Engineering ResponsesC.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
Engineering, Surveying, Architecture, Landscape Architecture & Geology, D.P.C.
50 Century Hill Drive, Latham, NY 12110
518.786.7400 FAX 518.786.7299 www.ctmale.com
Civil Engineering Environmental Services Survey Services Land Services Architecture
Energy & Building Systems Services Electrical Engineering
March 15, 2022
Ms. Laura Moore
Land Use Planner
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 12804
Delivered via e-mail: lmoore@queensbury.net
Re: Hoffman Development Corp.
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Queensbury Ref #SP71-2021
Chazen Project #92100.50
CT Male Project: #21.1302
Dear Ms. Moore:
Please find the below information attached for your review:
Fifteen (15) copies of the Traffic Evaluation.
Two (2) full size Thirteen (13) reduced (11”x17”) copies of the revised Site Plan Set.
Two (2) copies of the full SWPPP and Thirteen (13) copies of the SWPPP Summary.
Responses to the questions listed in the February 10, 2022, letter from LaBella appear in italics as
follows:
Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Comments
1. The HydroCAD model shows that infiltration basin 5P has a basal surface area of 1054
square feet. The site plans model infiltration basin 5P as approximately 113 square feet.
The applicant is to revise the HydroCAD model accordingly.
Response: The basal surfaces area has been revised as requested.
2. In response to comment 14 of LaBella’s November 12, 2021, comment letter the Applicant
revised the labeling, however it appears more labeling is errant or incorrect. Labeling
within the stormwater model (P1H is not included) and the site plans (HTU1 and HTU2
are both labeled as ‘HTU2’) shall be revised accordingly.
Response: The stormwater modeling and mapping has been reviewed and revised as requested. The
HTU labels have been revised.
3. The applicant does not show in the site plans where any of the details are on drawings C-
501 through C-509. The applicant is to revise the site plans to show where these details are
located.
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 2
Response: Call out bubbles/cannonballs have been added to the plans that correspond to the detail
sheets.
4. The applicant does not provide a detail for OS1. The applicant is to provide a detail for
OS1, along with pipe size and slope of pipe.
Response: A details has been added to the plan for OS1. See Sheet C-507.
5. The subcatchment map, HydroCAD routing plan, and site plan do not appear to match
and shall be revised accordingly. For example, the roof drain closed storm system appears
to split the roof runoff with an east/west split, however the subcatchment map shows a
north/south split. Also, the routing diagram suggests that all of P1A and P1B are directly
tributary to the HTU’s, however this can’t be the case as those subcatchments include
areas directly over the basin itself – those areas would be directly tributary to the basin
(not the HTUs/drywells); as an example, if a drop of rain hit the sidewalk just south of the
building, the runoff would flow directly to the infiltration basin. The Applicant to revise
accordingly.
Response: The subcatchment map and hydrocad model has been revised as requested. A separate
subcatchement has been added for the area that drains directly into the drywell area.
6. The current HydroCAD model does not provide a 10-year analysis for the entire close
storm system. The Applicant is to revise the model to include entire 10-year analysis or
provide a similar hydraulic analysis of the entire closed storm system.
Response: A 10-year analysis has been provided for the closed storm system.
7. It does not appear that the drywell/infiltration basin 2P is modeled as it would function
based on the grading and utility plan. The HydroCAD model appears to indicate the flat
24” pipe connecting the drywells has an invert elevation of 470.80. So when run off enters
the two drywells connected to the HTUs, the water surface elevation would need to get to
at least 470.80 before entry to the middle two drywells. The one-year storm peak elevation
is 470.38, not high enough to reach the inner two drywells, however the HydroCAD
model is setup to exfiltrate through all drywells regardless of elevation. The Applicant to
revise accordingly. Further, it is difficult to discern if the flat 24” connector pipe invert
elevation is called out on the site plans and the Applicant to revise accordingly.
Response: The 24” flat pipes inverts has been revised to match the bottom of the drywell and the
drywells/pipe will function more as one overall unit. The labels for the flat pipes have been revised
for clarity.
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 3
8. Our office recommends at signs at the porous pavement sections that denote the use of
porous pavement and list the materials the NYS SMDM says can clog porous pavement. It
is also recommended that the porous pavement sections include observation wells to
support long term maintenance of the porous pavement.
Response: Notes and a sign details have been added to the plans. See sheet C-507.
9. In this application the Applicant has provided a porous pavement detail, which indicates
the use of underdrains. However, the underdrains are not included in the HydroCAD
model. The Applicant to revise the HydroCAD model accordingly. Further, the Applicant
to indicate where the perforations will be placed within the porous pavement as
perforations on the top of the pipe would limit the amount of water that will be infiltrated.
Response: The underdrains inverts are above the highest elevations that are reached during all
storm events and effectively act as a failsafe overflow. The perforation on the will be at on the
bottom, sides, and top of the underdrain pipes as is typical for most underdrains.
10. It is unclear how P1G is entirely tributary to Design Point 1. Once the model is revised to
include subcatchment P1H, the same will need to be clarified. The Applicant to clarify or
revise accordingly. Also, the Applicant may wish to consider additional design points in
the northeast portion of the site.
Response: An additional design point has been added for clarity.
11. The western portion of P1C, the paved accessway, appears to convey runoff unabated to
Weeks Road, and the tributary impervious area appears to be bigger than the pre-
development condition. Further, where the new site entrance is located on Weeks Road,
there appears to be a low spot on Weeks Road as indicated by the 475 contour line. Our
office has concerns about potential runoff and ponding at the entrance on Weeks Road.
The Applicant should make the entrance to Weeks Road a design point such that pre- and
post-development rates and volumes can be analyzed here.
Further, subcatchment P1C is somewhat diluted since it includes the western access
impervious areas plus the eastern grassed areas. Has the Applicant considered separating
the western and eastern portion of P1C?
Response: The existing tributary impervious area to design point one is 26,826 square feet of area.
The proposed unabated imperious to design point one is 9,474 square feet of area. The entrance to
Weeks Road has been revised to include catch basins to ensure no ponding occurs. The analysis
already shows 2 design points for Weeks Road and another design point will not add any
information to the analysis. The stormwater model has been revised to separate this subcatchment
as requested. P1C is now P1E and P1J.
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 4
12. The Applicant to clarify what volume #10 for Pond 2P in the HydroCAD model
represents.
Response: Volume #10 is the stone that surrounds the 24” flat perforated pipes.
13. The Hydrocad model includes 2.9’ of storage for the porous pavement at 40% voids,
although it is difficult to understand how 2.9 feet was determined at 40% voids based on
detail 1/c507. The Applicant to clarify and revise accordingly.
Response: The storage in the hydrocad has been revised to match the porous pavement detail more
closely on sheet C-507.
14. The volume requirement for the 50-year storm event is not met at design point 2. There is
an additional 0.003 acre-feet of volume post construction. Applicant is to revise design to
reduce volume occurring at design point 2 so the design conforms with the Town code
requirements.
Response: A small depression near design point 2 has been added to the plans to address this very
minor volume increase.
15. Since the last application, the design has been changed and now includes four drywells.
The HydroCAD model exfiltration invert elevation is 466.50 feet (the bottom of the new
drywells). Soil Boring #1 only went to ta depth of 469.00 feet, and therefore does not
conform to appendix D of the Stormwater Manual. Due to the design change, the
Applicant shall perform additional deep soil test pits to confirm three feet of separation to
any limiting layers and perform infiltration tests in support of the drywells. The new soil
tests and infiltration tests shall be performed within the limits of the stormwater practice.
Response: Additional soil logs will be performed when the weather permits.
Traffic Comments:
16. The estimate of site trips is based on very limited data from the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, particularly for the Saturday peak hour as there is only one data study when
using the number of car wash tunnels as the independent variable. The use of the facility’s
square footage yields a trip estimate that is more than a4 times the amount presented in
the study (41 trips versus 176 trips.)
Given the limited data in the ITW manual, local trip data should be presented to verify or
modify the estimates in the study with a corresponding update to the analyses. It is
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 5
expected that the trip data will vary significantly especially during the winter season with
the prevalent use of road salt.
Response: A revised traffic evaluation from the Traffic Consultant, VHB is attached.
17. An evaluation of the internal queuing using the processing times at the pay station and
through the car wash should be presented to ensure that the site circulation is sufficient to
prevent vehicle queues from extending out on the side roads.
Response: A revised traffic evaluation from the Traffic Consultant, VHB is attached.
Please find the below comments from Community Development Department Staff Notes letter of
February 15, 2022, and the responses and/or revisions noted in italics for your review:
Location-The project site is located at 919 State Route 9 on a 2.01 acre parcel.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Arrangement- The site has an existing building to be removed. The site is to be redeveloped
with a new carwash building and a vacuum station for 18 self serve units.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Site Design- The parcel is a corner lot with frontage on Route 9 and Weeks Road. The parcel
access is proposed at Weeks Road with a proposed interconnected access from an adjoining
lot to Route 9. The lot is to maintain some of the existing vegetation on the West property
line and install new vegetation.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Building – The building is to be 5,750 sq ft and the car wash will be accessed from the east
side of the building existing to the west. Location-The project site is located at 919 State
Route 9 on a 2.01 acre parcel.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Site conditions-The project includes utilizing an adjacent interconnect as this was included in
a previous site plan that it would be developed when this lot would be developed. The
applicant has provided plans showing the work to be completed for the interconnect. The
applicant to provide supporting information to complete the interconnect work.
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 6
Response: The applicant is currently working with the adjoining property owner regarding
this interconnect. I note the traffic evaluation prepared by VHB does not recommend/require
any modifications to the existing intersection.
Traffic- The applicant has indicate there is to be 45 spaces – 18 vacuum parking spaces, 9
stacking spaces, 11 additional stacking spaces, 1 handicap space. (Required is 3 stacking
spaces per bay.) The plans show a side walk to be installed in the right of way. The
applicant has provided a traffic study – under review by the Town designated Engineer. The
Board may request supporting information of the sidewalk to be constructed in the right-of
way.
Response: The proposed sidewalk will be 5’ wide and approximately 370’ long along the
northerly side of Weeks Road. A detail of this sidewalk is on sheet C-501.
Grading and drainage plan, Sediment and erosion control-The plans show grading and
erosion control for the site development. Stormwater management is shown with detention
basins. The project includes porous pavement in the areas of the vacuum spaces. A
stormwater management maintenance agreement was provided and will be forwarded to the
Supervisor and Counsel. The project was referred to engineering for review and comment.
Response: The plans and reports have been revised based on the engineering comments. See
responses above.
Landscape plan-The landscaping plan shows only the information for the building area
landscaping. The applicant will need to update the plans to reflect existing and proposed
vegetation for the entire parcel. The required buffer on the west property line does not
indicate the landscaping to be installed in the buffer area. A buffer area is expected to be 20
ft in width but is at the discretion of the board and may or may not include fencing as part of
the buffer.
Response: Town Code requires a Type A buffer along the rear property line adjacent to the
Multifamily development. A Type A buffer is required to be 10 feet in width with one tree for
every 100 feet of length (4 trees in this case). The applicant will plant 4 trees if required,
however, this would require going into an already treed area. The parking/vacuum area is
proposed to be 50’ from the western property line. The existing vegetation in this area will
remain as much as possible and an 8’ fence is proposed to further buffer the residential
property to the west of the site.
Site lighting plan-The lighting plan indicates light pole locations at 15 ft pole, 2 ft base. The
photo metrics indicate the parking paved area average would be 7.42 and the average of the
site would be 1.52 foot candles. The commercial parking lot guidance indicates a 2.5 avg.
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 7
Response: The lighting plan, Sheet L-1, with photometrics is included with this submission.
This plan shows the 2.5 average footcandles in the parking areas as discussed during the
November Planning Board meeting.
Site details- The project includes utilizing an adjacent interconnect as this was included in a
previous site plan that it would be developed when this lot would be developed. The
applicant has provided plans showing the work to be completed for the interconnect. The
applicant to provide supporting information to complete the interconnect work. The work to
be completed on the adjoining lot for the interconnect requires authorization from the
property owner.
Response: We reiterate as the comment notes, this connection was part of the approved site
plan for the adjacent property. The applicant is currently working with the adjoining
property owner regarding this interconnect.
Utility details-The project includes connections to municipal sewer and water.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Signage-The elevation plans show a sign on the building and the site plan shows a free
standing sign location. The applicant is pursuing a sign variance application for proposed
free standing sign of 138 sq ft.
Response: Comment acknowledged. A sign variance has been applied for and will be heard
at the next available ZBA meeting.
Elevations-The elevations indicate the building cupola is to be 37 ft 8 inches and the main
building is to be 28 ft 8 1/8 inches. The colors are to be grey, white trim, and grey blocking
on the bottom of the building.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Floor plans-The floor plans show the wash tunnel, equipment room, office area, and electric
room.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Waivers-The applicant has not requested waivers.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
March 8, 2022
Laura Moore
Page - 8
Respectfully submitted,
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES
Engineering, Surveying, Architecture, Landscape Architecture & Geology, D.P.C.
Owen Speulstra, PE