Loading...
Staff Notes.10.15.13 Town of Queensbury Planning Board Community Development Department Staff Notes March 19, 2013 (Sketch), August 20, 2013 (PBR), September 17, 2013 (SEQR, PBR), October 15, 2013 (Prel/Final/FWW) Application: SB 2-2013 /AV 43-2013 Applicant: Greenwood Builders SEQRA: Unlisted—negative declaration Referrals: Town Engineer -8-15-13; 10-9-13 Location: Ridge Road Zoning: MDR REQUESTED ACTION: Subdivision review for creating a 3-lot residential subdivision PARCEL HISTORY: AV 43-13: Created a lot that does not have physical road frontage -9-16- 13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.02 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 3.44, 4.13, and 8.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Work within 100 ft. of an adjacent Army Corp of Engineers designated wetland. Variance: Relief granted from road frontage requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board has conducted SEQR review and provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MATERIAL REVIEW: • Cover Letter: Description of project • Preliminary Stg. Application: project information • Freshwater Wetlands application: project information • Final Stg. Application: project information • Long EAF: Project information • Stormwater Mgmt. Report& SWPPP • Map-Plat: Overview of the site • Cl: Design of lots 1 & 2 • C2: Design of lot 3 • WW1: Site section& wastewater plan • WD 1: Wastewater details • G 1: Green Infrastructure • Dl: Civil & stormwater details • EC 1: Environmental control details STAFF COMMENTS The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision. Two lots, 1 and 2, will have a shared driveway access on Ridge Road. The third lot, Lot 3, has frontage of 142 +/- ft. on Ridge Road and 50 ft. on a paper-drive to Stonehurst Drive. Lot 3 will be accessed from Stonehurst Drive paper drive portion of the property that is unimproved area which is the requested frontage access variance granted. The applicant has calculated each lot to be developed to include 2 plus acres of buildable area and has identified the amount of wetlands for the project area. The plans show the lot arrangement and definition of the side, rear and front of the property as the configuration is due to the wetlands on the property. The project requires a Freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. of a designated wetland. The project has received a septic variance for having a septic system within 100 ft. of wetland. The project received a variance for lot 3 not having physical access to the Ridge Road. NATURE OF AREA VARIANCE: The project was granted relief for Lot #3 from the requirement that the lot have physical access from the lot frontage on Ridge Road—the lot will have access from a paper drive on Stonehurst Drive. SUMMARY The Planning Board completed SEQR utilizing a long EAF and determined the project a negative declaration. The Zoning Board granted relief from the required road frontage access. The applicant has indicated a request to the Town Board / Town Attorney has been submitted to utilize the area noted as a paper drive through an easement if necessary for the 3`d lot driveway. The applicant has completed the preliminary and final stage subdivision applications including submission of drawings as well as a wetland permit application for the Planning Board subdivision review. The Board may consider requesting the status of the driveway easement and may consider this item as a condition. APPLICATION PROTOCOL 3/19/2013 PB review sketch -completed 8/20/2013 PBR to ZBA pending—tabled to 9-17-13 8/21/2013 ZBA review pending—tabled to 9-18-13 8/27/2013 PB review preliminary pending—October PB meeting 9/17/2013 PBR to ZBA w/SEQR Negative Declaration 9/18/2013 ZBA review-approved 10/15/2013 PB review—Preliminary & Final and Wetlands Permit -2 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Glens Falls, NY 12801 Tax Map No. 290.00-1-83 MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2013 Greenwood Builders, LLC, Introduced by Richard Garrand BOARD MEMBER who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt BOARD MEMBER: Whereas the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Greenwood Builders, LLC fora variance from Section(s) 179-4-050; Chapter 183 & Chapter 94; 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to subdivide a 16-acre parcel into three residential lots; one lot (Lot No. 3) to be located off of Stonehurst Drive at the extension of the 50 ft. wide paper street. Lots 1 and 2 to be located on Ridge Road with a shared driveway. Relief requested from road frontage requirements and direct access on a public street for lot number 3. Driveway access will be through Stonehurst Drive. Upon review of the application materials, it's a Type II SEQR, and information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: I) Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? It will not create any detriment to nearby properties. 2) Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? The applicant has designed this in such a manner that there is no other feasible alternative for three lots. 3) Is the requested area variance substantial? I'd say it's moderate. 4) Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We don't believe it'll have any impact on the physical or environmental conditions, in addition to the condition previously stated. 5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I don't believe the difficulty is necessarily self-created. I think its a function of the lots, and the amount of wetlands that are on the lots. Based on the above findings, I move that this Board Approve Area Variance No. 43-2013 Greenwood Builders, LLC with the following conditions: That there be no pools within the 75 foot Army Corps of Engineering wetland setback. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr, Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE THE Ghazn North Country Office 375 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 COMPANIES P: (518) 812-0513 F: (518) 812-2205 www.chazencompanies.com Proud to be Employee Owned Engineers Hudson Valley Office (845)454-3980 Land Surveyors Capital District Office (518) 273-0055 Planners Environmental Professionals Landscape Architects October 9, 2013 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: Ridge Meadows Subdivision Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York Chazen Project#91300.31 Queensbury Ref. No:Subdivision 2-2013 Dear Mr. Brown: The Chazen Companies (Chazen) has received the latest submission responding to technical comments offered by Chazen on June 10, 2013. Based upon our review, Chazen offers the following comments for the Town's consideration: Stormwater Management& Erosion and Sediment Control: 1. In response to comment 2 of Chazen's August 15, 2013 letter, the Applicant indicates receipt of a June 17, 2013 letter from the NYSDEC regarding endangered or threatened species. In accordance with Part I.D.4 of the General Permit, the Applicant shall provide a copy of this letter to support permit eligibility. 2. In response to comment 3 of Chazen's August 15, 2013 letter, the Applicant states that they have received verbal confirmation from a consulting firm that the project is 'clear' with respect to historical places and archeological resources. Upon completion of the report, the SWPPP should be revised to reference the completed study in accordance with Part III.A.8. of the General Permit. 3. In response to comment 4 of Chazen's August 15, 2013 letter, the Applicant has updated the construction schedule. However, Section 6 of this schedule indicates removal of temporary sediment controls, prior to preparing the site for final seeding and landscaping. It shall be noted that temporary sediment controls must remain installed until all disturbed areas have been stabilized. Chazen Engineenng. Land Surveying&Landscape Architecture Co.,D.P.C. Chazen Environmental Services, Inc. The Chazen Companies, Inc. Town of Queensbury Ridgewood Subdivision SUB 2-2013 October 9,2013 Page 2 4. Based upon the responses to comment 7 of Chazen's August 15, 2013 letter, the following comments remain: • Separation distances from seasonally high groundwater and bedrock: The Applicant had a discussion with the NYSDEC regarding separation distances for vegetated swales with exfiltration and a 1-ft vertical separation was recommended. Chazen does not take exception to this recommendation for this application. However, since the Dry Swale is modeled with exfiltration, it must conform to the 3-ft vertical separation distance of an infiltration practice. Based upon the required separation distances and depth of mottling indicated in the deep test pits, Dry Swale 3P and Vegetated Swales/Retention Areas 4aP, 4bP, 5P, and 8P do not provide adequate separation. The Applicant shall revise the design to be in conformance with the NYSDEC SMDM. • Separation distance from structures and septic systems: The Applicant states that the 25-ft separation distance does not apply to the proposed stormwater practices. However, these practices have been modeled with exfiltration and are therefore acting as infiltration practices. Although proposed grading will minimize at grade site drainage toward the proposed septic fields, these practices are infiltrating runoff into subsoil directly adjacent to the absorption bed. • Pretreatment: With respect to pretreatment, the Applicant states that vegetated retention areas do not require pretreatment and provides 10% pretreatment for the dry swale. However, as noted, these practices are acting as infiltration devices and must conform to Section 6.3.3 of the NYSDEC SMDM, which requires a minimum pretreatment volume of 50% WQv for underlying soils having an fc greater than 2 in/hr and less than 5 in/hr. The Applicant shall provide appropriate pretreatment in conformance with the NYSDEC SMDM. 5. In response to comment 12 of Chazen's August 15, 2013 letter, the Applicant provides the general parameters of the existing swale along Ridge Road and notes that the swale currently discharges to the wetlands. However, additional grading information adjacent to the swale has not been provided to confirm that runoff entering this swale will bypass the proposed on-site stormwater practices and continue to discharge to the wetlands as intended. 6. In response to comment 16 of Chazen's August 15, 2013 letter, the Applicant states that Section A-A on sheet WW1 has been revised to show a 6-ft max bottom width. However, it shall be noted that the plan view on sheet Cl still depicts a bottom width of 20-ft+/-. Reducing the width from 20-ft to 6-ft would result in a significant reduction in available storage. The Applicant shall modify the dry swale layout for conformance with section 6.5 of the NYSDEC SMDM and shall update the HydroCAD analysis as necessary. It is recommended that a construction detail be provided to ensure conformance. 7. The Applicant has submitted a draft NOl in Appendix 11. However, it shall be noted that the NYSDEC has released a new NOl form that must be submitted for all projects going forward.The Applicant shall complete the new NOI form for the next submission. R:\9\91300-91399191300.00-Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\9130031-SUB 2-2013 Ridgewood Meadows\91300.31-SUB 2-2013-Ridgewood Meadow Subdv_2013-10-09_L2.doa Town of Queensbury Ridgewood Subdivision SUB 2-2013 October 9,2013 Page 3 Conclusions and Recommendations It is our opinion that the applicant should provide clarification for the above items and incorporate the changes in subsequent plan submissions. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at(518) 824-1926. Sincerely, Sean M. Doty, P.E., LEED AP Associate Senior Project Engineer cc: Pam Whiting,Town Planning Office Administrator (via email) Laura Moore,Town Land Use Planner(via email) File RA9\91300-91399\91300.00-Town of Queensbury PB Engineer\91300.31-SUB 2-2013 Ridgewood Meadows\91300.31-SUB 2-2013-Ridgewood Meadow Subdv_2013-10-09_L2.doc oft. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY V" 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-. 5902 Town of Queensbury Planning Board RESOLUTION TO APPROVE/DISAPPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 2-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS Tax Map ID 290.1-83 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.02 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 3.44, 4.13, and 8.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands:Work adjacent to ACOE Wetlands On 9-17-2013 the Planning Board conducted a SEQR review and adopted a Negative Declaration; On 9-17-2013 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to tk •BA, on 9-18-2013 the ZBA approved the variance requests; . •:,;. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9-17-2013 & 10/15/2013,.1 .. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE / DISAPPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 2-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS,Introduced by who moved its adoption seconded by $\,•0". 1 ,..,::Z,. 4 As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following �. :: ���.�..��'•. 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the'Town of Queensb Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. Duly adopted this 15th day of October 2013 by the following vote:;:'' AYES: 1 \ti0... NOES: 4,, if 4. 11 11 1•. • V t fr TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 104 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-5902 Town of Queensbury Planning Board RESOLUTION TO APPROVE/DISAPPROVE FINAL STAGE& FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2013 FOR SUBDIVISION 2-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS -TAX MAP ID 290.-1-83 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.02 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 3.44, 4.13, and 8.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Work adjacent to ACOE Wetlands SEQR approval on 9/17/2013; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/27/2013 tabled to 9/17/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE / DISAPPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 2-2013 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS, , Introduced by who moved its adoption seconded by As per the resolution prepared b staff with the following:.• :�. -\\,k %Ms. P Y tom• '� 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2. 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; 3. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman; 4. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent)for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 5. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved;and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project; 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 7. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 8. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 9. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 15th day of October 2013 by the following vote: AYES: `�, NOES: .tip � k cc: H. Thomas Jarrett 6 tiff'.. ti ff • .:....,,\.....,N., ..... 1:: :::1•:"**' ..•:.'••XN t•\%. N. ., ..„.:. 4,,,...,V. ::::.„, ,,,..% 0..::::::„:„.‘.. . . .:,,,,,,,. . ,,,,,,, „... , ...: : '• .,......,1,. k:' r ti__, f': 55i��55;