Loading...
2004-12-28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 28, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. RINGER-A couple of items on the agenda, Subdivision No. 20-2004 for Jeffrey Threw and Site Plan No. 66-2004 for Jeffrey Threw is on your agenda. That will not be heard tonight. It’s a necessary part of our Subdivision Ordinance that a sign and subdivision plat must be posted on the property 10 days prior to the meeting. That was not done, in this particular case, so that application will not be heard tonight. There is a public hearing scheduled for that. I’ll open the public hearing, and the public hearing will remain open until that is on the agenda, and I don’t have a date right now for when that will, again, be on the agenda. SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 3.92 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN NO. 66-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR SITE FILLING AND GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED DUE TO FILL/GRADING THAT HAS EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-6-070. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 20-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I could. I don’t know if you want to pick a date in January. MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t know if I can pick a date right now. I’d like to pick a date, but, how does January look for you guys? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, I think we could fit this in. In case there are people here, I want to try to give them a sense of when this will. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-Okay. If you feel, George, as part of Staff, that we can fit it in a January agenda, I would certainly set a date. MR. HILTON-Okay. Yes, sure. MR. RINGER-First or second, George? MR. HILTON-I don’t know. At this point, I don’t have the agenda in front of me. The second, I would think. MR. RINGER-Okay. So we will table, then, the public hearing for Subdivision No. 20-2004 and Site Plan No. 66-2004 for Jeffrey Threw until our second meeting in January. The date of that meeting is January 25. Okay. th OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 61-2004 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: JOHN LEMERY, LEMERY GREISLER ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1213 & 1227 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN RELATED TO THE HOTEL AND WATER PARK INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED CLEARING/LANDSCAPING PLAN. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 JOHN COLLINS, RUSS PITTENGER, LYNN SCHWARTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. RINGER-Staff notes, George. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, as I’ve mentioned in my notes, the applicant is seeking approval to modify site plan approval for The Great Escape hotel project. They propose to remove some trees along the west side of Route 9. These trees are, as I understand it and as has been presented, in danger of at some point eventually impacting the overhead utility lines, and Niagara Mohawk has submitted a letter stating their concerns as well. It appears that the proposed tree removal would not impact views from surrounding properties, including the areas near Glen Lake, and as a replacement, the applicant has submitted a revised planting plan showing some replacement trees. That’s all I have at this point. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, George. MS. SCHWARTZ-Good evening. I’m Lynn Schwartz from Lemery Greisler, here on behalf of Great Escape. I have nothing really in addition to what was just stated to add to why we’re here tonight. So I’m just going to turn it over to Russ Pittenger from the LA Group. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much. Also with us is John Collins, the General Manager of The Great Escape, who’ll be available to answer any questions. The reason we’re here before the Board tonight is that there was a condition in our SEQRA approval, Findings of Fact, that identified these particular trees as being important. That’s why we’re here back before you. The trees are located, specifically, the main group of them are some pines that, right behind the Coach House up on this high hill. They are shown on our original visual stuff that has been before the Board before. They’re these taller trees that we’ve identified that while they are visible, they don’t provide a screening benefit. The analysis that we did for the visual study indicates that the roof of the hotel would be well below the crest of these trees, and in fact, screening benefits that we derived looking at the aerial photo for this building, is from trees that are in the Glen Lake Fen, which is also owned by The Great Escape. So while these are important and they’re very large trees that we had hoped to save, in our Findings of Fact, we indicated that those would be maintained and preserved and so now what happened, as a little 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) history, was that there was a birch that blew over prior to the big wind storm that we had a couple of weeks ago, and it shorted out some wires. So NiMo came out, looked at it, and they said, remove that tree, and then as they were looking they looked at these other very tall trees. Now some of those, the roots have been impacted by construction. Some of them would not be impacted by the construction, but we have a letter from Niagara Mohawk that said they present a hazard to the line, and so that’s what we were basically faced with. It’s our intention to replace those with vigorous large pine trees that would provide a screening benefit, and would really be in this area in here, but these really are the tall ones. There’s approximately 10 behind the Coach House, and there’s a couple along the project, along the line of the project, that are really not affected by our SEQRA conditions, but would have to be adjusted. So really we’re simply responding to NiMo’s concerns. MR. RINGER-That’s it? Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. SANFORD-You don’t want to go through any kind of list? Well, I have some questions. Have you looked at alternatives to taking those trees down? In other words, you’ve come in front of this Board on a number of occasions, and I remember I was here when the amendment to the Environmental Statement was done, and it was always, you know, bear with us, we’re going to pull this roof, trust us, and that was the case, and we did, and now you’re in front of us the same way and these trees that we were going to preserve are going to have to come down. My question to you is, there are alternatives. One is perhaps firming it up by bringing in soil, bringing in trees and perhaps planting additional plants, so that you don’t have a thin barrier that is subject to blow down or whatever the conditions might be. Have you looked into putting the power lines underground so that if they did fall over it wouldn’t be an impact to NiMo? I would like to at least understand these alternatives before we say, go ahead, take the trees down. Because, you know, the whole idea of this was aesthetics. We did a number of site visits. We looked at balloons. We were very concerned about the visual impacts, and I guess my question is, you know, I’m not saying there’s a pattern here. I don’t have the history to make that conclusion, but I have concerns that you’re in front of us now saying, you know, oops, by the way, it isn’t going to work. Now, you hired LA Group. They’re experts in this field. That’s why you hired them, and if their advice isn’t sound, perhaps the recourse should be to LA Group to make remedy here, rather than coming to the Town and saying, you know, it’s just not working out right. The Town should just suffer the visual impact and call it good. Maybe LA Group should provide remedy to The Great Escape for this miscalculation. MS. SCHULTZ-A couple of points I just wanted to make note of. First of all, this directive has come from NiMo. This isn’t something that Great Escape really has a choice in. These consequences that have happened to the trees, or which may happen, are not due to anything that could have been foreseen. It’s always been Great Escape’s intent to preserve the trees. In fact, mitigating this condition is going to be a great expense to Great Escape, and the bottom line is the intent, overall, has been to, as you said, preserve the aesthetics, and we believe this mitigation plan will actually improve that and provide a better visual, a shield than the trees which currently exist. Again, I think the most important thing to emphasize here is that this is NiMo’s directive, and Great Escape has now, in essence, been put on notice of what could be a potentially dangerous condition, and it’s looking to remedy that. MR. SANFORD-Please explain to me why it could not be foreseen. MS. SCHULTZ-Well, certainly the windstorm itself could not have been foreseen, and I think to the best of everyone’s ability, analyzing the construction that was going to be done and the plans that we had, the exposure, the roots being exposed to the extent they are was not foreseeable. MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, the way I look at it is if you really don’t know what you’re dealing with, you hire experts. Bringing in the LA Group at this particular point, they tell you this can work, they tell us they can work. MS. SCHULTZ-Understood, but again. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SANFORD-No, hold on. Excuse me. They came in here, and, you know, we had a few hearings on this, and they said, you know, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to shield, for aesthetics, this hotel from some visual impacts, of particularly the people up at Glen Lake and that kind of a thing, and now you’re saying, oops, we’re wrong, and I’m saying, well, you know, your experts told you it could be. The experts were wrong. You’re saying they were right. They were either right or wrong. It’s binary here. MR. COLLINS-Richard, the problem is once Niagara Mohawk has gone on record as saying that they’re concerned about these trees, you can’t win saying, no, they’re wrong, because if anything ever does happen to them, then they were right. So, the safest thing to do is to remove the trees as opposed to playing some game of chicken with, will they stay or will they go. They’ve been through a lot of wind storms since the first wind storm. Okay, but to have an engineer say this is going to solve the problem and those trees will stay forever when Niagara Mohawk has given the Town a letter saying they want them gone, you just can’t win in that scenario. Putting power lines underground is just not economically feasible to do. MR. SANFORD-What’s the cost, Mr. Collins, do you know that? MR. COLLINS-To put the power lines under the ground? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. COLLINS-I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-You don’t know. MR. COLLINS-No, I don’t. MR. SANFORD-If you don’t know, how can you say it’s not feasible? MR. COLLINS-Just based on, you know, burying power lines, Richard, has got to be a big expense. MR. SANFORD-It may very well be, but I guess what my point is, you know, the compelling argument that was made by Mr. Lemery, who’s not here today, on your behalf, of The Great Escape, was trust us, we’re reputable. We’re going to do the right thing. MR. RINGER-Richard, excuse me. Let’s not get into mistakes or not mistakes. We’ve got this modification before us. We’ve got this modification before us with the new site plan, let’s not get into you said, he said, we said. MR. SANFORD-That’s not really where I’m going with this. MR. RINGER-Well, then ask your question. MR. SANFORD-I’m going through logical progressions here. The logical progression was, we’re going to do the right things. The representation was, we’re going to preserve these trees. MR. COLLINS-Right. That’s still our intention. That was our intention. It’s just, when Niagara Mohawk made the statement that they want these power lines gone, there’s no other thing to do, but to take them out, because you can’t win leaving them there. MR. SANFORD-But if they want the power lines gone, why don’t you bury them underground? MR. COLLINS-No, no. I’m sorry. I said the trees. My fault. Misstatement. They want the trees gone, yes, correct. Sorry about that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SANFORD-And what’s the reason why the trees have to go? Why are they now unstable? MR. PITTENGER-I can respond to that. I think the point that you’re making about the impact to the trees and their potential to fall over is valid, in a couple of cases of a couple of trees. There are some trees there that are not really being affected by construction. However, they have been included in Niagara Mohawk. They were tagged as being a potential hazard, that is if they went over, they would hit the power lines. The other trees that are in the NiMo right of way, that are in the DOT right of way, are really not tall enough to have that kind of an impact. So that puts us in a position where we have to either guarantee or assume the responsibility if they fall over, which I don’t think John Collins or certainly myself is prepared to do, but the other thing I’d like to say, just before, if I could, is that from the visual and the screening standpoint, the analysis that we made and the screening potential is absolutely still there. These trees, the canopies of them, are so high up above the roof of the hotel and the materials that we presented to you and the little sketch I did and discussions that we’ve had with Staff have indicated that we’re not losing screening benefits. We are losing large trees that was always our intention to preserve as much as the ones that we could, but right now NiMo’s taking that choice out of our hands. MR. SANFORD-Did you not foresee that if you removed considerable amount of forest adjacent to these trees that the stability would be less? I mean, is that what we’re dealing with here? In other words, you have an area that has some depth to it, and what you’ve done is you’ve narrowed that to a barrier that is now perhaps too thin to withstand high winds, and there’s a concern that they might blow over. MR. PITTENGER-In some cases that is the case. In other words, we either didn’t anticipate that it would affect the roots in the way that it did, and it does present that issue. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me. I guess my question is, you’re in front of us to get a modification. Has The Great Escape approached LA Group for making remedy? In other words, we’re here, as I look at this, as a way to just be everybody’s friends, everybody’s getting along and LA Group is unaccountable for giving, what amounts to at this point in time, very poor advice to The Great Escape. MS. RADNER-Richard, I really think you’re getting a field, and that’s a civil matter between the applicant and their engineer. MR. SANFORD-No, but my point is, though, Cathi, is that perhaps they should look there first before they come here, certainly because I don’t want those trees down. That was a representation that was made they would not come down. They’re saying we want to take them down, and I’m saying, have you exhausted all other possibilities prior to coming in front of us, and I guess the answer is perhaps not. Is that a safe statement? MR. PITTENGER-Well, I think what we’re faced with here is there’s two lines of consultants and there’s two lines of information. One is that from a site planning and a construction standpoint, it was always our desire, and it’s still our belief, that those trees could be maintained and preserved, Number One. Number Two, in the Fact Finding and the legal document that the Board approved, we were faced, we were, we committed to guarantee that those trees were going to be put in place, and I think that that’s appropriate in a location where they serve a particular benefit, but quite frankly, it’s a situation that, from a site planning standpoint, I wouldn’t have guaranteed that those trees were going to stay in place. That’s insanity, from an engineering and a construction standpoint. You can’t guarantee that a tree is going to remain in place. MR. SANFORD-You certainly didn’t tell us that a few months back. One additional question, to Mr. Collins, and then I’ll be through, is could you please provide us with an update, in terms of the progress that you’re making regarding the pedestrian bridge, and the other relevant events that may have changed since we last spoke. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-That’s not part of this modification, Richard. So he doesn’t have to. I mean, as a courtesy he can, but it’s not part of the modification. MR. SANFORD-I’m asking as a courtesy. MR. COLLINS-Okay. MR. SANFORD-He doesn’t have to if he doesn’t want to, but I’m asking as a courtesy. I would appreciate it. MR. COLLINS-Okay. Richard, as you know, we were given a directive to give quarterly reports, which is in the process of being compiled, and you will have that by the 15, I believe, th of January, which’ll state the meetings that have been held with DOT, the engineering updates, the site work that’s been done. So the pedestrian bridge is proceeding. You obviously have seen the construction that is going on. We’ve met with DOT. We’ve met with the Town Board in reference to the intersection. We met with the County in reference to getting land so that we could put in the right turn lane on Route 9, and we’re back here today because of a situation with these trees. We’d love for those trees to stay, okay. I would sit here today and say if those trees could stay and we could be guaranteed that nothing will ever happen to them, but we’re in a no win situation when somebody goes on record saying, we’re warning you that we‘re concerned about those. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, getting back to the progress, as a courtesy you extended me, I appreciate that, is it your representation, at this particular point in time, that the pedestrian bridge will be completed prior to the opening of A, either the hotel, or the season, the Spring season of The Great Escape, or is it going to be longer? MR. COLLINS-It will be as in the Findings, in conjunction with the hotel. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. RINGER-Any other questions on the modification? MR. COLLINS-And if you’d like an explanation as to the timing of that, we certainly can go into that report you’re going to get on the 19, or 15, but I’d like you to take a look at that and we thth can discuss it then. MR. SANFORD-Well, just my final comment would be that I appreciate the situation you’re faced with. I’m not sure you have exhausted all possibilities, other than taking down these trees. Perhaps you could firm it up, plant additional trees to firm up the root systems, so that there’s less likelihood of these trees coming down, in the event of an unusual storm. Again, you don’t have an idea as to what the cost might be for putting these electrical wires underground, but yet you feel strongly that that would be prohibitive, from your point of view, and I’m not sure what that relevance is to where I sit, but I think at this particular point in time, you’re asking for merely the NiMo solution, rather than exploring other possibilities, and at this particular point in time, I’m not so comfortable in saying, yes, go ahead and take the trees down without at least exploring those other possibilities, and that’s all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-Okay, any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some. I think what Rich is driving at makes a degree of sense. However, I think in a November 22 memorandum to Marilyn Ryba that comes from Bruce nd Frank, you said, field observations, the mature white pines in question, I assume he means the 10, which were approved to remain, are now much more exposed to westerly winds, due to the fact that previously existing stand of deciduous and coniferous trees have been removed along with a significant amount of earth per cut on the approved grades. When I read that, it meant to me that if I was doing a design on there and I knew I had to do that cut and fill close to those trees, when you first made the proposal, it probably should have been taken into account I don’t 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) think you can do anything about it now, to be perfectly honest with you. I think you are under an edict from Niagara Mohawk and you’re going to have to bite the bullet and get rid of the trees. I don’t see any other way. However, let me get, we’re going into the 2004 Findings Statement. Now there appears to be an incorrect statement on Page Three of that Statement of Findings. I have it with me, by the way. When it says, this was adopted on May 20, 2004. The trees that screen the view of the project looking west, it says looking east, and that’s not what it should say. It should say looking west from the east. If you look in the Findings Statement, the Findings Statement is wrong on Number Ten, and I’ll read it to you. It says the Planning Board finds that critical trees that screen the view of the project from the west. It should be from the east. MR. PITTENGER-No, no, no. I think it refers to these trees here. MR. VOLLARO-It says that screen the view of the project from the west, are above the 450 elevation and should not be disturbed. It’s 450 that they’re talking about. MR. PITTENGER-450 would be on the east, because that’s the high ridge line along the DOT Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you did this, you were saying that the pictures you were taking were from Ash Drive, which the water park lies to the southwest of Ash Drive. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So, you know, when I looked at this, in conjunction with what, because we’re talking in here, right now, the reason we’re doing this is because we’re looking at Number Ten, and Number Ten seems to be in the Findings Statement the driving force behind why we’re doing what we’re doing. Do you follow what I mean? A-10, you read, again, going to the Findings Statement here. MR. RINGER-But what is your question as regards to that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, in Lynn’s letter, she refers to A-10 as the reason why we’re doing this. MS. SCHULTZ-I’m sorry, I don’t have my letter in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll read it to you, then. MS. SCHULTZ-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-It says, The Great Escape seeks a modification to Section A-10 of the 2004 Findings which states that the critical trees that screen the view of the project from the west are above the 450 in elevation and should not be disturbed. So A-10 is the reason why we’re doing this, in the Findings Statement. MS. SCHULTZ-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-We’re trying to correct the 2004 Finding Statement, and I think the Findings Statement should have said from the west to east. From the east to the west, rather. MR. PITTENGER-That’s accurate. MS. SCHULTZ-That’s accurate, and I think Russ has identified the relevant trees as on the. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but those trees down there that Russ pointed to are not the trees we’re talking about. MS. SCHULTZ-No. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. COLLINS-The letter might be incorrect. Does the Findings Statement read the same way? The Findings Statement, I believe, refers to the trees, that anything above 450. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. COLLINS-Correct. I don’t believe it gives a direction. MR. VOLLARO-It does not. MR. COLLINS-Yes, so the letter was incorrect. You’re correct. It says from the east, looking west. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it does, it says that the Planning Board finds that the critical, I’m reading from the Findings Statement, now. The Planning Board finds that the critical trees that screen the view of the project from the west, that are above 450 feet in elevation, should not be disturbed. Now if we’re talking about these 10 tall pines, it’s really looking the other way. MR. COLLINS-Looking west. MR. VOLLARO-Looking west. MR. COLLINS-From the east. Correct. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do have some other stuff. I just wanted to make sure we, and I think that ought to be changed in the Findings Statement. So it reads correctly, by the way. MR. RINGER-You can check with Staff and Counsel on changing the Findings Statement at another time. Go ahead, ask your other questions. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t quite understand Paragraph Six in the letter from Lynn Schwartz. It says, and I’m going to read out of context. She says including engaging in ongoing negotiations with NiMo. Ms. Schwartz tends to say that maybe we can save these trees by negotiation? MS. SCHWARTZ-At the time of the letter, it was not 100% clear that the trees did need to unequivocally come down. Our second letter, I believe which was a day or two later, stated that the trees would, indeed, need to come down. Again, at the directive of NiMo. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So your letter, your first letter was a little premature. MS. SCHWARTZ-I would not say it was premature. Given the information available to us at the time, everything in that letter is accurate. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Did you discuss with NiMo, obviously the intention was that perhaps they didn’t have to come down, this is coming from your party, but you clarified it with NiMo they had to come down. Did you discuss alternative approaches to remedy or was it just a binary situation? NiMo feels the trees have to come down so they don’t fall on their power lines. I mean, in other words, did you talk about, well, what if we did this? What if we did that? Mr. Collins already stated that he didn’t talk about burying cables because he just didn’t think, I guess gut reaction, that it would be economically feasible, not that that necessarily is pertinent to our discussion here as Planning Board members, but I mean, to what degree did you explore alternatives, I’m speaking now to the Counsel. MR. COLLINS-Well, I can tell you. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SANFORD-Counsel. MR. COLLINS-Well, she wasn’t, were you at the meeting? MS. SCHWARTZ-No. MR. SANFORD-She wasn’t at the meeting? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. COLLINS-So we had a meeting and we proposed taking the two or three worst trees that they were most concerned about, which is the ones that sit closest to the Coach House, because the other clump of trees we didn’t think had any impact on any construction. They reiterated their position that they all needed to go. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So I don’t know if I understand. I mean, you didn’t talk about alternatives, then. MR. COLLINS-That is an alternative, Richard. The alternative is we can take down the three trees closest to the Coach House, and then leave the remainder of the trees which we don’t believe in any way have been compromised. Niagara Mohawk said, no, they want them all gone. MR. SANFORD-And that was the extent of it? MR. COLLINS-All right. We can sit here and you can say we’re going to leave the trees. We’re going to bury, you know, whatever, put riprap on them, but once they’ve been on record saying the trees have to go, you can’t win in that scenario because if, heaven forbid, something were ever to happen to one of those trees, they have been on record saying, to you and to us, these trees are a hazard, they need to go. Richard, we’ve done everything, trying to maintain these trees, okay. We want to do it. We came here, after they first came to us, we said, all right, let’s go through the process. We went to the Staff saying we have an issue. Niagara Mohawk notified the Town they had an issue. We went through the, we’re going through the process. Okay. So we’ve reviewed this issue. We’ve reviewed the trees. The logical thing is to take them down. No we have not reviewed burying the power lines up and down Route 9 for 10 trees. That is correct. That has not happened. MR. VOLLARO-Richard, I think that in our own house I think Bruce Frank has taken a good look at the trees and has estimated they really have to go. If you look at his whole analysis. MR. SANFORD-No doubt, based on what was done, but see that’s what gets me, because the applicant, and/or its agents, had represented earlier that this was very doable and would not present these problems. See, this is my point. My point is there has not been continuity, in terms of representations and results. It’s been inconsistent as can be. MS. SCHULTZ-If I may. MR. COLLINS-Richard, in what way has it been inconsistent? What other issue have we come here in reference to, except these trees, that we’re following through on. You’re making statements that I want to know what you’re referring to. MR. RINGER-We’re not going to get into that kind of a discussion, John. MS. SCHULTZ-I would just like to add, echoing that, there have not been inconsistent representations. This is NiMo’s belief. This is NiMo’s directive. Great Escape wants to 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) preserve these trees. It is not being allowed to preserve these trees. It should also not be lost on everyone that the mitigation plan we’ve proposed is going to come at great expense. So it’s not an instance of looking to save some money. As to whether or not we should have investigated burying power lines, as Mr. Collins said, up and down Route 9, you have to look at what’s most feasible and practical, and most importantly what came at the directive of NiMo and what is now on record. MR. SANFORD-Okay. On record, did you discuss with NiMo prior to your project excavation, whether or not there would be problems with these trees? Did you take NiMo out there, before you started getting the bulldozers out there, and say, would there be a problem? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-You did not. Okay. Now NiMo’s saying there’s a problem. So I’m saying there might be a problem of due diligence here. Perhaps you’re not on you’re A-Game here. MR. PITTENGER-Perhaps I’m not on my A-Game here. I have to say that the point that you’re making, Mr. Sanford, I can understand where you’re coming from on it. I will say that it was our desire to maintain those trees, and we were trying to do that and work with them. I think that perhaps the grading, the conditions of the grading around that hotel resulted in an actual physical impact to those trees that I did not properly anticipate and I can understand your point, and it’s well made. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Pittenger, I’ve always seen you as a pretty straightforward kind of guy. If I was doing a $40 million project, before I made a representation to this Town, to this Board, on what was going to be the case, I think I would check with NiMo on a situation like this to see if they concurred with what the problems might be, but yet you didn’t do it, and what I’m also hearing here is you didn’t explore all alternatives, other than the removal of these trees, and that’s where we are right now, and this is by Mr. Collins’ representations that you did not explore all alternatives, namely whether or not you should, not all along Route 9, but during that section perhaps those lines could go underground. MR. PITTENGER-We’ve learned from our discussions with DOT to do that work in the DOT right of way would require, would be an exacerbated time schedule. The point I was trying to make was that there were trees that were impacted by the construction that we should have been aware of. However, there are trees up there that really are not impacted by the construction that we still have been identified by NiMo that I’m not in the position, nor is Mr. Collins, nor is the Board, to guarantee that they won’t fall down. That’s the point we’re at, and the other thing that I would like to make is that while we would, it’s always been our desire to keep those trees, they do not provide a significant screening benefit for the project. The visual analysis that we did and the materials that we’ve submitted to you indicate that we will get a better screening benefit from the replacement trees, and I can appreciate the Board, and you make valid points, and I’m taking them to heart, but I feel that the position that we’re in, and it will not compromise the visual character of this, certainly not the screening. MR. VOLLARO-Look, we’re at the point where it looks like we’re going to take 10 trees down, and I think that’s a fait accompli. We’re done. That’s going to happen, the way I see it. Now what’s the status of the oak and the birches and the single pine, double flagged by NiMo. Additional trees that have been double flagged. What’s the status of those now? Are these subject to negotiations, or would they possibly require a future site plan modification, if they have to come down? MR. PITTENGER-As they’re not included in the Findings Statement, basically NiMo goes out and normally would just cut down whatever they wanted to. So except for the ones that 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) specifically noted as screening the hotel, that’s why we’re here. The ones that don’t screen the hotel, I don’t think are an issue. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I notice they double flagged them. I’m just wondering what the status of those are. You’re saying since they weren’t in the Findings Statement, they’re fair game for the chain saw? Okay. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I think that that’s correct. That’s my impression. MR. RINGER-Any other questions, Bob? MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a question. MR. RINGER-What’s your question, Richard? MR. SANFORD-Again, I’ll talk to Russ here. I appreciate the way he came back with his, I guess you’re looking to replace 60 foot trees with 8 to 10 foot trees, one by one. One on one. Why did you come up with the one on one replacement? Why not six or seven smaller trees for every big tree you take down? I mean, I guess what I’m trying to say here is this isn’t as simplistic as, well, NiMo told us to do it, we’ve got to do it. There’s a number of permutations that could take place in order to deal with this issue. I don’t know if they’ve been reviewed or exhausted, and I, for one, don’t see a 60 foot pine being replaced by an eight foot pine as an appropriate quid pro quo. I would like to see more work done, and you come back here with a better proposal, so that we can look at this and say, okay, you know, we’re losing something in this, for whatever reason, and maybe we can get beyond that, but not on some lame, you know, eight foot tree replacing a 60 foot tree. Why not a bunch of these tree, or some better approach to it. You’re the expert doing this kind of a thing. Why have one for one tradeoff? MR. PITTENGER-Well, quite frankly, I don’t feel like much of an expert tonight. So I’m all fresh out of ideas. We have a limited amount of space up there. We don’t really want to disturb the trees that are in there to remain. We can put in additional trees if that’s the Board’s desire, we’ll take your direction. Originally we were going to put in enormously large trees that I wasn’t sure that we could get commercially available. I don’t want to promise something I can’t do. If the Board feels like there should be more up there, we can see how many we can fit. I want to be able to do it in there without disturbing too many of the trees to remain, the roots of the system. MR. SANFORD-My feeling is it’s kind of up to you to come to us and tell us what you think will. MR. RINGER-They have, Richard. They’ve come back and said. MR. SANFORD-One on one. MR. RINGER-Okay. You’re saying you don’t like it. MR. SANFORD-And here’s why I don’t like it. Because he’s saying there’s limited space, and the limited space, as I see it, Larry, is probably why we have the problem, because they cut it too thin, do you follow me? And it perhaps should be a thicker forested area, and you wouldn’t have had the problems. MR. RINGER-They’ve presented one tree for each cut down. MR. SANFORD-And I don’t like it. MR. RINGER-All right, and you don’t like it. Any other questions? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one. On the proposed eight to twelve trees which are going to be placed on top of a knoll, that’s your Drawing Number Two, Russ, I recognize your drawing. What’s the approximate elevation of those trees when they’re planted on the knoll, with respect to the rooftop of the hotel? Because you’re saying it’s going to provide, I think previously you said it would provide even better screening than the big trees. I guess it’s the elevation of that. They’re at 454 is the elevation that they’re going in at. MR. PITTENGER-I don’t have the drawings in front of me. I do believe that’s correct. It certainly is the highest point. MR. VOLLARO-I think the basis of your mitigation is that they will provide a better screening than these big tall trees would. I’m trying to get an idea of how high they’d be when they’re placed on top of the knoll. MR. PITTENGER-The trees that we’re going to put in there, the top of the trees will be approximately at the top of the hotel roof. MR. VOLLARO-Because I can see some of the problems. One of the big trees were probably above the roofline, and they’re major growth area didn’t screen it very well at all anyway. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, looking at the practical side of this. MR. PITTENGER-And there’s quite a bit of vegetation that runs down in the DOT right of way that comes up. There are some 30 to 40 foot trees immediately adjacent to that that you can see through now, but when they leaf out, it gets pretty good coverage there. So really, and I’m picking at numbers, but if indeed that hill in there is at the 450 elevation, our roof is at, well, that’s within 10 feet of the roofline. The roofline’s at, I just don’t have my drawing with me. Sorry. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I just want to know that the mitigation is proper. That’s what I’m really asking, that when they put trees in at the top of that knoll, that they’re effectively screened, you know, and I don’t have that. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of quick questions. So in Lynn Schwartz’s letter, on the second page, you refer to Group Three Trees, and you say well Group Three Trees should be unaffected by grading. It’s possible that NiMo may also request a removal. Those Group Three Trees are proposed to be taken down also, I assume? MR. VOLLARO-The Group Threes are part of the ten. MR. COLLINS-Yes, that’s correct. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Now if we replace these trees, is it possible that, down the road, we’re going to be in the same situation when they grow to be mature? MR. VOLLARO-By that time I suspect that they would be all graded out. MR. RINGER-Let him answer Tom’s question. MR. PITTENGER-I think in about 50 years it might be a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SEGULJIC-And the last thing is, on your Figure Two you say, evergreen replacement trees. Now, don’t we have to specify? And this is a question for you, Larry. Do we have to specify what they are? MR. RINGER-I don’t know. Let’s ask George. Do we have to specify what they are, George? MR. PITTENGER-If I could, the reason I put them that way is that we wanted to get the largest commercially available trees possible to provide the screening benefits. We thought if we could get white pines or Austrian pines or blue spruces or something, what we imagined, what we envisioned was going to a nursery and trying to buy their stuff that is really grown up too big for them to sell and really get the biggest stuff we can. So I wanted some flexibility. If the Board wants us to write a list with Staff or wants us to pick something we would do it, but we would like to not be limited. It would give us the best screening benefit. MR. RINGER-Let’s hear from George. MR. HILTON-I guess the idea is the screening more than the species. I don’t think there’s a set species that’s required, but if you feel comfortable with a mix or a spruce or a pine or whatever, certainly that’s part of this review. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, we might not know because of the size that they’re looking for. So it would be difficult for us to specify. MR. HILTON-But I don’t think there’s a specific species that it’s limited to. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Just a question. Is there a public hearing tonight? MR. RINGER-Well, I’m going to get into that after we finish the Board. Gretchen, you’ve got a question? MRS. STEFFAN-George, I just had a question. In Craig Brown’s letter of November 10, he th asked for revised plans from The Great Escape. Do you have those? MR. HILTON-I believe we do. I think that we have, there was one set that came with the original submission, and then an additional set that showed all of the trees that had been flagged, or at least highlighted the areas of all the trees that had been flagged. My understanding is yes, we do. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Okay. Nothing else from the Board? George, a modification, you’ve shown a public hearing. Any particular reason? MR. HILTON-Again, I think it’s probably due to the, I don’t want to say magnitude, but the history of this project, and the possibility of some sensitivity or some public comment being, I guess wanting to reach out to the public more than anything. MR. RINGER-Okay. I kind of agree with you that because of the size and scope of The Great Escape and what’s, you know, been before, that a public hearing would be in order even for a modification. Counsel, is public hearing okay? MS. RADNER-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Okay. So we will have a public hearing. Anymore questions from the Board? Okay. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, I just have a comment, Larry, after hearing all the discussion. I think we’re in a situation where there’s obviously a public safety issue. Niagara Mohawk, who can be unreasonable at times, has made a demand that those trees come down. From your point of view I can see, based on the discussion, that we really need to help satisfy Niagara Mohawk’s demands. My personal point of view is replacing the trees with a mix, instead of just evergreens, but I understand that you’re trying to get the largest commercially available trees, but certainly a mix would be better, evergreens versus things that we see in the area. If you look up in that spot, there’s a lot of white birches. There’s pine trees on the mountainsides, and so I had thought about poplars because they grow fast, and part of that replacement landscaping has a public relations effect, you know, as part of this whole public hearing, and this is a very high visibility project. People are going to watch those trees come down whether they’re at this meeting or not, whether they know it’s going to go on. They’re going to watch those trees come down and they may not know the history and a lot of folks will be very unhappy, and so I just think that if we, that if you do a nice job with taking the trees down and replacing them with something that satisfies people’s aesthetic needs, I think from a public relations point of view, it’ll make folks happy. As the project moves forward, I think that Rich’s point is a good one. I drive by there all the time. I live in that area, and I often wondered why when they were doing the sewer project they didn’t contemplate putting underground utilities in that area, especially now with a lot of the plans for The Great Escape expansion and the hotel, that area’s heavily traveled and we’re about, we, the greater we, the Department of Transportation, is about to construct a brand new intersection at the Glen Lake Road and the new entrance to the water park, and so even though we don’t have the ability to make any kind of recommendations, we can certainly talk to the folks on the Town Board and let them know that, as we move forward, it would be a good idea to have a discussion, because the County’s involved, the Town is involved, The Great Escape is involved in that transportation, in the roadway project. Everybody’s trying to decide who’s going to pay what. Well, this is a very good time to get Niagara Mohawk involved in that kind of discussion, to see whether it’s a realistic expectation, that, you know, maybe underground utilities can be put in there, not just because of the trees that will come down, but because there’s a lot of other things going on in that particular area. Those were my comments. I just wanted to lend a voice of reason. MR. SANFORD-Gretchen, I think those are good suggestions, but I would also, you know, suggest that those types of conversations should take place prior to the cutting down of those trees, in the event that there’s any likelihood of it moving forward. It would be shameful to take down the trees and then find out that it made sense to do what you’re suggesting, and as Mr. Collins stated, those discussions have not taken place. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public want to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY SONNABEND MS. SONNABEND-Hi. Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is hearing what’s going on. Over and over and over again I’ve seen developments in this Town occur that have left a very thin line of trees, including in my own development. Trees that used to be surrounded by a lot of other trees because it was forest, and over and over again those remaining trees have fallen over whenever we’ve had a major storm. So, I can understand why we’re sitting here in this particular situation. What I can’t understand, every time I drive up Route 9, is why we ended up with such a thin ridge of land between Route 9 and this hotel project. I don’t know how this happened. I don’t know whether we approved plans that allowed them to leave such a thin ridge, but every time I drive by there I look at the remaining trees and I think, they’re going to get blown over one of these days, and it’s not just the few trees that they’re talking about right now. If you continue, if I understand correctly, and first of all, I wish they would have come with a better photograph or diagram or something to make it really clear which trees they were talking about, but if I understand this correctly, we’re talking about some very large trees that are closest to the Coach House Restaurant. If you go further 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) north along Route 9, you’ll see that there’s a very narrow ridge with lots more trees on it, and I’m wondering if that’s going to stay there, if anything’s going to happen. Are they going to be adding more trees to make that line of trees more safe? Because otherwise we could end up in a situation where we’ve got very few trees left there and this thin ridge which probably doesn’t make a whole lot of sense standing there. So, I would agree that if they end up getting approval to knock down these trees, there should be a very well defined plan for exactly what’s going to go in there, and it should be a variety of trees that give coverage. Trees that are not the variety that tend to blow over too easily whenever there’s a big storm, because some trees are stronger than others, and I’d like to see more of a plan on what’s going to happen with the rest of that ridge that’s sitting there looking very precarious. I also would like to know, and I don’t know enough about Town law, but it seems to me that when a developer comes forward with a proposal, and gives lots of assurances that certain trees are going to stay, and then, oops, you know, we ended up cutting in to the root system. We didn’t know that was going to happen. Well, first of all, I think anyone who knows anything about trees can have a pretty good idea of how far out the roots go for any given tree, but I would like to see a way for the Town, when they’re forced into giving these waivers or exceptions or modifications, to have some kind of recourse to these developers. There should be, other than the cost of taking down trees, which, yes, is a burden for them, but they caused it. Those trees were fine when there was a forest around it. They should have known that this was going to happen. So why aren’t we in a position to get some kind of remuneration, as a community, for this mistake that they’ve made, and maybe it’s a fine of some sort, and maybe we use that fine to do better inspections. Either we approved a project that did not leave enough of a buffer for those trees, or the project that was approved did leave enough of a buffer and the construction people went too far. If that’s what happened, where were our inspectors checking up on it to make sure those things weren’t happening? Do we not have enough inspectors to do the job? Well, maybe we need some money to help pay for those inspectors, and I don’t know whether you know, is there a mechanism in the Town for doing that kind of thing or do we need a new law? Do we need to go to the Town Board? MR. RINGER-This Board isn’t a punitive Board and we can’t make fines or anything like that? MS. SONNABEND-Who can? MR. RINGER-The Town Board can make laws, I would presume, that perhaps could, but this Board does not. We act on what’s happened, and if something goes wrong, then modifications or adjustments have to be made. MS. SONNABEND-Well, it seems to me, then, the pattern that’s happening in this Town is that developers know, if they can’t get what they want, they compromise on a plan, and then, oops, when something goes wrong and they have to come back and request a modification, they get to do it, and there’s never any. MR. RINGER-Well, there are times when modifications, but we’re dealing with this particular modification and application right now. We understand your comments, and we’ve had modifications before, and each of them rate on their own merit. MS. SONNABEND-Well, there’s something wrong with this process, and I guess it’s the Town Board we need to go to, but people are getting more and more frustrated because we’re seeing more and more of these kind of circumstances, and as Gretchen was saying earlier, it’s a very high visibility project, and I’ve been watching it, not knowing what was going on, with quite a bit of concern for some time now. I think underground lines make a lot of sense, and I would love to see that as a solution, instead of removing those trees. MR. RINGER-And some day you may. I don’t think, now, that the time that that would be in the cost, the project could be delayed several years before that went in, but I’m not going to get into a discussion, but we appreciate your comments. We really do. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MS. SONNABEND-Yes, I know. Great Escape’s a big company, though. We’re just a small Town, and when a company makes a mistake, they need to pay the price to fix the mistake and make it right. It happens all the time and I don’t know why we just roll over and let it happen. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the answers to your questions, I’m just looking at a memo in our package from Bruce Frank, he’s the Code Compliance Officer. He also has a degree in Landscape Architecture, and he did do inspections and he said that the tree protection detail which was provided required no disturbance of the earth, but the tree’s root system extended well beyond the drip line. So the plan was submitted, and there really isn’t a way to know how far a root system extends and so there were inspections, according to the documentation we have. MS. SONNABEND-That’s interesting documentation. I’m a gardener and I was always told that you look for the drip line that tells you where the roots go. So I don’t know what, I don’t have a degree in Landscape Architecture. I have to admit that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I just wanted to answer one of your questions, and some of the other issues that come into play are soil types and things like that. So there’s lots of times more information than we know. MS. SONNABEND-Sure. I would really like to see some assurance, though, that we’re not going to see more and more of these trees and some, maybe even that soil eliminated. I’m not sure that this is going to be the last time we’re approached with this issue, the way that it’s been developed. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Good evening. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I came to the meeting tonight not even with the intention to make a comment, but actually more of a question. I’m curious, and maybe some of the folks here can answer this, but, and I’ll use my laser pointer here to show you where I’m talking about. Along Route 9 here is, in my mind’s eye, that power line runs along here. Is that correct? MR. RINGER-We’ll find out for you, Doug. What’s your question? MR. AUER-Okay. The question is, when this was done, when the plan was done, was there consulting with NiMo for the power requirements for this? In other words, there’s always preconstruction meetings, or even in the design, in other words, switch gear location and that sort of thing. Is that something that? MR. RINGER-Doug, speak to us and then we’ll get the answers. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Auer, I believe I asked that question, and the answer I received was there was not that discussion with NiMo. MR. AUER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-That was stated earlier tonight, that they did not consult with NiMo on these issues. Okay. MR. AUER-That, I can tell you, is very puzzling. Okay. That’s very puzzling, because any time a project of this size is done, NiMo wants to know about it, because obviously they’ve got to provide service for it. It’s kind of puzzling. That’s all. MR. RINGER-That’s it, Doug? Thank you. Anyone else? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) VIRGINIA ETU MS. ETU-Virginia Etu, Nacy Road. I’m just wondering why nobody from NiMo is here tonight. I mean, you folks got the letter. None of us have seen what letter they wrote. It just seems to me that they wrote you a letter. MR. RINGER-NiMo wrote a letter to The Great Escape, which The Great Escape then sent on to us with the request for the modification, because of NiMo’s concerns over the possibility of the trees falling. MS. ETU-Right, but my understanding is that they’ve put both The Great Escape and the Town of Queensbury on notice about these trees, and yet there’s no one here from NiMo to talk about this issue or to answer any questions or, I think Richard brought some very good points forward, and yet this is a discussion between, I understand the Town and The Great Escape, but where is NiMo in this? I mean, I know that they have problems with utility lines throughout the whole Town, and, you know, they work directly with homeowners to, you know, cut through their trees or take limbs off of whatever. They don’t write a letter to the homeowner and say, take the tree down. They say, you know, we’ll meet with you, and they send someone with a truck, and so now here we’ve got, you know, several trees, mature trees, having, I think, more of an impact than we are lead to believe, and nobody from NiMo is here. I think that, you know, maybe the next recourse is to maybe, you know, have them here and let us know what possibilities that they think. I mean, again, this is a major project for them. What’s going to happen up the road if these trees are taken down, is there going to be another issue? Why aren’t they here, and why would we not want them here, and why wouldn’t we invite them here, and why wouldn’t we make this a discussion up the road when we can have them here and answer some of the questions. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Good point. MR. RINGER-Anyone else? LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-Lorraine Stein, Ash Drive. I just want to say, first of all, that I’m very disgusted with The Great Escape and the progress that has been made with this development. Secondly, I would like to say that I would like to see that before the trees are cut down, that there is some mediation between The Great Escape and NiMo regarding the lines. I’d like to see them, I would like to see what the cost is to bury the lines, and to see if there is any possibility that it can be mediated before the trees are cut down. I’d like to see that, and I wish the Town would do that. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Paul Derby, also of Ash Drive. I’m here with two hats tonight. First as President of The Glen Lake Protective Association, and second as a frustrated citizen. First as the Association, I have a very short, three line. I’ll just read this. It’s to the Planning Board, regarding The Great Escape’s modifications to the hotel and indoor waterpark project. Presented at the Planning Board on this day, “the Glen Lake Protective Association asks that the Planning Board stipulate that if modifications are allowed, visual impacts occurring at Glen The Great Escape Lake resulting from this project will be immediately remedied by in a manner sufficient to reestablish current visual conditions.” In other words, they’re saying that there aren’t any, but if there are, then they should be made to remedy that. So that’s my Glen Lake piece. Now, as a resident of Queensbury piece, I have to say, gee, I’m somewhat skeptical, who’s tail is wagging which dog here, NiMo or The Great Escape. It seems to me that a 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) qualified landscape engineering firm should have known that excavation construction for this project would have created a potentially dangerous situation. Why didn’t the engineers anticipate this? Didn’t something change from the original, or was this perhaps an intent all along? The modifications here are not about just the screening of the area neighborhoods. They’re about the entire community. I’ve said at all of these meetings, the trees were to be kept there because of the natural beauty of those trees. They can’t be replaced by eight or ten foot trees. This is what has made Queensbury an attractive place to live and to visit, and I hope we can find another way to deal with this. Assuming that they are a potential threat to the power lines, were the proposed structures, and it says both, why not consider the following, we’ve heard them here tonight, but I’m going to say them again. Why not bring some fill and plantings back into that area to firm up those banks. That might make them alter their plans for their building, somehow or their parking lot or something, but let’s look at it as an alternative before we move forward. It’s possible, has anybody looked into the reality that once those structures are built, they’re talking about the westward winds, that they will cut those westward winds, you remove the structure but you’re putting structures up, won’t that have an effect? Do they really need to be taken down, and the third thing that I had, which everybody seems to come up with here, is the utility lines. Why not bury them, or at least look into the cost of burying the utility lines. It would improve the visual quality for The Great Escape, for the Town of Queensbury, for that Route 9 corridor. I really think it’s time that we kind of said no once in a while to The Great Escape. Their history has been pretty clear and consistent. They keep coming back and getting things and segmenting things until they get what they want. Those are beautiful trees. They can’t be replaced, and I hope we put more thought into it. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Paul. Don? DON SIPP MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. Somewhere along the line, there had to be a plot plan for this whole excavation, and along the line, anybody with the caliper white pine that you’ve got there knows that the root system is going to extend a certain distance. So I fault the Clerk of the Works here, for allowing excavation in that area, if we’re going to place blame on somebody. Secondly, is the driveway that goes into the former Holtz property going to be treed? Is that driveway to be shut off and trees planted in that area? MR. RINGER-We’ll try to get an answer for you, Don. MR. SIPP-Has anybody thought of cabling these trees? To use a large dead man, cable the tree, have it live for another five years, possibly, with cables that in the mean time a replacement trees get a good start, or the ones that don’t get a good start are replaced immediately, because the mortality rate among large trees that are transplanted is usually quite high. MR. RINGER-Are you talking about cabling the new trees? MR. SIPP-No, the old trees. MR. RINGER-The old trees. Okay. MR. SIPP-I would like to know the distance between these trees and the height of these trees. How much weight would they put on these lines if they fell over? Visually, looking at these trees, some of them might be 70 feet, but that’s, you’re looking uphill, and I don’t know as every one of them would hit the power line. These trees can also be topped. White pine can be topped, and they will live for a while, in some cases quite a while. Topping would be a lot less costly process than taking the whole tree down and disposing of it. Looking ahead, the other end of this road, the ring road hits Route 9 at the Samoset, at which there are some very large white pines there, talking in the neighborhood of 30 inch diameters. What’s going to happen to some of these trees, which also could impact the power lines at the entrance where the former Samoset Motel is. Maybe somebody should be looking ahead to see what will happen there, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) which trees will be damaged by excavation, and which trees may need to be removed ahead of time, or replaced with smaller trees. I think if you people will ask these questions about getting this plot plan worked out ahead of time, and have it adhered to, we will run into probably less problems along the way. MR. RINGER-Thank you. We’ll try to get your questions answered. Anyone else? LAURIE GRAVES MS. GRAVES-Good evening, Laurie Graves, Ash Drive. Am I correct in my understanding that a strip of land along Route 9 belongs to the State? Are these power poles on State property or Great Escape property? MR. RINGER-We’ll find out if they are. MS. GRAVES-And is it possible for the telephone poles themselves to be moved, rather than taking down the trees, moving the poles and then stabilizing the trees so that they don’t have to be taken down? MR. RINGER-We’ll try to get an answer for you. MS. GRAVES-I thought that might be an alternative to taking down the trees. MR. RINGER-We’ll ask the question. MS. GRAVES-Thank you. MR. RINGER-Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open and I’ll bring the applicants back. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to ask a question, for some clarity. The utility poles are in the Department of Transportation right of way. They run along the road on Route 9? MR. COLLINS-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-The property, the hillside property that currently has, that is treed, the trees kind of lean over the utility poles, that is also the Department of Transportation right of way? MR. COLLINS-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Right to the crest of the hill? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-On the other side of the crest of the hill, that’s Great Escape property? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The trees that they want you to take down are as a result of the pine tree that came off of The Great Escape property, it was a big pine tree, it fell down, and I don’t know whether it severed a utility line or it certainly knocked out power to several thousand people. The reason they want you to take the ten trees down is they just don’t want history to repeat itself? MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-So they want those trees gone. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. COLLINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The trees in question are those that have the capability of wiping out the power lines, and they would be, if they fell off of your property, onto the Department of Transportation right of way, and they could severe the utility lines? MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I think I wanted to make that clear, just because I think that there’s some misunderstanding about that The Great Escape owns that property when it is really the Department of Transportation. MR. COLLINS-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. COLLINS-And had Russ, and Russ pointed out, had these trees not specifically been cited in a Findings Statement, Niagara Mohawk would have said, I want these gone tomorrow. Just a couple of clarifications. First of all, we have met with Niagara Mohawk. We did not discuss the burying of the power lines, okay. So Doug was asking some questions, have we had meetings about supplying power to the property. Obviously we have. We’ve met with all the utility companies, in reference to those lines. We have not met in reference to burying those lines. So when you had made that statement, I just wanted to clarify, we’ve had meetings with Niagara Mohawk. Multiple meetings in reference to providing power and the service that’s being provided, but never did we discuss the burying of the power lines. MR. RINGER-Okay. I think his exact question was, when was the meeting, probably the first meeting he was referring to, John, with NiMo. When did you start talking with NiMo? MR. COLLINS-Well, when we had the original concept of the project, because you have to make sure there’s enough power for the area. MR. RINGER-I think that was his question, when did you bring NiMo into the picture. MR. COLLINS-Yes, and the comments earlier have been in reference to the power, the burying of the power lines in reference to these trees. There was a question, or someone had asked, I believe it was Donald, had asked, was the Holtz property or Holtz entrance going to stay. That is going to stay because it is emergency access to the back side of the hotel. However, DOT has required us to not have a paved entrance, but to have a grass entrance with grass block underneath it so it can support the weight of a fire truck, so it’ll appear to be a grass and not a public entrance. So we’ve agreed to do that. So I believe that might answer that question, in reference to that. MR. RINGER-That’s not a public entrance now anyway, is it, John? You’re talking about the gravel area that they come behind to get the trucks in behind? MR. COLLINS-To come off of Route 9 to the backside north wing of the, directly where we’re talking about this knob. MR. RINGER-Okay. It’s not going to be closed, though? It’s going to be left open for emergency vehicles? MR. COLLINS-Yes, it’ll be emergency access, but DOT did not want it to appear to be a curb cut. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. COLLINS-So we agreed to do that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-There were some questions as to, could you cable the trees to hold them up. MR. COLLINS-Yes, we did look at that, the possibility of that. In order to cable them and get the proper distance, you’re talking about 60 foot trees on top of a knob. You’d have to cable them basically in pretty much three directions, and one would be right in the middle of the hotel, and it’s just physically you couldn’t do it in the span of that. The topping off of the trees, that was another issue that we looked at. As a matter of fact when we were out there the first day, we were talking in a sense of urgency, and so to go through this process, you know, as much as people make comments that, you know, we have come here, yes ,we are coming here, because as we said all along, we’re an amusement park. We’re adding attractions, and changing up the product is going to happen. So we will be in front of the Board a lot, but you also required an Environmental Impact Statement talking about the growth of the Park, which I don’t believe any other developer who’s here a lot has been asked to do. So we have, you know, taken a few more steps than most developers in the process. Yes, we will be here, and we will be here a lot, but, you know, when we met with Niagara Mohawk, it’s not their issue. They made a statement. It’s not their project. They want the trees gone, and if they don’t go, they’re on record as saying they want them gone. So they’ve made their point, and I don’t know if they can bring anything else to the table in reference to why they want it more so than your own Town people. The roots, the comments have been made about the roots. When you look at the situation, to me, as a casual observer, it’s not that big of a deal, but like I said in my statement, once they’ve gone on record, you can’t win in that scenario if something ever does happen to those trees. You do have a few roots that are exposed. They’re not major roots. It’s a clump of trees that I’m not a tree person, to me, seem very secure. We’ve had multiple windstorms since then, but you can’t sit here and say that this will solve that problem, or by burying power lines those trees won’t come down. Can they reach Route 9? Probably not, but we’re not 100% certain. MR. RINGER-There was a question the distance between the trees. MR. COLLINS-It’s a clump of trees. You have a group of six that are probably four feet apart, and then you have another group of two and then another group of two over by what was the foundation of the Phyllis Holtz house. The main clump was the ones that we proposed to Niagara Mohawk that we take out first, or take out and that should solve the problem. Because the other ones, there hadn’t been any disturbance to any of the roots and we’re talking one or two trees that you actually had some sort of minor root disturbance. MR. RINGER-It’s our responsibility, if a question comes up from the public, to get the answers, to make sure that everyone who has a question has their questions answered as best you can. Another question was as to the approximate height. MR. COLLINS-Yes, I believe they’re 60 foot. MR. RINGER-Okay, and you started to answer the question, can they be topped, but I don’t think you did answer the question, can they be topped? MR. COLLINS-Once again, I think the answer was that we want them gone, and topping the trees is not going to be the answer that they’re looking for. MR. SANFORD-Did you specifically talk to NiMo about topping the trees? MR. COLLINS- We met with the Town and Niagara Mohawk on the site, and I don’t know if we, we did not officially make a recommendation that that would be a solution. I’m just trying to think if that discussion came up, but, no, we did not officially say that, that, you know, we want them. MR. SANFORD-Topped. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. There was another question, any other trees near the Samoset that are going to be affected? MR. COLLINS-The only ones that have been, you know, are on the site plan for where the road development is and that was previously approved, and those trees, obviously, will have to be removed to make way for the ring road, and this Board approved that site plan. MR. RINGER-Okay. Another question was, is it possible for the power lines to be moved, and would that make a difference if the power lines were moved? MR. COLLINS-No. The power lines, we do have to move the power lines at the northern portion of the ring road. So we are working with the utilities in reference to that, but it’s six feet, I believe, they’re getting moved to make way for that entrance to the ring road. The poles by the pedestrian bridge may need some sort of adjustment as well. We’re working with them on that. Those may have to just be raised slightly. MR. RINGER-Okay. There was another question, and I believe you had answered this for Richard. I think Mr. Derby brought it up was, could you possibly bring soil back to firm up the banks, and, you know, did you look at that as a possibility, or did NiMo look at that as a possibility? MR. COLLINS-Well, once again, Mr. Chairman, I think you’re, we’re going back to, can we do things to mitigate them. Yes, we can look at that. Will it ever put us into a situation where we feel comfortable that nothing will ever happen to these trees. I don’t believe anybody is willing to stand up and say that I have a mitigation plan that will 100% be certain those trees will never fall. Niagara Mohawk has made their statement that they see them as a hazard. The Town has agreed that they see them as a hazard as well, through their expert, and so, with that in mind, any mitigation that we do is great, if nothing ever happens to it, but if something ever happens to it, then, it’s, I told you so. MR. RINGER-Okay, but there again, it’s a question that comes up, and it should be answered. MR. COLLINS-That’s fine. I understand that. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Collins, you know, help me out with this. I’m not sure it’s a case of zero one here. I mean, has, are you suggesting that all contingencies have to be 100% addressed before you proceed with the project? I think you have to look at it from a more practical point of view. Certainly no one’s saying that The Great Escape has to guarantee that in the next 50 years there won’t be a tree that gets blown down, but you seem to be representing that position with your last comment, where you said, well, NiMo wants them down and can we ever assure that there won’t be a problem, no, we can’t. So the trees have to come down. I’m not sure if that logic is logical. Do you care to comment on that? MR. COLLINS-Yes. I don’t understand what you see, why you don’t see that as being logical. MR. SANFORD-Well, of course you can’t guarantee anything in this world that we live in. MR. COLLINS-Okay, Richard, but you know that if anything does ever happen to those trees, that they have officially gone on record as saying that they want them gone. MR. SANFORD-But I think the public, one of the people from the public, made an excellent point, the woman who came in front of us just tonight. I mean, it was a great point. It didn’t occur to me. Let them sit down and explain to us some of their concerns so we have a better appreciation for it, rather than trying to come up with conjecture on this. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MS. RADNER-Richard, we have no authority to require NiMo to come here. This is noticed as a public hearing. They’re welcome to come. They’re invited to come, but there’s no way we can require them to come. MR. SANFORD-No, no, actually, I don’t think we invited them. MS. RADNER-Well, I don’t know that we did, but we can. MR. SANFORD-Well, you said that. We can. MS. RADNER-And certainly there’s a public notice. Whether the applicant invited them or not, I don’t know, but we don’t have authority to require them to be here. MR. SANFORD-No, but at least request that they come and see if they do. We never did that, Cathi. MS. RADNER-I’m just here to tell you what the law is. MR. SANFORD-I know, but I’m not sure what your point is. My point is, we should have said, look it, this is an important thing. A lot of people are concerned about it. Would you care to come to the meeting so we can have a better appreciation for the issues. We have to make a decision based on what kind of data and information we get. There’s a major player here that we don’t really fully understand what their position is. Maybe there’s other alternatives that they might be able to suggest. I don’t know. MR. RINGER-I think we got a letter from NiMo that says. MR. COLLINS-They gave you their position. They met with the Town. They met with, you know, we’ve met with Marilyn. We had, you know, we tried to get with the Planning Staff. They’ve met with them. They’ve let their concerns be known. I don’t believe that you’re going to have them come in and say, you know, we need to tell you any more, we want the trees gone. If you decide not to do it, then you make that decision. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just say one quick thing. We have a letter from Bruce Frank here. Bruce has a dual Bachelor of Science in Environmental and Forest Biology and Resource Management and he also was a Field Biologist with Colorado State University. Our guy, Bruce Frank. He knows a little bit about trees, I think, and he says the very large white pines closest to the Coach House who’s root systems have been cut and exposed are much more susceptible to decline due to disease, insects and decay and eventual death, resulting in a greatly increased susceptibility to wind throw. I mean, that says it all to me. These trees have to go. I mean, you know, our own guy is telling us that these trees are in great jeopardy. My concern is the mitigation program that’s going to be put in place. These trees have to go. In my mind, I think you’re right. It’s a lose/lose with you, lose/lose for both of us if we try to fight NiMo on this, take them down, but what we put in its place is really what concerns me. Are they going to screen the hotel, one, enough to take care of the view from Glen Lake is and so on. That’s what I want to know. MR. COLLINS-Right, and we will look, we just got the copy of Paul’s letter tonight, and, you know, if it requires additional trees, we will do what it takes to screen that. MR. VOLLARO-And I think we’ve got to have a definition, though. MR. COLLINS-It isn’t, you know, it’s a tight knob up there. So like Russ had said, there’s only so many trees that you can put up there and not interfere with the other trees. MR. VOLLARO-You can’t put 100 trees in that spot. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. COLLINS-Right. So I’d be willing to commit that we’ll at least do two to one, and if we can put 20 trees up there, of a variety that’s sufficient to the Town, we will do that. MR. RINGER-I don’t see as much the number as the height. MR. COLLINS-And the question of how tall they are is really a function of, can you get them up to the site. MR. RINGER-Did any of the Board members have any questions that came from the public that I didn’t ask, that you were taking notes on? MRS. STEFFAN-No. You answered, you got all those things. MR. RINGER-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only comment I had, Larry, was I would like to see this application tabled, and I would like them to come back with a really well understandable mitigation plan as to how they’re going to screen basically taking a look at Drawing Number Two from Mr. Pittenger’s Drawing Number Two, called Proposed Trees. Tell us that when those trees are placed on the top of that knoll, which is at 454, whether or not they will reach the level of the top of the hotel or not, and provide adequate screening for that. That’s what I really want to know. MR. RINGER-So what you’re saying is you want a planting schedule, showing the number of trees, the height and type. MR. VOLLARO-And that they would represent that those trees would screen the hotel property, from the Glen Lake area, for example. MR. SEGULJIC-But isn’t that what this figure here represents? MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t tell me, this is the drawing that really tells me what’s going on here. The proposed trees, but it’s at the 154 line, they’re going to be one for one on this drawing, but we don’t have any assurance from this drawing that there’s going to be adequate screening of the hotel, and that’s what we really want to know. The ten trees have got to come down. I don’t think there’s any doubt. MR. SANFORD-Well, hold on, Bob, I agree with you. I think that one possible solution is a good mitigation plan with the trees coming down, and I think the application has to be tabled at least for that, but I just want to know, I want some work done by the applicant to come back on what the cost would be to bury the cables. I want to have the options explored. As I see it here, in all due respect to The Great Escape and their agents, they haven’t done a complete job, in terms of doing their homework on this yet. I think you’re probably right, but we’re jumping to a conclusion. Give us all the facts of all the possible alternatives, and then we’ll probably be able to move, but right now tonight, I definitely think we don’t have enough to make a decision tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-I disagree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Can I ask a question of Counsel? Cathi, one of my concerns, we’ve got a letter in the file here from Niagara Mohawk on November 24, putting The Great Escape on notice th about the potential tree hazards. It’s carbon copied to the Town to, they’ve got a carbon copy to a person at Niagara Mohawk, Craig Brown, Bruce Frank and Russ Pittenger. I’m assuming, based on how the letter is worded, it explains that on November 6, the tree fell over, knocked th out power to 900 people, and that they want the trees taken down, requesting to take immediate action to alleviate risk. My concern here is this is a public safety issue. If you knock out power to customers, it has the potential, it’s a major line. There’s a public safety issue. I’m feeling like 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) we can’t table this because we have to help the applicant take some action here because it’s a matter of public safety. MS. RADNER-May I, before I answer you, take a look at that letter? MR. RINGER-While Cathi’s looking at the letter, Bob’s proposal, would you, Russ, be able to provide to us what Bob had asked for, in regards to how that screening would affect the view from the Glen Lake? MR. PITTENGER-Well, let me say that the letter from the Glen Lake Protective Association, I think we can comply with that. I think if you look at the figure that’s following the plan that Bob’s talking about, it indicates to you that there are trees on that bank that are in excess of 40 feet above the bank that provides screening for the hotel. It’s not the tall pines, and quite frankly, that’s correct, quite frankly, it’s not going to be the ones that we plant. The elevation there is at about 454, and what I said before about that relating to the top of the hotel was incorrect. The hotel starts at 432 and it goes up to 497. So we’re at like 40 feet above the ground there, but if you look at that graphic, also, the analysis that we did originally for the visual impacts from Glen Lake from this one point where we saw the view, it demonstrates that there are the screening potential of trees in the Fen and along Route 9 that provide that screening capacity. So the planting that we would replace these tall pines with would grow up and eventually provide a solid screening buffer that would live beyond the trees that might be on the DOT right of way if they put the sewer line or they dig some holes in there, we’d be able to control that, but I don’t feel that the tall trees, although they are a feature, and it’s something that we tried to maintain, that they do not provide, that we don’t lose screening function. We lose aesthetics of the tall trees. Don’t get me wrong. We’re not pleased about them going. MR. SEGULJIC-Give me a level of comfort. How did you come up with this line for the roofline? MR. PITTENGER-From the balloons. We could see the balloons of the building height from the photo. When we were out there, we flew balloons. Several members of the Board were there. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my question is, I mean, looking at this figure, it meets my, I’m satisfied with it, but the, and I’ve got to go back to the facts, how it came to be. How did this white line get on here to represent the roofline? MR. PITTENGER-I put it on there with a piece of tape, based on this. Basically what we did was we did a computer simulation of the roofline overlaid on the photo that was a figure that was done during the original approval process, and what we did, I did this overlay to clarify. This is an existing photo that we took from Ash Drive where we, this is an existing photo. We flew the balloons. The balloons are visible here, and then we did a simulation to color in the roof of the building, and that’s shown in this blow up, a closer detail where it shows up, and it really straddles this one pine, and I did a little overlay just to clarify that just a little bit more. So as you look at this, these trees are way above the roofline, and the ridge of trees you see here are trees of DOT, and the screening potentials are these trees are in the Fen, which is owned by The Great Escape also, and there’s no reason that those would be cut. They could blow down. When you have screening that results from vegetation, it might not always be there, but these trees that I’ve indicated in that figure to you, which are these taller ones that would be removed, would change the skyline of how these, of the tree edge here, but they do not provide an important screening benefit to the hotel and the visibility from Ash Drive. MR. SEGULJIC-So you flew the balloons. You were able to see those, and that’s what you defined as your roofline on this drawing. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct, and we’ve done studies, we’ve done simulations to see where we thought we could see it from, but that’s the only place we could detect a view of the future buildings. So I would like to say, in terms of The Glen Lake Protective Association letter, I feel we can comply with that, but I also would like to say with Paul Derby put on his other hat, the 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) suggestion that he made is that either our client or the LA Group or Lemery Greisler in any way misrepresented that so that we could get something here and get something later, I regret both, and I resent it both personally and professionally. MS. RADNER-Gretchen, returning to your question. The letter most assuredly does ask for immediate action and state that there is a risk, and so, yes, there is exposure to the Town. If those trees were to fall and somebody got hurt, they’re going to look at the Town has a deep pocket. They’re going to look at The Great Escape. I’m not in a position to calculate that risk and tell you what the likelihood is that those trees are going to fall down. I also don’t know what, if any, temporary measures could be taken to lessen that risk, if you’re uncomfortable ordering that the trees be taken down now. It isn’t an all or nothing, though. If you feel that you have enough information to know that the trees need to come down, you could make a resolution to allow that part of the application, and still condition it upon them returning with a better mitigation plan, if that’s the part you’re uncomfortable proceeding on. MR. RINGER-We can make, Cathi, a two part motion, approving the change for the trees to be cut down and tabling the modification? MS. RADNER-Well, conditioning it on them returning next month, with a mitigation plan for further consideration. I think, given the circumstances here, and the tenor of Niagara Mohawk’s letter, that would be a very reasonable option. MR. RINGER-We’ve never done a. MS. RADNER-No, we haven’t, but I think it would be reasonable and feasible here. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a comment to make, and again, I mention this only because in the initial hearing I was censored perhaps by the applicant as well as this Board when I discussed the financial well being, if you will, of the parent company, the Six Flags, and what I’m hearing here is, well, it’s cost prohibitive to bury those cables without any study being done. MR. RINGER-I don’t think he said prohibitive. I think that he said they hadn’t looked at it because it probably was prohibitive. I didn’t think he said it was prohibitive. MR. SANFORD-Okay. They’re concerned about the cost. Is that a safe statement? MR. RINGER-That’s a statement that I think that they would be concerned that there maybe be a cost. MR. SANFORD-As a person with some background in business, you obviously look at projects like this in terms of rate of return and things of this nature, and also the ability to fund them, and I brought up I think when we first heard this applicant, that there’s no mystery. All you’ve got to do is pick up a Wall Street Journal now and then and you’ll find out that The Great Escape, or the Six Flags, has had a few years of very hard times. MR. RINGER-Will you get to the point, ask your question, Richard. MR. SANFORD-I’ll get to the point, Larry. The point I’m trying to say here, is it a fact that it’s not financially feasible or it’s not practical given the financial condition that this organization is in? Now, if this organization had a stock price of $30 a share rather than whatever it is, $5, $6 or whatever it is now, I haven’t looked at it for a while, would we be having this discussion, and should we, as a Board, compromise our standards, our values, based on the financial situation of the applicant? And I would suggest to you that, no, we shouldn’t, and I think that what we’re talking about here is affordability, and quite frankly it ain’t our problem. Okay. MR. RINGER-First of all, the applicant has not committed to, or said he’s willing to put underground to put underground cable. We have not, as a Board, told him that he had to put underground cable. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SANFORD-Right, but my point, Larry, directly at that, is if we say go ahead and cut the trees down, we’re basically have made that decision that we’re not even interested in looking at it. MR. RINGER-We’ve been told by Counsel that the Town may suffer some liability, could possibly suffer liability in the event that those trees did come down by wind or act of God of some sort, and so maybe a possibility for us would be to look at cutting those trees down, because they’re going to have to come down anyway, because the excavation has already been done. MR. SANFORD-Again, I’m not so sure that those are facts. I appreciate the way Gretchen put it. She’s concerned about that in the meantime while, if we were to table this and we were to look at these alternatives, that something could happen. I guess, you know, that’s a valid point. I mean, no one’s disputing that a windstorm could kick up and cause some problems. MR. RINGER-What we’ve got, Richard, is our own Town Compliance Officer, Bruce Frank, who is I guess an expert in trees. We’ve got a letter from NiMo saying that these trees should come down. As far as them coming back with a plan to mitigate what they’re going to do. MR. SANFORD-I think he’s saying they should come down because they run the risk of coming down on the power lines. If they come down and there’s no power line to disrupt electrical services, it may change his position, but if we say, go ahead and take them down, you know, what we’ve done basically is we’ve taken that possibility off the table. MR. COLLINS-Okay. Can I just make a quick comment? Assuming that we go with burying power lines, and we have not discussed that with them, you’re talking a year that these trees are going to be exposed. Your Counsel said it perfectly. You want to sit and take the risk. I certainly don’t. We sat there, your expert was out there. Our experts were out there, and we all agreed the solution was to take them down. Did anyone want to take the risk of waiting any longer to see if any other mitigation would solve the problem? Burying the power lines, believe me, we’ve met with Niagara Mohawk. Just to move them six feet is a year process. I mean, it’s a long process. So if you want to sit and table it and we look, we’ll go back and talk to Niagara Mohawk and see what that is, but you’re talking time. You’re talking they went out there and say said, we want these trees gone. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. I wish you felt as passionate about the time constraint towards the pedestrian bridge as you are about this issue. MR. RINGER-All right. Richard, get off the pedestrian bridge. No, Richard, get off the pedestrian bridge. Richard. MR. SANFORD-I’m going to finish, Larry. I’m going to finish, because I was the one who talked about the safety issue of having the pedestrian bridge in for safety, and it was just, relax, Dick. MR. RINGER-Richard, that’s it. No more pedestrian bridge. You’re out of order on that, please. That’s the end of that. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine, Larry. I got it out. Okay. The quid pro quo doesn’t work here, is what I’m trying to say. Okay. Yes, give us a time on the bridge, but don’t give us a time, you know, we want to cut the trees down now. MR. RINGER-Cathi, on your thought that we could do two motions. MS. RADNER-You could condition, you could pass a motion today conditioned upon them returning with the mitigation plan that’s to your satisfaction. You’ve done similar things in the past, and either had Staff review the mitigation plan or had a return of some sort, or, you know, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) contingent upon approval of a landscaping plan. We don’t have a Beautification Committee at this point that could review it. So it seems to me that having them return to this Board would be what would make the most sense. MR. RINGER-Okay. Now, I’ve got a public hearing which I’ve left open. Can I still, with a public hearing open, act on cutting the trees down and table the modification? MS. RADNER-No, you would need to close the public hearing. MR. RINGER-I’d have to close the public hearing. MS. RADNER-You could reopen the public hearing on the mitigation plan if you felt it was warranted. The applicant could agree to leave the public hearing open so that the public could make additional comments in the interim. MR. RINGER-Once the public saw the mitigation presented, I think they might like to see it and comment, and if I closed it now, they’d come back with the mitigation, say next month or in February and then the public wouldn’t get an opportunity. Could we, if I close it, and then reopen it by notice? MS. RADNER-Well, it would be another public hearing, basically. MR. RINGER-Yes. MS. RADNER-It would be a public hearing on the mitigation. MR. RINGER-Which we’d notice in the paper. Okay. MS. SONNABEND-Is the public hearing still open? Can the public still speak? MR. RINGER-The public can speak until I close the public hearing. You’re correct. I will give you an opportunity, not right now. I’d like to get the Board’s consensus on Counsel’s suggestion that perhaps we consider a two motion, one to approve the tree cutting and another perhaps to table the modification. MS. RADNER-Well, again, I would do it as a condition of the approval is that they return with a mitigation plan. MR. RINGER-Right. I just wanted to get a feel on how they felt, Cathi. MR. VOLLARO-I think with the letter that we have from Bruce Frank, and with the letter that we have in file, I think that we would, as a Board, not be doing due diligence by not taking those trees down. I just think there’s too much evidence on the line to indicate that those trees are not capable of standing a wind throw, as he puts it. So they should come down. Next case is what you asked me, and the answer is yes, have them come back with a mitigation plan that we can understand and it’s their best attempt to screen the hotel. That’s where I’m at. MR. RINGER-Okay. Richard? MR. SANFORD-My answer is no, I appreciate the urgency and respect that, but I think that they should have come here with an acceptable mitigation plan with all of the alternatives explored prior to this meeting tonight, rather than doing it subsequent to this meeting. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Now, Cathi, I’ve still got the public hearing open. I’m going to let the public speak again, and then I’ll close the public hearing and then we will take our action and then reopen the public hearing. MS. RADNER-When they return, notice it as another public hearing. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-Okay. So the public hearing is still open, and now I’ll take comments. HAROLD HUBERT MR. HUBERT-My name is Harold Hubert. I live at 474 Ridge Road. I’m opposed to the building of a road right opposite my house, which is at Number 467. I want to go on record as saying I oppose it. That is all. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Mr. Hubert, you’re referring to another application tonight? See, right now we’re discussing Great Escape. Later we’ll be discussing the application which you’re interested in, and certainly I hope you’ll stick around and give us your view on that at that time. Okay. MR. HUBERT-Yes, maybe I can. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. Anyone else? MS. SONNABEND-Just two quick points. Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I believe Mr., tell me if I’m wrong, but I believe Mr. Collins said that the trees, if they blew over, would not reach Route 9? MR. RINGER-He wasn’t sure. MR. COLLINS-Based on our discussions. MR. RINGER-We’ll get the answer for you, Kathy. MS. SONNABEND-Okay. If my recollection is correct, then the only liability we’re concerned about is if those trees fall on the power lines. There’s no other possible problem because they won’t reach Route 9. Okay. So if that’s correct, then my understanding is, from someone in the crowd who knows something about laying underground power lines, is it doesn’t take long to do that, and that it wouldn’t take any longer than actually taking down those trees. So, they got this letter, what was it, November 24, and even though it was so urgent, they didn’t review all th the alternative options, and now they’re saying, okay, now that they’ve got to this Board meeting, they’ve got to take them down right away. I think having a few more days to research that option makes sense. All we’re worried about is having power disrupted. Power gets disrupted around here all the time for lots of reasons. There are lots of trees along power lines throughout this whole area, and you know they’re not going to be going around looking at all those and cutting them down. So I don’t think this is as big of a liability issue as it’s being made out to be, especially when laying them underground. It’s not going to take them that long to figure out, and shouldn’t be all that expensive. Secondly, just a quick question. Who signed the letter from NiMo saying that this needed to be done? MR. RINGER-I’ll let you know later. John Murphy, Account Manager. MS. SONNABEND-John Murphy. Is there a telephone number on there for him? MR. RINGER-Well, the NiMo phone is on here, and that’s 761-5912. MS. SONNABEND-And and extension? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MS. SONNABEND-Okay. Thank you. MS. RADNER-One point of clarification. The letter to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board from Bruce Frank does reference that according to NiMo Forester Steve Sweet a number of the above referenced trees are endanger of falling on the distribution lines and potentially on to the 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) travel lane of State Route 9. That is in the memo. They were talking about wind throw, but I can just tell you what it says. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Cathi. Okay. MR. DERBY-Actually. It’s just a point of clarification for my benefit. Paul Derby, Ash Drive. Now, I just want to be clear that The Great Escape is liable for the trees on their property if they fall on the power lines and other lines. I’m not sure what that means. So if I could get clarification on that, I would appreciate it. MR. RINGER-Well, we’re not attorneys either, but our Counsel has informed us that The Great Escape possibly could be, and the Town could be, once they’ve been, if I’m wrong the way I’m stating this, please step in, Cathi, and once we’ve been notified and they have been notified of a potential hazard, if it’s not taken care of, then there may be liability assumed or put upon us. MS. RADNER-At the minimum there’s exposure to the Town. There’s certainly liability on The Great Escape. MR. DERBY-Liability for damages caused by the act of God. MS. RADNER-If the power lines fall off of The Great Escape’s property, Great Escape is potentially liable for any injuries, damages caused by their negligence not addressing those trees. MR. DERBY-Is that caused because of the construction excavation that they’re doing or if it were an act of God, as it is now, would it still be a liability? MS. RADNER-That would be a jury question. MR. RINGER-I would think that since they’ve been notified of the potential hazard, once you’ve been notified and you don’t take action, then that’s when you assume the liability. MS. RADNER-It would really come down to whether the risk that was identified is the risk that occurred and was foreseeable. MR. SANFORD-Well, action is being taken right now. I mean, we’re discussing alternatives. It’s not like anybody’s being negligent here. We just want to do the right thing in a prudent manner. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Paul? MR. SANFORD-Are you saying it should be done that same hour? MS. RADNER-I’m just saying there’s exposure. I don’t have a crystal ball to know what’s going to happen, but you certainly have exposure. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, Cathi. Anything else, Paul? MR. DERBY-I don’t know if you can answer, but is it the same for any citizen in Queensbury, that NiMo can notify a citizen and say your tree is potentially a hazard? I guess we do need those NiMo people here to answer those questions. MR. RINGER-I’ll try to get an answer for you on that. I don’t know if we will. MR. DERBY-Okay. I think we should answer those questions before we move forward. MR. RINGER-We’ll try. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve recently been involved in a construction project, and have dealt with NiMo and I know that individuals are treated very differently than businesses, and for example, excavators who have to call NiMo in advance of digging in the ground. Part of that is so they know where the power lines are, the underground lines are, whether it’s gas or electric, but it’s also a liability issue, because their fine structure is based on whether you’ve been notified, whether you comply, and so individuals are treated differently than businesses are. MR. DERBY-Okay. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Paul. Anyone else? Okay. I’m closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-The public hearing will be re-opened and re-notified, because they probably will be coming back for the approval of the modification, which will show what their mitigation is going to be as it relates to view from Glen Lake and other areas. So, any comments from the Board? George? MR. HILTON-Just that if you are going to approve this with the condition that they return with another modification showing the landscape mitigation, I guess I would suggest that you could, and I confirmed this with Counsel, that you could specify that they return at a certain time, I guess, submit by January 15 to be on in February. That type of thing, and possibly even th identify a meeting in February that you’d like to see them appear. MR. RINGER-I just didn’t want to saddle Staff with a specific date. MR. HILTON-February’s different, though. We’re open for February. I mean, we’re clear right now. So if you stipulate January 15 to be on in February, that’s fine. th MR. RINGER-Okay. You give me a date in February. MR. HILTON-The third or fourth Tuesday. MR. RINGER-Unfortunately some of the people have left, but we’ll still notify it, put notice in the newspaper, George. MR. HILTON-It would be February 15 or 22. thnd MR. RINGER-Okay. I closed the public hearing, but we will rehear this modification on February 15 at which time we will re-open the public hearing. Now, what I’d like to do is take th about five minutes, have Counsel, Gretchen and Tom come up with two resolutions, one approval to cut the trees down, and, two, resolution tabling this modification to the February 15 meeting. th MS. RADNER-Just do it as one including all of that. MR. RINGER-All right. Then the second part of the motion would be that we would be tabling this modification until February 15 and the reason for the tabling would be for the applicant to th interact with the mediation plan, and if you’d get together with Counsel. It should only take a few minutes, Gretchen and Counsel and Tom if you’d get together, and we’ll just take about a three or four minute break. Are we set? Okay. I’ll call the meeting back to order, and we’ll start, and who’s got the resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-I do. MR. RINGER-Okay. Gretchen, the floor is yours. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO PARTIALLY APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 4-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: GREAT ESCAPE Previous SEQR Agent: John Lemery, Lemery Greisler Zone: HC-Intensive MODIFICATION Location: 1213 & 1227 State Route 9 Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan related to the hotel and water park including modifications to the approved clearing / landscaping plan. Modifications to previously approved site plans require approval from the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5, 4 Public Hearing: 12/28/04 WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/24/04, and 12/22 Staff Notes 12/2 Fee received 11/29 GH from LA Group: letter revision to 11/17 application 11/24 J. Collins from J. Murphy [NiMo]: trees endangering distribution lines 11/22 Memo to Board from B. Frank: trees endangering distribution lines 11/18 Site Plan application received 11/17 Mr. MacEwan from Lemery Greisler 11/10 J. Collins from C. Brown: Tree removal request WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on December 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following: 1. To make a resolution for the conditional approval of plan modification 4-2004 which allows for clearing of trees identified as Groups 1, 2 and 3 as noted in Lemery Greisler’s letter of 11/17/04, Drawing One, net 10 trees, to satisfy Niagara Mohawk’s notice of 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) November 24, 2004 regarding potential tree hazards, upon the condition that the applicant shall prepare a mitigation plan showing plantings including the number and potential types of species and demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Board that visual impacts for Route 9 and Glen Lake will be minimalized. Such mitigation plan must be submitted to the Staff by January 15, 2005. Public Hearing shall be noticed and held on the mitigation plan at the Planning Board meeting of February 15, 2005. 2. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer NOES: Mr. Sanford ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions on what you need to do? MR. COLLINS-By the 15. th MR. PITTENGER-Yes. I just have one point I’d like to make is that there is no, there will be no visual simulation that would represent these trees for you. They’re hidden behind trees in the existing photo from the only location from where you can see the hotel roof at all. We will come in with a plan. We will try to go out to nurseries and identify specific trees and get some photos and explore exactly how many we can get up in there for you. We’ll do the plan, but there really will be no simulation that shows what these trees will do because you won’t be able to see these trees from the vantage point that we’ve identified. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, do what you can. MR. PITTENGER-We will, we certainly will. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2002 PREVIOUS SEQR WILLIAM T. & KEITH CRIST MODIFICATION AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL 5,100 SQ. FT. SELF-STORAGE BUILDING. SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE HC- INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/04 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 LOT SIZE: 2.820 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH CRIST, PRESENT MR. RINGER-George? MR. HILTON-Really quickly, the proposal before you is for the construction of a 5100 square foot self-storage building, in addition to other self-storage buildings and existing automobile use on this property. The applicant received an Area Variance for site permeability. As far as C.T. Male, there have been some C.T. Male comments and I can tell you that on the 27, which th was yesterday, we did receive a signoff from C.T. Male for this project. I guess our really only concern is lighting. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan showing a series of wall mounted lights which don’t appear to be cut off or downcast as required by the Code, and our suggestion would be a different type of wall mounted fixture could be installed which conforms to Town requirements. With that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. RINGER-Thank you, George. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, of Nace Engineering, and Keith Crist, the applicant. As George mentioned, we’ve taken care of all the engineering comments. The one Staff comment regarding the lighting. It is not true. It’s a wall pack type mounted on the back of the buildings. It is exactly the same as what’s already on the existing buildings, and because of the mounting height of it being so low, it’s only eight foot, or nine foot, I guess, because of the mounting height being so low, it’s not a true cut off. We still have to light the driveway, which goes out about 25 feet beyond the side of the building, and if you look at the diagram that was submitted, the photometrics that were submitted with that fixture, out at 24 feet, or 27 feet, I guess, which is three times the nine foot mounting height, we’re down to .1 foot candle, which, if you’ve seen the site at night, it’s, there’s no light that’s out back. It’s very low level of light at the edge of the roadway and there’s really no spill at all off of the property. So, true, it’s not a true cut off, a sharp cut off, but it is designed to be able to light that roadway in back. MR. RINGER-All right. Anything else, Tom? MR. NACE-No. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. Are we going to grant waivers? If we’re granting light waivers, I don’t know that, once we grant that, those wall packs will be as they are. MR. RINGER-Well, it seemed like his explanation was, on the lights was. MR. VOLLARO-I think Mr. Nace’s explanation was pretty valid, in terms of the height of the fixture and being able to light the road. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Being that they’re on the other buildings, the same fixture, I’d go along with that, I think. MR. SANFORD-I only have one question. This building’s the same height as the other four? MR. CRIST-Correct. MR. SANFORD-So it’s just a little bit longer. MR. CRIST-Yes. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I’m actually pretty comfortable with it. MR. RINGER-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-I guess I was just going to confirm, or state that I understand that this is just going to match what’s out there. MR. RINGER-Okay, and we understand your comments, too, on the downcast fixtures. I mean, it’s there. Any other questions on anything? MR. VOLLARO-No. We’ve got a signoff by C.T. Male. So I was just concerned about the radii for large moving vans, but you’ve satisfied that. MR. RINGER-Yes, he did sign off on that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions. MR. RINGER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this. So I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wish to comment? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. SANFORD-We don’t need a SEQRA, do we? MR. VOLLARO-It’s a modification. MR. RINGER-Okay. I’m ready for a motion, then. MR. SANFORD-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 50-2002 WILLIAM T. & KEITH W. CRIST, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Self-storage building WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/12/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/23/04, and 12/22/04 Staff Notes 12/21/04 Notice of Public Hearing 12/21/04 CTM engineering comments 12/15/04 ZBA resolution: Approved 12/8/04 Warren Co. Planning Bd. Recommendation: NCI 11/30/04 Meeting Notice sent 12/21/04 CTM engineering comments 12/1/04 Transmittal to applicant: refund 11/15/04 Application; Waiver requests from Lighting Plan and Building Elevations; and Maps 47412-1 through 3 dated 11/10/04 WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on December 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. RINGER-You waited around a long time for that. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2004 PRELIMINARY STG. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 467 RIDGE ROAD, WEST SIDE RIDGE ROAD 300 YARDS NORTH OF MEADOW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 15 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO NINE (9) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 3 +/- ACRES. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: 8/24/04 TAX MAP NO. 297.13-1-37 LOT SIZE: 15.06 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; M. HAYES, PRESENT MR. RINGER-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, as I’ve indicated, the applicant proposes to subdivide this 15 plus or minus acre property into 9 single family lots ranging in size from 1 to approximate 3 acres. The lots would be served by municipal water and would have private septic systems. The subdivision plat shows an area of wetlands on the western portion of the property recently flagged by Charles Maine. The applicant has included letters stating that DEC does not have jurisdiction and also confirming that the wetlands were flagged by Charlie Maine. As far as the density calculation, in considering these wetlands, it appears that there is enough land to support the proposed density. Vehicular access would be, for the most part, from a proposed cul de sac, with the exception of Lot One, which would have access onto Ridge Road. Understanding that there is an existing house there with access on Ridge Road, consideration, and I guess our consideration would be to relocating the access drive for this lot onto the proposed cul de sac. Introducing a new road with an existing driveway is probably not, as far as access management, the wisest thing to do, and, again, our suggestion would be relocating that access drive for Lot One to the new cul de sac. I’ve talked about perc tests, test pits, stormwater management. The applicant has included this as part of their plan, as part of their subdivision proposal, and we have forwarded that information onto C.T. Male for their review and comment. With that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. RINGER-Okay. Before you start, this was forwarded to C.T. Male. C.T. Male had made his comments. There are about two pages of them. The Town just received those Monday. MR. LAPPER-We got a signoff from C.T. Male, today. MR. RINGER-You got a signoff? Well, let me go on. Let me finish what I’m saying, Jon. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a curve ball. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-Yes, it sure is. Since the Board never got the original comments from C.T. Male, because of the holidays and the timeframe, we were never able to look them over. So what I think we’re going to do, since we don’t have C.T. Male in front of us, and I understand it’s two pages, and we don’t want to start now reading two pages, I don’t think the Board does. We’re not going to go into C.T. Male or the stormwater, but we are going to cover the notes from Staff and any other information or questions that the Board may have regarding the subdivision, and we also have the public hearing and we’ll listen to the public, and the resolution, your application will be tabled, and I would suggest perhaps, Jon, since you’ve only got a preliminary here now, that when you come back, that you maybe come back with a preliminary and a final, because you would have had to come back anyway. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s not a problem. I guess we’d like some consideration that maybe we could get Final on for next month, because we do have the C.T. Male signoff that we just got faxed today. MR. RINGER-And I’ll do what we can, but again, I’d have to go over with Staff to make sure of the schedule and how that’s going to work. MR. HILTON-I think we’d be looking at, well, depending on how you act, but any new application I think we’d be looking at a January 15 deadline to be on in February, at this point. th MR. RINGER-Well, we may want more information tonight. So if any information comes out tonight, then you’d have to have that in by. MR. HILTON-Well, unless you extended them some kind of special timeframe to be on in January, the next deadline is January 15 to be on in February. I guess to answer your question, th as far as what we’ve received and what we haven’t, we have in the file a response from the applicant to C.T. Male, which was received in our office December 27. I do not, I’m not finding th a C.T. Male signoff. MR. LAPPER-We have it. MR. RINGER-And we aren’t going to go into the C.T. Male tonight anyway, but he’ll get you on in January, and any comments that you get tonight you would have to have by the 15, and you th can do your Preliminary and Final, you can do a Final application, try to do that on the same night. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Let’s get into the issues and see where we go. MR. RINGER-Yes. That’s what I’m saying. Since we didn’t get any of the C.T. Male comments, we’re going to hear the application, but we’re not going to discuss any of the C.T. Male stuff or any of the stormwater stuff, but any questions or anything that we may have of the applicant and the public is going to have a public hearing, and then we’ll end up tabling this, and then we’ll come back in January. Okay. Go ahead, Jon. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Mickey Hayes. From our perspective, this is a nine lot totally conforming subdivision that doesn’t need any variances. We were asked last time by the Planning Board to do additional soil tests, which we did with representatives of the Department of Health present, as well as the soil engineer, and we’ve provided all that data. I don’t know exactly what happened, but of course Tom got the C.T. Male review letter on the day before Christmas Eve, and he responded over the weekend and got it to C.T. Male yesterday and so we do have a signoff letter that obviously Staff hasn’t provided to the Board for some reason, but we have that. MR. RINGER-Staff doesn’t have the signoff letter, either. MR. LAPPER-It was addressed to George Hilton. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. NACE-It was an e-mail to George Hilton. MR. RINGER-But he hasn’t got it yet. MR. HILTON-Actually it was, I guess the original message is from Jim Houston to Jim Edwards, carbon copied to me. It’s in e-mail form. It wasn’t faxed. I was not in the office today. MR. LAPPER-Okay, then that’s what happened. MR. RINGER-And we don’t have the original C.T. Male comments. MR. LAPPER-How come you didn’t get the original comments? MR. RINGER-I don’t know. Marilyn called me this morning to talk to me about it, or we discussed it and she wasn’t exactly why. We assume it was the holidays and stuff. Because Staff didn’t get it until Monday themselves. MR. HILTON-I guess I just want to state that typically the signoffs, and I think the Board has seen this, that typically the signoffs that come have been faxed to our office so that one person isn’t identified and potentially not there, and so they’re received. So, the fact that I wasn’t there, and that this was an e-mail, I guess that’s why. MR. RINGER-But even the initial we didn’t get, which did come in after the Staff notes had already been mailed out. We received our Staff notes on Friday. Okay. So we’d already gotten our Staff notes, and usually C.T. Male comments come with our Staff notes. MR. NACE-I think I received the C.T. Male early afternoon on Thursday. MR. RINGER-Because of holidays and everything, I think that’s what created the problem. It may inconvenience you, but since you were in for Preliminary only, you would have had to come back for Final, and if you change your application to Preliminary and Final on the same, you know, you aren’t going to be delayed that much, and you’ll get some input tonight from the Board and from the public. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s fine. MR. RINGER-So, go ahead, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. MR. LAPPER-No, not at all. Thank you. On the substantive comments from Staff, we do agree that we can change the driveway on Lot One so that it doesn’t have a curb cut on Ridge Road anymore, so that right now there’s one driveway, there’s one curb cut on Ridge Road, and now there would only be the cul de sac road, and that driveway could access the cul de sac road. So, I mean, that was a good suggestion, and we’ll agree to make that change. MR. RINGER-And take the driveway out? MR. LAPPER-And take the driveway out, yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That was really it, in terms of Staff comments. Tom, since you don’t want to get into the stormwater tonight. MR. RINGER-I don’t want to get into the stormwater because we’ve got C.T. Male is working on it, although I know Bob had reviewed Tom’s comments, but until we get. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. NACE-Let’s see what the Board has, and in answering those, if we answer some of the C.T. Male, so be it. MR. RINGER-Well, we aren’t going to really get into stormwater. I talked to Bob before the meeting that we would, even though he had spent a lot of time, he’ll still be able to use that and compare it with C.T. Male’s comments. MR. NACE-In all fairness, though, Larry, if there are substantial comments that we ought to be reacting to, in getting our file Preliminary and Final application into the Board, it would be nice to have those. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a good idea. MR. RINGER-We don’t know how C.T. Male’s going to, well, we’ll try it. Okay. I’m going to go down the sheet, and as we go through. Design standards, comments? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Under Design standards, there’s a term called density calculations. Sheet One of Seven states, an area of ACOE Flagged wetlands, it intimates on Page One that ACOE Flagged these wetlands. On Three of Seven it states ACOE wetlands were flagged by C. Maine. Now has this been verified by Army Corps or do we have verification on that of any kind? Because the statements seem contradictory. On Page One of Seven and Three of Seven, there seem to be contradictory statements, to me. MR. NACE-They’re Corps wetlands, by definition, which have been flagged. The Corps really doesn’t flag wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-But do they verify the flagging? MR. NACE-If we’re disturbing them, and if we’re anywhere close to disturbing them with construction activity, in going over a tenth of an acre, then typically the applicant would get the Corps to verify. In this case, we’re not anywhere close to disturbing those wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying in that instance that Army Corps, it’s not necessarily for them to verify? MR. NACE-No, with Army Corps, it’s the applicant who has the responsibility of making sure he doesn’t disturb, or if he does disturb without a permit, then he suffers the consequence, but it’s the applicant’s responsibility to do that, okay, and it’s, if he wants to make sure that he’s got something close to the Corps wetlands, he thinks it might be getting at the point he needs a permit, then it’s his good judgment to go get the Corps to verify. MR. LAPPER-We also have a statement in the Staff notes that they’re considering this area as part of the density calculation. The proposed subdivision, it appears there is enough land to support the proposed density. MR. VOLLARO-I know what George Hilton wrote. I saw that piece. MR. SANFORD-But this permanent pool that I believe is going to be part of your, I guess we don’t want to get into stormwater. MR. RINGER-Not into stormwater, no, because C.T. Male. MR. SANFORD-But just to touch upon what Tom mentioned a minute ago, that’s very adjacent to the ACOE wetlands, and you said if it’s close to that area and there would be a disturbance, you, as an applicant, would notify them. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. NACE-If there’s a potential for that disturbance to be over a tenth of an acre. You can do a tenth of an acre without any permit. Okay. We’re adjacent to, we’re on an uphill side of a wetland, and it’s a very well defined boundary. So, no, I’m not concerned, in this case. MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay. I am concerned, but that’s okay. MR. RINGER-Anything else on design standards? MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I really had. MR. RINGER-Okay. Site development criteria. Soils, geologies, that’s going to be for C.T. Male to come back with that, review Tom’s report. Vehicle access. MR. VOLLARO-Now, what is the length of the cul de sac? I think that fits in to development. MR. RINGER-Six hundred feet, I think they said. MR. NACE-It’s about 725 feet back to the throat of the cul de sac, and 900 feet to the very back end of the cul de sac. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Nine hundred feet to the back? MR. NACE-To the very back end. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-And 900 feet in length is what your stormwater says. Vehicle access, traffic patterns? Pedestrian access? MR. VOLLARO-I think the traffic patterns, they’ve agreed to move the driveway. MR. RINGER-Parking design, emergency access? Okay. Lighting designs? Any lighting? MR. VOLLARO-No, nothing. MR. RINGER-Okay. Landscaping? Buffering? MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a lot of issues about all these berms and all of these. Larry, I think, you know, when I look at what I know to be first hand knowledge, I’m not an engineer, from a very wet area, I have concerns about all these devices that are being proposed, these berms and all this flow and these trenches that aren’t going anywhere. I have a whole lot of issues. I don’t know if it’s better to wait on those. MR. RINGER-Well, if you want to see what C.T. Male is going to say, because he’s going to review everything that Mr. Nace has done. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. RINGER-So, you know, until we’ve seen how they’ve reacted to it. MR. SANFORD-I just wanted to mention that. I don’t want to leave the false impression that I don’t have issues about it. MR. RINGER-You have some concerns. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a lot of concerns about that. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-I’m sure, when they come back, and you have some issues, we’ll probably have C.T. Male here for that meeting, and as Tom answers his questions and C.T. Male can, you know, interject. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, you know, I look at a site like this, and I look at this test pit information, and I see all these incredible mitigation measures which to me are very suggestive of an extremely wet property. I have concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s go through these things and see what kind of questions. On the stormwater sewage design, I know we’re in the C.T. Male area now, but I’d like to get a, there’s a retention/detention basin section in there, if you notice, on the stormwater. Who maintains the inflows to the pool on Lots Five and Six? I mean, how is that integrity of that pool maintained? Because I see there’s a maintenance easement along there. Now, is that the homeowner, or how does that work? MR. NACE-Okay. On Five and Six, no. There’s a pipe that comes down from the cul de sac and this is an easement that’s granted to the Town, okay, this is a Town drainage structure at that point. So there’s an easement for the pipe and for the basin. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now what about the inflow up near the wetland there? MR. NACE-The outflow? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Who’s going to maintain that. MR. NACE-This is all within the Town. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not an outflow. That pond’s going to be full all the time. When it gets to that level, it flows out onto the wetland. Is that the idea? MR. NACE-Well, the pond accumulates water during a storm, okay, and gradually outlets it. The bottom, if I remember right, foot and a half of the pond, the outlet’s a foot and a half above the bottom of the pond. That bottom foot and a half very gradually filters into the soil. MR. VOLLARO-I think the definition of that is a permanent pool, is what it says. MR. NACE-You’re looking at the old plan. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-I’m sorry. You would have had to have had C.T. Male’s comments and my revision. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re not looking at the right plans. All right. MR. NACE-So, no, the permanent pool has been replaced with a different design. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s a different drawing. MR. NACE-The little four bay, okay, yes, that’s correct. DEC has recently come out with some guidelines, some suggestions, I should say, that say that if you’re going to use a permanent pool, it should be three feet deep, and I don’t think the Town, in this case, we’re small enough in our disturbance area that we don’t have to use this permanent pool and four bay as a treatment device. Therefore I don’t think the Town really wants a three foot deep permanent pond to have to maintain and suffer the liability for. MR. SANFORD-Well, in that area where you had the permanent pond, I know first hand, over some 20 years of experience, that there’s always been water there, maybe not a foot and a half 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) deep, but they’ve always had to put logs and things so that you could navigate over it. Is that your understanding as well, that that is extremely wet there? MR. NACE-Not where we have the pond. On down, if you go down at the edge of the property, it’s lower, and, yes, down in here it definitely is wet, but we’re still up on the side slope. The pond area is in an area where the slope is about, let’s see about a four or five percent slope. MR. SANFORD-See, I would have though it would have been around, then you’re saying it’s a little to the south of that pond is where you have actually standing water. MR. NACE-Actually a little to the, well, a little, 100, 150 feet to the west. MR. SANFORD-To the west or the south? MR. NACE-To the west, toward, parallel to Cronin Road. Okay. MR. SANFORD-Really? Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else on stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-Explain the operation and need for the long drainage berms. Why do we need those there? Are they sort of detention? MR. NACE-They just for the houses, for the roof area of the house, okay. They’re a means of, and we’re in soils where I don’t really want to put that water into an eaves trench right at the edge of a basement. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re extending the eaves trench out? MR. NACE-So we’re letting that go off from the roof as surface drainage and to collect in a little landscape berm. It’s nothing more than a little swale where it can filter into the ground, further away from the house? MR. SEGULJIC-Why wouldn’t you want to use the eaves trench? MR. NACE-The soils here are a little tighter, okay. They’re not our typical sands on the west side of the Northway. So it won’t drain as quickly. It still drains. It percolates, but it doesn’t, it’s not a two minute percolation rate. It’s slower than that. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just caught up on what the purpose of that is, so the water is going to run off the house, hit the ground, run down the slope, and get caught up behind the berm? MR. NACE-Right. It’s just simply to meet your stormwater regulations, so to detain that, so that it doesn’t flow directly down the slope and we’ve got to take, the impervious surfaces have to be accommodated in something to slow the stormwater down. The same way as we do for the road, we’re doing it into a basin. For those two individual houses, they’re below the road. So the stormwater runoff from houses above the road, the runoff from the roofs and driveways collects in the road drainage system and comes down to the pond. These three lots down here are below the road, offset from the pond, so it’s not easy to collect the runoff from the driveways and roofs and get them into the pond. So we’re treating them on site. MR. VOLLARO-What kind of material are you using on those berms? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. NACE-Just normal soil, just when they’re grading the lot they make a little raised landscape berm that is part of the landscaping for the lot and serves to detain a small amount of water. It may only be six or nine inches. I think if you look at the detail, the berm’s about a foot deep. So it’s not a big structure. It’s just a landscaping feature that serves to mitigate the stormwater. MR. RINGER-Anything else on that area? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On Sheet Seven of Seven, Tom, I’ve got a little problem with that. I just don’t understand what you’ve done. Do you want to get to Seven of Seven, and then I’ll tell you what my problem seems to be. Okay. On the left hand side of the drawing, you talk about Lots One through Nine, and Lot Two through Six and Eight are raised systems. MR. NACE-Wait a minute, Two through Six. MR. VOLLARO-Two through Six and Number Eight are raised systems, or what you might. MR. NACE-They’re shallow trench systems. MR. VOLLARO-Shallow trench systems. MR. NACE-They’re not raised. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay, shallow trench systems. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, Seven and Nine are standard. Standard meaning a. MR. NACE-Meaning we have 48 inches of soil to mottling. MR. VOLLARO-But if you notice the perc rates for Nine and Seven, and Eight are pretty much the same. MR. NACE-The type of system, whether it’s a shallow system. It just refers to the location of the top of the trench with respect to existing grade, okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but if you look on that, your perc rates for, I believe your perc rates for Seven, Nine, and Eight are the same. MR. NACE-One to five minutes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-One to five minutes. MR. NACE-But if you also look, the depth to mottling on Seven and Eight, or Seven and Nine are 48 inches, which just meets the standard for a normal system, a standard system. MR. VOLLARO-Forty-six does not. MR. NACE-Forty-six does not. So that’s a shallow trench system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s the difference between 48 and 46. MR. NACE-It’s strictly per Health Department Code. MR. RINGER-Is that it on that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-Okay. Buffering landscape design. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m still on test pit data. I’ve got, I know that a fellow by the name of Jim Meachem from DOH out of Troy was to have witnessed these, Charlie Maine’s operation. I talked to him today. I talked to Jim Meachem in Troy, and he only recognized, one, this property being a property that Dr. Bannon used to own at one time. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-He has no field data or verification log at all for this. MR. LAPPER-That’s incorrect. He called and indicated that you had called and that you were suggesting that maybe DOH shouldn’t approve this, and he apologized. He said that he referred to this as the Bannon subdivision. So he was just confused when you referred to it as the Hayes subdivision, but he was out in the field, Tom was with him, Charlie Maine was with him. Another representative of DOH was there. So that did happen, but you just confused him because he knew it as the Bannon subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I got to that. He finally called me back and said the Bannon property is along Ridge Road. He was confused, because I kept saying the Hayes property. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mickey purchased the property from Dr. Bannon. That’s what happened. MR. VOLLARO-The thing is he says I do not have field log verification to this. That’s a concern of mine. He should have. I told him he should have. MR. NACE-Okay. He took the notes. Okay. He actually took the field notes and he gave them. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, he said I don’t have them. MR. NACE-I know, because he gave them to Charlie Maine to write up his report, and this is the way, when we we’re out in the field with the Department of Health, typically the way we operate, that Charlie examines the soil. Jim is down in the pit with him looking at the soil. Charlie logs the soils and Jim writes down the soil log. MR. VOLLARO-The guy should have, in his possession at DOT, he should have some sort of verification log in his possession. It seems to me it’s only the right thing for him to do. MR. SANFORD-Actually, Bob, did he say that he would not verify these pits? MR. VOLLARO-He said I have no field log verification. That’s what he told me today on the phone. MR. NACE-He witnessed them. I was there with him. I don’t know what to tell you. MR. SANFORD-I’ll tell you what my concern is, Tom. It’s no mystery that this whole Town is now developing what is commonly referred to as marginal lands, anybody that you talk to. You have a whole lot of test pits here, some of which are very close to that 24 inch threshold. There’s no way I have a comfort zone, and I’m not making any kind of confrontational statement or accusation, but that I’m going to feel comfortable in moving forward until I have witnessed verified test pits on this, independent verification test pits, on this subdivision, and I think that’s just the appropriate way we have to behave as a Board. MR. LAPPER-I don’t want to be argumentative, and I think that. MR. SANFORD-I’m not done yet, and my understanding was Mr. Meachem would not feel comfortable in verifying these. Now, go ahead. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. LAPPER-I don’t want to be confrontational, and I think that over the last six months I think that your approach to all these projects has mellowed considerably, and I think that, and I appreciate that. I think that in this case we did exactly what we were asked to do last time, and he was out there, and there was some confusion perhaps when one of the Planning Board members called him today, but he was there. There are field notes. They were used. I mean, there are marginal lots, but this lot is a conforming lot, and DOH is going to approve it, and if you’d like us to subpoena him to get him in here next time to tell you that he was there, he was there, and he witnessed it. MR. SANFORD-I don’t believe you could subpoena somebody to come to the Planning Board. I mean, really, Jon, do you subpoena people to come a Planning Board meeting? MR. NACE-I’m sure if I asked him he would come, okay. That’s not the issue. MR. RINGER-Or just a letter, whatever it takes. MR. VOLLARO-Just so everybody knows. I followed this up with a telephone call to Marilyn and also one to Craig Brown, and they independently, Marilyn said we need field test verification, and so did Craig Brown. That comes from the Executive Director, because I wanted to let her know what I did. I didn’t want to go talking to somebody at DOH without anybody at Staff understanding or knowing about it, but she said, yes, we would need field log verification, at least a letter in file from Mr. Meachem saying that he has witnessed these and following is the log information. MR. NACE-I will be glad to obtain that for you. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Nace, I’ve heard Charlie Maine’s name mentioned several times. I’m not sure what he does? What is his title? MR. NACE-He is a retired soil scientist from the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. There are two people in Upstate New York, or at least in this area of Upstate New York, that the Health Department relies on for soil classification. One is Charlie. The other is a fellow by the name of Roger Case, down in, I think he’s in Old Chatham or somewhere down that way. They are the only two in the Upper Hudson River Valley that the Health Department will allow us to use for soil logging. So he is, he’s got probably 55 years of experience in soil classification. MR. RINGER-You would need a signoff, then. MR. NACE-I would be glad to get a signoff from him. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a signoff. What Marilyn is saying is that in the file should be a field verification report from Jim Meachem. She asked me to explain that clearly tonight. She isn’t going to be here, but that’s what she wanted. MR. SANFORD-I think, going back to the Potter application of last month, I think it was, where we’re in a situation where we had the same similar kind of confusion. We were asking for the test pits to be done again, witnessed and verified and brought back to us, and that’s what I feel is needed here. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me ask you a question, okay. In this instance, in where we have test pits that we have to have a subdivision approved by the Health Department, we obviously have the Health Department there to witness, and so we have their witnessing and Charlie Maine’s actual log. In fact, if you want a log, I can give you Charlie Maine’s letter, which logs the soils. MR. SANFORD-Go ahead, finish your point. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. NACE-My point is, if you’re going to require a Health Department verification in your files, what do we do in a situation where say we only have four lots, it’s not Health Department jurisdictional. They won’t come to look at it? MR. SANFORD-Our engineer, C.T. Male, should be present on the site, witness the test pit, and verify the information, not just be there, but actually check out and verify the data. That is what I think we did, we did it last month with the Potter application. We asked that our engineer witness and verify the test pit data. MR. RINGER-Why don’t you work it out with Marilyn and see exactly what the Staff requires, okay. MR. RINGER-Sure. Okay. Moving on from there. MR. HILTON-I guess I’m not so sure what that would accomplish. If the Board is looking for additional information, you should probably specify what you’re looking for. I mean, and I guess I want to just clarify, well, not clarify, just what Rich said I think is the case, as far as what the condition was on the Potter application, is that C.T. Male witnessed test pits, and I’m not suggesting that you do that in this case, but I think that any kind of additional information should be requested by this Board. I’m not sure what a discussion with Marilyn or any of the Staff would, I don’t think they would get you new test pits. MR. LAPPER-We’re not planning on doing new test pits, because Jim Meachem was there. We’ll get you the log. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t want you to re-do them. All she said was in the file should be a letter from Jim Meachem which shows his field log and information verifying what we have on these drawings. MR. RINGER-Can you provide that? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. HILTON-In that case, if you’re looking for some kind of verification, I guess I would suggest that possibly a stipulation be that maybe Staff will contact DOH and we’ll get that letter for you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a great idea, George. MR. SANFORD-My understanding, based on the conversation I had with Mr. Vollaro tonight, was that Mr. Meachem was there, saw the test pits were done, but had no verification on the data. Now maybe that’s wrong, but that’s how I understood it. MR. VOLLARO-Right. What Mr. Nace said is probably true. He handed it over to Charlie Maine and therefore he doesn’t have it. I don’t know. I don’t know why that is. I’m not familiar with that. MR. NACE-In which case, if he didn’t keep a copy, I will go get a copy from Charlie of Jim’s original notes, get those to Jim so he can verify for you, give him a copy of the drawing and a copy of Charlie’s log so that he can verify that for you, and we’ll go round robin here. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you let Staff give Jim Meachem a call down at DOH ask him for a copy, and then if Jim says I don’t have them, then Staff can try to find a way to get them. I’d just as soon have the Staff do that as anything else. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Are you satisfied with that, George? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. HILTON-That’s fine. MR. RINGER-Anything else on that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one more. I noticed that Test Pit Number Four on Lot Number One was 18 inches. Around 100 feet away from it we have Test Pit Five and Six, which are at 32 and 42, around 100 feet away. I’m just wondering how we can get such a variation in seasonal groundwater in approximately 100 feet. It’s amazing that in 100 feet we’re going to get that much difference in seasonal groundwater. MR. NACE-Having done a lot of soils work, that’s not unusual. MR. VOLLARO-Not unusual? MR. NACE-No, and again, it’s mottling. One of the things, you know, you seem to be hitting, you’re very concerned about the soils in here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-Richard has stated that he thinks that it’s marginal and probably shouldn’t be. MR. SANFORD-What do you mean marginal and shouldn’t be? I don’t understand that comment. MR. VOLLARO-You shouldn’t be developing it. Is that what you mean? MR. NACE-Right, exactly, that’s what you’re headed towards, I think. MR. SANFORD-I didn’t know what you meant. MR. NACE-What we observed, if you’ll look at the drawing, the test pits were done on April 28 last year, which was a very wet period. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-Most of the pits were between four and five feet deep. We did not encounter groundwater in the pits. We encountered mottling only. The pits were left open. The backhoe went through and dug all the pits and then we came through and logged them. So they stood open for several hours before we got to them, which would have given the chance for the water to come up in the pit. So we’re looking at mottling and having mottling above the groundwater. The Health Department used to simply go by level of groundwater in the spring. That was it, okay, and as we got more sophisticated we started using mottling as an indicator also, but last year was a fairly wet year, and this was still substantially, mottling was substantially above groundwater elevations. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Nace, we were on that site. On Saturdays we do site visits, prior to applications, and I’m not sure if your application was being heard or if I just recommended that we stop by and see this site last spring, and I’m not sure of the exact date. I could probably figure it out, but it was probably in early May or sometime in early May, close to when these test pits were done, and we walked in, and some of the more adventurous people got in a little ways, but Gretchen went the furthest and had to stop because she couldn’t go any further, not because she was upset about the brush or anything, but because there was all this water that she couldn’t dodge, on the ground, and the site was incredibly wet with trees that had fallen down, covered with moss. It looked more like a bog than it did a well drained area. So, again, that’s why I’m looking, I’m not trying to argue with you, Mr. Nace. What I’m trying to say to you is I have significant concerns about the ability for this land to support septic systems, especially since you’re going to be bringing Town water in and you’re going to be leaving it on the site, 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) and if it’s already soaking wet, based on my observations on a number of occasions last spring, when you start building houses, what’s it going to look like, and so I think, I’ve got to feel more comfortable with it than I do now, and that’s the end of the story. MR. RINGER-Well, that’s why we’re going to have the engineers review it, and when we went into that site, we went in Cronin Road. We didn’t go in Ridge Road. MR. NACE-Exactly. That was my question. Okay. Did you know where you were? And probably not. MR. SANFORD-I knew where I was. I’ve lived in this area for over 30 years. MR. LAPPER-No. All we’re suggesting is that you were in the wetland at the bottom of the hill. MR. SANFORD-I know exactly where I was, and I’m basically at where I was was around where Lot Seven and Eight and approaching Lot Five and Six were, okay, so, I mean, I know where I was in that area. I used to walk through that area all the time, when I could get through it. All right. MR. RINGER-Richard, do you have any questions? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s move on, then, and go into buffering, unless somebody else had questions. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just one quick question. Getting back to your comment about, you dug down five or six feet, didn’t see any groundwater, but there was mottling at whatever 24 inches, 18 inches. Why would that be? MR. NACE-Mottling is caused, historically, by water and air also getting to the same soil structure, okay, water during short periods of the year and air during other periods of the year. That might have occurred, you know, 100 years ago. It might have occurred 10,000 years ago. We don’t know, okay. It’s just mottling typically occurs where you have that very highest interface of soil and air, of water and air. So it’s typically a worst case, and you really don’t know, over a period of history, when that has occurred. MR. RINGER-Buffering, clearing? MR. SEGULJIC-Buffering. MR. RINGER-Okay, buffering. MR. SEGULJIC-As I look at these plans, you don’t have any proposed buffering, correct? MR. NACE-Buffering as far as adjacent properties? MR. SEGULJIC-As far as adjacent properties go. MR. NACE-No. The lots are so large, we really haven’t felt that it was. MR. SANFORD-The placement of the houses is a far distance from the property lines. MR. SEGULJIC-But still the buffer from the other, who knows what’s going to happen in the future. I mean, have you got some type of buffering around the edge of the property? MR. NACE-Sure, we could certainly. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-five, thirty foot no cut zone around the edge. MR. NACE-Sure, I don’t see why not. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m fine with that, but I mean, where they’re placing their houses is a good distance from the end of the property. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just thinking about the adjoining people. MR. RINGER-You’ll look at a buffer of 25, 30 feet? MR. NACE-Yes, there’s no question about buffer. MR. RINGER-Twenty-five? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Neighborhood character? Neighborhood impacts? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. RINGER-Environmental, wetland delineations, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors, wildlife? MR. VOLLARO-The wetland delineations we talked about, I think, up on the design standards. MR. RINGER-Involved agencies. County, DEC, LGPC, APA, Army Corps. Other agencies. MR. VOLLARO-I think Army Corps’ an involved agency, but I don’t know that. MR. LAPPER-They’re not involved. It’s not a tenth of an acre disturbance. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Anymore questions before I open up the public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-I just had one quick question. Have you developed any lots bordering on this proposed subdivision at all? No? MR. HAYES-The ones on top. MR. SANFORD-Yes, along Ridge, right? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And also did you build the houses that border right next to Meadow Drive, the two or three houses that were cut in there on the private road? MR. HAYES-No, those aren’t ours. I guess they were done by Gary Finger. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because the ones on Ridge, then. MR. VOLLARO-Lots One and Two on Ridge. MR. SANFORD-Well, no, I think there was a five house division you built that’s adjacent to this one, or contiguous to this? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. HAYES-Kind of, yes. MR. SANFORD-I guess I don’t understand the criteria for what is a continuation of a development versus a what is a discrete development, and the fact that just a different application is made, perhaps it isn’t a good approach because you get to a certain level of density, other criteria kick in, and then therefore, I’m talking to George right now, Jon, and I’m not sure this will go over any kind of a threshold, but when they came in to you with this nine lot subdivision and they had previously done a contiguous one for five, why wasn’t it combined as an extension of the initial? MR. RINGER-They didn’t do it. It was different owners. MR. HILTON-Well, I think the fact that they’re separate properties, and with the original subdivision of five lots or whatever, just as there’s no way to anticipate the lot coming in in the future, we couldn’t sit down and develop a master plan or a master subdivision concept. When this latest one came in, it’s a new subdivision on a new piece of property. MR. SANFORD-But it’s contiguous. MR. LAPPER-It was purchased from a different seller years apart. They were able to acquire the other properties, came in, got a subdivision, built the houses, and then they approached Dr. Bannon and were able to get him under contract. MR. SANFORD-Yes, no, I think I understand your point. It’s just something we want to talk about. I think we’re having a January workshop. I mean, I want to go into it, because I could see where someone comes in and subdivides 100 acres into two, and then divides those two into four, and then they get to a point where all of a sudden they don’t have to do landscaping as part of site plan because they’re below thresholds, and there’s numerous other examples we can talk about, but to me it’s a little bit, not in this case, necessarily, because I don’t know if it goes above the threshold, but I just want to know if we have any parameters for making decisions at the Town level on this. MS. RADNER-There’s a concept called segmentation, where if you can establish that there is a general, broad overall plan for development of your hypothetical 100 acre, no, the applicant isn’t allowed to keep coming in and five acres at a time break it apart. Here, though, where you have parcels that began in separate ownership acquired apart, one subdivision already approved and built, when the second comes in, it really doesn’t come into play. Nonetheless, you can still consider the cumulative impacts of the surrounding developments when you consider the newest application that’s before you. So, if this application, you feel, is going to impact or be impacted by the growth around it, you certain can consider those factors. It’s different than if the five lot subdivision were unbuilt, and that’s just a very basic explanation. MR. RINGER-Well, I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE DI MATTIS MR. DI MATTIS-Good evening. My name is Joe DiMattis. I’m a consultant Forester, and I had some misgivings on about four different points, and some concerns. I’m Lot 485, which is the second lot on Ridge Road from your entrance, proposed new entrance there, at 485 Ridge Road. My first concern is the increased traffic patterns on Ridge Road, that’s already over trafficked, one of my concerns, as opposed to Cronin Road, which would have not exacerbated the traffic problem on Ridge Road, and I can see where there’s still, I noticed your wetland area. I don’t know if that’s a DEC defined wetland area or not, but being a Forester for 40 years some of the species of trees in that area, even though it’s a lowland, don’t qualify, in my mind, as wetlands, as provided by DEC, but irregardless of that, I understand it is low, but why the entrance to 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) your development couldn’t have continued on to Cronin Road by going across where you have the corner there, but now I see already two lots that were originally on Cronin Road have been changed and sold out separately and houses have already been approved and practically built on them, by I assume the Hayes Group. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. We’ll have to ask them, but I don’t think so. MR. SANFORD-We’ll have to ask them. MR. RINGER-They were lots, and they didn’t need to come to us. They were already lots that they could build a house on those, okay. MR. DI MATTIS-They had access right through there, and now that property line has changed. MR. RINGER-Originally, the original plans that they had presented at Sketch were coming in from Cronin Road, but it was determined by the applicant that there was so much wet land and what not, they changed their plans and revised it to Ridge Road. MR. DI MATTIS-That’s right, and none of the adjoining landowners here were notified of that either. We weren’t notified of that. My primary concern is buffering from my backyard to the second lot in, setback zones and buffering from my property, visually from the house that’s going to be built there, apparently, in addition to the increased traffic in our front yard there, the elderly people that live right across from the new entrance that they propose here, couldn’t stay, they’re just too old, and they should be apprised of this, or allowed to make comment. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, there’ll be another meeting on this, and you should have gotten notice. If you didn’t get notices, we’ll make sure that notices do go out. MR. DI MATTIS-They should be notified, because they object vigorously to an entrance, again, onto Ridge Road, right from across there. MR. RINGER-Okay, and we’ll try to get your questions answered that you have. MR. DI MATTIS-Another thing, I notice that there’s only a 20 foot building setback, as proposed in your plan here, from the back end of my property. That seems like a minimal area. All I can see here is a 20 foot setback. My lot is 485, DiMattis, it’s the second lot up, and I see here, all along here, just a 20 foot setback from any building. I think that should be a wider setback and also a larger buffer zone there. The Hayes development on the north of my property, which is a part of the five lot subdivision previously there, I had some problems with them, some agitation, because they didn’t abide by the no cut zone, and they didn’t abide by the buffering there, according to the Code Enforcement Officers, and they were flooding portions of my property by runoff, once they removed the vegetation there. I don’t anticipate this problem here because the slope is away from, generally away from my property, but I am concerned about buffering, landscaping problems there. Evergreen shrubs, this is mostly hardwood and honeysuckle brush that’s there. So I’m concerned that I want a screen there because that looks right in to my backyard. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll work on that for you. MR. DI MATTIS-I’d like screening there, evergreen screening to shield me and my backyard and my recreation trail from the adjoining houses that are proposed to be built there. MR. RINGER-We’ll see what we can do for you, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Can you point to where your lot is? Which lot is yours? Is that the second lot in? MR. DI MATTIS-My lot’s right here. This is mine. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DI MATTIS-This lot here doesn’t have any, this is bordered by a stone wall, my lot’s bordered by a stone wall here, and so is this lot here. These corner people are absentee people. MR. RINGER-We understand where your lot is, and we thank you. Do you have anything else? MR. DI MATTIS-This actually was a totally wooded area when it was first proposed there, and this actually, if your resource planning is, it’s the only wildlife travel corridor between the Halfway Brook area and the Big Cedar Swamp area on the other side of there, which are both of your reserve areas, and wildlife does pass through there frequently, as we’ve noted in our backyard, deer and all sorts of wildlife, and that wasn’t addressed at all when they were proposing building this, but it’s the only wildlife travel corridor through there. MR. SANFORD-Have you been in the back? You say you’ve lived here for a long time, and I seem to recall that where this development is proposed that I’ve seen stone fences as well back in there. MR. DI MATTIS-That’s correct. The back of my property is a stone fence. MR. SANFORD-They don’t seem to be marked on these drawings and I do recall stone fences, and in the past they have historical significance and we’ve asked that they not be disturbed and preserved. MR. DI MATTIS-That’s correct. That’s in your resource planning there. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’d certainly like to see those marked on future drawings, so that we can deal with them. MR. RINGER-Anything else, sir? MR. DI MATTIS-I guess that’s all. I want to be notified about the increase. MR. RINGER-And I’m surprised you didn’t, and I don’t know why you didn’t, but we’ll certainly make. MR. DI MATTIS-Well, previously on the Hayes property I went through considerably agitation there, but finally the Code Enforcement Officers came down. The put a plastic barrier there to prevent that flooding on my property, and also, I understand that, though. They transgressed on the 30 foot no cut zone, but that really should have been an evergreen hedge put in there, because all that is is hardwood, and now my neighbor looks right in to my kitchen and bedroom, the adjoining property owner on the third lot up there, now that the foliage is off. So that’s why I’m concerned about an evergreen hedge there, something that’s at least eight foot high. MR. RINGER-We can work on a buffering. We’ll work on buffering for you, sir. MR. DI MATTIS-Okay. I appreciate that. The buffering and the no cut zone. MR. RINGER-Well, the buffering would be a no cut zone, sir. MR. DI MATTIS-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a couple of things here. I think there’s a couple of different things going on here. Number One, with the original five lot subdivision to the north of this. MR. DI MATTIS-It’s a nine lot subdivision, as I have it on my map. MR. HILTON-Well, I think that’s what this is, but the previous subdivision, on the property north of this. MR. DI MATTIS-It’s a five lot subdivision, correct. MR. HILTON-Right, and as I understand it, you’re talking about some erosion and some stormwater concerns that happened? MR. DI MATTIS-When they removed the vegetation on there, all the water from the highway and also from this property drained down, filled up his settling area, and flowed over onto mine. MR. HILTON-And I believe Bruce Frank from our office responded to some concerns from that subdivision. So I guess I just wanted to make it known that there were some issues. MR. DI MATTIS-Bruce Frank came over and also his supervisor came over, and we walked the property, and they found that it was inadequate. They hadn’t put any berm there at all to prevent that. They had done that eventually, but then, later date, the 30 foot no cut zone, which as I said is all hardwood, so when the foliage is off, it doesn’t protect or shield our property from the visual impact at all, and when they went to put the underground power lines in, they transgressed underneath that over onto the telephone pole which is on my property, the highway, and they cut through that and cut the brush and everything out of there, with no plan or no means of replanting or anything, which I understand they had to get the power through and it was going underground, which I had done to my own, they had to have access to the land to do that, but there should have been some sort of a remediation measure there to replant everything. MR. HILTON-One quick thing. I just wanted to, again, state that I think that there, and Bruce did go out, as far as the stormwater and erosion, if there are concerns about a no cut zone that’s been cut into, I would encourage you to call Bruce in our office and he can certainly look into it. MR. RINGER-They’ll work with you, and they’re very good at working with you. MR. DI MATTIS-Well, I don’t see a problem there, really, other than the fact that, initially, when this subdivision was planned against my property, that they should have considered some evergreens there instead of just the hardwoods that are there, to prevent us, and the next lot up, if they develop, there’s just about a four foot wide entrance between the two driveways going there, no screening between them at all. So my next door neighbor now, and they transgressed onto his property in building and developing that section, the last lot that they built on that five lot subdivision, they transgressed on, and it irritated him also, but there’s no provision for any screening there. They’re looking into each other’s yards. That’s my concern on my property. MR. RINGER-We’ll work on that buffering. MR. SANFORD-Just one quick question, George, as a follow-up to what you were saying. Are you saying that in the five lot subdivision there’s been some, is it water issues that you’ve been notified of? MR. HILTON-I believe it was more of an erosion. Once vegetation was removed, there was some surface erosion that happened. MR. SANFORD-Well, my only point, I’m just making a statement, Larry. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-Richard, please. The public hearing is still open. We’ve got some questions. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine, Larry. MR. RINGER-Anyone else from the public wish to comment? TOM SMITH MR. SMITH-Good evening. Tom Smith, 17 Kitchell Lane. I’m actually one of the houses on the Gary Finger development, two house subdivision, which is slightly to the left, for the record, which was a disaster. Clearly, there is a total large amount of water in that whole space, all back in through there. I’ve done quite a bit of landscaping to try to re-direct water that has constantly eroded in our backyard. I’ve walked, trekked through that whole area. There’s a tremendous amount of water in there. What was said before, marginal, it’s sub-marginal, and I’ll stand by that. I think what we’re being faced with here is you’re being faced with this chronic development, finding land and dumping in as many houses as you possibly can, and I think I agree with some comments made to the Board before that there has been some intentional staging going on behind the scenes. There was a development by the Hayes Group which was lateral to that. They were able to get houses in there. It would have been a much better feasible location to stick a road in, but instead there’s houses in there now, which were recently built, and now that’s done, and closed off. I think it’s good for the Board to have a forum to discuss this in the future, because I think you’re being blindsided, and it’s happening over and over again. It’s not just this subdivision. Next, what I’d like to say is that in the three and a half years that we’ve lived here, moved from Vermont, we’ve been faced with constant noise of construction. We had construction of the house next to us went on for a year. We were faced with construction noise from The Hayes Group, following that. What are we going to have, another three years of construction noise, hammers, air nailers, heavy equipment, constant rumbling all summer long? I mean, we moved to this area hoping that it was going to be quiet. It has been anything but quiet. The next is, we’ve gotten to know a lot of people in the area, since we’ve moved here. We’re probably one of the youngest families in that vicinity. There’s a lot of elderly folks there. I continuously see that things such as this hodgepodge type planning is totally destroying the characteristic of that area, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration. This craziness of building houses behind other people’s houses is just something that, I mean, there was better planning back in the 60’s. I mean, we’ve actually gone backwards with this type of development. I mean, who wants to be looking at a house in front of you from your house. I mean, most of the time you’re always faced away from one another. Lastly, I guess I just would like to comment, also, on the buffering. The buffering needs to be substantial. I hear 25 feet. That’s pathetic. You want true buffering, have 100 feet. We need to preserve, this is an open space area. This needs to be, we need to keep the trees there, have the buffering, you know, we just went through two hours of buffering with Great Escape. Let’s not cut our losses right in the beginning here. Let’s make sure we have some ample buffering, and I would have to reiterate also, I’ve seen the water damage that has occurred previously, which the previous public respondent was noting. That did change. Once you take away the vegetation, there’s a large pool of water there now. I can’t imagine what that land is going to be like if you get a road in there, houses, septic tank. My dad’s an engineer, does all this stuff with percolation tests, and that. This is really sub marginal property, and I thank you. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Sir, would you point out your lot, where you are in relation to there? MR. SMITH-Yes. We are right here in this vicinity here. MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. Anyone else? MR. DAVIS-This is my first meeting I’ve attended. It’s been interesting. I’m Ben Davis. I live on 51 Meadow Drive. My wife and I bought that lot in 1972. So we did our perc tests. We knew what we were getting into. We had no problems with it. It’s been a great place to live and to bring up our children. We built the house on the high side, filled in the front and graded 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) the back, and we have a septic system, obviously, with our leach fields. My concern, it has nothing to do with the Hayes Construction Group. I know them personally. Nor is it with Schermerhorn and his construction group, but I really am concerned with the building that’s going in what I call the Meadowbrook basin. I don’t know if that’s the right term to use that, but the area between Bay and Ridge, stopping say on Quaker going north and even if we go up to Haviland. It’s just a tremendous amount of fill that is being put in this area. In 1992, we received, all the people in my area anyway, received notification from New York State about expanding the wetlands area, which I have with me tonight if anybody wants to look at it. Part of that wetlands is my backyard, and I live on what they call a tributary of Halfway Brook, and that comes under Meadowbrook Road, kind of right there by the storage place is there, it comes across there, just south of Regency Park Apartment, winds in the back, then it hooks up, it goes under Cronin Road and hooks back in to Halfway Brook. That little stream, in the summer, 32 years ago, would dry up completely. It was just like cracked clay, and they’re talking about soil here. I’ve dug around in that area for 32 years, and what that is is clay rock soil. That’s nothing like the Westland area, it’s clay, and talk about percolation. You have very little of it, but that would dry up in the summer, and that little stream maybe was three foot wide and probably about six inches deep. I swear to God that’s the truth. These past two years especially has caused me concern. If you walk behind my house, I think somebody should walk Halfway Brook. I don’t know if Richard walks over in that area, but I’ve walked Halfway Brook a lot. You can’t walk it anymore. You can’t get across the stream anymore. That little three foot stream, right now, this past summer, was I’ll bet you 25 to 30 foot wide. It’s not that seven foot deep, but it’s a flat basin area there and it’s just expanding. Years ago (lost words), I regret it now as I get older, but a huge backyard, which I could mow. This summer I could not mow it. Right now, that water table has come up over it’s little bank of Halfway Brook and it is now engulfing my whole backyard. I can walk on it, it looks like a yard, but it’s standing water. You’re going to laugh at this. It’s even influencing the muskrats. I wish the muskrat counts were higher, because they would come and get some of those babies, but sometimes it looks like the Northway going up and down that little tributary, but they’re trying to find higher ground, and now I’ve got holes in trenches that are falling through, my mower’s probably 25 foot from that stream, trying to get back up out of the water. That’s how that water’s coming out, but I think it’s just from the fill that we’re putting in here, and all those wetland areas, I’m concerned with that. I think even if we don’t subject or get onto a wetland, it seems like we build very close to a wetland, and then we put a lot of fill in there, and what’s going to happen to the wetland? The water’s got to move somewhere. So it’s going to move to the lower, wetter areas, and right now, in the lower Meadow Drive areas, the couple of houses that are the lowest in that neighborhood, we’re having trouble with our septic tanks. We’re having trouble with leach fields, and it’s not going to get any better, and every time I see these, and we’re talking about lots which are wet lots, which nobody would buy a lot like that 10 years ago, and now we see everybody’s buying these lots and fill. I teach at the College, and it doesn’t matter what time of day I come home or go to work, I see Schermerhorn’s trucks coming down with those huge loads of fill. They’re transporting a high ground into low ground and it’s messing up that whole basin. So it’s not necessarily those houses that are going on Ridge Road. I think, to me, it’s just the building is out of control, in areas in which we really shouldn’t be filling in, and I think maybe the septic lines are doing that. They wouldn’t do it if they had to have their own tanks and their own leach fields. To give you a quick example, I’d like to see somebody walk that little tributary. Another thing is, after a rain, take a ride up Meadowbrook and just look at Meadowbrook. If you look at the little trenches in front of Regency Park apartments, after a rain storm they would fill up a little bit. The next day they’d be gone. This summer they never went. It’s like standing water. Right now it’s frozen in front of those apartments, or I’m sure it’s going to impact the Bay Meadows Golf Course. I’m sure it’s going to impact the Girl Scout Camp lands over there. It’s just getting, it’s just too much fill, I guess raising the water level, and I don’t know what we’re going to do. If it gets any higher, I don’t know what I’m going to do to fix my problems. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, did you get a notice about this subdivision in the mail? MR. DAVIS-No. My wife reads the paper from cover to cover. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. RINGER-Mr. Smith, did you? MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. RINGER-You got one. MR. DAVIS-Again, I’m not adjacent to it. MR. RINGER-Five hundred feet? MR. DAVIS-Probably more than 500 feet. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Davis, where do you live again? MR. DAVIS-51 Meadow Drive. MR. SEGULJIC-So down to the west, to the west of this site? MR. DAVIS-We’re right on the bottom. There’s a pond, a man made pond down there. This development is north of me. MR. RINGER-Thank you, Mr. Davis. Anyone else? We’re running late so we’re going to be four minutes per speaker. I should have probably done this before. MICHAEL CANTIELLO MR. CANTIELLO-My name’s Michael Cantiello, and I live at 463 Ridge Road, which is the property adjacent to the development. My property borders the first lot on the plan, which was Dr. Bannon’s house. I had to put an irrigation system in my property, to keep my grass going. So the water level is not as bad as everyone’s saying it is. I go straight out a full acre, and I have a sprinkler system throughout my property. It runs three times a day in season. I’m very much for the development. I’ve worked with the boys before, the Hayes Group and other developers, Schermerhorn as well, and anything to up value my property is going to be an asset to me. I live in a modest home, and if they put in the type of homes they’re going to put in there, I’m definitely going to benefit from it, and that’s all I wanted to say. MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state that there’s a letter in the file from Mr. Cantiello, that pretty much expresses what he just said. MR. RINGER-All right. Thank you, George. MR. DI MATTIS-Joe DiMattis talking again. We don’t object to the $250 to $500,000 houses that are being put up, but actually in a sense, unless some of the developers are required to build more moderate priced housing, our children and our grandchildren are not going to be able to retain life here. They’re going to have to move away, and it’s destroying, actually, I was born and raised in this area, and this is destroying, actually, the desirable qualities that these $250 to $500,000 house buyers want to have, but there should be a reasonable accommodation for the lower priced medium priced houses that the average fellow that lives around here can afford. MR. RINGER-Sir, I agree with you 100% and the Town is working, we know we’ve got problems with low incoming housing, and the Town is working on that. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. DI MATTIS-Well, this is the other thing. Saratoga moved ahead and put a moratorium on building, and of course Dan, there’s a lot of pressure against him, Dan Stec, who’s a personal friend of mine, his father worked for me for a number of years in the Conservation Department, but the thing of it is that you have to sit back and take a moratorium on some of this development until you have adequate resource planning in place, like this fellow was saying. The only wildlife travel corridor between Halfway Brook and the Big Swamp area is this wooded, was this wooded area that’s not going to be there anymore, and the reason that part of it hasn’t been developed before probably is because of the wet nature of it, and this fellow here, he’s gone, I guess, talked about mottling. As a Forester for 40 years with the Conservation Department, I know a little something about that, and I’ve been on the property, prior to their purchase, and it is an excessively wet spot, and in spite of what they’re doing with their plans here, it doesn’t look like an ideal place for a nine house development there, and some of the lots are long extended lots that are no use to anybody down there, now, instead of more evenly distributed as they were before, and again, as I was expressing the exacerbating problem on Ridge Road that’s already way over trafficked now, 24 hours a day. They should have an entrance some way for their development, if intended to go through, onto Cronin Road, where anybody going to Bay Road or Meadowbrook Road, going to the west, to the Mall or to Route 9 or to Glens Falls, would have chosen Meadowbrook Road or Bay Road to traverse, rather than exacerbating the Ridge Road property. MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. The public hearing will remain open, of course, and we’ll bring you gentlemen back up. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of letters real quick. Number One is a letter from Susan Sweet, dated December 27. It says, “My name is Susan Sweet. I reside at 467 th Ridge Road in Queensbury with my family. This home is planned to become part of the new subdivision. I can’t wait! No more backing out onto Ridge Road, yeah! I will really appreciate a safe road for my kids to play on. Please approve this neighborhood as fast as you can, I would love to have a safe place for my kids to ride their bikes this spring. Have a Happy New Year! Sincerely, Susan Sweet” Secondly a record of Telephone Conversation, between Mr. and Mrs. Hubert, 474 Ridge Road, directly across Ridge Road from the proposal, and Craig Brown. It says that they’re not in favor of the proposed road location. Objections include the potential increase in traffic, headlights directly across from their house and stormwater. Lastly, a letter received December 27 from Sonja Deckert. “Dear Sirs: Hello, my name is Sonja Deckert of 214 th Cronin Road, Queensbury. I am excited to see such an upscale neighborhood going in next to my property. The design seems to keep a very large portion of the land “green”. My children will enjoy our new neighbors and a dead end road to play on. I shall enjoy their pleasure and I shall enjoy property value benefits of having a home next to very expensive homes. My realtor says I could see a 10-20% increase in my property overnight!!! This is potentially a lucky break for my family. Please approve this subdivision as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Sonja Deckert” MR. RINGER-Thank you, George. You’ve heard some of the comments. Let’s go over some. You haven’t discussed traffic. General comment. MR. LAPPER-Traffic generation for a nine lot subdivision is very small. MR. RINGER-One of the gentlemen, Joe, I didn’t get his last name, I’m sorry, was talking about why didn’t you go over to Cronin Road. For the public, would you give a brief why you didn’t, or why it wasn’t considered? MR. NACE-As you stated, Larry, we originally had looked at bringing the subdivision in strictly from Cronin Road. MR. RINGER-I wanted you to explain. MR. NACE-And when we first went out, I went out to do the initial test pits and found that that area down, accessing the property off Cronin Road was very wet, and it lead into the lower part 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) of the subdivision or the lower part of the land, rather than the higher portion where the soils are better. Therefore I convinced Mickey to reconfigure the subdivision to come in and use the better soils up off of Ridge Road. MR. RINGER-Okay. I think it’s important, when comments from the public come in, that you answer them as to. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. RINGER-Anything else I missed from the public comments? MR. SANFORD-Yes, on the same question, Larry, I mean, again, you know, I’m just not clear on it. If this was one parcel of land, and you were looking to have a road go from Cronin, I guess running into Ridge, that was the first sketch plan, I think. MR. NACE-No, the first sketch plan was just a cul de sac off of Cronin. MR. SANFORD-Off of Cronin, okay. MR. NACE-Yes, it was take this and sort of flip it over mirror. MR. SANFORD-Okay. This doesn’t affect my point or my question. My question is, if you owned this land, how were you able to get it subdivided without coming in front of this Board, so that these homes are now built on Cronin? MR. HAYES-There was two separate lots, always, from 80 years ago. MR. SANFORD-You never merged them, in other words? MR. HAYES-We bought two separate parcels, two separate closings, and we sold the other lot. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and the other question I have, perhaps for George, but I think he’s busy right now, but maybe Larry can help me out with this one. On your plan, you stated that, you know, SR-1, and you have down then, underneath it, you have minimum lot width 150 feet, and then you have minimum lot size one acre. Yet I think if I look at many of these lots, they’re less than the 150 minimum width. What gives? I mean, I talked with Mr. Vollaro on this and we’ve speculated, but I’d like to have clarification. MR. HILTON-Lot width is, as defined in our Code. MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t that the average lot width? MR. HILTON-That’s how we’ve determined it is the average. MR. SANFORD-The average of what? MR. HILTON-The average of the minimum width. MR. SANFORD-Of each lot, or of the subdivision? MR. HILTON-Of each lot. MR. SANFORD-Of each lot, and you’re saying that if some of these lots that are very rectangular, they meet the 150? MR. HILTON-We reviewed this. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. SANFORD-I took a look at it and they look awful rectangular and they’re way below 150. I don’t know what kind of a measuring stick you’re using. MR. HILTON-Which lot in particular? MR. SANFORD-Let me take a look. Maybe I’m wrong. MR. RINGER-While he’s looking that up, let’s go over some of the other things. Buffering is what I wanted to get into. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there were three people who really talked about how wet this property was, three individual folks. MR. RINGER-I realize that, but that’s why we’re going to have the comments from Male, and we’ve got our test pits, and we have to rely on the engineers. I understand what you’re saying, I do, and they live there and they walk out there and they probably don’t feel it’s wet, but our engineers and test pits and stuff have to be the determining factor. MR. SANFORD-What drawing has the actual dimensions of it on there? MR. NACE-Drawing S-2. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now you can’t tell me Lot Number Five has a width of 150, when I’m looking at 127.92 feet, and it’s perfectly rectangular in terms of the width. MR. HILTON-And then you add the additional 27.17. MR. SANFORD-Where? MR. HILTON-That’s shown right to the north of that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you’re going to a buffer or something. MR. HILTON-I’m not going to a buffer at all. MR. NACE-There’s two different poles on the same boundary line. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now how about, now Lot Four you have 106.94 facing the road, it goes very, very deep, and then you take a little bend and so you’re saying that because you take that bend, which won’t have a house or anything else, and it’s 249, but you’re okay with that? MR. HILTON-Actually, and then there’s 290 at the widest point. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes, and up on the road it’s not just, it’s 106, 107, plus 18. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now Lot Three you’ve got 100.75 feet along the road. You’ve got 92.19 on the southern eastern area, and then you’ve got 202.29 on the southern west area, you did the math and you said that’s okay, that’s meeting 150 width, too. MR. NACE-It’s an average. MR. HILTON-Again, if you look at that widest point of that lot, being the 202.29, if you average that out, we looked at it and determined it to be compliant. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and Lot Number One, which is 89.85, is it? With 194 in the rear, that works out, too, I guess? Now, is this way in which you measure lots, in terms of the widths, is 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) there a consistency with the Town of Queensbury and other townships, or is this just sort of something that you guys decided, you did the methodology, and you would. MR. HILTON-This is nothing that was just decided. This is the way we’ve been determining it. MR. SANFORD-You’ve been doing it forever? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I don’t know why you have a minimum width of 150, when most of these are shy of that. MR. RINGER-On the buffering, come back with a plan for buffering, some of the Board up here, we talked 35, some of the public said 100. Let’s come up with something that’s. MR. NACE-Well, I think the important issue is to come up with an effective buffer, and probably the suggestion of some evergreens in that buffer to make it a year round buffer is probably a good one. MR. RINGER-Come up with something that’s representative. MR. NACE-Come up with more of a landscaped buffer, as opposed to just a no cut zone. MR. RINGER-You’ve got a lot of land there, so the buffering, you know, you might be able to do something with the buffering. MR. LAPPER-Not a problem. MR. RINGER-What else? MR. SEGULJIC-Stone walls. There was talk of stone walls. MR. RINGER-Stone walls. Tom, thank you. MR. NACE-Yes, I’ve got that on my list. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-When we get into SEQRA. We will get into SEQRA on this? MR. RINGER-Not tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Not tonight. MR. RINGER-Because we’re going to table it, but you will be doing a SEQRA, and you’ll be talking about historic, archeological, and you’ll also be talking about wildlife and environmental impacts and stuff like that, and you’re going to do that on SEQRA. I mean, because a deer runs across there, a deer runs in my back yard, too, once in a while. I don’t know, but that’s something that you’re going to do when you do your SEQRA, and you can address all those issues. MR. SANFORD-And you won’t be with us, then. MR. RINGER-And I won’t be with you. So, any other questions before we start a tabling? MRS. STEFFAN-I just have a comment. I think it’s a lot on the property that’s there, and the percolation rates, you know, they may be Code. I haven’t seen C.T. Male’s letter, but I depend on them because they’re the experts, I’m not. I’m not an engineer, but with the wetlands that 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) are here and some of the comments that folks have made about wildlife, you know, this particular lot would probably be an excellent configuration for a conservation subdivision, not as many lots as are here, but could maintain some of the conservation areas and the wetland, and I’m just throwing it out. MR. RINGER-Are you suggesting a clustering? MR. SANFORD-Clustering doesn’t provide greater density, but it does provide for conservation. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but the conservation subdivision protects the wetland and provides some other kinds of options on this particular property. I’m just throwing it out because it’s things we’ve talked about. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’ll just give you some general comments. Clustering’s not permitted in the SFR zone. This is essentially a conservation subdivision because it’s 15 acres with nine lots, and the whole area in the back that’s the wetland that we’ve stayed away from is just going to remain open space because it has to. We don’t think this is too dense, with nine lots. It exceeds the minimum lot requirement. It doesn’t generate a lot of traffic. It’s on a major arterial with only one curb cut, which is what’s there now. I mean, we think this is a well designed subdivision. C.T. Male’s given us their sign off, but we understand we’ve got to get you the proof that DOH was actually out there and that we’re not lying to you, and we’ll take care of all the issues that you mentioned. MR. RINGER-Didn’t the Town change the, I thought we had a workshop a couple of years ago on changing that one acre where clustering was allowed. That never came about? MR. HILTON-Never went anywhere. MR. RINGER-I mean, we did have a workshop on it. I don’t want to bring it up tonight, but it seemed like there was talk about that at one time. MR. HILTON-Yes, there was. MR. RINGER-And it seemed like a program that was going to work, and obviously it died right in the workshop. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and again, we did have a workshop on it, and my understanding was that the Planning Board gave, I thought, their approval to move forward for Staff to take it to Town Board. MR. RINGER-Not approval, but recommendation. MR. SANFORD-Recommendation, sure. MR. RINGER-I remember the workshop. Maybe it’s something that you can think about next year to bring up again, Larry, because it does make a good idea. MR. SANFORD-I hear you, Larry. MR. RINGER-So we’re ready for a tabling, unless there’s something else specific. MR. DI MATTIS-Excuse me, I’d like to make an additional comment, if I might. I don’t want to hold you up until late, but it’s. MR. RINGER-I’ll tell you what we’ll do. We’ll give you a couple of minutes, sir. We want to give you every opportunity to speak. Please be brief, though. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) MR. DI MATTIS-Article Eight of your zoning requirements regarding landscape and buffering, it says the purpose is to establish incentives for preserving existing trees and replanting of those lost to development, and being that this is a wildlife travel corridor, there may be such a thing as establishing a minimum diameter of trees to leave there, throughout the lot, other than the low wetland area that obviously is not going to be probably used at all. So that’s just one, and the other thing is, being that Ridge Road, is that a State highway? Correct? Have they been addressed to this situation? MR. RINGER-I believe that is, but I’m not sure. It could be a County road. MR. SANFORD-You know, that’s a great point. There is an inventory of required for trees of a certain diameter or circumference. MR. DI MATTIS-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-And I don’t see where there’s been a request for a waiver on that, yet there hasn’t been compliance with it. So that’s another issue that we do need to address. MR. DI MATTIS-The concern also was, again, the traffic onto Ridge Road that’s already heavily trafficked, and whether the governing body for that Ridge Road should be addressed, should have comment on this, too, as to whether that should be allowed or not, versus Cronin. MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir. As I say, the public hearing is going to be held open, now. This is going to come up again in January, and I hope you’re here. Okay. So we’ll table the application. Will someone make a motion? If not, I’ll make a motion. MR. SANFORD-Go ahead, Larry, your final thing. MR. RINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2004 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: The reason for the tabling is for: 1. The applicant to come back with a revised plan showing buffering. 2. Also to get verification on the test pits. 3. We’re waiting for C.T. Male’s comments and C.T. Male’s sign-off 4. The new plan showing the stone fence that’s up. 5. Removal of the driveway should be shown on the revised plan. 6. Tabled to the first meeting in February 15, 2005. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 2004, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-Are you specifying a specific date, right now, that you’re tabling it to? MR. RINGER-Didn’t you give me a date? MR. HILTON-Not for this. MR. SANFORD-Well, let’s leave it open. They have to bring it in to you and get on your schedule. MR. HILTON-In that case in, if we receive the information by the 15 of January, it would be on th a February meeting. MR. RINGER-Okay. The first meeting in February, which would be February 15. th 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/28/04) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman 63