Engineering Review
North Country Office
100 Glen Street, Glens Falls, NY 12801
P: (518) 812-0513 F: (518) 812-2205
www.chazencompanies.com
Hudson Valley Office (845) 454-3980
Engineers
Environmental Professionals Capital District Office (518) 273-0055
Land Surveyors
Landscape Architects
Planners
April 4, 2012
Mr. Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury New York 12804
Delivered via email only: CraigB@queensbury.net
Re: Pushor-Spellburg 8-lot Subdivision
45 Ellsworth Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Chazen Job # 91104.30
Queensbury Ref No: Subdivision 5-2011
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Chazen Companies (Chazen) has received the latest submission package for the reduced 8-lot
residential subdivision at 45 Ellsworth Road. Based upon our review of the information provided,
Chazen offers the following comments for the Towns consideratio
Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control
1.In response to Comment 2 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant states that the
design and information provided demonstrates compliance with Cha-11 regulations.
However, it shall be noted that the project does not comply with specific sections of this
chapter, including, but not limited to, section 147-11(I)(3)(c)(1) & (2) for maintaining runoff rate
& volume from pre- to post-development conditions; section 147-11(J)(3)(b) for providing
protective covering within 24-hours for land with slopes greater than 15%; and section 147-
11(I)(3)(d)(2) for required period to drain practices to design l. The Applicant shall revise
the design and add appropriate notes to ensure conformance with
2.In response to Comment 3 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has added
additional stormwater management practices to reduce site runoff
revised HydroCAD modeling, the rate & volume of runoff will be increased between pre- and
post-development conditions at design point 1L, under all storm events. In addition, the rate of
runoff will be increased at design point 2L for the 1- and 10-yr storm events. As such, the
Applicant shall revise the design to demonstrate that post-development stormwater runoff is
not increased at any design point when compared to pre-development rates.
Town of Queensbury
Pushor-Spellburg - Subdivision 5-2011
April 4, 2012
Page 2
3.In response to Comment 4 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, t
from Stations 4+25 to 5+50 is being directed to retention area 1
recognized, it appears that the proposed grading may not be sufficient to direct runoff t
practice. The Applicant shall provide additional grading informa
will be directed to this practice and prevented from continuing
Additionally, it shall be noted that 425ft of the drive is not being directed to a stormwater
practice with either water quality or quantity controls. However, it appears that the
adequate area on Lot 2 to implement a management practice. The Applicant shall revise the
design to ensure that stormwater runoff from this section of drive is tributary to a NYSDEC
acceptable stormwater management facility, designed to mitigate stormwater impacts at this
location.
4.In response to Comment 5 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant states that &the
individual lot-specific retention areas are sized to retain both the Water Qual
noted, however, that the proposed individual lot specific reten
approved stormwater treatment devices. The design of these retention area
such that they conform to one of the approved practices identifi
treat Water Quality Volume as required by the manual.
5.In response to Comment 6 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has revised the
proposed Pocket Pond and Forebay. The Detailed Pocket Pond Plan indicates
within the Forebay, but does not provide any other information. The Applicant shall provide
dimensional and material specifications for the sediment marker.
6.In response to Comment 7 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has indicated that
a 6 layer of clay will be installed over the surfaces of the forebay and prity,
the Applicant shall add a note to the pocket pond profile statin
be over excavated to allow for a 6 minimum layer of clay below
7.In response to Comment 8 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant states that
exfiltration has been removed from all vegetated retention areas (however, it appears that an
exfiltration of 2 inches/hr is still included for Retention Area 20P). With the removal of
infiltration from the design of these practices, they no longer meet the criteria of a NYSDEC
stormwater treatment device. As noted in comment #4, these areas shall be redesigned, if they
are intended to treat stormwater, to meet NYSDEC guidelines for Any
required soil testing to support design shall also be completed.
It is also noted that, in accordance with Section 147-11(I)(3)(d)(2) of the Town code, vegetated
depressions are required to completely drain back to design lev
8.In response to Comment 9 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has added note to
the overall and detailed Subdivision Plans indicating the boundapreserved. In
addition to protection of these lands during construction, the A
protection of these lands after occupancy. Per Section 5.1.1 of the NYS SMDM, preservation
areas shall be managed after occupancy by a responsible party able to maintain
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.30-T. Queensbury -Lisa Pushor (SUB 5-2011) -Hutchins\Pushor-Spellburg-SUB 5-2011_04-04-12_L3.doc
Town of Queensbury
Pushor-Spellburg - Subdivision 5-2011
April 4, 2012
Page 3
natural state in perpetuity, which shall be achieved through legally enforceable deed
restrictions, conservation easements, or a maintenance agreement. The applicant shall provide
additional information regarding permanent protection of this land after occupancy.
9.In response to Comment 14 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has revised the
lengths of overland flow (sheet flow) used in time of concentration calculations to be no more
than 100ft. However, it appears that the Applicant has removed the length of
has not adjusted the remaining portions of the flow path. As a rtimes of concentration
are noticeably faster at most subcatchments, which may be driving the increase in runoff
discussed in Comment 2. In addition, the Tc lengths depicted on the Developed Subcatchme
map are not consistent with those presented in the HydroCAD modeThe Applicant shall revise
the flow paths appropriately.
10.In response to Comment 19 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has revised the
WQv and RRv summary table on the Detailed Subdivision Plan. However, it appears that the
WQv required and the Remaining WQv are not consistent with the calculations in the
Stormwater Management Report. The Applicant shall revise for consistency.
11.In response to Comment 20 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant has revised
Question 3 of the NOI to indicate Single Family Subdivision for Post-Development future land
use. However, the Applicant has noted 9 lots, when only 8 lots are
Applicant shall revise accordingly.
12.The Applicant has provided WQv and CPv calculations as an attachment to the SWPPP.
However, these calculations do not include the vegetated retenti
Lot 2. The Applicant shall revise the calculations to include t
13.In response to Comment 21 of Chazens February 16, 2012 letter, the Applicant states that a
draft maintenance agreement is included in the SWPPP, which was taken directly from the Town
code. However, this agreement shall be supplemented with a detailed list of all stormwater
control measures that will be subject to said agreement. In addition, access and maintenance
easements must be shown on the plans for each stormwater device
and shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Departmen Once approved, a
maintenance easement shall also be executed and recorded in the office of the County Clerk,
which shall be binding on all subsequent land owners served by t
facility. The easement shall provide access to the facilities at
inspection by the Town of Queensbury to ensure that they are maintained in
condition. These provisions are provided such that if the applicant or their successor(s) fails
adequately maintain the proposed facilities, the Town can providintenance to
ensure proper function. Considering this, it is recommended that the Towns legal counse
review the proposed agreement prior to approval.
Further, the applicant shall furnish a description of the maintenance provi
#1 of the agreement, as well as a construction cost estimate for all
the agreement, and an operation and maintenance cost estimate fo
shall be submitted for Town review.
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.30-T. Queensbury -Lisa Pushor (SUB 5-2011) -Hutchins\Pushor-Spellburg-SUB 5-2011_04-04-12_L3.doc
Town of Queensbury
Pushor-Spellburg - Subdivision 5-2011
April 4, 2012
Page 4
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is our opinion that the applicant should provide clarificatio
changes for the next submission.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesme at (518) 824-1926.
Sincerely,
Sean M. Doty, P.E., LEED AP
Senior Project Engineer
cc: Pam Whiting, Town Planning Office Administrator (via email)
Keith Oborne, Town Planner (via email)
Joel Bianchi, P.E., Senior Director - Municipal Engineering (via email)
File
R:\9\91100-91199\91104.00_Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91104.30-T. Queensbury -Lisa Pushor (SUB 5-2011) -Hutchins\Pushor-Spellburg-SUB 5-2011_04-04-12_L3.doc