Engineering Responses 2/18/2022900 Route 146 Clifton Park, NY 12065
(P) 518.371.7621 (F) 518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Date: February 18, 2022
To: Mr. Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: West Residence – Guest House
Queensbury Ref #SP52-2021
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Environmental Design Partnership, LLP (EDP) is providing you this letter in response to review
comments provided by the LaBella dated February 18, 2022. On behalf of the applicant Brett West, we offer
the following response to comments and additional information:
1. In response to comment 2 of LaBella’s August 18, 2021 comment lette r, the applicant noted the
comment. The Minor project requirements state that all newly created impervious surfaces shall be
directed to an infiltration practice. The existing condition includes no impervious surfaces (according to
the existing conditions model), so all impervious surfaces shall be directed to an infiltration practices.
Based on the subcatchment map, subcatchment 13 is tributary to SMA #12 (Grass Depression 3),
which is not an infiltration practice, and therefore the design does not meet th e requirements for Minor
projects. The Applicant to revise accordingly:
Response: The impervious surface within subcatchment has been redirected to SMA #11 (Rain
Garden #6). SMA #11 has been expanded to account for this increased drainage area. SMA #12
has been removed from the model and grading plan.
2. It does not appear that the grading plan for Rain Garden 5 and 6 match the HydroCAD model. This
appears to be the case for all of the rain gardens for both projects and the broader comment is as
follows:
It does not appear that the grading plan for Rain Garden #1 matches the HydroCAD model. First, the
surface area in HydroCAD states a surface area of 308 square feet, however the plans appear to
indicate approximately 275 square feet. Second, there is not sufficient spot grades on the grading
plan to allow for a full review of the elevations in the HydroCAD model. The HydroCAD model would
indicate the basal surface area would be 324.25 and the top of the garden would be 325.00, however
the grading plan does not show either of those elevations. Third, based on the rain garden detail
(sheet 8), it is unclear how the HydroCAD model takes exfiltration credit for the whole surface area,
however based on the footing drain/impermeable line, exfiltration would not occur over the entire
surface area. This comment appears to also apply to Rain Garden 2, Rain Garden 3, Rain Garden 4,
Rain Garden 5, and Rain Garden 6. The Applicant to revise accordingly.
Response: First, the areas of the rain gardens have been revised in the HydroCAD model to
match what is shown on the plans. Second, to avoid crowding the grading plan with spot
grades showing the different elevations of the rain gardens a chart showing the elevations has
been added to the rain garden detail on Sheet 7. Third, the detail for the rain garden has been
revised to remove the footing drain and to pull the impermeable line back to only be along the
foundation wall and rain garden wall.
2 900 Route 146 Clifton Park, NY 12065
(P) 518.371.7621 (F) 518.371.9540 edpllp.com
Mr. Craig Brown
February 18, 2022
Page 2
3. In response to comment 3 of LaBella’s August 18, 2021 comment letter, the Applicant updated the
mapping. However, the thickness of the subcatchment boundary lines compared to the thickness of
other linetypes makes the subcatchment map undiscernible. We respectfully request the Applicant
revise the subcatchment map so it is discernable. Roof leaders will be corresponded to the
subcatchment areas once the maps are discernible.
Response: The subcatchment map has been updated to be more legible.
4. In response to comment 5 of LaBella’s August 18, 2021 comment letter, the applicant performed five
test pits and three infiltration tests. However, none of the test appear to be within the limits of the
proposed infiltration practices for this application. The Applicant to perform test pits (and infiltration
tests) within the boundaries of the infiltration practices to ensure these practices can be infiltration
facilities as proposed and meet the separation distances .
Response: The infiltration practices were designed based on the closest preformed test pit,
the observed water and modeling level consistently drop closer to the lake. Due to existing
site conditions, it is not possible to do test pits in all proposed infiltration areas, additional test
pits and infiltration test will be performed prior to construction to confirm the feasibility of the
proposed practice.
5. In response to comment 7 of LaBella’s August 18, 2021 comment letter, the Applicant stated that
approximate locations of adjacent wastewater treatment systems and water wells are being located and
will be shown on the plans once located. The Applicant to provide the information on the plan sheets
once available.
Response: EDP has received a plan showing the location of the septic to be more than 80’
from the property line, the drinking water is also confirmed to be drawing from the lake.
6. There does not appear to be a porous pavement detail. The Applicant to provide a detail in the next
submission.
Response: A porous pavement detail has been added to the plans on Sheet 7 detail 1.
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact our office at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Gavin Vuillaume, R.L.A.