell the other Department or the Supervisor what’s going on in the Town. Hard to believe, but okay, now, on this 2002, these wells, or drywells, okay, I want to make sure I talk, five feet, four feet, and they had a certain amount of water, and these were done, let me see, where does it say, one through eight, I believe, and they were done, they’ve got the dates on them somewhere I had it now I lost it, somewhere in 2000, somewhere around that area when they started to do this major thing, and they’re all down in this neck of the woods where they plan not to build. That’s behind our house, okay, that’s behind our house. So now it’s all up here, in this section, and here they’ve got a drywell going to be eight foot, what is it, eight foot by inches or what? It’s four feet deep. Their cellars are high because they’re on the water table. I can understand the safety of the windows and things, but I bet all our houses, you don’t have a four foot opening in your cellar for firemen to take somebody out. All our windows are those little basement windows, and I think my cellar, the house was built in ’58, is probably six foot, no, it’s probably close to seven foot cellar deep. So in my house, if you go by Hughes Court, it isn’t four feet above the surface. Otherwise it would sit up like a, what do you want to call it, like a toy, so, and I think all our houses on Hughes Court are the same definition, about six foot cellars, maybe seven, but I’m telling you, when we got caught in a rock and a hard place, and this is a new project, the papers that you’ve got up there, this nice drawing, and it’s a new project. They didn’t need a site plan review. Didn’t this, didn’t need that, and they gave them building permits and go ahead and start building. We haven’t even had a chance to talk to anybody. We went to the Town Board when we found out. Well, we didn’t know anything about it and that’s the way it is. Sad thing, and Mr. Stec, when he was our Councilman, walked out in back with Mr. Demboski, Mrs. Demboski, me and my wife, when they were digging and putting their markers out in the back yard, and he said, gee, this can’t be working very good. It’s going to be awful wet. Mr. Stec said that. So he was going to call us right back. Never heard a thing from him. That’s beside the point. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Next on the list is John Hendley. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) JOHN HENDLEY MR. HENDLEY-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Strough wanted to add to this remarks. If it’s agreeable to the Board, I’ll yield my time to Mr. Strough. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, here’s what I’d like to do is I’d like to give everyone who wants to speak an opportunity to speak, and at that time, if it’s not too late, then we can have people come back and make additional comments if they have them. MR. HENDLEY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HENDLEY-My name’s John Hendley. I live at 2 Dixon Court, which is across the street from this property. I hadn’t expected to mention this this evening until I heard Peggy Ann Road mentioned. I’ve been watching the property. I’m familiar with it, and I’m going to tell you, as a layman, it is my opinion that if serious drainage problems do arise, you’re going to find Hughes Court looking like Homer Avenue in the 90’s. It’s that type of situation, but my main reason for wanting to address you is that I would like to see a full Article 9 Site Plan Review. There are four criteria in Section 179-9-080 that have already been impacted by the activity that’s already taken on the property, and they are respectively traffic, safety, aesthetics and health. All right. I noticed that there was a diagram shown to you purporting to illustrate the foliage and the trees on the property. I can tell you that there’s more green on that diagram than there is on the property. Two, as far as aesthetics are concerned, I used to see trees from my house. Now I look at the Northway. As far as health is concerned, I used to sit on my deck and swat mosquitoes. Now I dust off the furniture before I sit on my deck. Now granted this may be a result of the construction, but there is no reason to assume that it hasn’t become easier for dust, pollutants and other undesirable substances to come in from the Northway. As far as traffic, I’m curious about where the curb cut should be located to access this property. The present location is just beyond a hill, just beyond a curb, but if you start by the plug mill, you have a three way junction. You go up into a blind turn under the Northway overpass, and you have Hidden Hills Drive. Right after that, on the left, you have Dixon Court, but instead of an intersection, Hughes Court is in juxtaposition with Dixon Court. It doesn’t line up as a continuous intersection. It’s quite a trick to make a left turn out of Dixon Court right now. So we’re going to have 14 more households on this property, if this is developed, and that much more traffic. For that reason I believe there should be some type of traffic study done so that the most appropriate location for the curb cut can be found, should you decide to grant approval of the plan, and I know there are other people waiting to speak, so I’ll conclude my remarks at this time. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Next on the list is Janet Dalton, and then after her is William Parks. MS. DALTON-Hello. I didn’t know how many of you were going to be on the Board, and apparently you have your maps. These are shots of my patio, or what it used to look like, and you can see. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could state your name for the record, please, when you sit down. Thank you. MS. DALTON-I’m Janet Dalton. I live at 5 Hughes Court. So I’m the lands of Dalton there, and thank you, first off, for going and looking, physically looking at the property. I really appreciate that. You can see, from my photos there, that there were scads of trees. There was a huge amount of vegetation, and when you guys took a look at this, I was the ranch right in the middle. The other oddity, besides the fact that suddenly everything was gone, I honestly feel that these buildings should not have been put up. They were, the gentlemen got their building permit and they waited to break ground until after we could object to them going in. The spirit of the law was missed completely, I feel, by putting in these rental properties. I mean, this is a commercial piece of property. When I bought my house in ’93, I bought in a residential area. I’ve invested a lot of money, a lot of time in this. I really didn’t object too much to the single families going in, because they were spread out, and I trusted that the various Boards, and I vote and I pay taxes, the whole nine, I trusted that you guys would protect my interests, that what would go in would be like what’s in the area. When you were at this site, you can see that these things are no more like any of the houses around them than I look like an NFL football player. I mean, they don’t match. I truly, what I would love, what I want, what I think should happen, is I think these should be taken down. I think that they should be required to put the trees back up, get new vegetation in there. I don’t think this should have been done. Now, barring that, I still think the first two should be backed right off. They’re so close it’s ridiculous. To address some of the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) things that have been stated, like the perc test, it’s my understanding that the laws have changed, and if the law’s changed and the gentlemen scooted in under the wire and built these duplexes, because the law changed, well the law changed with the perc tests, and it’s my understanding that they were done in like the winter, for the most part. It’s frozen. So how the heck do we see how much water is going anywhere? And they’re extremely concerned about flooding in their own basements. They’ve got them way up over, you know, sticking out of the ground hugely. They have multiple mechanics to make sure that, you know, they get the water out of their own basements. Well, the people who are already there don’t have that luxury, and I’m one of the lucky ones, you poor people. My basement is dry. My basement is finished. My basement actually is being re-done because there was a little issue with some flooding that had to do with a clog, but that being said, that means that, oh, it’s totally dry, and my insurance company is making sure of that. So what’s going to happen when it starts flooding suddenly? There’s been sink holes off of Clark, and they claim it’s because of new construction. You’ve already addressed many other things that have given problems to people. I’m really concerned. There was something about you can’t have an in-ground pool because there was something that was going on, so what happens to my in-ground pool? Suddenly that kind of goes, boom. I never even heard that. So now I’m even more nervous and nauseous. What I would want, I mean, besides having this all taken away, is they need to do a full Site Plan Review. They need to do new perc tests. If they needed to do it in the beginning, their first project, and they backed away from it when they were made to do this, to proceed they had to do the full test, the SEQRA, whatever all that technical stuff is, they backed away from it and they did not go forward and build anything there. They sat on expensive land. Why did they do that? Did they know there was a problem and now they’re like, hey, we can get in? So, please, at least give us the Article 9 review and as far as vegetation, berms and things like that, the property, my property is so close to theirs, and to those buildings, a berm, how do you get a 20 foot berm? That thing’s 30, 40 feet out of the air or out of the ground, you know, the buildings. So I don’t know how they’re going to block the view or deaden the sound, but it’s way louder than it used to be now that they’ve taken down all those trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. DALTON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Next is William Parks, and then after him is Mike Wild. Good evening. WILLIAM PARKS MR. PARKS-Good evening. My name’s William Parks. I live at 1 Griffing Place. I hope you members of the Planning Board are as confused as I am that we’re having this discussion with this project well underway. I’m assuming that, as a Planning Board, your usual mo is you plan before the project starts rather than at this stage of the game. Questions about how that took place and how to avoid it in the future. It seems to me to be a really serious underlying issue here. Certainly think that Number One concern I would have would be to have an Article Nine Site Plan Review. It was, I mean, you read the Article 179 of the Town Code and there are numerous why that it should be kicking in here. I certainly feel for Janet Dalton and the neighbors to either side of her. I think that this idea of some sort of a berm or a wall with some serious landscaping going on with it is an absolute must that this thing continues. We noticed on the plans there’s some sort of a drywell or a catchment basin that is sort of at the end of the street if you want to call it, that accesses all these places, and it seems to me as though, you know, that’s right on the edge of the property with their neighbors behind them, and that seems to be a silly place to put a bunch of drainage when we’re all wringing our hands over, you know, water and where it’s going to go, when this thing is going, it would seem to me as though that ought to be moved someplace else. My biggest concern I think is to permanently prevent building and cutting on the rest of the property, that certainly we’re too close to the Northway. We need some sort of a buffer between the Northway and the residential area on Hughes Court. At some point, I think Mr. Lapper was asked whether there was any plan to put further building in here, and he came up with a very lawyerly reply. He said that currently it’s zoned in such a way that you can do that, and they didn’t anticipate that that would change, which I don’t think said, no, we wouldn’t put anything in there. I mention that because apparently in, you know, well before the zoning law changed to allow a duplex in this area, there were plans underway to have this cluster down here. So apparently they do occasionally find that the zoning changes. So I’m looking for a way to permanently prevent building and cutting on the rest of the property. Related to this, you have the business on the septic systems. I think Mr. Strough’s comments about moving the entire septic system to the north of the building complex, even if it involved some pumping, makes sense. In order to finish the drywells, there would have to be further cutting out behind, to the south of the buildings that are there, there would have to be more trees removed, and if you put them to the north, there’s room to put all the septic system they have outlined here in that area without removing many trees, and not having as much of an impact. The septic system, my wife and I also had the good fortune to have to put a septic system in 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) recently, and when we were talking to the contractor and engineer involved, it was kind of a difficult site, with all the setbacks and everything, and the quote I kept hearing was, oh, this would have been okay under the old Code, but the new Code is stricter, and so now we have to meet these very specific criteria, and I’m thinking, well, if I had to, you know, it would have been real convenient to go with some, you know, 2004 plans for me, but they said, no, you couldn’t do that. So it seems to me as though these test pits that were done in, I think five of them were done in December and January, current Code calls for March, April, May or June. Certainly that should be something they’re held to. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mike Wild and then after him is Barbara Parks. Good evening. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. It’s great to see you guys again. It’s been a while since I’ve been in front of the Board. I live on 11 Blackberry Lane and I’m not here as a vested interest as a nearby landowner, but more from a process standpoint, and just to go back through some of my qualifications, seven or eight years ago I was in front of this Board for the first time. I had bought some property and I was looking to subdivide some property, and to be honest I was terrified. I was terrified that, you know, I’d invested a whole bunch of money and I wanted to do the right thing so I could make my project happen. Since that time, you may have known that I’ve been involved with the creation of the Master Plan, and I sat through all sorts of meetings and with the Planning and Ordinance Review Committee to help write the new Zoning Code, and many of you may have the opinion that I’m pro-development, which for some time I have been, but in this case I’d like to turn that on its side, so to speak. I’m really against the process that’s happened here, and the basis of this is is that as a developer, or as a builder, you tend to know what you can do before you take the risk, and I think that there was some strong calculation here of taking advantage of the system knowing that there was some things that might be considered off the edge, so to speak, and not following the correct procedures, and that’s really what I take issue with, and I look at the project and I hear what the neighbors are saying, and I understand some of the engineering, and I’m an engineer. I’m not a professional engineer. I’m not a soils engineer, but I’m an engineer, and I know that when engineering is done, there’s certain assumptions that are made, and you have to make assumptions because you can’t know everything. The problem is is then that the Town, there have been a history of projects that have gone bad. As a matter of fact, I think the Hayes were involved with one up on West Mountain Road that had a serious water issue. Now engineers made a lot of commitments at the beginning of that project to say that things were going to go just fine, and they did all their due diligence, and I’m not trying to imply that that’s not the case here, but there’s always a risk, and the risk of failure here is pretty serious. We’re in a sensitive area. We have neighbors that are voicing very strong concerns, and the cost of failure is quite significant, and with today’s economic climate, I don’t think we want to subject the Town to the financial costs of possibly remedying something in the future, because the current owners may have sold the property to someone else and there’s no way to go back and correct something that might have been done wrong. So I guess what I’m trying to imply is that I’d like you guys to really seriously consider taking a good hard look at the project. I don’t really think it’s reasonable to make them tear everything down, even though I might not argue with that, but I really would implore you guys to do the best that you can within the constraints that you have, to do a very thorough review of this project, again, because I believe that there were some short cuts taken and the cost of failure is very high. Thank you all so much, and I just, I appreciate what you guys do, week in and week out, and I just smile when I see the same faces up here. I applaud you guys. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Thank you, Mike. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Barbara Parks. Good evening. BARBARA PARKS MRS. PARKS-Hello there. I’m Barbara Parks, I Griffing Place. I guess I’m assuming that you people have done your homework on this project, and I hope that you’ve gone way back, starting from the very first project that was considered for this piece of property, and ultimately denied. The land hasn’t changed. Keep that in mind, and through this whole process, there are things that I think that I’d like you to consider. Three in particular, ethics, honesty, and principle. From the start of this project, it has lacked all of the above, ethics, honesty, and principle. As a Board you are Queensbury citizens, as are the rest of us sitting in this room. It behooves you to employ ethics, honesty, and principle in this particular project. Think about if you lived near this parcel of land. Do you want this to happen next to you? We need a full site review, as should 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) have been done from the very beginning. Too much has happened here, and unethically. Please do your job. You are citizens of Queensbury and you represent us. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. There was no one else signed up to speak to the Board. Is there anyone that would like to address the Board at this time? STEVE REGAN MR. REGAN-I’m Steve Regan. I thought I had signed up. Steve Regan. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I must have, well, come on up, sir. I’m going to give everyone else an opportunity. Was there another sheet, maybe? You know what, sir, I’m sorry, I skipped over your name. Yes. My apology. MR. REGAN-Okay. My name is Steve Regan and I live at 2 Bentley Place, and we’ve lived there since 1977, and I want to add the comments about the high water table issue. I am an engineer and I’ve also worked on environmental matters since 1977, and including managing the groundwater monitoring program for International Paper’s Ticonderoga mill landfill for 22 years. So I am, I’m a chemical engineer, but I’ve worked with enough soil engineers to understand some of the groundwater science, and I think this project needs a 12 month monitoring of the water table. Because my house, we frequently pump water out onto the ground. We have a French Drain and a sump in the basement, and if all of the snow we had this winter had been raining like it had the previous two winters in January, this would have been the January in a row where I’ve had to turn our sump pump on, open up the cellar window and throw a hose out the window and insulate that with blankets because our normal discharge is frozen from the sump pump. The rest of the year, when the ground thaws, our sump pump discharges to a permanent discharge line onto the ground. You need to monitor the water table in that neighborhood, for many times during the year. Water fluctuates. It also should include some monitoring when, I’d say within three or four days after a severe rainstorm, as we pump water frequently for short periods of time right after heavy rainfall. Typically the time of the year when we have the most high water is in the Spring, from March through early June. We have a swimming pool in our yard that we put in about 20 years ago, and the construction of that pool had to be delayed because the water table was so high to begin with, and when they did put the pool in in July, they had to put a sump pump down the deep end of the swimming pool in order to finish it off, in order to get the construction done and they were able to do it, but they had to delay the installation of the swimming pool. MR. FORD-How deep is your pool at the deep end? MR. REGAN-Eight foot deep. So that was eight foot in our neighborhood and we’re on the east end of the Hughes Court at Two Bentley Place. The other thing I wanted to comment on is the noise. My wife and I have noticed a significant increase in the noise from the traffic on the Northway since the construction of those new duplex houses had started, and with the Northway elevated where it is in that section, the noise tends to travel further than it would if the Northway was located at ground level or subsurface or subgrade, I should say. The fact that the Northway is elevated in that neighborhood, the sound does go further and that’s why I think we, where we live, we hear the Northway quite frequently when the wind is coming out of the west. That’s the two comments, the issues that I wanted to address tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I now got to everyone on the list. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board? Yes, sir. JOHN WESTNEY MR. WESTNEY-Sir, thank you. John Westney, 28 Broadacres Road, and in the interest of time, I’ll confine my spoken remarks to just two matters, and the primary one, again, being drainage. I did spend some time reviewing the submittals that are available in Town offices and thank you to the Staff for helping me access those and to understand them, and there’s a lot of data attached, a ream of data, and sometimes data can elucidate the facts and sometimes the facts are not imminently transparent on the face of the data, but in the ream of information that was attached, I didn’t see anything that makes it clear that the Northway, which is an impermeable surface, pretty much drains over there, as does that whole side hill, and everything I can see in the data referred to the rain that falls on site, and not all the topo lines on the drawings are labeled. So I couldn’t always tell what was up and down hill, but the site pitches that way towards the existing neighbor houses that have basements that are much lower and it was very clear and it was stated in the report that there is no egress drainage from the site. It pretty much has to percolate on this site, and I just don’t see how this could possibly not result in drainage problems to the people who are already having drainage problems, and so just the issue of drainage, and maybe Tom can be kind enough to explain to me why that is. I haven’t had a 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) chance to ask him about that and maybe it’s all perfectly clear, but it just doesn’t seem to add up, from my attempt to assimilate that information. The other, so that’s the first thing that I wanted to speak out, and the second is just, I wonder if someone knows the date of that photograph, aerial photography from the GIS system. MR. OBORNE-’08. MR. WESTNEY-’08, so it is not very old, but it’s certainly prior to this excavation and I’d just like to ask everyone to refrain from referring to that photograph as if it is a current photograph, because it is definitely pre-construction and pre-removal, and if someone wants to refer to aerial photography, they should get some current satellite imagery, or if they’re looking to support a position that there’s no green been disturbed or something to that effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WESTNEY-Thank you very kindly, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Was there someone over here that wanted to speak? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. KATHY VITTENGL MRS. VITTENGL-Hi. My name is Kathy Vittengl and I live at 5 Griffing Place in Queensbury, and the one thing I wanted to say is that at my house I don’t have any water issues. My next door neighbors have water issues. I know they have a sump pump, but the reason that I don’t have water issues is because my house has been built on a slab, because of the high water table in our neighborhood. Directly behind my house I know is a wetland area. There are a lot of, if you go through the fence, there are a lot of ferns and marshes. I’ve walked back through there to get to the fields further beyond, and the water table is very high, all Spring, late winter, and my house was actually up filled or back filled because it was built high, higher than the other houses. It’s a newer house on our street, and it was built higher and back filled because of the problems with the water table. Now, I, if you look at Hughes Court as it comes down, it turns this way and that Griffing Place actually goes towards the Northway. So see that white pool, I’m across the street and over, right, I think I’m one more over, right there, and so I have the newest house I believe in the neighborhood, and the people, when they went to build it, it’s about 21 years old, recognized that there was such a water table issue that instead of digging a hole in the ground and dealing with sump pumps and flooded basements, they had the foresight to build high and build a slab and avoid water in the bottom of the house. So, you know, the water issues continue through that property back into our neighborhood, or this street where the Parks are right on the corner as Hughes comes down and my neighbor to the right of that green square, I know that they have a sump pump. So you have to know that it’s high water table in the whole area, you know, and they just avoided that when they built my house by putting it on a slab. So, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that didn’t speak, that would like to? No takers? Do we want to entertain additional comments from other people? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. KREBS-Sure. I think that the, just so that the public knows, though, that this Board did not approve this construction. This construction was approved in, okay, because Barbara kind of indicated that, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Strough, would you like to come to the table. MR. SCHONEWOLF-John, before you get going, I just want to put this on the record, okay. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I heard what your colleague said to you about going out and testifying and listening opinions, or your opinion, on Boards that you appoint, and your colleagues are right. I served on Town Boards, too, and I know a lot of Town Board members in New York State, and that’s just not done. It’s a conflict of interest. Since I’ve been here, I mean, you, for the insurance building you were there three or four times. You’ve been to the Zoning Board. You’ve been here. MR. STROUGH-I have a long history of that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-You do, and, you know what, it’s not something to be proud of because it’s not the right thing to do. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s your opinion, Mr. Schonewolf. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is my opinion and that’s why I made it. MR. STROUGH-I think you’re entitled to your opinion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-In any event, in talking and discussing with the neighbors, and, as you know, I’m their representative, so I’m going to represent them. I don’t know what you plan on doing, but I do know some things they do feel strongly about. The northern fringe, there’s almost like a northern line where south of there it’s all wooded, you know the block I’m talking about? Well, that’s been eroded to some extent by the three new buildings that are there, that are located near that fringe. They would like to get a no build, no cut deeded restriction on that if they could. Now here’s one of the problems, is if you put the septic systems on those three southern buildings as they’re proposed in the plans, they’re going to have to take down more of those woods to do that. That’s one reason why I suggested if we could move to a community septic system, it would keep more of that wooded and it would make more of those people in back of me happier, because, if you look at the plans, you see the infiltration beds which haven’t been put in yet would erode more of the woods. So if they could re-locate those infiltration beds, like I said, ideally a community system and higher ground would be the best, but I’ll let that be up to you, and Mrs. Dalton would like to see the two eastern buildings removed and I don’t blame her, after what Mrs. Dalton looks at now versus before, but I don’t know if you have the will to do that, but in any event, one of the stormwater drop off points is right next to her house. Now, again, if we could re-direct that stormwater, okay, and you’re talking about the French Drains, and if we could direct all of that, because we’re talking about a lot of water being inputted into this area because it’s Town water, and it’s served by Town water. So that’s going to aggravate the water situation here. I think we’ve heard enough testimony through all these Hayes projects going back to 2002 to know that that’s a problem. If we could direct all that stormwater, the French Drains, the whole bit, out to the system that goes into Halfway Brook, like everyone else does in the area, that would be a whole lot better. Okay. The other thing is that they would like to see, you know, if you don’t have the will to remove the two buildings next to Mrs. Dalton, at least have the will to say that’s it, seven buildings, that’s it, and maybe the Hayes are willing to go along with that. Another thing is, you know, they’ve asked for an Article 9 review, for example, in discussing this with the neighbors, they’d like to know what these buildings look like, are they going to fill in, what’s the color scheme, is that going to be attractive for them because they are impacted by those kind of things. The lighting. Well, you know, it is kind of a commercial enterprise. I mean, kind of, it is a commercial enterprise. It’s going to have a management team. It’s going to have, you know, everything that a commercial team, it’s probably going to have a sign out front. Is that sign going to be lit? Is it going to look residential or is it going to look commercial? I mean, they’re very concerned about these kind of things, and so when I say Article 9, I’d like you to tell the developers to go back and say, listen, can you address these Article 9 concerns, where’s the mailbox location going to be, what are your plans for the snow removal? Because if you look at it, it looks like they’re going to push all the snow right on the end of the road where they have that stormwater drained. I mean, where else are you going to put it? And here’s another thing, we’re talking about emergency access vehicles? Where are the visitors going to park? It seems to me that there’s only one place for the visitors to park, and that’s on the road. How is that going to impact the emergency vehicles? Sidewalks, are there going to be sidewalks? I mean, just a question. Noise level assessment, utility poles. Are they going to be above or below ground, and the lighting of the area. Now are you going to keep it all low and residential and minimal, I mean, or is there going to be public space? Is it going to be lit up? I mean, we don’t know this, and their plans might be perfectly good, but we haven’t seen them. Landscaping plan and program would be nice. Are they going to have outdoor storage areas? I know that there’s going to be a utility guy with lawnmowers and fixing up the places. Is there going to be a storage shed on here some place, because they don’t show it. I mean, there’s a lot they don’t show, and so, I would appreciate it and I know they would appreciate it, if you would look into these things for us and it would be nice if we had elevations with the architectural appearance and the color scheme and so forth, and let’s keep in mind, a reference was made to what the Town has paid because the developers engineers said, hey, what we’re going to do is okay, we put hundreds of thousands of dollars into repairing the Queensbury Forest drainage. We’ve put hundreds of thousands of dollars into repairing Michaels Road drainage after their engineer said everything was okay. So I do think we have to be a little bit careful and thanks for giving me a second chance. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Wild, I saw your hand first. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. WILD-Hi. It’s Mike Wild again, Chris, thank you. I just wanted to recognize that John Strough’s appearance is controversial. There’s a lot of people that have opinions about this, but as a citizen and a landowner, we don’t have the ability to articulate and understand the rules as John does, and John does a great service to the people in this room, and I know you can’t record it in the minutes, but I would imagine if you asked everyone that’s sitting here whether they approved of John representing them in this matter, I think they’d all raise their hands, and again, I know it’s controversial. I’m sorry, I didn’t want to make a scene, but. MR. HUNSINGER-I would appreciate if people would keep their comments to the project. That’s why we’re here. Thank you. MR. WILD-Thank you, guys. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir? MR. LA POINTE-Thank you. Edward LaPointe again from 15 Hughes Court. I found my notes about the test pits in the back, in the yard, you know, what they had. They did one through eight on 12/19/02. I don’t think it’ll be on that new drawing. It’s on the old one. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it is. MR. LA POINTE-It is? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LA POINTE-Okay, and then test pits nine through thirteen were done on 1/3/03. Okay. And then test pits thirteen through seventeen were done 3/10/04. Now there’s 17 of them done in the dead of winter, in a sense. I mean, we could have had a nice, hot Spring. I can’t’ th remember back that far. Eighteen and the twenty-four were done on the 28 of April. Now that would have been in a legitimate timeframe, and then twenty-five and twenty-six were done in, th let’s see, six months, June, right? And they were the 28. So, and then on the other site, they had site 26 on that water thing that showed that there was water seeping in when they went down, I think it’s 60 inches. I can’t remember. I don’t have my drawing here, and that’s when it went down into that. So those things were done, and I’m not sure if that’s the written rule or what that they were supposed to do the test when it’s Springtime and the ground is thawed out, you haven’t got two feet of snow or a foot of snow in the backyard, and everything’s going to be frozen as it is, okay. So I just wanted to make that point once again. I mean, I’m not sure if it was on that drawings. I know I picked it off of my drawings, and then when we had the first Planning Board session, and I think this is on the project, I’m not sure. If you can tell me if it’s not or not, and the Planning Board advised us and the developers they had to go for a SEQRA test, and so we sat back once again, like I said, twiddling my thumbs, everything is hunky dory. We were waiting for them to have it, and the Board voted five to two to have them do that, and that’s the end of it, I mean, I couldn’t believe it when I walked out and I saw a bulldozer out there or a backhoe digging a big pit. So that’s part of my argument. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Was there another hand that I saw? Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board this evening? Yes, ma’am. Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir, no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. DALTON-Hello. It’s Janet Dalton again. I got so caught up in the whole wet basement thing that I didn’t eject as strongly as I should have about the whole septic system overflowing into my back yard thing. Septic systems fail. It goes downhill. I’m downhill. So I completely agree with what the rest of the folks would like, and that’s to move the septic systems, stormwater, fecal matter, whatever, away from the people’s buildings. I mean, that’s the very least that could happen here. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. DALTON-And that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board this evening? Okay. We will then conclude the public hearing, then, for this evening. If you want to come back to the table. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. LAPPER-I just have an observation and a comment, and then I’ll turn it over to the other guys, but the people that have problems with their basements are on the south side of the property, which is where the Northway drainage ditch is, where the high water table is, and that’s why this is the right place to build on this site, but when you hear so many people with wet basements and so many concerns, what I think we need to have is to have the Town Engineer weigh in on this, both to protect the Board that this is being done right, to have him review what our project engineer is saying, and make sure that he agrees with that, and to give the neighbors some comfort, which of course they deserve. We’re trying to buffer this thing. We’re trying to do the right thing to satisfy the neighbors, and we want everyone to understand that this is the right place to do the development. So, you know, we have to make at least a new submission to address the Staff comments and the engineer’s comments. I’m sure there’ll be other things that you’ll ask us for, and we would ask that you have the engineer weigh in on these stormwater issues and groundwater issues. Someone mentioned that the Town Engineer had already done a study on this area. If they’re knowledgeable, that could be helpful, too. We certainly think that this is planned responsibly in terms of stormwater, but, you know, we’d like to hear that from the Town Engineer as well. So, that’s my comment. Let me hand it off to Tom first. MR. CENTER-In regards to the test pits time of year, as the Board knows, this is an often brought up comment is how do you do high groundwater studies in the winter when the ground is frozen. What we do, and what we look for is the highest point of groundwater, which is always shown in the soil by mottling. Whether or not the groundwater is there or not, what mottling is is a standing of the soil that’s left after water goes up, it recedes down. In different soils, it’s different stains. It’s different types. In this area it could be as much as a very red stain, which I’ve seen. I’ve done two septic systems out on Griffing Place, understanding that the one, I believe it’s across from the lady with the pool, we had to do a pumped up system. It’s a shallow absorption bed, because they have extremely high groundwater way in the back. Again, we do those, if that person needs a septic system done, I can’t tell them wait until the Spring to do a test pit. You look for mottling. You use that mottling. You don’t use groundwater, and that’s the highest possible place of groundwater, and that’s where you set your two feet separation from. So that’s how you do test pits any time of year. You go through the frost. You look for that mottling, and New York State Department of Health, in the individual residential handbook, we’ve talked with Mike Shaw at Department of Health. We’ve researched this. They don’t, it’s not a season. They say very clearly that the best time to observe flowing groundwater is May to June, but they state further you shall always use the highest determination of groundwater, whether it’s water coming out or it’s that mottling layer, which normally the mottling layer is the highest that you’re going to see, so, you know, that’s over 100 years or 1,000 years, where that groundwater has been. So that’s, they don’t say you can only do test pits at a certain time of the year. That’s not in the New York State Code. I have documentation for that. Town Code varies. What’s happened in the Town, and would be the Code that Mr. Parks was referring to that was changed is requiring test pits to be performed, any test pit performed out of season, you have to pay the $200. You have to coordinate with the Town Engineer and the Building Department, and then you have to go back out with that Town Engineer, dig the test pit and confirm, but between the May to June you do not have to do that. So that would be the change in the law in Mr. Parks’ case that was being discussed was, it took longer to get them a septic system. It was, in the past you could just go dig a test pit, you’d state the mottling and that was put on your drawing and the system was installed. So those were the changes in regards to that, but as far as, you know, test pits, these test pits were all performed under the oversight of New York State Department of Health, by several different individuals throughout the time, and that’s what was used. All of the test pits are at a depth of 64, 74, 73, 64, 70 inches, 68 inches, 120 inches, 120 inches. So they were performed well below where the septic systems would be installed, and we have denoted where mottling is and those separations are taken into account when we design the septic and stormwater systems, and DOH personnel and Charles Maine were, one through eight, that was Mr. Glen Bruso, and 24 was Mr. Jim Meachem, and then there were multiple other ones that we also had them out there for, and then the June, 6/28, is during the test pit, the normal test pit season, if you will. It doesn’t require any oversight by the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for that clarification. Does anyone have any questions? MR. SIPP-Can I pose a hypothetical question? If you take the amount of cubic feet that you’re sinking into the ground, for all seven of these units, does that effect the height of the groundwater? MR. CENTER-You’re not into the groundwater, as we’ve stated previously. MR. SIPP-But you’re taking up space that would normally. MR. CENTER-It’s above where the water table, if you will, or the seasonal high water table that’s been observed throughout these test pits is, so it’s not effecting that area of the water table. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. SIPP-They’ve had a lot of trouble in South Glens Falls with some of those new developments by putting in normal size, normal height basements. Now would they be putting these in where there was water and they knew it? MR. CENTER-Again, we’re above where that potential seasonal, the highest seasonal dry groundwater was observed. MR. FORD-You’re causing greater impervious surface, however, with, between the roadways, the driveways, the roof surfaces. That water must go some place. MR. CENTER-Yes, sir, and that’s the water that you are directing back into infiltration devices and back into the soil at the closest point of where it’s been created. MR. LAPPER-It’s nowhere near where the water problems are on the site MR. FORD-It seems the water problems are pretty generalized. MR. LAPPER-No, the water problems are all in the south, but again, rather than us talk about it, that’s where I would ask that we have the Town Engineer weigh in on that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I asked the question about the test pits a little bit earlier, and, Tom, your response seems perfectly logical, but as Jon identified, he wants the Town Engineer to weigh in. Our Code changed for a reason, because some of the test pits that we were getting, this goes back when I was first on the Board, were suspect. That’s what it comes down to, and so the Town Engineer is probably the best person to make that call, because that’s their specialty. I think that if we’re reviewing the project in 2011, we should be using the Code requirements from 2011, and if that requires getting new test pit data, then it requires getting new test pit data. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but I certainly think that under the current conditions, and some of the issues that we’re looking at on the site, I don’t think that that’s an unreasonable expectation. Yes, it’s going to cost the applicant money, but I don’t know if it’s, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable expectation, based on the consequences that could happen if the data’s wrong. MR. KREBS-I agree with you. MR. FORD-I concur. I have a further comment to make, too. We all heard the comments of other citizens. This is something we share in common. We’re citizens of Queensbury. We have some common goals, I hope. We are neighbors. It would be my hope that the Hayes brothers would take that into consideration and they, and tonight may be premature to react to what their neighbors have had to say tonight, but I would like to get some sort of reaction, and I concur with Jon about involving the Town Engineer, but we have an opportunity to do something right, and I believe that we should seize that opportunity. MR. LAPPER-Well, let me start. What was done right was keeping the development in a concentrated area to leave most of the trees. So that most of the people have a buffer, and when you look at that map that somebody pointed out was 2008, the area of the clearing is the area that these units were constructed. Obviously there had to be some more clearing, but it’s primarily the area of the clearing. The area south of that is going to stay treed. So that was good design practice in terms of the neighbors. Beyond that, we’ve now proposed, what wasn’t mentioned was that the stormwater basin behind Janet Dalton was moved closer to the units in order to create a bigger area to be a buffer, and that buffer is not on the plan that any of the neighbors saw because it was only done in the last few weeks, but that was just submitted to you. So in terms of trying to be responsive, Mickie and Jaime have now asked their engineer to propose a buffer that wasn’t there, and to narrow the stormwater basin to provide room for that, and to leave the trees, and somebody talked about no build south of this. I mean, of course, we have to put in septic systems, but south of the septic systems, this is the area to develop. That’s the area to leave it the way it is. So, I mean, I don’t know if that’s completely responsive, but those are all things that have been designed to pacify the neighborhood. Do you want to add anything, Mickie? MR. HAYES-As far as the aesthetics of the buildings, as Mr. Strough brought up, any input, any suggestions that anybody would have to make the buildings look as nice and fit in as best as possible, we’d love to, if it looks nice to them, it looks nice to us, it looks nice to the residents. So everybody is trying to have the nicest, best looking project we can, and any input anybody wants to give in any form to us I’m all ears. They can always give me a call and let me know. If they have a suggestion do to something better or look better or anything they want to do, all they’ve got to do is give me a call. I’d be glad to meet with them any time. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think the visual issues are important, but from my consensus from the information that we heard is they’re more concerned that it physically works. So I think we need to go after those things, and certainly, if this had gone under normal Site Plan Review, these are the same things that we would have been asking for or looking for, the information, like the test pit data, stormwater issues, you know, how water runs off the site, you know, all those things would be things we would ask for anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the clearing. Is there additional clearing that’s required in order to put the septic systems in? MR. LAPPER-This is the clearing plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I’m trying to take the clearing plan as you have drawn and then, you know, put it in context of what is there now. That’s all. MR. CENTER-The drawing that we provided that shows the tree buffering along the east property line includes all of the clearing for these septic systems, and for any more construction to complete the project. MR. HUNSINGER-But do you need to take more trees out of the site in order to put the septics in? MR. CENTER-I would have to look at the map a little closer to actually overlay the two. Mickie can probably tell you a little bit more. MR. SIPP-We were assured on the project that ended up on Peggy Ann Road, where the Town had to go in and spend a lot of money getting the drainage system corrected, we also were assured that the project on West Mountain Road was going to work because you had a pond there and everything was going to work fine, but I said to whoever I was with at that meeting, I said I give them a year or two and they’re going to have water running in their back yard. That pond was never big enough, and I don’t think that what you’ve got here is big enough to hold what you’re dealing with. MR. LAPPER-Let’s let the Town Engineer weigh in on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HAYES-Yes. I don’t profess to be an expert with all the hydrologies and the grade and stuff, and that’s why I hire an engineer and that’s why the Town, I guess, deems they have another professional engineer review another engineer’s work, to double and triple check these calculations. As far as Peggy Ann, I wouldn’t profess to know anything about that, being that it’s quite a ways away and I don’t know the circumstances of who built it. It was a subdivision. This isn’t a subdivision. I really don’t know anything about that. So I couldn’t answer that. As far as West Mountain’s concerned, we did enhance the pond, but we’re proud to say that we didn’t use any Town dollars to rectify any of our problems as Mr. Strough has done, that they’ve picked some other areas. In fact, Michaels Drive, the Town asked us for an easement through our property to alleviate the problems of Michaels Drive, which had nothing to do with us. MR. SIPP-But we were assured in both cases the engineer assured us that there would be no problems, and I get a little skeptical after a while. MR. HAYES-And I understand that. We don’t want any problems either. That’s not what we’re here for. That doesn’t do anybody any good, problems for the neighbors, us or the residents of these places. Getting back to the clearing, the clearing basically there’s going to have to be 50 or 60 feet of trees behind the, it would be the southerly duplexes, to accommodate the septics and the potential replacement of the septics. The design I guess, Tom, requires that you have to have the area for replacement as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Which is in between them on the sides, to accommodate the future needs, if that happened again. On the other side there’s very few trees. There’s not many trees going to the north, as you can see by the photo. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HAYES-So that would be very limited. MR. FORD-But 50 to 60 feet of additional cutting? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. LAPPER-South. MR. HAYES-South. MR. FORD-South. MR. HAYES-And they’d probably leave, of the forest, probably 60, 70% of the forest that’s there. As you see the classic Queensbury pine forest will be untouched. The only use for that would be the trails that wind through there for the people to use. That’s, besides that, that’s what it would be, the forestry left intact. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a comment by a member of the public about the line of sight coming out of the driveway. I don’t know if you can comment on that or not. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that it’s farthest away from those other driveways that they were, from Hughes Court, and the one across from Hughes Court, and we looked at the map. It’s really a straightaway, in terms of the sight distance, and fourteen units is a very low traffic generator. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the other gentleman was talking about the intersection that didn’t line up. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’re nowhere near that. This is as far away from the Hughes Court on this site, yes. MR. FORD-Do you have any further reaction to anything you’ve heard tonight from your neighbors? MR. HAYES-Can you get more specific about any specific? MR. FORD-Did anything come out and strike you and say, that’s a good point, we haven’t addressed that, we need to give it more thought or do you feel that everything, all of their concerns are being addressed? MR. HAYES-Well, I think that any neighbor has a right to voice any concerns when a piece of property that’s been vacant a long time, I think that’s a natural to have lots of questions and stuff, and I understand some people have problems with water in their basement, and that’s natural to have a concern about that as well. I think that we have done a lot of work on it, hence the height of the basements, hence the location of it, hence the extremely limited clearing of the trees. All those things have been. We just didn’t roll the dice and throw this down on the ground. I think a lot of those concerns have been addressed, and Queensbury being probably the most advanced place with their technology and all their Staff and with the engineering requirements, to build a place, the scrutiny level is very high, and being the owner of this, we’re retaining the ownership of these properties, it’s in our best interest, too, to have it be done perfectly and right as well. We’ve got to rent these properties to people who want to live there and we’re going to own them. We have to maintain them, whatever problems or non-problems that we do have. MR. FORD-I’m glad to hear you say that. MR. HAYES-So, if there were problems, I personally will have to pay for it, plus the hassle and why do we want to have any problems with the neighbors as well? I understand that they’re used to have the vacant property that they don’t own. I understand that that’s, and I can’t say that I wouldn’t feel the same way, but considering that 60, 70% of the property is going to be left untouched in the back part of the people, they’re going to get the benefit, that whole neighborhood is going to get the benefit of a pine forest staying intact forever. That’s pretty much a pretty good accomplishment that this government doesn’t have to pay for. There wasn’t easements bought. There weren’t grants to pay for it. It’s still on the tax rolls. I just think that any input, if somebody has an idea to make the project better, if they want to see it like that, I’m glad to work with anybody who has a valid and intelligent researched position on it and it’s just, and try to satisfy them, whether it be how they’d like to see the screening, whether they’d like to see it treed, we even talked about if some people wanted some screening who were affected adversely, do we want to plant trees on their property, and as far as most of the clearing, there’s more clearing done by Niagara Mohawk through the power lines along that than ourselves. They just went through there this Fall and cut down their swath, which is their right to do to maintain the thing, more trees than we actually cut down ourselves. So, and we can’t control that, and nobody on this Board can control that, but if somebody wants screening, a stockade fence, anything we can do to make is a nicer project and have the least impact on them, that’s fine, and Jon came up with the idea, hey, maybe they’ll want us to plant some trees on their 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) property so they can actually select the trees themselves, to create screening on both sides, which I don’t think has been done very often, if people would like that. MR. FORD-That’s a nice gesture and outreach. I appreciate that. Would you have any objection to a legal document stipulating that there be no further development on this parcel? MR. HAYES-We’ll consider any, we’ll talk about that with the Board. You can tell us what your requests are. We will consider them, any requests that you make, we’ll certainly think about anything or any requests you have and try to answer them in a timely fashion. MRS. STEFFAN-What about the community septic? MR. HAYES-I’m not an engineer. So I don’t. MR. CENTER-Looking at the parcel and understanding what John was proposing, I would have a concern taking all of the sewage from all of the houses and now you’re concentrating it in one spot. What we’ve tried to do here is take the individual apartments, they flow individually into septic tanks which then the effluent separated, the solids separated out. Now that effluent is diminished. It’s brought down to that two, three bedroom apartment to its own leach field with 50% replacement, and that’s spread out over a larger area, similar to the stormwater. The stormwater, instead of trying to cut, fight the grade, cut back, bring it back to the other side, and fight the natural flow of the land, which requires more clearing. We’ve taken, we’ve worked with the land and gone into the existing grade and tried to keep everything as shallow as possible and spread it out over the site. So I would be more into the septic systems as they’re designed. It spreads them out. You have the 50% in between. You have the area to replace, if you have to, and you’re spreading out that load in the soil at the higher area. A community system, I know I believe Tom, Mr. Nace is working on Overlook Drive. You’re putting a lot of material into a single space, as opposed to spreading it out and having room between systems. I just think it’s a better design to take these residential loads and spread them out over these, you know, behind the houses in between, and you’ve got more septic tanks involved in this. You have more settling out of solids, as opposed to, they’re still separated. They’re separated by their 50% replacement areas also, and there are three 50 foot lateral lines. I think that what you get here is a better product. You’re reducing the amount of effluent you’re sending to a specific area, as opposed to you put a larger septic tank system in, you have to put a larger pump station. You have the potential for failure. You have to provide for power outages. You have a larger area that you have to set aside for replacement of that, because, you know, everything’s based on the gallonage that you’re sending to a specific area. So here we’ve reduced the gallonage, put it in a smaller area, spread it out over the site. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the commenters, talked fairly extensively about the amount of additional water that’s going to be brought onto the site because of, you know, having Town water there, and could you talk to that, about how that’s been calculated into your stormwater and wastewater plans. MR. CENTER-The septic systems have been designed for 110 gallons per day per bedroom, per Appendix 75-A of DOH. The system, like everything, everything’s built with factors of safety. You have 150 feet of leach field, and I believe 138 is required. You have the required 50% replacement area, and again, you’re taking that amount of water and you’re spreading it out. We have our, we have more than our two feet of separation from seasonal high groundwater, and I think we’ve met the intent of all the designs, and like anything that has a minimum, there’s a factor of safety built into that minimum requirement. They know that maybe 12 inches is enough, but they, you know, bump it up 100 times and say, you know, 24 inches is what’s required. So there’s always factors of safety built in, and we have additional separation to seasonal high groundwater in all these, and again, that’s seasonal high groundwater versus what we actually found, as far as actual groundwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-I was wondering, since we’re having the engineer look at the stormwater issue, could we, and I understand we don’t have any technical drawings or whatever, but could we ask that engineer to evaluate the discussion regarding the community system versus the individual system? Again, understanding he’s not going to have numbers, he’s not going to have, just in general, in this context of high water, blah, blah, blah. MRS. STEFFAN-Well that comes, I guess that begs the next question. I mean, what exactly do we want from the applicant? What data do we need that we don’t currently have? MR. KREBS-Yes, and the one thing about the community system that everybody has to understand is that if you have a community system and the system fails, you have 14 units 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) pumping their effluent into that one septic system. The way you have it right now, if a system fails, you only have two families pumping into that system. MR. CENTER-Yes. Each apartment house has two septic tanks. Each unit has its own septic tank. MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing I would add is we can always invite the engineer to be at the meeting when we hear this again as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we have talked about that. In terms of the information that we’re looking for, I mean, I’ve heard a variety of discussions regarding what the scope, if you will, of our review, what scope is appropriate for our review, what information. Maybe Counsel could clarify that, or Planning Staff. Understanding this is a rather unusual procedure, to say the least. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes, and no. What’s unusual is that, for better for worse, rightly or wrongly, the project is underway, in a substantial manner, at least in terms of building of the units. What’s really a red herring and is not unusual is there is no Site Plan Review in the Town of Queensbury, other than Article 9 Site Plan Review, and the review that this Board is conducting is, in fact, Article 9 Site Plan Review. You’re conducting it in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 9 of our Town of Queensbury Zoning Law. Not each and every provision of Article 9 about Site Plan Review is necessarily applicable to each and every project, and certainly to come full circle to the first part of yours and my both comments, yes, there’s one unusual feature of this situation, which is that we have a project that’s already been substantially commenced. It’s not, at this point there’s no real purpose to Monday morning quarterbacking the how, why, where and how we got there. That’s where we are. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-With that being the case, the scope of review is Article 9 of Site Plan to the extent that it’s applicable to the various elements of the project that have not yet been constructed or completed. A number of comments, both from Planning Board members and from the public, a large number of comments related to features and aspects of the project that have not yet been completed and those are, assuming they’re appropriate for Site Plan Review consideration anyway, in other words within our authority in general, those would be appropriate for Site Plan Review. Obviously a couple of commenters requested, as I at least understood the request, Site Plan Review of elements that have already been completed and fully constructed, and there’s not much to review on those elements. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We concluded the public hearing portion of the evening. AUDIENCE MEMBER-They brought up new information. It seems reasonable that we should have a chance to rebut their information. MR. HUNSINGER-And you will. The public hearing has been left open. We have just concluded it for this evening. Okay. What’s the will of the Board? What additional information do we want to see? I think we need to talk about it before we. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we do. I’m writing down what’s being talked about, but we are not done. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think the big one is the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I mean that’s huge. MR. FORD-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the one thing that I have written down is that the Town Engineer is charged with evaluating the adequacy of the test pit data presented. If the engineer deems that the data is not adequate, the Planning Board authorizes the Community Development Department to inform the applicant of the need for new test pit data. MR. TRAVER-And could we add, in addition to adequate, appropriate? Because we’re dealing with particularly high water, and this test pit data may be adequate, but it might be more 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) appropriate, in this context, to do additional test pits over different times of the year? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. MR. OBORNE-Are you saying in the Town Engineer’s judgment, if he feels that additional test pits are required, that should be so? MR. TRAVER-We’re asking for an assessment, an opinion, on the, I guess the efficacy of the data that we have for the current test pits. Are they adequate and are they appropriate, having been conducted at the time of year they were, and so on? Which is over my pay grade. MR. LAPPER-That’s completely acceptable. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m going to change the word adequacy to sufficiency. How’s that? MR. TRAVER-Good. That works. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Chairman Hunsinger, pardon me for interrupting again, you know, everybody agrees this is a totally unusable circumstance. I think there are a couple of issues that really need to be addressed before we leave this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me be real clear. We’re going to table this application this evening. When we re-hear this application, we will take additional public comment. Now, and let me go so far to say, if there is new information that is made available after the public hearing is closed, we are obligated and required by law to re-open the public hearing to allow additional public comment. So there will be plenty of opportunity for you to make additional comments and have questions raised. Yes, that’s no problem. MR. KREBS-In addition to that, if you have any questions that you want answered, you can also write to the Staff and request an answer to your question, to the Planning Staff. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Directly to them? MR. KREBS-Yes. They work for you. MR. HUNSINGER-There were some questions raised about maintenance, snow plowing, you know, need for a storage shed, you know, that kind of information, dumpsters. We haven’t really talked about that. Is that something you want to add to the plan or is it something you just want to address verbally? MR. HAYES-I’ll answer them verbally now, or whatever you would like me to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it depends on the. MR. HAYES-Basically, since we own quite a bit of property, as most of you know that we do our own maintenance, and they haul it in with a trailer and they mow and they do all, so the stuff’s all removed, gas cans. There’s nothing left on site. As far as the garbage is that we leave it up to, these are duplexes. These are very similar to a single family house. Some people choose to take their trash to the dump. Other people chose to get their own, they have their own service. They wheel it right out, whether it be Carpenter, whoever, they handle their own garbage or recycling. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So how does a garbage truck turn around in there? MR. HAYES-The road’s 24 feet wide. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s the same thing as the fire. MR. HAYES-Well, the driveways are 37 feet long. A garbage truck is only 30 feet long. They pull into a driveway, they can back right out and go. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HAYES-I mean, it’s no different than a regular road. MR. HUNSINGER-How about snow storage? MR. HAYES-For snow plowing? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HAYES-Basically, with snow plowing is that they plow the snow. Obviously you’ve got to have areas where you store the snow and that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HAYES-And when the snow gets to a significant level, you actually remove the snow with a backhoe or, but usually, my understanding some of the best areas to plow is you take the areas farthest away from the residences, we normally do it, or where the drainage would take away whatever melt that you’d have, you naturally use the setup that you would to take the water away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you don’t have mail delivery to each unit, I don’t know what you’ve got up there. If you’re going to put in a common mailbox, you ought to put that on the plan, and you also ought to take a look at the parking because it’s always a problem in rental units, and usually what they do is they put no parking on one side of the street, and then also that helps if you’ve got a fire. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s a point well taken. As far as how we handle, to be honest with you, how we handle the mailbox, we go to the U.S. Postal Service and they tell us what we can do. That’s not up to us. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, but if you’re going to put a group mailbox, put it on the plan. MR. HAYES-Exactly. That’s what they kind of like to do these days because I guess it saves them the labor and, yes. So that’s, I never knew about the one side of the street, though. That’s good information. MR. HUNSINGER-How about lighting? MR. HAYES-Lighting, all the lighting is basically lighting on the houses themselves. These are, and I’ll actually bring in photos of these units that have actually been constructed so you guys can get a good idea of what it actually looks like, a physical structure. The lights are only on the house itself, just like a house that you walk in, you have your light locked in and their decorative light. There’s no commercial lighting. It’s not a commercial facility. MR. FORD-Even at the entrance there’s no street lighting or any signage? MR. HAYES-Absolutely zero, just like you drive into a lane, and you come into your house and then you have the ability to turn on the lights from your house. People will have the timers or however they want to do it. I mean, they control their, there’s not like a, go to like a Schermerhorn property, where everything’s on timers with the lights and the people dictate their lighting on their house themselves, because the units are totally separate, each unit is totally separate. So they want their light on all night, they can have their light on all night, and if they want to have, they don’t want to turn it on, some people like to have their house dark so people don’t visit them, that’s totally up to the individual what they want to do . MR. HUNSINGER-So you have front porches on these houses. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would the light be recessed into the ceiling of the porch, or would it be hung on the wall? MR. HAYES-There’d be a coach light next to the door for safety, a lot of this stuff is required by Code to have lights by the door for safety when you step out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Which is part of the building permit process, but also there’ll be lights for underneath the porch so people can utilize the front porch for reading, or that’s one of the nice features about this design is you can have chairs out front. You can actually sit on the front of your porch, and a lot of houses are built, or duplexes built and the front porch is really just an apparition because people don’t use them, but in a case like this where it’s a dead end road, the place that will face you get a community action, where people will actually sit on the front porches, kind of like a Glens Falls street where they actually use the front porches because that’s how they’ll commune with each other, versus a standard subdivision in Queensbury where 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) the back yard/deck becomes the usability. That’s the whole point of having the front porches. So there will be lights recessed up into the soffit. MR. FORD-What about utility poles versus underground? MR. HAYES-Luckily for this all the utilities that will come back to the property are along the area which we were talking about the Niagara Mohawk has the rights through or National Grid or whatever. All our power will be all underground. Every bit of our utilities will be underground to serve these things so there’ll be absolutely no wires or anything, except for their transformers or whatever, Verizon, Time Warner and National Grid. It’s all underground. MR. TRAVER-You offered to discuss with the neighbors additional, I guess for a better word, mitigation measures like trees on their property or a fence or whatever? MR. HAYES-Absolutely, yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you already have, perhaps from your other projects, a mechanism by which people do that, or would you like us to suggest to the neighborhood how they might go about providing you what their proposal is? MR. HAYES-I would take any input from anybody, any idea they would have or you would have. We find, in our past, that you find that a lot of people don’t like to impose on you and other people are extremely the opposite. So I would say you’d see both kinds. Some people would really, so any suggestion or any type of tree or anything that somebody would like. If somebody might have a chance to select landscaping, they wouldn’t have to pay for them, if they’d like a certain type of tree and we can accommodate them, then we’re fine to do that as well. We might as well try to work together to get a buffer that they would like to look at, not necessarily what I would like to look at. MR. TRAVER-Sure, I appreciate that. I guess part of what I was getting at is more along the, having an organized mechanism by which people could do that. I mean, I don’t know if we could ask for such communications to be directed to the Planning Department and ask people to submit a single sheet with their name, address and one hundred words or less of what ideas they may have. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that there are minimal properties that would be affected by that. So it would be a short list. MR. TRAVER-Right. They’d have to be appropriate. MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t want to be the one that had to vet that, but I certainly could bring that to the Board’s attention and obviously to the applicant’s attention. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HAYES-That’s fine, and I would go as far as that I’d be glad to have an organized public meeting which people could attend that we would explain all, any questions that people would have as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I would request that if you want that mechanism to put that as a condition of your tabling. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SIPP-Are there going to be one bedroom and two bedroom units? MR. HAYES-They are two bedroom units, all seven. There’s 14 units there. We don’t, to be honest with you we don’t build one bedroom units because they’re just not that marketable. The two bedrooms are more popular. MR. FORD-No three bedroom? MR. HAYES-No three bedrooms. MR. SIPP-Will we have a floor plan sketch? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. HAYES-Yes. I can actually bring in the blueprints with me next time if you’d like to see them. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be good, yes. MR. HAYES-And part of the reason this site is, as these people know who live there, you have the Kensington School district, which is a big draw. That’s part of the reason these, they have such a great school system in Glens Falls, and its walkability. It’s near the park, it’s got all these assets, and for older people as well it’s close to a lot of services. For younger people, it’s got Kensington School District right up the street. This area is a wonderful place, as they can probably attest to, to actually live. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, could you elaborate on your request? You said if we want to do that to put it in the resolution. MR. OBORNE-My understanding of the mechanism that Steve is attempting to take care of here is that any applicants that are associated with the buffer area, sorry, any adjoining landowners that are associated with the buffer area could send me a list of preferred trees or plantings, and then I would be able to have that on file for the applicant to review, and from there, it would be I guess pretty much up to the two of them to work that one out. These are properties that are of this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HAYES-Excuse me. Would you forward that to us ahead of time so we’d have time to? MR. OBORNE-I certainly would make you aware of it, sure. MR. HAYES-Okay, when you receive something. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t have an issue with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-I’d ask anyone who submits if they’d also leave their phone number and name, or if they don’t want to, if they would mind if I would call them and talk to them about it. If not, I would be glad not to talk to them. I’m sure they could look at it either way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that kind of a weird thing for us to do? MR. OBORNE-It’s not something that’s typical, that’s for sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-My concern, I mean, we can be the conduit, what I understood Steve’s suggestion to be essentially is to have a process so that we’re the conduit, meaning the Town is the conduit. MR. TRAVER-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s neither required. It’s certainly not required, and it certainly should not be interpreted by anyone to think that a neighbor should not, if they wish, take Mr. Hayes up on his offer to contact him directly. We should not really steer that or drive that. I think the best position for the Town is simply that if we receive comments, if we receive written feedback, if we receive requests from neighbors, requests of the applicant, that we should provide the applicant with copies of those things. First of all, the applicant’s entitled to them. Second of all, so is anyone else under the Freedom of Information Law anyway. MR. TRAVER-Yes. My intent really was just to have a single and common way of communicating that information, you know, through us to the developer, and to some degree so that we would be aware of what additional mitigation efforts were being offered by the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think that’s fine to a point of encouragement, but not to a point of requirement. MR. TRAVER-No, no, no. It’s certainly not required. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. SCHACHNER-We cannot require that we’re the sole point of contact. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you for that. I understand that clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was just wondering if Keith had a date. Do you have a tabling date? MR. OBORNE-Do I have a tabling date? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was going to be my next item, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, I look at the schedule, and there’s two things that could happen. We can bring them back sooner, and then if Dan Ryan makes the decision that they need new test pit data, then according to the requirements in our Code that has to be done in March. MR. OBORNE-It does not have to be done in March. The way the Code reads is it’s April, May or June, they can do the deep hole test pits without the engineer. Out of season, they have to have the engineer there. It doesn’t preclude them from doing that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, then that’s, then that could work, because I was going to table them until April. MR. OBORNE-It would be Chapter 136 Appendix F. th MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s the 27 of January, and so that gives them two weeks for the th submission deadline of February 15. th MR. OBORNE-February 15. I think that we may have an issue with member. th MRS. STEFFAN-No, February 15 for submission of materials for March, because they’ve already passed the deadline for the February meetings. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Could we get another special meeting, just because of the length of this and the number of the neighbors? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Let me just ask the Board a quick question. I know a number of members are not available in March. Brad, are you available in March? BRAD MAGOWAN MR. MAGOWAN-I will be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-I’m not going to be. MR. HUNSINGER-One, two, three, four. MR. SIPP-I’m not going to be here. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have three members and an alternate for the month of March. MRS. STEFFAN-Four members and an alternate. MR. LAPPER-Well, how about the last week of February if we’re going to have a special meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Three and an alternate. MR. KREBS-I have no objection to an extra meeting in February. MRS. STEFFAN-Wasn’t that school vacation week? Is that the last week in February is school vacation week. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. LAPPER-Are there a few days the week after that? th MRS. STEFFAN-Just the 28 of February. It’s a Monday. th MR. FORD-I’m gone. I leave on the 24 of February. th MR. KREBS-I don’t leave until the 7 of March. th MR. LAPPER-What about the 24 of February, on a Thursday? th MR. FORD-I can’t do it the 24. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s school vacation week. It doesn’t matter to me. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t matter to me. MR. LAPPER-We understand we need to have a full Board. MR. HUNSINGER-When do people get back in March? MR. SIPP-April. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-April. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MR. FORD-Three days after the first of April. th MR. TRAVER-So are we going to try for the 24? th MR. HUNSINGER-Would it be possible to do a meeting on the 24 of February? MR. FORD-I won’t be here, but you can. MR. OBORNE-Anything’s possible, sir. Is that enough time? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m asking. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s basically a week. I mean, it’s nine days after submission date. Unless they can get it in earlier. MR. CENTER-I would say, as far as engineering, it depends on the latitude that we have to sit down with Mr. Ryan and review. He has all the documentation, including the stormwater management report and the NOI that completed. He obviously doesn’t have the information from tonight available to him, but it would be the two of us having a sit down and going through items that you request us to go through, and agreeing, disagreeing, coming up with further information to gather and go out and, you know, if he requires more, if he feels that more test pits are needed, and certainly we can include the drawing that has the previous information on there, and then if we have to go out and do test pits, we’ll have to go out and do test pits. That’s something that can be done, again, any time of year. We can backhoe and get out there and do that, if he feels that we need to confirm everything in the stormwater areas. After that, it would just be a matter of putting that information on a drawing, and as long as there’s no major changes that we would have to make, like, i.e. a community system. I think discussions have been made about connecting to Hughes Court, or the Hughes Court system in that area, the storm system. I think there’s, from my understanding, there’s some concerns that that is a not very well functioning system, that it’s a series of perforated pipes. We would be adding to a non- functioning system. The State is actually getting away from one point distribution of stormwater, and that does end up in Halfway Brook. So connecting to that system, I already think is questionable at best. MR. LAPPER-But if the Town Engineer wants it. MR. CENTER-But if the Town Engineer says he wants it, certainly we’ll have to provide those details. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) th MR. TRAVER-One advantage with having another meeting on February 24 would be as far as I can tell it would be the first month in which we’ve had four meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No kidding. Well, I was just about to back up for a second and ask the Board if the Board wants to have another special meeting for this project. MR. TRAVER-Wants or needs? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they’re one in the same, really. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s appropriate. MR. KREBS-I think we need another special meeting, because with the amount of comment, and hopefully we’ll be able to get Mr. Ryan to be here, too, so he can help us with the technicalities, I think it would be very appropriate to do a special meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Because one of the logistical questions that we always run into when we try to schedule a special meeting is we don’t know for certain right now, as we sit here, that this th room is available on February 24. MR. TRAVER-Right. thnd MR. HUNSINGER-We know for certain it’s available on March 15, and March 22, because we’re already scheduled for those nights. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s part of the reason why I asked the question. th MR. KREBS-March 15. MR. HUNSINGER-And it may be easier to move other items to a special meeting that’s yet to be posted then perhaps to move this to another special meeting. MR. TRAVER-The other comment I would have, Mr. Chairman. We know that the applicant is going to be preparing the new materials as quickly as possible, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. th MR. TRAVER-We have the first of our special meetings on the 8. So we would know th presumably by then if we would be in a position to proceed with the 24. Would we not? MR. HUNSINGER-On February 8th. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, I really would like to be a part of this, and I won’t be anywhere near thrd here on the 24. The 23 would work for me, but then. MR. OBORNE-Are you still in the month of February? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I just need to implore the Board that you need to figure out if this is actually realistic. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think it’s realistic at all. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where I was going to go. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the 23rd is the Zoning Board. MR. FORD-Right. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) th MR. HUNSINGER-I was kind of leaning towards March 15, which is a known for certain date that the room is available, but there’d only be four members here. MR. OBORNE-Then there’s only four members. It’s a quorum. th MR. SCHACHNER-March 15 you’re talking about? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don’t know if anybody cares, but this counsel is not available on March th 15. nd MR. HUNSINGER-March 22. MR. SCHACHNER-There are other counsel also. nd MR. HUNSINGER-March 22? MR. TRAVER-So what would we do with the, or is there no agenda yet for that? MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t posted the, we haven’t done the agenda yet. We could do a, those items could go to a special meeting. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Sure, that’ll work. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t matter if we have to move a date around because they haven’t been publically warned yet. MR. TRAVER-Right. Gotcha. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that make sense, Keith? nd MR. OBORNE-The 22? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you follow my logic? There may be other items that we table to March nd 22 . MR. OBORNE-There will be, I’m sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there were maybe two. MR. OBORNE-I see what you’re saying, yes. th MR. TRAVER-I thought they were all tabled to the 15? nd MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure there were at least one or two items that we tabled to the 22. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I can’t recall off the top of my head, to be honest with you. To March, you’re talking about, from? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I can’t recall off the top of my head. MR. TRAVER-But we also have, for a special meeting in March, we also have a Thursday the th 24 there. thnd MR. HUNSINGER-Is the 15 or 22 better? nd MR. OBORNE-The 22’s better for counsel, and for me, it doesn’t matter to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just trying to, do you have an idea of how many items we have on th the 15 for ZBA recommendations? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. OBORNE-No, not at this point, I’ll know after the February deadline what we’re looking at in March, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I will say that we already have about six or seven bumps going into February. So that’s already filling up the March agenda, and I do anticipate an uptick obviously going into March because people are starting to get into construction season. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, construction season. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And don’t pick one or the other based on my schedule, because there’s plenty of counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Glad to hear you say that, an ample supply. thnd MR. HUNSINGER-So it may make more sense for the 15 over the 22, just because of the way the ZBA recommendations operate. It’s quicker to do a recommendation than it is to do a full review. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and that logic definitely works. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Would people tend to agree with me on that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. thnd MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the 15 versus the 22, it would take more time to do a ZBA recommendation, or does it take more time to do a Site Plan Review? MRS. STEFFAN-It takes more time to do a Site Plan Review. th MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So that would lead me to table this to the 15 of March. Yes, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I ask a point of clarification? Is the Board requesting a written description of the things that Mickie just told us about, mailboxes, lighting? It sounded like it was pretty straightforward. Will that be on the record? MR. HUNSINGER-It is on the record. The questions and the answers were on the record, but we will ask them to put it on the plan as well. Yes, thank you. As we’re working on the th resolution, we will be tabling this until March 15. The public hearing will be left open. There will be another opportunity for the public to offer comments to the Board. There will be new materials submitted by the applicant between now and then. If members of the public want to come in to the Planning Board office to review those materials, the submission deadline is thth February 15. If you show up before February 15, it may not be there, but it has to be there by thth February 15 in order for them to be heard on March 15. If the material is not submitted for the thth March 15 Board meeting, we will then, on March 15 we will table it again, but we will hold the public hearing open, and there will still be time for public comment. Did you have something to add, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, I think you nailed it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I guess just a final comment on public comment. I think you heard it a couple of times this evening. You are also welcome to provide written comments to Staff, to the Town Planning Office. Those written comments do become part of the record, and the way that the written comments are handled that are received by Staff, they are put into the file for part of the permanent record, and then they are read into the minutes of the meeting when we hear the project again. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m sorry. So if we have comments tonight, this will go into this meeting record? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s one record. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-There’s one record of the project, and it’s basically kept in the case file, that’s on file with the Town. The Town Clerk is actually responsible for all of the official records of the Town. So the Town Clerk is actually responsible for maintaining any public record. th MR. STROUGH-Also, the Hayes are going to make their submission by the 15. If the public has something they would like the Hayes’ to show on their plans, they should be in contact with th the Hayes’ prior to the 15 so that it would give them time to put it on their plans. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true. Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say as quickly as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the other question of the Board is, since we will need to have a special meeting in March now, do we have a preference as to the date? MR. FORD-I don’t. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any day is okay with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. th MR. TRAVER-How about the 24? th MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I’m not available on the 17. So that almost automatically th puts us on the 24. Keith, could you find out the availability of the, well, I guess it doesn’t th matter. We could do this at our February 8 meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Set the date for the special meeting in March. We don’t even really need to do that this evening. We can do it at one of the February meetings, set the special meeting date for March. Okay. Gretchen, I know you have a lot of notes here. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready? MRS. STEFFAN-There’s Staff comments, there’s engineering comments, there’s Fire Marshal comments, there’s the issues of the test pits that we want the Town Engineer to look at and make recommendations on. Do we want the engineer to look at the potential, because this is, I heard this about a community option for septic? I know Tom gave us a lot of information contrary, why we wouldn’t want that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think it would be helpful to have his opinion on that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The generic statement that Mr. Lapper made was to get the Town Engineer to weigh in on stormwater, and that’s kind of open-ended. So I think that almost implies that there would be some discussion, perhaps, between yourself and Mr. Ryan. MR. CENTER-Yes. As long as he’s given permission, via the Planning Staff, that we can have that meeting, whether it’s with Keith and the two of us or however it’s facilitated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-In order to get things moving forward, that would be very helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there are several things in the engineering comments that he’s asked for, and obviously I’ve given him some of that information already, and so I’m trying not to duplicate some of the things that are in the VISION Engineering comments. So I’ll put obtain Town Engineer comments on stormwater and community septic. Just so that we’re specific. Also the Board mentioned a snow storage plan. The Board mentioned a lighting plan. The Board mentioned a parking plan. The Board mentioned clearing plans and comparing that to current site conditions. The Board also mentioned, I have lighting plan twice. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-If we could just kind of take those maybe one at a time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I had asked the question about the clearing plan versus what’s there now, and I think the applicant pretty much answered the question. MR. LAPPER-It’s on the submission. MRS. STEFFAN-But the current conditions versus proposed clearing, because there’ll be some more, are there other, I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was my question. I felt like he answered it, unless there’s other members that still need clarification. MR. OBORNE-You guys have that in front of you. MR. CENTER-The clearing limits are shown. MR. HUNSINGER-The clearing limits are on the plans, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ll take that one out. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we need a full blown lighting plan, other than maybe a, you know, they already said they’re just going to be. MR. KREBS-I don’t think they need a lighting plan, it looks like an individual home. MR. LAPPER-But that’s a condition that it just be the lights underneath the porch and carriage lights at the door and no street lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So, I mean, I don’t know, you know, I mean, that’s really not a lighting plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Lighting details, provide lighting details? MR. HUNSINGER-Make a comment, statement. MR. CENTER-I can put that in a note, in a response. MRS. STEFFAN-Provide lighting details. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What was the other item? There were like three or four together there? Snow storage, to show that on the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-I think, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we need to see that. MR. CENTER-Show it on the plan, or a similar fashion to the lighting where it’s proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s not unusual for us to request on a site plan is to have the snow storage area delineated. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I was going to have, provide a stormwater management plan, based on what we’ve talked about, but he asked for all the data in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we want mailbox locations. MR. HUNSINGER-The mailbox locations. MR. HAYES-I’ll contact the post office and see. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Submit building designs. MR. HUNSINGER-Building designs we talked about. Colors. MRS. STEFFAN-Building designs and colors. Provide signage details. MR. HAYES-How would you like me to handle the colors thing? Do you want me to bring in samples of siding? How would you like me to do that? MRS. STEFFAN-Just your recommended, usually, you know, folks will bring in just a color, a color rendering of what it looks like and maybe materials, if that’s relevant. MR. TRAVER-Yes, just a print out of the elevation width in color, what you have in mind. MR. HAYES-I’ll bring in a few different choices, I guess. MR. TRAVER-Even better. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And do we want elevation drawings? I heard that from somebody. MR. HAYES-Yes, on the building plans I could colorize them for you with the blueprints, have full elevations as required by New York State. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s great. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s my list. I have some direction for Keith, and I have some greater direction for the public, but that’s based on everything that’s been said. So is there anything I’m missing? MR. OBORNE-If you could speak into the mic, I’m having a hard time hearing. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry. I’ve got a couple of directives for Keith on having an engineer at the next meeting, to have the engineer include a review of the test pit data for sufficiency, just, I’m going to put it in the motion, but I also want to give you the direction. MR. OBORNE-He certainly is going to do that with his review. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-But as far as the engineer being at the next meeting, absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and then the other thing is, Keith, I would like you, based on the information, can you please gather some information from Mike Shaw on that, the sewer situation on Dixon, I mean, if there is a proposed plan? I think the Planning Board needs to be aware of it. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and for the greater public, you know, based on some of the discussion that happened, if the Town of Queensbury, so that would be Keith Oborne would be a good person to direct that correspondence to, if the Town receives any written requests or feedback, based on this evening’s meeting from interested parties, Keith would be more than happy to forward that to the applicant. The Town Planning Board would also get a copy of that correspondence. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’re ready to roll. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and we’re tabling this to March? th MR. HUNSINGER-March 15. MRS. STEFFAN-Fifteenth. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 80-2010 HAYES & HAYES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/2011) th This is tabled to the March 15 Planning Board meeting. So that the applicant can address the following issues: 1.The applicant will address and satisfy Staff comments, engineering comments. 2.They will also address the Fire Marshal’s comments and obtain a signoff from the Fire Marshal. 3.The applicant may be responsible for providing a new and current test pit data. The outcome will be based on the Town Engineer’s review of the sufficiency of the test pit data presented. 4.That the applicant will obtain Town Engineer commentary on stormwater and community septic system. 5.The applicant will also present a snow storage plan. 6.The applicant will present a parking plan. 7.The applicant will provide lighting details. 8.The applicant will provide mailbox locations. 9.The applicant will submit building designs and colors. 10.The applicant will also provide any signage details and color according to the details. 11.The applicant will also provide elevation drawings. 12.A clause or a notation should be placed on the plans that there would be no further development on the parcel. th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And just again for the record, the public hearing was held open. We will take th additional public comments on March 15 . Thank you everyone. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. KREBS-No. I move that we adjourn. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to make a recommendation to the Town Board that we look for more Planning Board alternates. We currently have. MR. HUNSINGER-We need one. MRS. STEFFAN-We need one desperately, and we need some action. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 39