Loading...
2011.03.15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 4. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 1-2011 Aftab Sam Bhatti 5. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52, 52.13 Site Plan No. 72-2010 Stewarts Shops 7. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 9. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 80-2010 Hayes & Hayes, LLC 13. 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 03/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-MIKE FARRELL STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, our first regular meeting in March on March 15, 2011. I’d like to welcome all the members of the audience. If you’re here for the Hayes & Hayes, LLC Site Plan Review, there is a signup sheet on the back table. If you wish to present before the Board this evening, I would ask that you sign the signup sheet so that we can call people up in an orderly fashion. Also on the back table is a handout for procedures on the public hearing. All of our scheduled items do have a public hearing this evening, and that just talks about the policies and procedures for the public hearing, and I would just ask you to make yourself familiar with that. Finally there’s also copies of the agenda on the back table if you wish to follow along. Our first item on the agenda is approval of ththth minutes from January 20, 25, and 27, 2011. Would anyone like to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JANUARY THTHTH 20, JANUARY 25 AND JANUARY 27, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We have several administrative items for further tabling consideration. There was some information in our Board packages. The first one is Site Plan 53-2007. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION SP 53-2007: PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT – TABLED TO 3/15/11 [NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MARCH DEADLINE DATE OF 2/15/11] MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to add, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They have a complete submittal in. I did review it this afternoon. It is complete, and I would ask the Board to table that to the first meeting in April. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Would anyone like to move that? Do we have a public hearing scheduled on that this evening? MR. OBORNE-No, not on this. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: nd Applicant proposes to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by removing 2 floor living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access for neighboring parcel to the north. This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; Planning Board review and approval is required; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07, 7/28/09, 9/22/09, 11/7/09, 2/16/10, 4/27/10, & 1/25/2011; and On 1/25/2011 the application was tabled to March 15, 2011 with a deadline for information of 2/15/2011; and No new information was submitted by that deadline date; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. It is tabled to the April 19 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-And the next one is Site Plan 3-2010. SP 03-2010: IRENE MARSHALL – TABLED TO 3/15/11 [NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MARCH DEADLINE DATE OF 2/15/11] MR. HUNSINGER-Has any new information come in, Keith? MR. OBORNE-With the exception of this letter that is before you, requesting a tabling, and not to have to start the process all over, because it has been painful for her, I would suggest that we table her to the first meeting in May, if at all possible. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you think because we haven’t gotten any information, do you think we should table it to the June meeting, just to be safe, to give her a couple of months? MR. OBORNE-If the Board wishes to do that, based on past practices than, yes. I was thinking basically not to table it to April. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we’re in agreement there. MR. OBORNE-That would be up to you guys. th MRS. STEFFAN-Her letter’s dated February 7, and she’s still in process, she’s been trying to get some legal issues taken care of, and so, just to make sure that she can get everything done. She’s got, you know, between, she would have one month to get any new material to us in order to make the May meeting. If she fails to do that, then, you know, we end up tabling her again. MR. OBORNE-That’s logical. st MRS. STEFFAN-So I think maybe, you know, June 21, and then give her a submission deadline? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. th MRS. STEFFAN-It would be May 16. MR. HUNSINGER-It makes sense to me. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 3-2010 MARSHALL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and the application was scheduled on the following dates: 1/26, 3/23, 5/20, 6/15, 8/17, 10/19, 12/21/10 [tabled to 3/15/11]; and On 3/1/2011 the Planning Office received a letter from the applicant [forwarded by the Planning Board Chairman] dated 2/7/2011; and Therefore, let it be resolved, MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: st According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’re going to table that to the June 21 th Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials would be May 16. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan 14-2010. SP 14-2010: STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON – TABLED TO 3/15/11 [SEE E-MAIL FROM APPLICANT] MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and based on what’s here with the Zoning Board motion, all materials th have to be submitted by April 15 or deny without prejudice. So therefore their meeting is on thth May 18. So we would have to table this to the May 24 Planning Board meeting. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-If they don’t have their materials in, then it gets taken off the agenda anyway. thth MR. HUNSINGER-Except our May meeting is the 19, because the 24 is Grievance Day. MRS. STEFFAN-You are right. Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 14-2010 JOHNSON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,198 +/- sq. ft. summer home and rebuild to a year round 2,110 +/- sq. ft. residence. Hard Surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval; and The Planning Board provided a written recommendation as required to the ZBA on 3/16/2010; and The Planning Board has tabled the application on the following dates pending a ZBA decision: 3/23/10, 5/20/10, 7/20/10, 9/28/10, 12/21/10 tabled to 3/15/11; and To date the ZBA has not rendered a decision and the application has been tabled on 3/17, 5/19, 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) 7/23, 8/18, 10/27, 12/15/10 & 2/23/11; On February 23, 2011 the ZBA has tabled the application th to their May 18 meeting [resolution below]: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to the first meeting in May, May 18. All th materials will be submitted by April 15 or deny without prejudice. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the May 19 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally we have Site Plan 39-2010. SP 39-2010: INWALD ENTERPRISES – TABLED TO 3/15/11 MR. OBORNE-We did receive a No County Impact on both of her applications at this point, and I thth would ask the Board to table this to the 19 of April or the 26. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you, at this time, know what we’re looking at for April? Is it going to matter which meeting? MR. OBORNE-Yes, well they have to get to you for a recommendation, and then to the Zoning Board after that. So basically you’re tabling for the recommendation. You’re first up for this application. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. th MR. HUNSINGER-So we would want to go on the 19. th MRS. STEFFAN-Then if they get on the 20. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing docks. Area Variance: Accessory structure > 100 square feet within shoreline and sideline setbacks. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and The application has been heard and tabled on the following dates: 6/24/10, 8/17/10, 9/28/10, 9/30/10, 11/16/10, 1/18/11; and Craig Brown issued a letter dated 12/21/2010; and On 1/20/11 the application was tabled to 3/15/11; and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) On 2/22/11 the Planning Board made a resolution to refer the application back to the Warren County Planning Board along with Site Plan 6-2011 for a recommendation; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the April 19 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford SITE PLAN NO. 1-2011 SEQR TYPE II AFTAB SAM BHATTI AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL AFTER THE FACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 SQUARE FOOT CANOPY AT MAIN OFFICE LOCATION. REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3-11, AV 29-05, SP 12-04, AV 19-04, SP 20-03, AV 85, 55 & 25 OF 02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11 LOT SIZE 2.19, 0.83 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1- 51, 52, 52.13 SECTION 179-9 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-And I think the Board is familiar with this application, but I’ll read it into the record as Site Plan 1-2011. Sam Bhatti is the applicant, doing business as Econo Lodge, 543 Aviation Road is the location. CI, Commercial Intensive, is the zone. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No review needed. Project Description: Applicant requests approval for the construction and completion of a 120 square foot canopy at the main office location. The main hang up was the Fire Marshal issues, as far as access. Those have been mitigated at this point. The Zoning Board of Appeals gave approval to this plan last month, and as of now it is before this Board, and I’d turn it over to the Board. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUGHES-Hi. My name is Gary Hughes. I am the agent acting for Sammy Bhatti of Econo Lodge, and as Keith pretty much explained the situation, we’re here for approval after the fact construction of a 120 square foot canopy at the main office, and revisions to the approved Site Plans obviously require Planning Board review and approval. So I’m here to hopefully answer any questions or concerns, and see if we can move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I think at this point it’s pretty cut and dried. The comment by the Fire Marshal, the canopy as it currently exists does not impede the apparatus driving aisle. It’s just, if the parking lot’s full, I think it would, but, you know, the Fire Marshall’s the one who signs off on it. So, you know, we have to go with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show that there were no comments received, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move this? Were there any special conditions? MRS. STEFFAN-Not according to Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The only thing that this involved was the canopy. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 1-2011 BHATTI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant requests approval after the fact for the construction of a 120 square foot canopy at main office location. Revisions to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 1/18/2011; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 1/26/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2011 AFTAB SAM BHATTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One complies. Paragraph Six, the applicant’s requested waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting plans, and those are granted. No conditions. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 7)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HUGHES-Thank you. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NC [NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 347 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 500 +/- SQ. FT. BUILDING EXPANSION, 105 +/- SQ FT. EXTERIOR FREEZER ADDITION. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 5-06, SP 24-99, SP 20-94, AV 92-93, SP 17-93 LOT SIZE 1.04 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 SECTION 179-9 BRANDON MYERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, absolutely. Site Plan 72-2010. This is a modification to Site Plan 5- 2006. This is for Stewarts Shops. This is for a modification to an approved Site Plan, and as such this requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 347 Aviation Road. This is in the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zone. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No further review is needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 105 plus or minus square foot exterior freezer addition. Comments: The applicant was before the Board with a different plan, in December of 2010. That included a 500 square foot expansion to the convenience store and relocation of sitting area to the east as well as the freezer addition. At this time, the only vestige of this previous approval or proposal is the freezer addition. The only issue that I could glean from this is the access, is it interior or exterior? MR. MEYERS-It’s just interior. MR. OBORNE-And that was my only issue, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MEYERS-Hi. My name’s Brandon Meyers. Yes, Tom only sends me on the hard ones. He had a different meeting tonight, a conflict, so I work for Stewarts Shops also, and as you said, it’s pretty simple. There is interior access only. The plans we had previously talked about as far as interior, an expansion of this shop, modifications to the rental, all of that we’re not doing. It’s all just this freezer on the exterior of the building, and that’s it. So were there any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No. So it’s just the freezer and then the canopy, right, the overhang is the only change? MR. MEYERS-Exactly. I forgot to mention that. There is, we’re adding a little bigger canopy over the back door of the building. MR. TRAVER-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I thought. MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing that you just need to change on the plan is on, this one says existing back elevation, it should say proposed back elevation. MR. MEYERS-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any Staff issues, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I’ll tell you, there’s no change to permeability, the site flow is fine. There’s really no issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Won’t be visible from the road. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And note that there were no comments received. Would anyone like to move it? It’s a Type II action so no SEQRA review is required. Why did you change the project? MR. MEYERS-Well, we spent a lot of time looking at this. There was really no easy way to expand our store that wouldn’t really impact the hairdresser, and the space that that left her, she couldn’t really utilize it, you know, effectively. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MEYERS-So we just looked at a lot of different alternatives and nothing seemed to work out, and then the costs, there were utility issues with our building. So, in the end, we just scrapped it, you know, we’re making counter changes inside. We’re moving a bathroom inside, you know, from one corner to the other, and then a little office space, but the footprint stays the same. We just couldn’t use the space any better. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Yes, I do. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 72-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 105 +/- sq. ft. exterior freezer addition. Modification to an approved site plan in the NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/16/2010, 2/22/2011 and 3/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One complies. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, parking, landscaping, topo, and grading. Those are granted. . 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., parking, landscaping, topo, & grading; and 6)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 7)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) 8)This is approved with the following condition: That the applicant will correct Drawing T-1 so that the proposed back elevation says proposed back elevation th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. MEYERS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Tell Tom we weren’t too hard on you tonight. MR. MEYERS-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A. AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR- 3A, SR-1A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 LOT SIZE 26.15 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.-1- 19 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICKIE HAYES, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 8-2005. This is a modification. This is Mountain Hollow HOA is the applicant. Subdivision review for modifications to a stormwater control structure is the requested action. Location is Western Reserve Trail. Existing zoning is MDR or Moderate Density Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination or re-affirm previous SEQRA findings of Subdivision 8-2005 mod. Project Description: In January of 2009, the applicant proposed modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing stormwater issues with a modification to an approved Site Plan. Specifically the stormwater basin is proposed to be enlarged to increase the water storage capacity from approximately eight acre feet to approximately fourteen acre feet. Further, an inflow gauging weir will be installed near the stream inlet along with pond level gauge in the main pond. The plan further called for record keeping associated with the weir to include a “locked weather proof enclosure”; said record keeping to be provided by a competent person designated by the HOA. What I’m going to read is concerning the emergency action plan. The applicant submitted a plan for review on July 20, 2010 but did not have private landowner sign-off to direct flood water onto the lands east of West Mountain road. The applicant was subsequently tabled to reply to Staff Notes and has requested further tabling on three separate occasions. Currently a tabling request is before this Board. I will state that the applicant actually is not requesting a tabling, but it was assumed by Staff that a tabling would be followed. With that, there’s an attached letter from Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator. What follows are Staff comments. The applicant has submitted responses to these issues, but due to the snow pack verification at this time is a little difficult to say the least. The follow up components that still will need to be submitted will be signoff from all affected parties to indicate that no permits are required for the proposed emergency action plan. This includes the City of Glens Falls, Warren County DPW, Town of Queensbury Highway Department and any other involved agencies. Western Reserve HOA acknowledgement and agreement to the EAP. Complete subdivision map outlining originally approved and proposed conditions as per Craig Brown letter of February 17, 2010. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Mickie Hayes and Tom Nace the project engineer is here as well. Essentially Keith is right. We’re asking for a tabling, but we want to bring you up to speed on where Mickie is at this point. The good news is that the size of the pond has been more than adequate this year. The snowpack is about half down. There’s still plenty of capacity in the pond. As of today it’s, what, five and a half feet from the top. They do the log this time of year every two hours to ensure that there’s not a problem, and if there is, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) even though the emergency action plan isn’t completely approved by the agencies, it would be utilized. They’re very close to having a signoff from County DPW, which is the main agency to cross West Mountain Road. They’ve been going back and forth finalizing that plan. That’ll probably just be a matter of days, and once that happens, we’ve already had communications with Glens Falls because ultimately the water will be pumped over the road into the Glens Falls Watershed property, in the event that there was some major melting and that was needed, and it hasn’t been needed in the three years since there was a smaller pond and the big rain during the winter. As soon as we’re finalized with the County, we’ll then submit that final plan to the City, and then bring that to you, and, as Keith said, we’ll then update the emergency action plan with all of the conditions that the County and the City have required, but it shouldn’t be an issue for the rest of this year, based upon the conditions out there and we should certainly have this tied up within the next few months. MR. TRAVER-So do you have an idea when you would like to have this application to be tabled to? MR. LAPPER-I mean, realistically I would expect that we’ll have DPW within the next week. We then have to submit it to the City, and that probably will take a few months, just because there’s no urgency on their part. So I would say, you know, and at that point we’re into Spring. June’s probably realistic. MR. OBORNE-Staff would recommend May, if at all possible. MR. LAPPER-That’s no problem. Even if we come back in May and we have the County permit, we don’t have the City approval yet, we’ll just give you an update. MR. HUNSINGER-So were there any issues when we had the big rain last weekend? MR. HAYES-No. We log it every day and the capacity is so much larger, plus the percolation’s been improved because it was, you know, dug out. We log it every day and it basically actually it crested on 3/13. So it actually went down a half a foot today, being, I mean, obviously today was a warm day, but there wasn’t any real major event with an inch of rain, half inch of rain, plus the snowstorm it handled it exceptionally well, which is in the last week. Prior to that it was below the, even the measuring devices. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. HAYES-Yes. So it’s a lot bigger pond. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s such a big snowpack, you know, with that rain, I would have expected that. MR. HAYES-Yes, because you had a half inch of rain plus with the snowstorm before. So equivalent to a couple of inches of rain. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have one person. I would ask that anyone addressing the Board address their comments or questions to the Board, and the first thing is to state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CLAUDIA COPELAND MS. COPELAND-Hi. My name is Claudia Copeland. I live at 28 Mountain Hollow Way. I think I am the only one that’s here from my development. I disagree with the comments that have been made just recently. I have not seen them out there every two hours recording what’s happening. As you can see with the two yellow sticks, it has risen in the last couple of days, especially the one that’s like the furthest one towards the houses. It’s gone up considerably, and it still hasn’t finished melting off the mountain yet, and that’s my concern. Living, I mean, there’s room, but I don’t know if there’s going to be enough room for everything that’s going to come down off that mountain, because it did rise quite a bit when we had that rainstorm and with all the snow that’s still coming down, and it has gone, that one level has definitely gone up, and I don’t know how recent that picture is, but if you went there now, it’s pretty recent, and when we did have all that rain, they came and they had to push all the snow back so that way somewhere all the water can drain, and it has gone up quite a bit, so my concern is that it is going to come down fast, when it does start thawing out, and there is not going to be enough time to get everything out of there or for everybody to be safe that lives in that development. So that’s my concern, but I live there, and I’m there quite a bit, and it’s not accurate that they’ve been there every two hours recording 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) or on a daily basis, because you can see the tracks in the snow, and there has not been much movement going on. So I just want to put that for the record that that has not been done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. COPELAND-Okay. Thanks. MR. OBORNE-Also that photo was taken last week on Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks, Keith. Anyone else? Yes, sir. KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-For the record, neighbor to the south on this property. Am I understanding this right that the proposed emergency plan is to pump across West Mountain Road again like occurred two, three years ago? They’re not putting a pipe under the road or directing it around some other way? I mean, the proposal is, again, to block the road and pump across the road onto the watershed property? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. CARTE-Is that, I mean, that just seems like not much of a plan, just an emergency situation like they had the last time here, which caused everybody that lives to the south, to the south of where they put the pipe across to have to make a two, three mile detour around to get back to their homes afterward. I mean, that pipe was across the road for a full day, I think it might have been two days, you know, stopping traffic from going across there. The other thing I would point out to the Board is that this is too early to tell whether or not the pond is going to contain the amount of water that’s coming down. We’ve never had a problem this early in the season here with our sump pumps with the water running across my backyard or whatever. Usually it’s more like the end of March and the beginning of April when the water table comes up. It’s not the volume of water that the pond can hold. It’s the fact that the water table itself rises as the ground thaws, and as the water that comes off the mountain, and the water that’s in the pond is the level of the water table. It’s not the water that’s running into the pond from the mountain that’s filling the pond up. The water table is that high that it comes up within a couple of feet of the top of the pond, and no matter how big you make the pond, the water table still rises in that whole basin, and then if you get a hard rain, the amount of water coming down off the mountain when it rains is what causes the pond to overflow. So the water table is not high now, because my sump pumps, there’s no water in my sump pumps, and my neighbors, I’ve talked to them. There’s nothing yet, but it will be, as I said, you know, within the next two, three, four weeks, or something like this, we’ll be running and it’ll be running across my backyard, which I‘ve also asked the Board to address because I had no water coming across my backyard from their property before this project was done, and I do have now, but, you know, I don’t see as where that’s going to be addressed. I mean, I’m going to let that go by the wayside, but I just wanted to inform you that this does not seem like a situation that would be, that the Town would want to have occurring, stopping the traffic on an arterial road, as an emergency plan for this. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. Did you have written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I have a written comment from the City of Glens Falls. It’s not really public comment. I probably should have read that in earlier, but I’m going to go ahead and read it in now. To the Queensbury Planning Board, care of Glens Falls Water Department. This is dated today. We received this by fax. Mountain Hollow HOA is the subject. “Please be advised that, in accordance wth our prior correspondence on this matter, the City of Glens Falls Water Department opposes any change to the stormwater drainage from Mountain Hollow HOA, unless we have the opportunity to review a stormwater management plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer. This opposition is based on a need to protect public health by minimizing the possibility of contamination to the Halfway Brook public water supply operated by the City of Glens Falls. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Steve Gurzler, PE Water & Sewer Superintendent” Glens Falls. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. HAYES-With the new pumping plan, which we, I don’t know if you guys remember, before we came before you to go through a culvert, and some of the neighbors had concerns about which, you know, justifiable so, the County culvert would dump onto their properties. So they had reservations about using the under the road solution. So we came up with a solution to reduce the size of the pipes potentially if it’s needed. So that the traffic will not be stopped on 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) West Mountain Road, in the unlikely scenario that it is. So there’ll be smaller pipes with ramps that people will be able to drive over the top of them with flagmen. So the roads will not be closed for any discipline, the tube or whatever you want to call it, pipe is unraveled, that’s it. So there will be no closing of the road in case this happens. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-The log thing, the person puts in a timesheet every day that they go to see the place. Most of the review they plowed, moving the snow, they plow the snow back so they have access to the back side of the, there’s two accesses to the weir, and also you can see the measuring, there’s two measuring sticks there. Those are set at different elevations because the sticks are only so high. So there’s one on the lower part, one on the higher part, which you can see on either side of the, that’s the way it was designed, to be able to see it from behind and from the road, so you can keep track of the elevations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the timetable for the liability for this to be turned over to the Homeowners Association? MR. HAYES-Well, the Town has a thing, my liability, my Town liability besides, I have liability, any negligence I have regardless of the timeline, and Number Two, the Town, because I have to maintain the stormwater control devices for five years, besides. So the Town, in your approvals, preapprovals and stuff, there’s several layers of responsibility that’s been, you know, carried on to me. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So at some point it’s not going to be the Homeowners Association’s responsibility? MR. HAYES-No, and I, of the 11 units in that area that face the pond, I own three of them myself. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? So we’re going to table this until? th MRS. STEFFAN-May 17. th MR. HUNSINGER-May 17. And we will leave the public hearing open. So if there’s additional th public comments, we will receive them on May 17 as well. RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIVISION MOD. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/20, 9/28, 11/16/10, 1/20/11, Tabled to 3/15/2011, PH Re-Advertised; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This is tabled to the May 17 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials th would be April 15. This is tabled and the applicant will need to meet a few conditions: 1.Regarding the emergency action plan, the applicant needs to provide that with the landowner’s signoff. 2.We have to table this so that we can wait for the snow melt so that the Town of Queensbury can verify applicant responses to Items One through Seven as noted in th the March 15 Staff Notes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) 3.So that the applicant can also submit the following components: a.A signoff from all affected parties to indicate that no permits are required for the proposed emergency action plan. This includes the City of Glens Falls, Warren County DPW, Town of Queensbury Highway Department and any other involved agencies. b.Western Reserve Homeowners Association acknowledgement and agreement to the EAP. c.Complete subdivision map outlining originally approved and proposed conditions as per Craig Brown’s letter of February 17, 2010. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. 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 NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 80-2010. Hayes & Hayes, LLC. Requested action is Site Plan Review for land disturbance in excess of 0.25 acres. Location is 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. Staff Comments: The applicant has commenced construction on all seven duplexes with the 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 I’ll do is I’ll quickly go through the Site Plan Review issues that Staff had. As far as vicinity map, that was completed. Number Two, electric will be field located at the time of installation. That was satisfactory. As far as land use district boundaries within 500 feet, that has been placed on the coversheet. Existing access road to be abandoned. I would like to see a note placed on the plan to include scarification to promote vegetative growth. So in a sense that’s incomplete with that access road, and also additional buffering has really not been offered at this point. Further, Summit Ash is not recommended due to potential future Emerald Ash Borer issues. Consult Staff if you need clarification on that, and what I will do is to run down each of the 12 items of the tabling resolution, and it starts with the applicant will address and satisfy Staff Notes. As previously stated, the applicant has addressed Staff comments but not necessarily satisfied all issues. Additional planting have not been incorporated as commented on and scarification note has not been placed on the plan. Fire Marshal’s signoff, that is complete. So that’s good. Number Three a VISION Engineering comment, as is Number Four. Number Five, the applicant will also present a snow storage plan. Although mentioned in the comment letter from Nace Engineering, snow storage plan not incorporated on the site plan. Plan should indicate snow storage and if directed by the Planning Board, placed on the site plan. Number Six, the applicant will present a parking plan. See response letter dated February 14, 2011 from Nace 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) Engineering. That has been basically completed. The applicant will provide lighting details. Although mentioned in the response letter, details not submitted as directed. So that’s deemed incomplete. The applicant will provide mailbox locations. Location denoted. So that’s complete. Building designs and colors. That’s to be presented tonight. Signage details. Signage details are not proposed. So there’s really, there’s no, signage is not proposed. So that’s complete. Elevation drawings have been submitted. So that’s complete, and the last and final one, a clause or a notation should be placed on the plans that there would be no further development on the parcel. Although mentioned in the comment letter, the applicant is offering the southern portion of the parcel for no further development. Clarification of the remaining parcel land concerning development should be forthcoming. And with that, that’s a summarizing of the resolution conditions of tabling from the previous meeting, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace and Mickie Hayes. When we were here last time, the Board authorized the engineers to meet with the Town engineers to try and work through the engineering issues, and that has happened, but there has been a recent submission by Nace Engineering that tied together all of the changes that VISION Engineering required. That was just submitted last week. So the comment letter that you have from VISION Engineering is based upon the plans that were submitted before the last meeting, not the updated plan. So a lot of the holes have been filled since then, but you don’t have those plans, and you don’t have a letter from VISION, but Mike is here and Tom is here and we can go through those details, and it seems, it’s primarily a stormwater issue at this point, and the engineers still have to finalize the stormwater plan, but a lot of work’s been done in the last month. So however you’d like to handle it. If you want the VISION to comment and we can respond. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you had a chance, Michael, to review the? MR. FARRELL-I’ve had a chance to review what was submitted to us on Friday for stormwater. First I would start with the two items that were based upon the tabling resolution last time the Board met, the first being soil data that was presented by the applicant. There’s been numerous soil tests done on this site throughout the course of time, and we did have a chance to review that data and looked at the hydraulic grade line of the groundwater in that area. We’ve done some testing down on Linden with some wells that we’ve dug for the Town in the past few years over there, and the data that’s been provided to us is consistent. So we do feel that the soils that have been presented on the plan are adequate for review and adequate for analysis of the stormwater and groundwater elevations in that area. The groundwater is basically moving from the south to the north. It’s about 50 inches on this site. The second item was the community septic system. We looked at the septic system and discussed with the applicant the idea of a community septic system. A community septic system based on a flat site would require mechanical means of getting the sewage to the system itself. So you would add another layer of pumps and valves to move that to the front of the site because the site is so flat. The applicant has designed the septic systems in accordance with Appendix 75-A, and it appears to be adequate for this site, a gravity fed system versus a mechanical system based upon that idea, and it looks as if it’s adequate for this particular site, being centralized around the houses and not disturbing more area and clearing more are on the site. As far as the stormwater was concerned, we looked at the stormwater, we’ve had a chance, we got a report on Friday. So we had a lot of comments in our previous application associated with water quality volumes and volumes associated with the infiltration on the site. This site is not proposing an outfall on the site. So therefore we are requiring the applicant to look at it from a freeze condition, where the stormwater is stored in the devices and not being infiltrated so that we can eliminate flooding conditions, wherever an outfall is not provided, emergency outfall where stormwater is able to move freely if it’s not infiltrating into the ground. In this particular case, they’ve presented some calculations that we haven’t had a chance to thoroughly go through all of the calculations that have been presented in the short time that we’ve just received this report, but certainly the stormwater appears adequate at this point, and we can work out the minor issues, I think, with the engineering with the applicant’s engineer to get the site, basically look at the calculations and agree upon the calculations as presented in the report. thth MR. HUNSINGER-So there was a new report issued since March 11, since your March 11 comment letter? th MR. FARRELL-We had received a report, we had met with them on March 8, and on March th 11 they had submitted us a report, on Friday they submitted us a report that addressed th comments based upon our meeting and the previous comment letter of February 28 I believe or the previous comment letter, February 20th. So they addressed those comments and we had discussed that comment letter and all the items that we were concerned with, and they’ve presented that in a report to us on Friday. Like I said, it’s a thick report, and we haven’t been 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) able to go through all of the calculations, but in concept, the site is in Queensbury sands. They’re A soils. So they do have very good infiltration characteristics, and therefore we believe that the stormwater is manageable from what the applicant’s engineer has presented on the plan. The pond sizes may change a little bit based upon when we hash out the final calculations as to what we agree upon for the freezing and non infiltration techniques that would have to go into the design based upon not having an outfall for the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER- Did your calculations, with regard to the infiltration in the soils take into account at all the, in addition to the stormwater, the Town water that would be introduced through the septic and so on to the site? MR. FARRELL-That would be a hydraulic groundwater mounding analysis. Certainly there will be additional water being contributed to the water column based upon the sewage systems that will be out there. So that would be a groundwater mounding analysis of the site. It’s very flat through this area and it does look like it extends pretty far to the west as far as how the groundwater moves from the south to the east. So when you’re talking about lifting the groundwater or raising the groundwater table, you have to have add a lot of water, but certainly that’s something that could be requested of the Board for the applicant to do, to analyze that. We would ask the applicant to analyze that issue. We did discuss that in our meeting and we don’t think that the amount of water that’s going to be attributed from the septic systems is going to create a mounding condition in that area. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Mickie, you had said that you were going to present colors, exterior. Do you want to do that now? MR. HAYES-That’s up to what the Board wants me to do, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HAYES-Basically I met with Janet Dalton, who’s house is right, most of the units are right behind her house, if you guys have been on the site, the one with the swimming pool. I’ll give you a map to get an idea whereabouts that is. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Being that she had some concerns about the, she’s looking at the sides of the building, that being two story buildings, she was pretty interested in what colors they would be, being that a lot of our rental duplexes and stuff have a tendency to be a white or yellow, would maybe be, especially being the two story nature, might be a little stark. So she was really interested in earth tones to soften it up so with a screening that she feels that would blend in more so it would affect her personally. So basically I gave her, I don’t know if you’ve ever used one of these, but you can look through like a house design, which I’ll give you one of these, but she can keep selecting to see what siding she would be interested in. So she basically made a first choice, second choice and third choice, which I’ll show it to you guys and I’ll give you each one of the ones that she chose, which is her first choice, which is this color here, and the rest of them are her, she had a couple of other earth tones that were her choices as well, but this is her preference. Here’s the thing with her first, second and third choice. And the trim colors and the shutters would basically be contingent upon what the selection, but most likely it would be one of these two to go with the earth tones to accent the colors, and then based on the selection of the siding, then you would choose shingles to match them which would, usually you go with a minor color to enhance the color of the siding, and usually that would be a colonial slate or an estate gray that would accent, depending on which direction you went, to try to get, to tie it all together, because there’s actually a lot more color in some of the shingles than you’d imagine, depending on the light, and then the trim could either be the same color or an accent color based on the body of the siding. She pondered over quite a bit and all the choices looked good and they’re all earth tones, which are kind of nice. It’s a little more of a premium siding than, you know, usually buildings are white because that’s the cheapest siding, but that’s, but she really was, she really thought long and hard because she felt like it affected her quite a bit with the screening that she’s going to have, that the Town’s requiring and also we’re putting additional screening in her backyard from her selection of types of trees to accommodate her because she feels that she was affected tremendously by the project. So I met with her three times, and she was, and she gave me correspondence back and forth what she wanted and we worked on an arrangement where she was more comfortable with the situation. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Do they still have concerns with dark siding absorbing energy and expanding and contracting the lot? MR. HAYES-This basically is, there’s siding a lot darker than this. Basically about 10 years ago the big thing was that you’d get a lot of fading, too, and with the heat. So now that’s much better than what it was. It still has a little bit more, obviously with white as (lost word) but you have to install it the proper way to give it actually room to expand and contract because it does move, for sure. But there are a lot darker shades than this, though, as well. When that gets out in the sunlight, it actually lightens up, it’s lighter when you go out in the sun than it is inside. There’s different types of light. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Any questions on the color scheme? MR. HAYES-And there was a question on the lighting. I brought the light with me which is down there, and that’ll be to the side of each entrance door, which is required by Code, and the maximum wattage in these are 60 watts. So that’ll be the only light in the exterior basically because of their house style. The lighting will be required. We’d have to put some sort of light fixture by Code when you step out from the inside to the outside, and that’s the particular model that we plan on using for the homes. So I guess it’s, we would probably propose going with Janet Dalton’s first selection, if that’s, unless you feel that, she’d be satisfied with any of the three if you felt the Board had a preference. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think I would prefer that she clearly have a say in the color as she’s the one that’s impacted. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-And it looks fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you hold it up to the, I mean, that’s probably the closest color to the. MR. HAYES-I think that’s what she, she has an idea with the trees, so it’ll be less, you know, it’ll blend in to the screening. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m okay with the color. I do have a question about the, there’s a VISION Engineering comment, maybe, Mike, you can talk to this and maybe, Tom, you can talk to this. There are a couple of drywells that are at the end of that road, comes to a “T”, and you’ve got some drywells that are there, and that borders, I think, Mrs. Dalton’s property as well as a couple of others, and yet this VISION Engineering comment said that they were designed for winter situation. I’m just wondering if, we’re looking at this site from the developer’s point of view, I mean, what’s going to happen on the Hayes & Hayes site. We’re not necessarily looking at it as what’s going to happen on the adjoining road and the homeowners that adjoin, and so my concern is that is it appropriate, are we safeguarding the neighbors sufficiently by allowing the drywells to be right next to the property line? MR. FARRELL-That was part of one of our comments that we required that they provide storage volume, and the applicant has presented documentation to us on Friday that indicates that they’re providing the 50 year storm event storage volume for the devices of basins that they’re providing on site. So basically if the 50 year storm event comes, those basins, without any infiltration, can support the volume of that storm event, so that there would be no discharge off the site. The drywells are there based on winter infiltration requirements that Queensbury has that we need to get the water into the ground during winter months, and we require that infiltration basins have 10% of infiltration below the frost line. So those will continually infiltrate. So those are basically overflows for frost conditions. When there’s no outflow built into the site where it’s going to a drainage system or a channel where an emergency outfall can be provided to spill off in a safe manner to an adjoining parcel or a stream, we require that they provide additional capacity inside their stormwater systems, so that they’re able to contain a large storm event, and not the standard infiltration design. They have to contain the 50 year storm event so that no runoff goes off of this site and all of those basins would be full with no infiltration on them. So that’s the concept of the design with no outfall. MRS. STEFFAN-What would be the difference between a 50 year storm event and a 100 year storm event. MR. FARRELL-I believe it’s. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. NACE-Very little, like .5 of an inch, half an inch, I think. MR. FARRELL-Half an inch of rainfall. During the 100 year storm event pretty much everybody gets flooded. Certainly that could be a requirement if the Board would like that to be a requirement. Certainly we could have the system and enlarge the basins to accept the 100 year storm event. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just thinking that, you know, in light of the notes, and of course I’m not an engineer, but, and looking at the winter that we’ve had, the substantial rain we’ve had, last week, I mean, we’ve had, we had several feet of snow on the ground, then we had three inches of rain on top of it, you know, and that’s like the situation that we’re trying to prevent, you know, water moving from this site to a neighboring site. I just want to make sure that our bases are covered, so that the folks on the neighboring property are not impacted negatively by this. So I don’t know what questions to ask. I just want to make sure that, from an engineering point of view, that that’s covered. MR. FARRELL-Certainly we’ve looked at that and we’ve required that of the applicant, and that was the concern that we had, the exact concern you’re discussing, that we could have an overflow condition where it does impact the adjoining property owners if infiltration was to fail because the maintenance wasn’t being kept up or whatever have you on the infiltration system. So wherever there’s not an outfall, and we’ve been doing this with all previous applications when we were doing the work, that they were required to provide additional storage volume for those storm events for these infiltration systems. So that’s safeguarding us from overflow in those events. MR. NACE-Keep in mind that the drywell is above and beyond that 50 year storage, okay. So that’s an extra added insurance package. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess it’s just, through the years, some of the failsafe methods we’ve put in place aren’t always sufficient or adequate. I mean, we can plan our socks off, but, I mean, you do the best you can, and it’s, sometimes it’s never good enough. Okay. That’s my question. MR. HUNSINGER-Has everyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board had a chance to put their name on the signup sheet? Other questions, comments from members of the Board? I don’t want to put you on the spot, Michael, but just anticipating that we’ll end up tabling this, I’m just trying to calculate when we’ll be tabling it to. Do you have any idea how long it might take you to review the submission of information? MR. FARRELL-We’ve started to review it today. We started to look at it, but we didn’t, we haven’t been able to go through the actual calculations to determine the consistency of those. So certainly, you know, we can certainly go ahead and get that prepared. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you anticipate some back and forth with the applicant’s engineer before you would finalize the engineering on this project? MR. FARRELL-Yes. We would like to take a, you know, we’re taking a very close look at the stormwater and the storage volumes on this site, and, you know, based upon the comments and those concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I was going to say, it was at our request. Yes. MR. FARRELL-Certainly. So those are, we’d like to make sure that we have a good comfort level with the stormwater containment areas that are proposed on the site, before we would sign off. We would verify all of those numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And, Mr. Chairman, in that context, I also would like, and obviously I’m just speaking for myself, but I’m interested in having engineering take a look at the maximum impact of Town water added to the stormwater on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you speaking to what was referred to as the groundwater mounding analysis? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How involved would something like that be? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. FARRELL-That’s looking at the hydraulic grade lines of the area. Certainly we have enough data to profile the hydraulic grade line. It’s a matter of how far it goes to the west, how flat the area is, but it’s, you know, based upon topography and some testing data, I’m not sure what data we could pull from other sites that were done in the area to determine where the groundwater is dropping off. We do have some across the road, and we have quite a few on this site, but I‘m not sure what additional data is to the east, but you would need, basically, to understand there’s a lake underground, basically. It’s a lake, and when you add to it, it goes up. It’s how big of a surface area that groundwater movement is. The groundwater moves laterally through the soil, and the additional water that’s being attributed to it from the septic systems is just like anything else in that area, and there’s quite a few septic systems in that area, and with a community septic system, that was another discussion that we had, is that when you put it into a community system, you’re putting all of that water in at the same time, whereas if you have all of these individual systems, it’s sporadic throughout the date at different times, at different, you know, depending upon people’s schedules. So a community system would add to the problem of a groundwater mounding condition versus all of the individual septic systems. So that was another discussion that we did have in our meeting, but certainly that would be something that the applicant would have to prepare. That wouldn’t be our office that would prepare a groundwater mounding analysis for the project, if that was, you know, the wishes of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I know at the last public hearing, there were a lot of comments made about the amount of water that would be put into the site as a result of just daily use of Town water. So, you know, I think now that the question’s been raised, you know, we’re trying to get a handle on, well, what is enough that it becomes significant that it’s going to increase the groundwater level, so that we need to consider this? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, we have to look at SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that comment fair? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FARRELL-That would be a groundwater mounding analysis. That’s what that would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? One of the outstanding issues was a revised planting schedule. MR. LAPPER-That has been submitted. MR. NACE-That’s a part of the plans that were submitted Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-We hadn’t, on those plans we hadn’t changed the trees from the elms, but we will do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And let’s talk about your thoughts on the no further subdivision. You’ve offered up that on the southern part of the site that there’ll be no further subdivision, and so talk to us about your thoughts or plans for the rest of it. MR. LAPPER-There wouldn’t be a subdivision at all, because it’s not a subdivision project. The plans have a line shown that nothing would be cut south of this which is where it drops down, where there’s that drainage way coming off the Northway, where they, it’s closer to the groundwater. This site does provide density that there could be two more units in the future, another duplex, and there’s, you wouldn’t want to take down any trees to do that. So there’s a possibility in the future, along Dixon Road where it’s already cleared, that they could, after this is built, if there is a demand, they could come back and do one more duplex. MRS. STEFFAN-Where the old road was. MR. LAPPER-Yes, along Dixon, in that area. That would be the maximum development, but under the current zoning there’s room for one more duplex, but we’ve shown on the map, where the neighbors were concerned, that, as a condition of this project, that nothing would ever be built south of these units, where the trees are. MR. HUNSINGER-Would an additional duplex, that would now require, has the Town changed the zoning? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-That would require Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan Review, yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we would see that. Anything beyond this would come back before us. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions, comments from the Board before we open the public hearing? MRS. STEFFAN-No, the biggest issues were, well, engineering because there are a lot of comments, so since that’s being addressed and looked at. MR. TRAVER-We’ll have to look at the plantings and the updated submission. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Keith, could you grab the sheet, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you sir. I guess just a couple of comments on the public hearing, before I open the public hearing for this evening. There were a number of written comments that were submitted, and we do, as Board members, we did receive copies of, I believe, all of the rd public comments, written public comments that were received as of March 3. Is that correct, Keith? MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Have there been any additional public comments submitted since then? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then those will get read into the record. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-There was also considerable public comment at the last meeting that we were here, and we have all had a chance to review that and take that into consideration. I would ask anyone wishing to address the Board to address their comments to the Board. There will be a three minute time limit. You will hear a beep when the three minutes is up, and I would ask if you could conclude your comments at that point. If there is additional time, and everyone as an opportunity to speak, we will provide a second opportunity to speak, only after everyone who wishes to speak has been allowed one try. With that, the first person’s name on the list is John Salvador. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in th North Queensbury. I have read the minutes of your hearing on the 27 of January and I would like to address my comments to the water issues, basically wastewater. There was talk at that meeting about the reasons for siting these buildings at a higher elevation than might normally be expected because you wanted to get the foundations above the zone of mottling, and also the septic systems have to be above that zone. Mottling is a phenomenon that we observe that has come about through many, many years of the cycling of the water, the groundwater from low level to high level, and mottling is an indication of where that high water level has been arriving. As I said, that’s many, many years of a site. This site has been, in recent years, influenced by a lot of other things that influence the level of the groundwater, and I question the judgment of relying on that test boring to tell us where the high seasonal groundwater is. Now, we’re only two months away from a time when we can measure it, actually, and I would recommend that we do that, and that’s the proof of where it might be. The other issue is the fact that it doesn’t seem to be being recommended that we have a community wastewater system, and I think that’s a failure. What is on that plan, 14 individual septic systems, is simply not state of the art. It’s not efficient. It’s not environmentally sound, and there are better ways to do it. I can tell you I vacation in a facility, 300 townhouses. The wastewater treatment works are housed in a building half the area of this room. It’s located 75 feet from the front entrance. You don’t smell 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) it. You don’t hear it, and the wastewater is cycled back. It’s deodorized and cycled back in a two pipe system to the toilets first and then to irrigation. Perfect system, and something like that can be done here. There’s no question that the groundwater in this area has been rising over the years. You hear it from the neighbors, their cellars constantly flooded, and it is due to the fact that we have, the Hudson River is being pumped into the Town every day, a generous supply of freshly treated municipal drinking water in the front door, and wastewater out the back door, and nothing happens but the groundwater is rising as a result of that, year after year after year. Hundreds of thousands of gallons, and it is a significant factor. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. So I would recommend that more consideration be given to a community system. Bruce Ostrander, the Water Superintendent, has submitted a letter, ad he talks about a master meter being installed. This system, with the master meter and the onsite wastewater systems, there’s no incentive to minimize the flow of water, absolutely no reason to minimize it. If you went to this master meter, which is required by the Water Department, and each of these facilities had its own water meter whereby the tenants would be charged on a proportionate share of their contribution to that wastewater, you might have an incentive to reduce the flows. The way it is now, whether they’re, and by the way, all these plantings you’re requiring, that’s going to take irrigation. Where’s that water come from, and it’s just continually loading this ground with a generous supply of municipally treated drinking water. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The next person on the list is Edward LaPoint. EDWARD LA POINT MR. LA POINT-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LA POINT-My name is Edward LaPoint. I live at 15 Hughes Court, Queensbury. I have a statement, a little bit here, that we’re discussing the Hayes project on Dixon. The interesting thing that happened is that they had the same type of project up on West Mountain Road, and already there’s a big giant difficulty with stormwater, and I don’t know who did the engineering of it. I wasn’t even remembering it, but they’re having a problem with water coming off the mountain and stuff like that, and the water’s probably been there coming off the mountains for millions of years. My concern is is the section that we live in, that the groundwater problems will affect, in a period of time, our residence, and I think that’s not just something that we should, well, we can fix it when it occurs. It shouldn’t happen period. So anyway, I’m reading some stuff in the zoning stuff. Determination of depth of seasonal high groundwater shall be made in the months of March, April, May or June or within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground. In the first drawing, they were all done in January and February, and I heard one of the men up here say, well, it doesn’t matter when we did them, okay. Now the second part of the zoning thing that has to be five feet below for the septic tanks and the drainage, the leach fields, and then determine where the level of the water line is for mottling. That’s in the zone, too. So, anyway, and in the second part, somewhere along the line they went ahead and, years ago, when Prospect School was being developed, and there was concern about that blacktop with all the percolation to the houses in the back. Okay, that they made them put a big berm up. I’m not sure if they put a cement wall on the ground first to keep the percolation and a berm and a fence and trees. You can see from Prospect or Aviation Road when you see the Prospect School, and that’s a big concern that we have, that water flows somewhere. I haven’t heard anybody say, well, it flows northeast to the southwest or east to west or something like that, you know, in the ground, okay. So, those things kind of bothering us, and then we had indications of the Town Board, Zoning Board, Planning Board, whoever did it, we had an occasion that the contractor went in and built a big development somewhere called Ferris Drive I believe, and it took the Town a ton of money to bail those people out by pumping the water out, and if that happens down the road with us, maybe I’ll be gone, but somebody will own my house, and what’s going to happen, geez, what do we do now? There’s a real serious problem here of where the water has to go, and digging a hole in March and January, February and saying, well, we’ve run, I walked out and looked at those holes. It’s only about as deep as this table. I mean, if they want, they’re supposed to dig a real deep hole to see where the mottling is. I can’t imagine four or five shovels like I’m digging for worms, and find mottling. I know I won’t find worms. So those things about having the problems when they plow the snow is it going to go towards Mrs. Dalton’s yard? There’s going to be a big catch basin there, and sooner or later that’s going to accumulate, and where the outcrop is, or the leaching of it, that’s going to start to get oily or ground so it’s like a rock or cement, and that’s not going to let percolation out of that form that they plan to put by her property. That’s got to be out somewhere where they can get at to it better. Down four, five, ten years down the road, they’re going to have to take and figure out how they clean it out . If the water’s already running down into the other neighborhood, this is 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) the most important. One thing is having development. The second part, we existed there since 1958. I didn’t own the house in 1958, but that’s when it was built, 1958, and some of these houses up and down Hughes Court. And so I think that, there’s a whole pile of other stuff, but I’m pretty sure my three minutes must be up. MR. HUNSINGER-They are, yes. MR. LA POINT-Did the bell ring? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LA POINT-I didn’t hear it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. LA POINT-Okay. I’ll be back. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Next on the list is Ed Petrush, and then after him is Lynn Herrick. Good evening. ED PETRUSH MR. PETRUSH-Good evening. My name is Ed Petrush. I live on the corner of Pershing Road and Hughes Court, and I have a couple of questions I will try to do quickly. First of all, where they had mentioned to Ms. Dalton about putting no stormwater catch basin on her property line. If you look at the charts that we have, the levels of the system are a foot higher than her property line, all right. Why couldn’t they put the catch basins and everything on the west end of the property where there is drainage that’s off the Northway? The other thing is, in, they said they’re going to have this no further development, right, they very nicely put it on a print, but there’s no dimensions, okay, where is it going to, is it going to be a four foot wide no development area or is it going to be a 400 foot wide no development area? There’s no dimensions specifying where this no development’s going to be. At present, okay, one of the issues that brought this before the Planning Board and everything was the fact that they cut more trees and cleared more property than they were allowed to, and there was never anything done about it. There was no summonses issues, no court appearances which were promised to be done, none of that was ever done, all right. Now, in order to put these septic system and leach fields in, all right, they have to cut 50 more feet of trees, all right. Now this hasn’t been mentioned. Where are they going to stop cutting the trees? Now we have a water problem there. We know it’s a water problem. Just to show the fact there’s a water problem, in one of their drawings, they have a gorgeous picture of the corner of their house. The picture doesn’t tell you that the picture that they’re showing is four feet off the ground, because the cellars stick four feet out of the ground. Now why did they dig four foot cellars? Because they’ve got a water problem. None of the houses around have four foot cellars. They’re all six and eight foot down. Now, if they know there’s a problem there, why don’t they address it? And they haven’t. Even the Town zoning, we’re going to change all the zoning to correct these problems in the future. We’ve got a hell of a problem here, that once this gets done, we have to live with. We have to live with, and if we wind up with more water than we have now, it’s going to affect the values of our property, as it is going to be, and I specifically, and I brought this up earlier, I mentioned to the Town Board, I went before the Town Board and I brought some things up, duplex means one house in the zoning that was approved for the building permits, okay. Webster’s dictionary defines duplex as one unit, okay. It also says that all of these permits and systems are supposed to go through, if there’s a commercial enterprises. What the hell are seven apartments, duplexes, owned by one corporation? If that isn’t commercial, there’s nothing commercial. You might as well put a Wal- Mart back there. It just, there’s so many inconsistencies with what the rules had been and what the rules are going to be, it just seems that they changed all the zoning and all the rules to let these guys build these six or seven duplexes there. I mean, it’s a travesty of justice, and I’m probably more upset with the conduct of the Town Board and the members that were responsible for this than I am with anything else. If they had done this properly and met all the rules and configurations, nobody could say a thing, but it was done so deviously and sneaky, you know, that nobody can prove otherwise, and very nice of them to speak about Ms. Dalton with the shingles and the siding. What about the rest of the people? This whole neighborhood is affected by this project, and I’m over time, so thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Next is Lynn Herrick, and then after that is Marguerite Demboski. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, I do not care to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Marguerite then? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MS. DEMBOSKI-I thought that was an attendance sheet. I do live in the neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Carol LaPoint? And then after her is Katie Stammel. Good evening. MRS. LA POINT-Good evening. My name is Carol LaPoint. I’ve been up here before. I don’t speak very well, but I’m not sure we’re going to feel too comfortable with this we think concerning what the Town water’s going to do. We need to know, and you can’t bring in all that water, dump it in on that property somewhere, and not take it away. We just listened through another hearing here of water problems, with some engineers, and I don’t want to disparage any engineers, heaven forbid, but anyway, somebody said that was okay over there on West Mountain Road. What happened? When did it get to be not okay and how did that happen? We don’t want that to happen here. We want it to be looked at completely. If everything is okay, we have a problem but we don’t have a problem. Things have got to be done right and they’ve got to look at it. If you look up there on that screen, where all those trees are, and coming back down towards where our property is, those trees soak up, from what I understand, 40 gallons of water a day. They keep cutting trees back. Take 50 feet of that out of there, you’re still going to have all that water that’s not going to be taken up by the trees. That’s why we don’t want anything out there in the southern part of the lot because that will really affect all of us, and you can check on that, that’s my understanding it’s 40 gallons of water. Now as far as the snow plowing goes, when they come in off Dixon Road and turn east, where are they going to stop with that snow? There’s no place to go back out around with it or push it off to the side. Again, I’m not an engineer, but it doesn’t look good to me. Now, I’m concerned if they have children in that development, first of all the health reasons, but if you have a developmentally challenged child and the bus has to come in there, is there room for them to come in there to get that child? There’s no place that I can see where they’re going to be able to turn around, and if there’s children in there, chances are you will have a handicapped child, or they can be excluded. I don’t know, but that’s another concern that someone needs to take a look at is to get the school kids out of there, and I thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Katie? KATIE STAMMEL MS. STAMMEL-My name is Katie Stammel. I live at 133 Dixon Road, directly across from the property. My first concern is now this additional duplex that apparently is maybe on the horizon. We were told originally that all they ever planned to do is seven duplexes. That was going to be it, and they supposedly obtained the proper permits in the property timeframe and we all supposedly had enough opportunity to see the permits which I might add were posted 300 feet back off the road. If they’re going to build an additional duplex, firstly, I don’t understand why they would build just one when it was going to be seven, now we might build just one more. What’s the access to that new duplex? They already have trees cleared from the original access road that they’ve scrapped and are now, have a new road to get back to the original road. Well, they have to cut more trees. It’ll involve more paving if they’re going to put a new driveway or a new road up to that. That’s going to displace water. What’s the entrance? Is it another, considered another street? What’s the emergency access? What’s the water displacement for all of that? Will it involve cutting more trees down. Why would you build just one duplex. Who’s to say one additional duplex isn’t going to turn into one this month and one a few months later or even a year later, and we’re right back in the same boat where we are now, with the seven duplexes that none of us knew were going to be built in the first place. My other concern, and I don’t have a basement, and I’m knocking on wood for that at this point, but I do have a septic system. If they’re going to build any additional duplexes, in addition to what they already have there, in addition to the house that the foundation is poured for but the home itself is not built yet, who’s going to take care of the water damages that will invariably occur for the rest of us? Homeowners insurance, your rates will go up. You have a deductible to pay. It can take months to settle. I come from an insurance background. So I do understand that this is how this proceeds. Insurance rates will increase in the future if you have a homeowners insurance claim. If it’s determined to be floodwaters as opposed to septic back up, homeowners insurance doesn’t cover that, and I would hazard a guess that most, if not all of us don’t have any flood insurance, which means our insurance wouldn’t touch us anyway. What recourse do we have? Who is responsible, in a worst case scenario situation, no matter what preparations are taken to ensure that this never happens, if we have a bad water year, we have a high snow year, who’s going to take care of the damages for us? Who gets us back on our feet? Is it the Town that’s responsible? Is it the builders that are responsible? And how long does it take to settle? We can’t all just move out of our houses if we’re under a foot of water or have moldy basements because nobody can lay the blame somewhere. Everyone wants to pass the buck. This entire project came about because it wasn’t the Planning Board’s decision. It wasn’t the Zoning Board’s decision. It wasn’t anybody’s choice. It was all done but none of us knew about it, and everyone says, well, it’s already done, we’ll just let it go. Who takes care of us in the future? Who’s going to protect for insurance and damages to our homes in worst case scenario 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) situations, and I’d really like to know some sort of set plan for what’s going to happen with this one additional, or possibly any additional duplexes. We were told nothing else would ever be built, and now they say, well, maybe one more, which is it, nothing or one or two or five? This project that was built off the road, and we were all told, well, that’s to maintain this tiny little neighborhood and quiet feel and not meant to disturb the neighbors, is now going to be in full view of Dixon Road, which means it’s going to be in my front window and in the backyard of other people that may not be able to see the duplexes yet, but will now see the new buildings. So I’m very concerned about that as well. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Stephen Regan? And then after him is Jim Round. STEPHEN REGAN MR. REGAN-I’m Stephen Regan of 2 Bentley Place. We live over on the east side of the proposed project, and first I want to thank the Town for finally beginning to look at the stormwater issue and the high water table issue, but I think there’s still some more work to be done, especially those of us that live over on the east side. Right now my sump in my basement, the water level is 10 inches below the floor. I expect to have to turn the sump pump on in a couple of days, and then the next couple of months, if we continue to have this wet weather, the pump will be running around the clock. A week ago, last Friday, before it rained, before the snow started to melt, my sump was empty. So I just want to point out that the water table can rise very quickly, and there needs to be some data gathering to take that into account, that the water table can fluctuate at a fairly high rate. I’m also concerned about the stormwater ponds that are proposed. With reference to the Queensbury sandy soils, it seems to me this creates a preferential pathway that when the water does flow into the pond, it’s going to flow into the water table faster than it does now. So I’m concerned that the Town engineers need to take that into consideration. If the water is going to go down into the water table faster than it does now, then those of us that are nearby are probably going to see the water table rise even faster than it does now. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Jim Round, and then after him is Chris Hendry. JIM ROUND MR. ROUND-Jim Round, 34 Pershing Road. My sump is already running, just to let you know. If you look at the plan and you look at where the catch basin is next to the Dalton property, you’ll see that the road slopes away from that. It doesn’t slope toward it. I’d really like to see that catch basin move to the other end, I’d really like the whole project to be discontinued, but apparently at this point we can change the zoning laws as we feel free to, you know, then try to fit the project into it. We want to make sure that the snow removal plan is adequate, that we aren’t plowing the snow to the Hughes Court side of the property. We’d like them to note something to the effect that there’s no motorized vehicles allowed on the back of that property. Okay. You’re going to have 14 dwellings back there, 14 families back there. Okay. Their no cut zone says it’s going to be the hatched area. We’d like it either dimensioned and hatched on the plans. Okay. Like it better delineated. One of my big concerns is the fact that, I’m afraid they’re going to try to come in at some point, if the zoning laws change, which apparently that’s how we got here, the zoning laws changed. We got this in here. And my concern the zoning laws change again, and for some reason or somehow they get this property subdivided. Okay, and instead of dealing with one owner, okay, there’s a Homeowners Association. There’s something. Now we’re dealing with seven or fourteen owners on this property, and we’re not dealing with just one entity, okay, to take our grievances with, or we getting flooding or, you know, whatever issues come up. So I’d like to know how we get some type of legal, binding agreement that says this property won’t be subdivided, okay, and there is a no cut zone, it’s delineated, it’s either on the map, it’s in the deed, you know, wherever it may need to be. Their plantings on this, what they have on the plan that we’re looking at, okay, stops right in the middle of what the Monthie property, okay, and they don’t show going all the way along the property. I mean, only the people who went and asked them for plantings are going to get it. Shouldn’t the buffer have been all along the property? Shouldn’t they berm and the plantings block it off from everyone who’s living adjacent to it? I mean, if you only go and complain to them, then we get something done? One of my other big issues is right now, if you go out to that property, the tree line is right up against the three buildings that are out there, okay, and now we’re asking for a variance to cut more trees, and we’ve already cut too many to put in the septic systems. Let’s move the septic systems. I mean, these guys have been doing this long enough. Shouldn’t they know enough that you get all your permits, you get all the variances you need before you build the property? We slipped this through as quickly as we could. In my eyes, if this was, nothing was done here yet, and even though there is something already done here, what I’d like to see them do is move the thing 30 feet forward, 50 feet forward, all the buildings 50 feet forward. Then they wouldn’t have to cut any of those trees. I mean, is that unreasonable? No response from the Board. I guess I just talk and you guys, but like I said, to allow them to cut another 50 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) feet of trees on this property after they’ve cut too much, to put in septic systems that are going to dump a million to two million gallons of water into this property, it’s an easy calculation, you’re an engineer, you can do it. So, that’s 14 dwellings or 14 families. This is, you know, how we can’t just ask them to move this pit to the other end of the property, I don’t think it’s a big deal to ask them to do that, and to rearrange the septic systems. They should have, a development of this size, how it didn’t go through Site Plan Review prior to a shovel going into the ground, we had to change the planning laws so this wouldn’t happen again, didn’t we? MR. HUNSINGER-It was changed, yes. MR. ROUND-Yes, so this wouldn’t happen again. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ROUND-So we’re the site, we got the test site for this one. We’re the test case, and like I said my problem is eventually, five years from now, three years from now, when these guys are dead and gone, when I’m dead and gone, the zoning laws are going to change again and this property is subdivided. My largest asset that I own is the house I live in, and I have a big fear that this is going to probably lower the value of that asset, and if it happened in any one of your neighborhoods, I think you’d have the same concern, and I think it’s, you know, I appreciate that you guys are all volunteers on the Board, but look at it if you were in our shoes at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to think that we do, seriously. MR. ROUND-I hope you do. MR. HUNSINGER-Seriously, I’d like to think that each of us as a Planning Board member does. MR. ROUND-I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ROUND-And look at what we’ve been through. I mean, the other thing is, these test pits were done in 2004, the zoning laws have changed since 2004, haven’t they? Twice? Do you know what the requirements for the test pits are? These test pits aren’t any good. Okay. They shouldn’t be allowed to use these test pits, and talking about doing, using sampling from Linden Avenue. Linden Avenue is across the street, three, four blocks away, five blocks away. It’s a quarter mile away. This property, before they put the Northway in, was a pond. Okay. Ask some of the people that have lived there, ask Mrs. Demboski when she lived there. Her kids skated out there. They’ve had boats out on this property, and now we’re going to use test pits from over in Crandall Park, over in Coles Woods. I mean, it’s not even close. They aren’t even, the soils aren’t even, you know, can’t even be close enough to do a comparison against. Make it, at least enforce the Code as it is today, because this is, we’re really doing Site Plan Review now, right, we’re in Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Absolutely. MR. ROUND-Let’s follow the Code as it is written. Make them do the test pits as Code requires today. The pits they did were 2004. They’re not up to Code. Look at the mottling. Look at the amount of water you’re putting on this property. You’re going to flood people’s basements. You’re going to have some real issues here. And I’m done in three minutes? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Chris Hendry? And then after him is Steven Lubin. Chris Hendrick? Okay. Then I guess Steven Lubin would be next, and then after Stephen is William Parks. Good evening. STEPHEN LUBIN MR. LUBIN-Good evening. I’m Stephen Lubin from 19 Hughes Court. I guess my biggest bone of contention is why we’re not getting any answers. It appears as though the stumbling blocks that we are facing are always in jeopardy because they have slipped through the cracks. This has occurred as a result of the people in the Town of Queensbury, which I find more at fault with them than I do the Hayes brothers, but they keep allowing this. They talk about now adding another duplex which you folks are now saying that they have to go for Site Plan Review on one duplex. What happened before? Some of this information has been re-hashed, but they said they went for the building permits last year. There isn’t a builder in this country, when they’re issued building permits, especially last year when we had such an early Spring, that wouldn’t have started digging the very next day. They knew damn well what they were doing because they waited until the expiration of the appeals process, which I found out that I never knew you 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) could do this before. I figured it’s somebody else’s property, you know, they can do it, and then they put up no trespassing on the borders of the property on Dixon Road and we, as law abiding citizens, never entered that property because we thought we had no right to do so, and then subsequently we found out that these postings were not legitimate. They have to be over 25 feet and so on and so forth. It’s just been a real fiasco, and it’s really a disgrace that the Town has allowed this to occur. At the last meeting we were at I believe it was you, Gretchen that had said something to the effect that you wanted new test pit data to reflect the current times, okay, and now all of a sudden we’re hearing that this is no longer an issue? What happened? I thought you folks are the ruling authority on this, and now they’re saying, okay, we’ll just leave it alone. Something else is being swept under the rug. This is an absolute disgrace. I took the time to write some questions last time, and perhaps it was my misunderstanding, but I haven’t received an answer on any one question at all, and I think that’s terrible, too. If it’s entered into the record, that’s great. Where are my answers? Where’s everybody else’s answers over here that they’ve been waiting for for months on end? This is despicable. I’d like to reserve some time to come back if it’s, I’d like to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I wasn’t clear, and maybe it’s not clear in our handout sheet, but the purpose of a public hearing is not for ever member who has an interest in the project to get every question that they have answered, and that’s really not the purpose of a Planning Board or the public hearing process. The public hearing process is for interested citizens to raise concerns, that then the Board can take into consideration when we deliberate the project. MR. LUBIN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think a lot of the issues that were raised at the last public hearing, I think this Board was responsive in asking those questions of the applicant, and asking our Town Engineer to take a look at those issues. So I’m just saying, just because, as an individual citizen or neighbor, you don’t have every question that you have answered, that doesn’t mean that the project can’t move forward, because it’s up to this Board to determine, you know, what is adequate information, and that’s why we’re here, you know, that’s really our job, if you will, we kind of act as the judge. MR. LUBIN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I just hope that’s a little clearer for you. MR. LUBIN-No, that’s fine. Sure. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly we welcome all the questions that you have, and that’s the purpose of the public hearing. There’s also, you know, an opportunity to provide written comments. I think you heard me say earlier that we have received copies of all the written rd comments that were submitted to the Town as of March 3. MR. LUBIN-Yes, I did. MR. HUNSINGER-So all that stuff is, you know, as individual members we do take that into consideration as we review the plans and as we review the information, and as we ask our engineer to take a look at information as well. MR. LUBIN-Okay. Yes. One thing if I may. I know there’s been some discussion with Ms. Dalton’s property of what she has tentatively picked out, but the one thing I would like you to keep in mind also, and I’m very empathetic towards her situation because of the proximity of the home, right behind here, however, we all have to drive by this property, and I think we should have some input as to coloring and so on. With respect to the elevation on the blueprint, all we have is one elevation, that’s the front. What about the left side, the right side and what about the back of the property, or the back of the building. We have no idea what that’s going to look like. MR. HUNSINGER-I respect that comment, and I think that’s why you saw the Board kind of hesitant to, you know, say well this is the best color. It’s just one person that made comments, and certainly as we move forward we’ll look for information from the rest of the neighbors as to colors. MR. LUBIN-Okay. All right. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Next was William Parks and then after him is Dr. Richard Garrett. WILLIAM PARKS 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. PARKS-I am William Parks. I live on 1 Griffing Place. Would it be possible for me to? MR. HUNSINGER-As long as you take the microphone with you, sure. MR. PARKS-Can I talk loudly? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because we record the meeting, and then the recording is used to make the transcript of the minutes. So that’s why we have to speak into the microphone. MR. PARKS-Okay. I just wanted to, this looks like we’re looking down on Yellowstone Park, and it’s too bad we don’t have a current aerial photograph so you can see where things are. The current tree line is about here, and I think maybe goes out to about here. I’m not sure if I’ve got the distance here, but I’ve eyeballed it from the street. The trees are here. Presumably a few of these went. I’m pretty sure that when the building permits were, they might have been on these trees. They were way back in here some place. One of the reasons why the neighbors were so startled that we missed the 60 day appeal window was we would have needed a pair of binoculars to see that there were building permits back there. At any rate, if you’re going to do the current septic plan, I think we are then going to have to take the trees back, actually I can’t get it quite far enough, pretty much to the end of this house’s property. So we’re coming way back in here some place. There’s going to be another big swath out here that is going to have to th disappear, and I’m looking at your schedule item that you sent out after the January 27 thing, and it says applicant proposes seven duplexes, land disturbance in excess of a quarter of an acre, and they went well over that, and now we’re saying, well, let’s hack down some more for the septic system. The nice thing is that the septic system hasn’t been started, unlike the rest of the project. We actually can plan what we do there. The gravity system that was alluded to here requires additional tree cutting, and we already have cut a lot of trees that surprised a lot of people, and clearly we’re trying to minimize that. Taking the gravity system, well, it isn’t going to be a gravity system anymore, but taking the individual system that they proposed and simply, well, simply, but moving it to the north, actually north of the septic systems that they are proposing there for the northern buildings, and pumping the material there, it seems to me is a sensible thing to plan. Now whether it’s a community system or an individual system, either one would be a good thing to do it seems to me. It also might provide an alternative location for the stormwater drywell. That one really mystifies me why the put it right there on the property line, and everybody’s unhappy with it, and it seems like there’s acres of places you could put it other than where it’s proposed. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Now, Dr. Richard Garrett. DR. RICHARD GARRETT DR. GARRETT-Good evening. I’m Dr. Richard Garrett. I reside at 18 Hughes Court, Queensbury. I have just, you know, I’ve been hearing a lot of information, and I’m trying not to repeat what you’ve been hearing all along, but I have a question. The carrying out of doing a test pit, is that an extremely expensive proposition? Because if it is, you know, that gives me a little bit more insight why the hesitancy to do more test pits, but if they aren’t, it isn’t a particularly expensive proposition, maybe we shouldn’t be penny wise and pound foolish, because I have heard of other situations, particularly Queensbury Forest, where they took old test pit data and the Town had to spend between three and four hundred thousand dollars to help bail the water out of that area, and basically that’s my main concern. I just, you know, we need, as a group, as a series of residents, concerned residents, we need pertinent data that will help us with the decision and help the Board with the decision on exactly, you know, how this is going to impact the environment. Also, I think maybe the community, the community septic system, if it’s put far enough to the north, close enough to Dixon Road, I hear there is talk of possibly having a sewer system there at some point. Would it not be prudent to consider something that might be tapped in to a future septic or sewer system? And that’s all I have to say, and thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board that hasn’t yet spoken? Yes, sir. Good evening. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Thank you. My name is Mike Wild. I recognize members of the Board again. I have just a few points, and I think I’m encouraged by what I heard by the neighbors tonight because I’ve heard them go through this process three or four times now, and they’re getting better each time, but they are not professionals, and I believe the Board will take that into account. They’re trying to do their best to make their point, and I think they’re doing a much better job. The point that, I guess the theme of the comments that, and I have seven comments tonight and I’ll be really quick about it is basically why not. So if I look at the arguments that have been made in the whole process of this development, you know, I think why don’t you take and enforce a 100 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) year stormwater capacity of the drywells? What does it hurt? All it does is ensure some certain level, and increased level of safety for the neighborhood. I’ve heard some evasiveness in terms of future plans for this property. Why not include the total capacity of the future plans into all the determinations that are made by the Board today? Have Hayes and Hayes come up with a plan of how many more duplexes they might potentially put into this property, and have that come into account for all the considerations that you’re making because in the future, it may not be the same Board members. It may not be the same neighbors, and some of the gravity of the discussions may be missed. I have a little history with Mickie Hayes and plantings, and I would implore the Board to consider writing in something like a warranty so that the plantings are maintained. Why not demonstrate through, there’s all sorts of software now that can show what are these plants going to look like Day One. What are they going to look like two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now, twenty years, to make sure it really makes sense for the neighbors, are they going to get what they expect to get. I haven’t heard it, I haven’t seen the plan. Is there fill allowed on this project? Is there going to be additional fill that might even change the way the drainage occurs? And I’m not asking the question for an answer, but it’s just something to consider, because those foundations are very high out of the ground. So is there going to be any type of additional fill that’s brought in? And three more points. John Salvador brought up the idea of the state of the art septic system. Why not? Why not do something like that, just from the standpoint of, it sounds to me like the right thing to do. It may be a little more expensive, but it may be the right thing to do, not only to protect the neighbors, but also the occupants of the property in the long term. And someone came up with what I thought was a real novel idea. Why not move one of the structures? They’re not complete. They move houses all the time, pick them up, foundations aren’t that expensive, move a couple of them that are too close to the property line. And I guess the last point I have to make is, you know, in terms of the why not, this is a very unique situation that occurred with this project. It was done, from my perspective, under the radar. People should have known that there were considerations that should have been taken into account, such as septic systems, such as the clearing, the additional clearing, and, you know, why didn’t they do that? It appears to me as though they took some short cuts, and I guess I implore the Board to make the right decisions, to make the hard decisions, to do what’s best for the neighbors, and if it costs a little bit more money for these developers, that’s a risk that they took in terms of moving forward like they did. So, again, why not take the choice, make the right choice and thank you so much for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there someone else that wanted to address the Board? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I have another minute and a half? MR. HUNSINGER-Let me make sure everyone else has had an opportunity to speak that wanted to. Anyone else? It’s all yours. MR. PETRUSH-Again, Ed Petrush, 36 Pershing Road. One thing that hasn’t been brought up, and I’ll maybe even be quicker. Seven years ago when they wanted to build 12 houses there, okay, one of the reasons they were shut down was because of the problems of the interstate, okay. In the current Zoning Board, there’s a 500 foot setback because they’re afraid for particulate dirt and fumes coming off the Northway, all these as health issues for the people that are going to live there or would have lived there. Now how come seven years ago there was a health issue that helped defeat the program, now they have seven duplexes going up, and now in the new zoning plan there’s (lost word) address the health issues that may be there. Something has to be done to fix this gap where it’s in there and it shouldn’t be. Just look at the Federal government requirements and the new zoning rules and regulations, and it’ll help answer your question. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board this evening? John? th MR. SALVADOR-I’m reading from VISION Engineering’s engineering report of March 11. They address the issue of groundwater elevation based on site testing for each building location to ensure adequate separation exists between groundwater and the basement elevations. That’s a good point. That’s what we’re overlooking. In addition, they say, foundation drain and sump pits which will be fitted with automatic operating pumps upon completion of construction. Sump pump discharge outlet locations should be specified on the plan. What are we going to do, just cycle this water? Pump it from the cellar outside and let it come in again? I suspect that the sump is inside the building and the pump is inside the building. Do you know the head of water you have to have on the outside of that foundation to get it to pour through that foundation into the cellar? You practically have to be at groundwater level, and those walls would just be saturated. It’s not a healthy situation. Then they talk about that the plans do not address long term maintenance requirements for stormwater devices. I think there we’re concerned about not only what the maintenance requirements are, but who’s going to be responsible that they are enforced in the long term. Thank you. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board? Keith, you have written comments? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I have written comments from Janet Dalton, dated today, to myself, and it is as follows: “I have a conflict that prohibits me from attending the meeting this evening. This is to catch you and others up on the progress on my end. Mickie Hayes has contacted me about the screening issue from my yard on his Dixon Road project. At the encouragement of you & others I have met with him. He has offered what seems to be the best options for plantings. He showed me the planting plan submitted to the Town, the lighting information and the siding options (my preference is mossy green, will fade into the trees both summer & winter). He has also offered several options for additional screening trees to be planted on my property. This should significantly lessen the impact of his duplexes proximity to my back yard and seems to stretch around to cover the neighbors also. The initial trees are to be 8’ to 10’ and fairly dense. Additionally he will be amending soil and all the other things necessary for growth. Since he is keeping the properties as income rentals, he has every reason to make sure they are well taken care of. While my preference would have been that this never started (I would also like to be 5’ 7”, but alas…), this seems to be a good alternative. I am feeling much more confident that the end product visually will be nice and as unobtrusive as possible. I appreciate Mr. Hayes’s willingness to fix what is fixable in this situation and has given a good deal of his time to come up with this compromise. I am hopeful that this process will come to a conclusion soon. Either the permits, tests and proposals are legal and safe or they are not. I am sick of the half completed buildings in my yard, which I can see from all but 3 windows in my house. I truly appreciate my neighbors concern and support of all the issues that have been brought up and wish them addressed and put to rest. Thank you for all your efforts. Janet A. Dalton” MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. OBORNE-No, that’s the only one. I do say that you did receive the other pieces of public comments with my notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-If you wish for me to read them into the record, that’s fine, but they are considered part of the record at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a pretty thick. MR. OBORNE-That’s your call. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I’d need some more water if you want me to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. All right. If there’s no other commenters this evening, we will conclude the public hearing for it tonight. Are there any questions, comments from members of the Board as a result of the public comments? MR. LUBIN-Mr. Chairman, excuse me for being ignorant in this arena, but if they have a chance to come back, is there a reason why we cannot come back and maybe address something that’s been brought up? It seems a little unfair if they’re there and we’re sitting over here. We’ve got more questions and we have to wait until the next meeting that comes forward or we end up forgetting about it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, basically, this is their opportunity to address the questions that you had. If there’s more public comments as a result of new information, that’s, you know, there’s going to be no new information presented this evening. Any information is already on the table. I mean, I understand your question, but, you know, at some point we have to conclude the public hearing and the public comment so that we can move forward with what the Board’s decision will be this evening, and this is the standard practice to do that. So, thank you. Any questions, comments from members of the Board as a result of the public comments? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that the vast majority of public comment related, obviously, to engineering issues that the Town Engineer and applicant are working on. We have yet to see all that information, and I think that we’d be requesting at least some possibly new information, you know, tonight. So many of those questions are in the realm of engineering and not really our expertise. So we trust that those things will be resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-How about test pits and the expense of digging new test pits? MR. HAYES-On the plan that you have, I’m not sure that the Board realizes that there was 28 test pits done on this, and Department of Health and Town Engineer, there’s been many test pits. As a matter of fact we actually did some test pits today, we’re not scientists but we dug, we were curious to see where the water table was in fact today being with all the melt and the rain as we’ve said just to see the mottling versus the groundwater situation, and if Mike or VISION Engineering wanted to come out some time, in the near time when we did the pits to see where the groundwater is, where the devices are, that would be, we’ll be glad to provide the backhoe and equipment to do those things if they want to observe the groundwater, but 28 test pits, I have pictures from today, as a matter of fact, this morning, the test pits today. MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, when I looked at the plans, there’s like five, I think there’s five test pits that are really right in the site of where you’re building. MR. HAYES-Those are 12 feet deep. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, two, three, eight, twenty-six and twenty-four, those test pits. MR. HAYES-Twelve foot test pits today. MR. TRAVER-These are 12 foot? MR. HAYES-Twelve feet deep, and where you see the tape is where the actual water table is, in relation to the elevation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Where was the water? MR. HAYES-Between nine and a half feet on the area behind Mrs. Dalton’s and up towards the front, towards the front duplex was 12 feet. So that means the elevation of the foundations are probably between six and seven feet, five and a half to seven feet. The bottom of the foundation is above the groundwater right now. MRS. STEFFAN-How far down was the frost? MR. HAYES-Believe it or not there was only, most spots there was no frost at all, only where it was driven on there was less than an inch, but below there’s zero frost. MRS. STEFFAN-Wow. MR. NACE-The snowpack. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask how deep the snow was. MR. HAYES-The snow is probably maybe a foot left, but also the sand, they perc so fast, there’s not much moisture content in this sand. It’s below sand. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that would satisfy a lot of concerns if we could have, you know, the engineer witness the. MR. HAYES-I just do it as laymen looking for the water. It’s up to, you know, they went to college to figure out how. MR. LAPPER-Then let’s do that. It’ll solve the issue. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you have 20, I think it’s 28 test pits that you have, total, but the ones that I thought were important were the ones right around the building sites. MR. HAYES-As were these pits we just dug. MRS. STEFFAN-And that was two, three, twenty-six, eight, and twenty-four, and those were the areas that, well, and if you’re thinking about building in the front, test pit one should probably be, I don’t know. How does the rest of the Planning Board feel about that, based on the comments from the public? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think, and the applicant appears willing to accommodate that. So I think, you know, that would allay some concerns. MRS. STEFFAN-The test pits in the vicinity of the building, not the entire site, but in the vicinity of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-With the Town Engineer present. MR. HAYES-Then they can observe where the groundwater actually is and it wouldn’t be, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. MR. OBORNE-You want test pits to indicate the high water level, is that what you’re looking for? Or just verification of those photos? MRS. STEFFAN-To have them re-done and have the data submitted. MR. TRAVER-Yes. In my mind, that’s really a, the data that needs to be collected from the test pits is really an engineering question. What we’re looking for is that we have sound engineering and so I would, I mean, my feeling is we need to defer to engineering for that. MR. FARRELL-Yes. We were asked to review the data that was presented to us, and we have reviewed that data, and we feel that the results and what’s showing on that data is consistent with the groundwater elevations in this area. Certainly we can go out and we can do test pits to verify the mottling depth that is presented on these plans. We do feel comfortable that that mottling depth will be where it shows on these plans, based upon data that we have, not only on Linden, but Park Place and Bullard Avenue. We’ve done a lot of groundwater studies in that area because there are under drain systems in that area that the Town operates. So we have an idea of where the groundwater is. The data that’s presented on this plan is consistent with that information. MR. TRAVER-Should we request, if we were to request the information that I was talking about, with regards to the addition of the Town water on this, would that require additional test pits for you to complete that study? MR. FARRELL-That would be up to the applicant on how they would go ahead and analyze the groundwater. Basically they would be mapping the groundwater in that area, yes, like you would look at contours on the land surface, you would be looking at groundwater contours. MR. TRAVER-And to do that, they would be likely doing additional test pit data? MR. FARRELL-They may have to do additional test pits in the area to determine those, the movement. It appears that the groundwater does move from, to the northeast. It appears it moves from the south to, kind of towards the northeast. You’re looking at a plan. MR. NACE-I think, Steve, that we can do that on a first cut basis, based on what test pits we have. If we find out that that indicates too large of a mounding area, or a mounding height, then we’ll look beyond the area we have and see what we need for additional test pits, but I think first cut will likely tell the tale, and I think we can do that with what we have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FARRELL-And we would just request that we get plan of where they’re proposing the test pits that we’re going to witness. We probably could see those in the proposed basin areas, and also the groundwater mounding analysis to incorporate the point locations of the basins themselves. So not only the septic systems, but you’re not spreading just the rain water through a large surface area. You’re putting it at centralized location, so that mounding would be part of the study also. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Just to kind of follow up on this, you know, and I appreciate your comments. I just think, you know, because of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors, the experience that they have had in the area, that it would make sense for you to go on the site and witness it yourself, just to verify. I mean, to verify it for the record. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. FARRELL-Right. We would just want a plan to discuss with them to where we would want to do them on the site based upon what you have now, to get them located in a good spot. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MR. HAYES-Do you want to stay on this, or I’ve got a couple of more comments based on what the public. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to make sure because I’m trying to get the motion together. MR. HAYES-I understand. MRS. STEFFAN-So are there more test pits in addition to those that are on the plan and how is that worded? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I have the test pits have to be retested. MR. LAPPER-Not all of them. MRS. STEFFAN-No, but I have the specific numbers, Number One, Two, Three, Eight, Twenty- four and Twenty-six. MR. NACE-Have to be re-tested? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, re-tested in those vicinities. MR. HAYES-The Town would determine, Mike would determine where he’d want to see the test pits for his science portion of it. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. In the vicinity of. MR. HAYES-It would be in the vicinity of what he wants to provide for stormwater controls, I believe. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I don’t know what the language needs to be for the motion. MR. FARRELL-It’s additional test pits. The question is, how many you would like us to do. Certainly we would like to see test pits, you know, they’re throughout the site here, but we would like to see them directly over top of where the septic systems are, directly where the infiltration basins are being proposed. So those are the areas where we would, and that’s why I wanted to get a plan together before we actually go ahead and do that. MR. HUNSINGER-That would make the most sense. MR. FARRELL-So that we’re on the same page with where we’re going to do them and how many we’re going to do. MR. NACE-I think, Gretchen, to address your issue, that if those new test pits correlate with what we have already done, then we wouldn’t need to re-test anything. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. NACE-It would only be if there’s a discrepancy there that we would want to follow up with re-testing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. HAYES-Someone brought up the water with the master tap and you go into the units and that people don’t care how much water they use, which I understand that that’s the truth if people don’t pay for it, but in our units, we do individually meter the water. So the tenants do pay for their own water once it’s broken off from the master tap. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-They’re billed on a quarterly basis, and being the new construction, that they use 35 to 40% less water than houses constructed 20 years ago with all the water saver features now versus older homes, but the people pay for their own water use. So I guess they’ll be more 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) conscious to a certain extent, I would say, of their water use. Also if somebody wanted to guarantee that there was no mechanized devices used on the property, we’ve totally agree to put that in stipulation that it will not be allowed. We encourage non-motorized recreational walking, jogging, bicycling, that stuff on the back property, but there will be no motorized, no snowmobiles, no four wheelers, no dirt bikes, nothing will be allowed on our property. It’s in their lease and we’ll stipulate on your motion if you wish to guarantee that won’t happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the people also asked, one of the questions is moving some of that stormwater and that to the other side of the property. It looks like it’s pretty flat. What is the possibility of maybe shifting some? MR. NACE-Well, you hit the nail on the head. It’s pretty flat, and it will gradually drain down to that lower basin, but as it drains, it’ll also infiltrate in the very shallow flat swales. So a lot of the rain, a lot of the runoff will dissipate and will be infiltrated before it even gets to that basin at the east end, sandy soils. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, well, finding out there wasn’t any frost lines, that’s pretty good, then you’ll still get a good, but, I mean, I just see it. MR. NACE-We’ll look at it, but generally the land on the site slopes that direction. So we’re trying not to fight the grade. We’re trying to go with the grade. MR. MAGOWAN-Got you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Is there anything else you wanted to add? MRS. STEFFAN-I just, there’s a couple of, in the public comment, the snow storage, and I know that we talked about that a little while ago, and some of the public comment, no snowplow mounding against the Hughes Court side. Is that something that we could, is there a plan, snowplow plan? MR. NACE-Yes. The snowplow plan is that it’ll be like a normal, narrow Town road, the old Town roads without the wing swales the snow all gets plowed off to the side of the road, and it’s going to infiltrate in thoise ditch lines as it melts. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but it won’t be, for example, the whole road won’t be plowed. MR. NACE-They’re not going to straight plow the whole road to the very back. No it’s all going to be just like a normal Town road, mounded up along the sides of the road. MR. TRAVER-How do other members feel about the mounding analysis? MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Especially with the water issues. Now, Cathi, we wouldn’t want you to feel left out tonight. Some of the neighbors brought up the issue of what happens if the Town Code changes many years from now, and somebody comes back and wants to subdivide that no further development parcel, how does that work? MS. RADNER-I would love to say you’d be protected forever, but as we’ve seen, the courts are often reluctant to hold future owners to conditions that are imposed by the Planning Board or by a Zoning Board today. So we’ve had mixed results in the courts with conditions of no further subdivision. So if there’s a particular reason that you want the area not to be developed, then I would condition it specifically. I think having it marked on the map, clearly delineated and the reasons for the imposition very clearly set forth, and that gives you the maximum chance of having it enforceable into the future, but, frankly, there are no absolute guarantees because as towns evolve, as things change, the courts won’t always say, yes, what was reasonable in the Year 1990 is reasonable in the Year 2011, and what’s reasonable in the Year 2011 might seem unreasonable in the Year 2020. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So is it within the Town Planning Board’s purview to be able to require a deed restriction? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MS. RADNER-This isn’t really a situation where a deed restriction would do you any good because they’re not planning a subdivision where there’s another party that could be bound by a deed restriction, but your conditions of Site Plan approval need to be well articulated, well stated, well grounded, and that will make them enforceable into the future to the maximum extent possible. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right, because both of those questions came up in the public comment. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What else did you have there? MR. MAGOWAN-Do you know how many more feet behind the buildings there you’re going to have to cut to put in the septics on the south side? MR. NACE-It’s on the plan. Approximately 50 feet, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Another 50 feet. MR. NACE-Yes. Well, I’m not sure exactly where the clearing line is now, but 50 feet back behind the building, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Now you said in the revised submission that you submitted to the engineers there was a revised landscaping plan? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess while Gretchen’s working on a tabling motion, we could talk about when we would table this to. You’ve already submitted information to the engineers. They’re going to review that. MR. NACE-And we’re going to need time to do the mounding analysis and get that reviewed. MR. LAPPER-A couple of weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-Today’s the submission for April. Is it reasonable for there to be, for the th engineering to be completed by the 15 of April? MS. RADNER-Which engineering are you talking about, the final review by the Town Engineer or just the submission to the Town Engineer? MR. LAPPER-We’re not submitting much. It’s just the mounding study. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s the review. There’s the witnessing of the test pits, there’s the groundwater mounding analysis for you to complete for VISION to review. th MR. NACE-I would think April 15 would be reasonable to at least have a package ready to submit that would have all the items addressed. MR. LAPPER-That’s a month from today. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, a month from now. MR. TRAVER-The other question is the agenda load. Do we need another special meeting or? MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any idea what May looks like? MR. OBORNE-May looks like at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s a lot lighter than April. I’ll tell you that, and everything depends on what’s going on in this cycle, also, what’s going to get tabled out. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It’s all a matter of comfort between these two right here. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think my inclination would be to table this until one of the May meetings, is kind of where I was headed. I don’t want to put undue pressure on the engineers to complete the work if it’s not going to be completed. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve already submitted everything except for these last two items. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought, yes. MR. FARRELL-Right, and we will review the stormwater by the end of next week. We will have that review back to the applicant. The Zoning Administrator has given us the go ahead on that. So we can go ahead and get that back to them, so that they’ll have that documentation of modifications that are necessary to that for their next submission. MR. LAPPER-If possible, we’d like to get back here at the end of April, if possible, just as the neighbor said, the project is just sitting there half built. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is that reasonable? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all, and if for some reason it’s not complete, and there’s still issues, then table them again. It really does kind of come down to the engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I started there. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re looking at May? MR. HUNSINGER-Keith thinks it’s reasonable to see it, review it in April. The last meeting of April? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be preferable. MR. LAPPER-What’s that date? th MR. HUNSINGER-The 26. MRS. STEFFAN-You’ll have the test pits and everything? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Gretchen, they’re stating they can get it done, on the record. I don’t think it’s unreasonable. MR. LAPPER-That’s no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-That is school vacation week. MR. LAPPER-No, that’s the week after, isn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Is it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because it’s before Easter this year. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. thth MRS. STEFFAN-So what week do we want it, the 19 or the 26? th MR. LAPPER-The 26. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 26. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be additional fill on the site was one of the questions that’s outstanding here. Will you be bringing fill in? MR. HAYES-The only thing that will be brought in on the site is topsoil to, because it’s so sandy they’re going to need more topsoil for, to stimulate grass. MRS. STEFFAN-And regarding septic, that came up two times. Mr. Salvador and Mr. Wild came up with an issue of putting a different kind of septic, a more state of the art septic. I know we’ve talked about the station, but that’s different. Any comments on that? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. NACE-Not really. We have, I mean, we have reasonable soils. We have good separation to groundwater. Unless Mike has some different ideas, I don’t see any need or reason to go to an alternative system. MR. LAPPER-A conventional system is appropriate. MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. HAYES-I believe usually, Mike can correct me if I’m wrong, is usually you go to alternative systems when conventional systems don’t work. MR. FARRELL-We reviewed the system in accordance with Appendix 75-A, Department of Health Rules and Regulations, and the system as designed complies with those regulations. So that’s the extent of our review. We didn’t review for alternate systems because an alternate system was not proposed. We reviewed for Code compliance with the Department of Health Rules and Regulations. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Regarding, that there may be an additional duplex in the front of the property, because the applicant is not going to have no further build, we had a discussion about that, should the stormwater plan be prepared with additional building on the property? MR. LAPPER-I just want to clarify, we’re not proposing that, just in answer to the question as thoroughly as I could that the density allows one more duplex so that could happen sometime in the future, and there’s land for it there that wouldn’t involve the clearing in the back that we’re trying to avoid. MR. TRAVER-And if such an additional duplex was proposed, we would be looking at that in the context of whatever stormwater issues existed at the time, which would include the build out you’re currently proposing. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Mike, do you have any other thoughts? MR. FARRELL-I only can review what was submitted. So, I mean, I couldn’t assume that full build out of other, you know, what would happen into the future. We would be looking at just what they submitted to us. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would add that it’s not required at this time, just to lock step with what he’s saying. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. NACE-But looking forward, I think that there’s plenty of land and opportunity available if another unit was built up front to handle stormwater for that unit right at that unit, and it wouldn’t have to have anything to do with what we’re proposing now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Although we would have, at that point we would have a history of the current project. So if there were stormwater issues, that would impact on any future plans. MR. HAYES-In theory you’d have to come for a full Site Plan Review for any, whether it would be a house or duplex or whatever potential, then you guys would have to look at it in its own case, I guess, under the new rules, but that’s hypothetical anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. A couple of the other issues that came up, landscaping. We’ve been talking about the landscaping that was proposed between, I believe it’s Mrs. Dalton’s house and the property. Somebody else, during public comment, said that maybe there should be a buffer all along the property. How does the Planning Board, I’m just bringing up issues that came up. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think that’s a good issue to bring up because we wouldn’t be reviewing any landscaping that’s off site. We’d only be reviewing landscaping that’s proposed on site. MR. LAPPER-We’re doing a buffer on site as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-In that area that was cleared. You have that plan. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. NACE-That’s on the plan, yes. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to show them that plan? MR. NACE-The landscaping plan currently has the landscaping on site. MR. TRAVER-And we haven’t seen that yet, but that’s all right. We will. I had a question, I guess for Staff or perhaps Cathi, with regards to language to address further development. You talked about the difficulty in doing that. Would you be able to provide us perhaps from case law or something hypothetically some language that has worked in similar projects so that would help us craft a motion, if we decided that we wanted to make something? MS. RADNER-Yes. I’m thinking. An analogous case does not come to mind that I can draw from to say, yes, I can easily send you something. I can look into it a little bit for you, if you’d like and try to get you something before the next meeting. MR. TRAVER-I guess that’s what I was. MS. RADNER-Again, I think for a situation like this where you’re not having a subdivision where you can have deeded language, having a clear plan and having all the conditions of Site Plan approval on the plan as it’s filed is the most important thing. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, certainly one of the reasons why there was no further development is the depth to groundwater and we can just go back in the record and identify the reasons why we thought that was a good idea. MR. LAPPER-I was just going to suggest that the reasons why the development was not put on the southern end of the site is that’s where the drainage is, that’s where the high groundwater is. So if you mention those conditions that justify it. MS. RADNER-What sometimes happens, and where we run into difficulties later on with enforceability issues, is when you have a plan like this that develops over time. Things are discussed. The developer agrees to address them. Everybody is satisfied that they’ve been addressed, but then as a few more months go by, they don’t become conditions of approval because everybody feels they’ve been addressed. So I would just encourage you, before you finalize the plans, to go back and make sure that all of those conditions of approval have been clearly set forth as conditions instead of assumptions being made that they’ve been addressed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, we’re obviously not prepared to identify those tonight. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly the two issues that are most prominent or most prevalent that I can remember are the, you know, the Northway drainage and then what I wrote initially, the depth of groundwater. So we’ll just have to go through the notes and see what else needs to be there. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry to interrupt. There’s something I’d like to bring up pertaining to the land that will not be disturbed, if I may. MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, this gentleman’s not ending up on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I at least say it off the record? MR. TRAVER-You can submit written comment. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you can submit written comment. I mean, that’s certainly acceptable. Here’s the dilemma. Every time in the past that I have allowed people discretion, they’ve taken advantage of it, and that’s why we have to have fairly rigid procedures so that people can respect the due process that the meeting needs to take, and I would hope that you would appreciate that. If there’s something that you feel you need to say, you can provide written comment or you can wait until the public hearing that will be held during the next meeting. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-We’re also, this evening, not contemplating any conditioning for a hypothetical approval, you know, we wouldn’t be looking at that tonight. So, and there’s going to be additional public comment. So this is not over. I mean, there’s some process left and some things that we have, we are all in agreement we need to take care of. So this is not a complete process. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, you identify right on the plan the maintenance schedule for the landscaping. Isn’t it, there’s a notation that’s right on, that says that you will maintain the plantings. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the, I know there’s a Town requirement for plantings, and I can’t remember how many years it is? How many years the plantings need to be maintained. MR. OBORNE-It is on the Site Plan, if they fail, it is required that they be replaced. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. OBORNE-There’s no timeline. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, I have, the applicant needs to address VISION Engineering comments and obtain a signoff, that the applicant has to address Staff Notes. There’s only a couple of issues there. The applicant needs to ascertain the maximum impact of imported Town water to this site. So we request a groundwater mounding analysis. The applicant will dig additional test pits directly over the proposed septic and infiltration devices to be witnessed by VISION Engineering. There needs to be a notation on the plan that no motorized vehicles, notation on the plan that motorized vehicles are prohibited on the area designated as no further development. Number Six, identify color schemes and selections on the plans, and Number Seven to provide elevation drawings for front, rear and side views. Because they’ve already provided front views. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Anything else that you can think of that we haven’t discussed? MR. HUNSINGER-Certainly hit all the big items. MR. TRAVER-Not for this point, I think we’re in good shape. th MR. HUNSINGER-And we’re tabling it to April 26. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. nd MR. TRAVER-April 22? th MRS. STEFFAN-26. th MR. TRAVER-26. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 80-2010 HAYES & HAYES, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/27/2011 tabled to 3/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 80-2010 HAYES & HAYES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This is tabled to the April 26 Planning Board meeting, so that the applicants can satisfy the following conditions: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) 1.The applicant will address VISION Engineering comments and obtain a signoff. 2.The applicant will address Staff Notes. 3.The applicant will ascertain the maximum impact of imported Town water to this site. The Planning Board requests a groundwater mounding analysis. 4.The applicant will dig additional test pits directly over the proposed septic and infiltration devices which will be witnessed by VISION Engineering. 5.The applicant will put a notation on the plan that motorized vehicles are prohibited on the area designated as no further development. 6.That the applicant will identify color schemes and selections on the plans. 7.That the applicant will provide elevation drawings for front, rear and side views. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-See you next month. MR. TRAVER-So we’re not going to have a special meeting for the next hearing of this. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-We haven’t set the agenda yet. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we haven’t. I was going to say, we’ll have to take that into account. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? Keith? MR. OBORNE-I sent an e-mail out today concerning training. If you could take a look at that. We’re going to need those documentations from the training from the Planning Board. I also sent an e-mail out also concerning other issues, and if you could take a look at that, especially last week. We’re talking about the policies and procedures changes. If you could comment on that, we could start working that into maybe a May meeting or somewhere along those lines, in a workshop. MR. TRAVER-And I responded to Keith’s e-mail, asking about, we had talked about workshops being part of training. In response to Keith’s e-mail, I asked about workshops. Because we had talked about possibly evaluating workshops as counting for training, and he reminded me that we had a workshop from the Waterkeeper last year, but the workshop that we had recently regarding how the Planning Department handles applications and the engineering involvement and so on, he didn’t feel would count as training, which was a bit disappointing. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think it was relevant, and I figured you would be disappointed in that, Steve, but I really, that was more of a process issue than anything else. MR. TRAVER-Well, I can recall for the first, one of the first trainings, I think it was Mr. Schachner offered the trainings, there was not an inconsiderable part of that basic training, if you will, that had to do with the process. MR. OBORNE-Right, and I guess it was my feeling that, well, it really doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t count, it doesn’t count. I would like us, to the extent that we can, take advantage of the fact that we’re occasionally having these workshops to try to add some elements to them so they would be eligible for training. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Because I think that that’s, you know, we’re all together. We’re spending time on these issues. Let’s make it a training. MR. OBORNE-I agree, and, you know, again come up with some ideas. Obviously we have professional staff that can guide you and train you along those paths, and when and if we have another need for a workshop, which I imagine we will with the policies and procedures changes that are going on. We can tack something on to that, absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think that the Planning Federation Conference this year is in Saratoga, if I remember correctly. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Federation Conference is in Albany. MRS. STEFFAN-In Albany. Okay. So it’s pretty close. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s in the Crown Plaza in Albany. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there would be opportunities. Like they have a Sunday meeting and a key note, so, you know, you could also obtain credits there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-We’ve been there on many occasions, and it is a good conference. MR. TRAVER-And there’s some on-line classes that are available periodically? MR. OBORNE-No, through the Planning Federation. If you remember at the Planning Federation they offer workshops on line, and we’ve already had, we’ve had one individual from the Zoning Board actually take one of the courses. MR. TRAVER-And of course as Planning Board employees of the Town, we’re automatically all members of the Planning Federation, I’m sure. MR. OBORNE-You would think that would be the case. I would have to research that. MRS. STEFFAN-If we get a newsletter, I think we’re members. MR. OBORNE-I know that you’re part of the Association of Towns. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-But I’m not sure about the Planning Federation. MR. TRAVER-I would be interested in the availability of participating in some on-line training. So if that’s something I can do, let me know. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes, I know, because you have some time restraints with that. I would say that’s not an issue whatsoever. I would contact Pam Whiting to get that process rolling. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I will do that. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-And that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else from Board members? Two meetings next week, Tuesday and Thursday. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have a status report on alternates? Are they looking for them? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I talked to Dan, it was about a week ago or so, and he looked me straight in the eye and said we’re working on it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2011) th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 40