Loading...
1998-12-15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT- MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES 10/8/98 - NONE 10/27/98 - NONE 11/27/98 - NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATED 10/8/98, 10/27/98 & 11/17/98 , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer ELECTION OFFICERS: CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MAC EWAN FOR CHAIRMAN , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MOTION TO NOMINATE GEORGE STARK FOR VICE CHAIRMAN , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MOTION TO NOMINATE CATHY LA BOMBARD FOR SECRETARY , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-83 MODIFICATION DETERMINATION NON-SIGNIFICANCE CARL A. PAULSEN OWNER: CARL A. PAULSEN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: OFF WESTMORE ROAD, WARNER BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE MODIFICATION WOULD INCREASE THE SHORE- FRONTAGE AND LOT SIZE OF ONE LOT. MODIFICATIONS TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION 2-83 TAX MAP NUMBER: 18-1-13.1 AND 13.2 LOT SIZE: 1.05 ACRES, 0.92 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CARL PAULSEN, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled tonight. MR. ROUND-Mr. MacEwan, apparently there’s no representative from Paulsen here tonight, or, is Mr. Steves going to come here, Mr. Paulsen? MR. PAULSEN-He said he was. MR. ROUND-Would you like us to juggle the agenda? MR. PAULSEN-If you need him here. MR. ROUND-It’s not necessary from our standpoint. I think it’s a relatively minor project, and you should be able to answer most of the questions the Board should have. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-83, Modification, Carl A. Paulsen, Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a modification to an approved subdivision. Any modification to a Planning Board approved subdivision requires Planning Board review. Staff Notes The subdivision previously received a variance to allow the creation of two nonconforming lots (less than one acre), and a lot that does not have the minimum road frontage, (Var. 816 -3/16/98). The lot line adjustment will not alter the area of either lot*. There are no foreseeable environmental or neighborhood impacts. Staff has no additional concerns. *New map as of 12/9/98” MRS. MOORE-The date of the variance is incorrect. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. MAC EWAN-This lot line adjustment doesn’t effect the variance whatsoever? Okay. Mr. Paulsen, would you like to come up to the table, please. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. PAULSEN-Yes. I’m Carl Paulsen with a “C”. The land that has the greater piece of frontage is the piece that’s owned by Karl with a “K”, and we’re seeking to increase our frontage by 20 to 22 feet, and sacrificing a similar shape piece in the back end of the lot, the property line away from Lake George, so that, as I understand it, the square footage of the two parcels would remain the same, just to facilitate building a dock on our lake frontage. MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s basically just an even exchange of property, give and take? MR. PAULSEN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It sounds simple enough. Any questions? Does someone want to make a motion. MOTION TO MODIFY SUBDIVISION NO. 2-83 CARL A. PAULSEN , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. That the Planning Board has determined there’s no significant change in the original subdivision modification, and further finds there’s no sufficient change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a request to Subdivision No. 2-83 for a boundary line adjustment to increase the shore-frontage and lot size of one lot ; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 11/18/98 consists of the following: 1. 11/18/98 - Letter from Carl A. Paulsen 2. Map S-1 Dated 10/7/98 3. Map dated 6/17/83 (previous approval) Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 12/3/98 - Letter re: meeting dates 2. 12/9/98 - Revised Map S-1 3. 12/15/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve the Modification to Subdivision No. 2-83 - Carl A. Paulsen. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. PAULSEN-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 47-98 TYPE: UNLISTED AUTOPRO COLLISION REPAIR, INC. (FORMULA ONE AUTO BODY) OWNER: RICHARD EGGLESTON - REFLECTION PROPERTIES, INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 384 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTINUATION OF AUTOMOBILE REPAIR AND BODY SHOP; TO ADD AUTOMOBILE SALES CROSS REFERENCES: SPR 61-93, SPR 11- 93, SPR 55-95 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 9, 1998 BEAUTIFICATION: DECEMBER 7, 1998 @ 8 PM TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1.6, 1.4 LOT SIZE: 0.79 ACRES 0.37 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing in September was tabled by the applicant, and we had to re-advertise it, and there is one this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-98, Autopro Collision Repair, Inc. (Formula One Auto Body), Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to expand automobile service to include used car sales and rentals. The applicant’s prior site plan approval allowed for automobile repair and body work. Site plan review is required for new uses in the HC- 1A zone. Staff Notes The applicant has requested to be tabled until February, 1999. The applicant has been informed of the area variance requirement for the relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone. The tabling will allow the applicant to complete the necessary paperwork for the area variance and provide a more detailed plot plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-And the reason we’re going to table this is because of the detailed drawings that they were going to put together for their landscaping efforts? Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct, overall plot plan as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What we’ll do is we’ll open up the public hearing on this application. If there’s anyone who wants to speak regarding this application, you’re certainly welcome to come up here and address your concerns to the Board, but we are going to table this application until the first meeting of February. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 47-98 AUTOPRO COLLISION REPAIR, INC. (FORMULA ONE AUTO BODY) , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 62-98 TYPE: UNLISTED PREMIER PARKS, INC. d/b/a THE GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-42A/RC-15 LOCATION: ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT “THE NIGHTMARE RIDE”, AN ENCLOSED ROLLER COASTER RIDE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR AMUSEMENT CENTER WITHIN RC-15 ZONING. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 14-90 SPR 26-98, AREA VAR. NO. 87-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 248.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS, CRAIG TRIPP, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was left open from the November 24, 1998 meeting. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 62-98, Premier Parks, Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape, Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes “The Nightmare”, an enclosed roller coaster ride. The enclosed structure will be 17,600 sq. ft. at a height of 62 ft. and will effect 0.4 acres. The proposed ride is located within the “Desperado Plunge Ride” and incorporates the Plunge Ride in its design. Staff Notes The Zoning Board has relinquished lead agency status to the Planning Board for a SEQRA determination for the proposed project. A SEQRA determination must be completed prior to any action on the proposal, including the height relief variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA will consider the variance request Wednesday, December 16, 1998 and then the application can proceed through the Site Plan review process on December 22, 1998. The proposed project is considered an unlisted action under SEQR, a short environmental assessment form has been filed for your review. A copy of the ZBA th minutes of December 9 are included in the package. The previous Planning Board concerns and the ZBA discussions focused on visual impacts and the noise of this proposal and the Park in general.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have anything else? I don’t know what else there is that we can add in here at this point. thnd MR. RINGER-We’ve got Staff’s letter of the 19 and Lemery and Reid’s letter of the 2. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets read those in. MR. RINGER-They’re long letters. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. We’ll get them in. We’re looking for Craig Brown’s letter of the thnd 19 of November, and Lemery & Reid’s letter of December the 2. MRS. MOORE-Addressed to Lemery & Reid, “After initial review of the above described proposal we request the following additional information: • Provide updated narrative describing the placement of the balloons used to aide in establishing the photographic representation of the proposed structure. The balloons are much higher than the proposed structure in the photos. The narrative states that the balloons were flown at 70 feet to the bottom. Please clarify. • Provide representative elevations of the proposed structure depicting; height from ridge to proposed final grade on all sides, proposed finish on the building, i.e. painted landscape, solid color…., • Provide a site profile perpendicular to NYS Rte. 9, from the center line of Rte. 9 through the area including the Steamin Demon, Desperado Plunge, the highest point of the proposed bank and through the project site. This profile should also include a representation of the height of the Condor and proposed plantings on the top of the bank to remain. • Provide narrative discussing alternate sites on the property; feasible alternatives to this location. • Provide if available, a map depicting entire park to substantiate other possible locations for the proposal. • Provide proposed noise level data, including decibel level of proposed ride, i.e. Nightmare will be xxxx decibels compared to the Bobsled which is xxxx decibels. • Provide permeability calculations, based on the information submitted, it is not possible to determine overall permeability for the park. • Address the issue of the parcel being split zoned LC-42/RC-15. It is our intention to have a special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, on Wednesday, December 9, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. for this project. This December 9 meeting is contingent upon receipt of the requested information by November 30, 1998. This special meeting will allow for any additional information, if necessary, to be identified and submitted for the December 16 meeting and if approval is gained, the Planning Board may make a decision on December 22. If this proposed schedule is acceptable, please notify the Town as soon as possible, as we must advertise prior to the meeting. The additional information must be submitted by November 30, in order for us to review and distribute the same to Board members. Should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Department of Community Development, Craig Brown Code Compliance Officer” This is addressed to Craig Brown. “This letter is in response to your letter dated November 19, 1998 which requested additional information in connection with Premier Parks’ application for an area variance for The Nightmare Ride which has been proposed for The Great Escape (the “Park”). I will address your questions in the same order in which they were presented in your letter. • Provide updated narrative describing the placement of the balloons used to aide in establishing the photographic representation of the proposed structure. The balloons represent the building peak at 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) an elevation of 315 ft., however, the actual building height of the proposed structure will be at an elevation of 303 ft. at the peak. The difference is due to a subsequent 8 ft. reduction in the finished floor and an error in the field in setting the balloon height which accounts for the remaining 4 ft. In conclusion, the balloons show a height which is 12 ft. too high. • Provide representative elevations of the proposed structure. See site profile attached. • Provide a site profiler perpendicular to NYS Rte. 9. See site profile attached. • Provide narrative discussing alternative sites on the property; feasible alternatives to this location. The theme of The Nightmare Ride is a haunted mine shaft in keeping with the character of Ghost Town. There have been no upgrades to this area of the Park since the Desperado Plunge was built several years ago. This has affected patron distribution by causing concentrations of visitors in areas where the new rides are located. The placement of this ride in Ghost Town will more equitably distribute patrons throughout the Park. Physically, a review of the park-wide survey (see map of The Great Escape) indicates that no remaining areas of the Park would accommodate an amusement ride of this size without a major investment. In addition, no matter where the Nightmare Ride was located, a height variance would be required. • Provide, if available, a map depicting entire park to substantiate other possible locations for the proposal. (Map attached) A survey has been provided which identifies the major attractions and general layout of the Park. There are no other feasible locations for the Nightmare Ride. • Provide proposed noise level data including decibel level of proposed ride. The attached survey describes attractions within the park and their decibel levels. The Bobsled ride for example has a 96 peak decibel level. The Nightmare Ride is operated in another of Premier Parks locations and the information is currently being assembled to provide the decibel level of that ride per your request. It will be provided to your office by the beginning of next week. • Provide permeability calculations. It is impossible to measure the impervious area of the whole park. The last couple of improvements, the Bobsled and the Boomerang, resulted in a decrease in the impervious area as large expanses of paved areas were removed and replaced with grassed area. Although calculation of permeability is not available, the permeable area has increased due to improvements made over the last several years. Improvements have been designed to infiltrate storm water runoff and surface water runoff is directed away from the stream traveling through the Park and the wetland. In summary, the level of permeable area has increased over the last several years. • Address the issue of the parcel being split zoned LC-42/RC-15. Split zoning is not an issue given the location of this particular action. All of the proposed improvements will occur within the RC-15 zone. If you have any additional questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please call me. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide this information to you and for scheduling a special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Very truly yours, John C. Lemery” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Lemery with Lemery & Reid, Counsel to Premier Parks. On my left is Craig Tripp, a representative from the LA Group, the land planning consultants to Premier Parks, and to my right is John Collins, the Vice President of Premier Parks. I’d like the record to reflect that we’ve provided to the Planning Staff yesterday the decibel levels on the Nightmare Ride which were provided to Premier Parks by one of its sister parks where the ride is located. The ride information was prepared by Pelten Marsh, Kinsella, Consultants in Acoustics, and that was provided to the Planning Staff the day we got it, which was yesterday. My letter of the second of December said as soon as we get it, we’d provide it to you, and I’d like the record to note that we’ve provided it. Also, we’ve provided. this afternoon, Jim Martin dropped off copies of the site plan for the expanded parking over at the Animal Land site, which this Board asked us to provide, as well as, so that you have a layout of that. Other than that, this is a continuation of the public hearing. We can, if you want, Mr. Chairman, go over the site from the ride itself, for people in the audience, or we can defer that. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, you can even refresh our memories as well. MR. LEMERY-All right. Craig, do you want to do that? There was some confusion, originally, over the actual height. The height to the eaves is 53 feet. The height to the peak is 62 feet. So the amount of the variance is 12 feet from grade, or the building elevation is 12 feet from grade, which is 12 feet over and above that which is permitted in the zone, which is the reason for the Area Variance request. MR. TRIPP-Again, my name is Craig Tripp from the LA Group. To start off, just to orient yourselves within the Park for where this ride is located, the section drawn along the bottom of the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) board here was taken as it was requested by the Zoning Board from the center line of Route 9. It continues on through the Screamin’ Demon roller coaster area, through the Desperado Plunge building, and then into the project site, which is also represented down here. From there, these boards were presented at the Zoning Board meeting. From the bottom you can see that it’s quite obvious from Route 9 itself, due to the flume building and subsequently in later years from the mitigation planting, the building will not be visible from Route 9. The top picture is a further representation and perspective taken from the Ghost Town area, toward the project site. These are existing buildings in the foreground. You can see what you can see of the Nightmare building in the background, which is shown also with the mitigation planting. We’ve shown the plantings at approximately a two to three year growth after planting. Beyond that, I don’t know if anybody has any questions right off. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you in a position to go into the noise decibel a little bit? MR. TRIPP-John Collins can address that better than I could right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. COLLINS-It was requested that we do a sound study. The ride that we checked was a similar ride, and I have information as far as the difference between the two, but it’s basically just a difference between, the train ride that we measured is three hooked up cars together for 12 passengers, where the one that we will have are individual cars, four passenger each. They’re both steel coasters. They’re both urethane wheels. That ride that we measured is just slightly higher as far as the lift hill, but it’s identical in scope and size. They did a measurement last week, and did that information get passed around to everybody? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we all have it. MR. COLLINS-Okay. Basically, they took measurements from the inside of the ride, which was for their own purposes, and outside the building, which is what we’re interested in. Two locations were, as it says, inside and outside, approximately 10 to 12 feet away from the walls of the building, and the decibel levels to the east side of the building was a low of 70 to a high of 75. You see the chart on the back that shows the range and the hertz level as far as the averages. The west side, which would be our south facing side, which is the one with the themeing, had even less decibel levels, due to they have stucco. We’ll use a foam and wood type barrier, 66 to a high of 72, which is minimal, and basically they’re saying once you get 50 feet away, you can’t even discern what the noise is, if it’s any at all, due to ambiance noise. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the construction of the building itself that the ride’s going to be housed in, can you refresh our memory again about? MR. COLLINS-It’s an “L” frame building. It will be insulated on the interior. I’ve got the information, I think you had requested on what the insulation will be. This insulation is pretty much the same R, whatever the terminology is that they use at our sister Park Six Flags over Texas. It will be black in color to help with the darkening of the ride as well. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as insulation goes, is it like an insulation that we would think of in residential use? MR. COLLINS-It’s about exactly what it is in front of you. It would be used in commercial use. This is not, it’s basically building insulation that will be used for darkening and the deadening of the sound in the interior more than anything else. It’s about six inches thick. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this building going to be air conditioned, John? MR. COLLINS-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-I see, okay. MR. PALING-Six inches is the roof and four inches are the walls? MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MR. PALING-The ride that you measured the dB levels on is the same insulation as this? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. COLLINS-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that you guys wanted to add? MR. COLLINS-No. MR. PALING-I’ve got one more question. On the Bobsled, what would the, if you take an outside reading that you have here I think around 70 dB, what’s a similar dB reading at the Bobsled outside? MR. COLLINS-Did you get a copy of that information? MR. ROUND-Yes, it says the Bobsled has a 96 decibel peak. That’s in the letter. MR. COLLINS-Okay. We had an industrial hygiene report done by Northern Health and Safety Services. That was done to monitor noise levels that our employees are subjected to over an eight hour period, based on OSHA standards. They were monitored with sound monitors that they wore over an eight hour period. The information that we have was the peak noise level, and the average was in the low 80’s, on the open deck, which is the load and unload station, okay, and then the 94 peak, which is, I believe, what we submitted is under the bridge, which is the entrance to the ride, is in the upper 70’s. The flying Jumbo, in relationship, is 80 decibels at the operator’s stand. Another ride we had measured was the Ghost Town train. The operator wore one. He was between 76 and 86 over that eight hour period, and the Boomerang, for example, had a peak of 88, and was in the mid 70’s for a very brief period of time, but averaged in the low 80’s. MR. PALING-Okay. The dB levels of all those rides are much higher than the highest that you’re going to have on the other side of the new ride. MR. COLLINS-That is correct. MR. PALING-And there was complaint about the Bobsled, talking about it sounding like jet planes taking off, and that much higher dabs. So this should not be a discernible noise, in the same area that they’re complaining about the Bobsled. MR. COLLINS-That is correct. That’s why we decided to put the ride indoors. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-With respect to ambient noise, what I’m trying to look at is the combination of these rides slowly raise the ambient noise levels in the Park, and I’m kind of looking at, if you were to write a generic impact statement, how would handle that? In other words, would we talk about some ambient noise that would not exceed a certain threshold in dB? It can be done. I mean, it’s not something we can’t arrive at, and I’m interested in trying to look at developing a long range plan, or having you people develop a long range plan, that talks about height envelopes and noise envelopes. So that this generic environmental impact statement would talk to both of those. MR. LEMERY-Well, let me start by saying that the Park has been there since 1954. The land has been there all that time. The development that has occurred there has occurred, most of it, after the Park was sited there. For example, Mr. Passarelli decided to put a subdivision in on a road adjacent to the Park, and I came to the public hearing and said that The Great Escape, at that time, had no issue whatsoever with Mr. Passarelli’s subdivision, but that people who were going to buy in that subdivision needed to understand that The Great Escape was there and was going to be changing the mix of its rides from time to time, and they needed to be mindful of that, before they built their homes there, because this was a pre-existing use. We’re not in a position to look at a generic environmental impact statement. We don’t think that it will work for this Park because things change from year to year, and the mix that The Great Escape is required to look at on an annual basis is such that it would be really not possible, we don’t think, to write a generic environmental impact statement. We don’t, also, either, want to get into a situation where some noise level are imposed on the Park which don’t work, or some visual impact limitations are placed on the Park. We’d rather deal with it as we have in the past, one attraction at a time, and one of the reasons is that when the roller coaster, the Comet roller coaster was originally proposed in the Park, there was in the Planning Board, I think, it wasn’t this Planning Board. I did not represent The Great Escape at the time. So I don’t know whether any people on the Board here were on the Board at that time, but someone on the Board decided that the Comet roller coaster might make some noise, and decided that there ought to be an Environmental Impact Statement. The Great 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) Escape, at that time, spent over $100,000 on an Impact Statement for the Comet roller coaster, trying to get one completed in a draft format, and in the mean time, Mr. Wood sold the Park, and nothing happened with respect to the permit of the coaster. We acquired the Park back in 1996. We took a look at the Environmental Impact Statement, and we engaged the LA Group to take a look at it also, and we decided to finish it and come back and try to get the ride approved. When I got involved, I looked at the noise issues that had been raised, and determined that there wasn’t anything that was at all measurable at the parameters of the site, and we took the position that we couldn’t measure it. It was what it was, and chances are it wasn’t going to be a problem. There was, my recollection was there were people who came to the meeting from the Twicwood area and raised some issues about the Park, but that people generally felt that the Park was not a nuisance to the area. The Park is operated, it was operated at that time, 105 days a year. So, the ride was approved, and that was after a cost of $150,000. To my knowledge, nobody’s complained about the Comet since. Nobody has had any issues with the Comet since. We don’t want to get in a position where we’ve got to respond to some environmental, generic environmental impact statement. For example, I’ll give you another example. When the Comet roller coaster was approved, there was a line in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that said that the owner of the Park at that time had no present intention of expanding the hours of the Park. When the Park was acquired by Premier, we were told that the Park couldn’t expand it’s hours, without coming back to the Planning Board. I disagreed with that, and there was a long discussion internally among the new owners of the Park and the Planning Staff and the lawyers at that time for the Planning Staff, Planning Department, Planning Board, and we determined that, if anything, the Planning Board maybe had the right to regulate the hours of the Comet, but certainly not the Park. I didn’t think they had to do that because I didn’t think that that comment in the Environmental Impact Statement permitted the Town of Queensbury to determine what the hours of that roller coaster could be operated at, but the owners of the Park felt that it was all right to come in here and submit to the jurisdiction of the Planning Board for the purposes of determining whether the coaster could operate beyond what was then the 6:30 closing time, and that was all because of one comment in a generic environmental impact statement. We had to provide, we were told we had to provide a supplemental environmental impact statement for the ability to determine that that ride could operate after 6:30. To me, that’s naturally a form over substance, and we’re not going to put ourselves in that position. So, for that reason, among others, the Park is not prepared to do a generic environmental impact statement. The other reason, of course, is that you simply can’t tell, from year to year, what might be going in there. The reason this ride is going where it is is because there is this huge influx of people that come in and spend all their time down at the water area, so that the upper area of the Park has to, they’ve tried to do this to see that they can move the traffic. They spend $2,000,000 a year on marketing the Park. One of the reasons for the increase in Park usage is no so much because of the attractions at the Park but because of their owners who are now the second largest theme park operator in the world, have spent several millions of dollars marketing the Park and marketing the attractions there. John Collins can talk to you about what they’ve done with regard to season passes and the other kinds of things they’ve done to bring families into the Park at lower rates than they might otherwise have to pay. To try to get some noise level over the Park and put some blanket noise level over the Park, to try to put some sort of other formalized criteria on this, to our way of thinking, would box this Park in to a point where we go from the sublime to the ridiculous, in terms of site plan review and approval of rides within the RC-15 zone, which is an amusement park zone. So, we just don’t think it’s appropriate, and we don’t think it’s possible to try to sit down and plan out, on some long term basis, what could be done with The Great Escape. Next year might mean that this ride is a failure. They’ve got to take it out. They’ve got to bulldoze it and put something else in there. So, with all due respect, I think that’s the position of the owners of the Park at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-After that, I doubt it. My only concern there was to try to take a look at the cumulative effects of these rides. Now, this is obvious to me that this ride is going to have a much lower dbm radiation over the audible range than the other ones, but who’s to say that the next one that comes in, and each one, each ride that comes in, I know, raises the ambient some, and by the way, the ambient level can be assessed, and we can get into that off line here, if you’d like, but you can assess the ambient level, but you’ve given me an answer. The answer is, no, the short answer. MR. LEMERY-Well, I think the one ride that’s caused the problem that we’re aware of, John, at the Zoning Board hearing the other night said that they’re going back to look at that, and they’re going to try to do whatever they can to lower the noise level over there, looking to baffle the area under it. So I think from a good neighbor perspective, they’re aware that that has caused some noise, and they are now talking to their engineers about how they can maybe put some foam or do something under there, keeping in mind that you can’t put something under there that is so different 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) than what the attraction is that it makes no sense. They’re going to try to deal with lowering that problem. So I don’t know if you want to speak to that at all. MR. COLLINS-That’s basically correct. We agreed that we would look at it, research it, see if there was anything we could do, without committing to anything because as John said, we’re not sure if anything can be done, but it also goes back to the point of the issue of what a new attraction will do for the Park, obviously, the impact that it might have. We can address those issues on each individual issue, but to sit here and say, well, gee, we’re going to add this, this and this ride, where four years down the road, it doesn’t happen, but we’ve committed ourselves to something that won’t allow us to do anything in the future, is just not feasible, but we, you know, came under the guise of the Planning Board as well as the Zoning Board. That issue came up on that particular ride. We will bring in a sound engineer to review it. We take all that into account. All you have to do is go see the Park. It’s taking nothing away from Charlie. He did a fantastic job, but Charlie dropped a ride, okay. We don’t do that. We go in and we theme it. The Bobsled’s got a lot of trees around it. We built banks because we tried to guard the trough when it went down low. We put trees on top of those banks. Probably the top of the lift hill is an area that we might be able to, if the foam is one thing we can do, we’ll look at that, I don’t know, but those are the type of things that we come in, we’ve looked at those areas. That’s why we want to put this ride indoors, but to sit here and plan down the road that five years we’re going to add X percent of decibel levels to ambient noise, I don’t think it’s physically possible to determine that at this time. MR. RINGER-John, you said that Jim Martin did some work on some additional parking spaces and stuff, we didn’t get copies of that. MRS. MOORE-You received it today. MR. LEMERY-Yes, he brought it up this afternoon, Larry. There it is. MR. RINGER-John, these are additional parking spaces over last year or what you had last? MR. LEMERY-Yes, correct. MR. RINGER-So it’s 100, I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but you’d mentioned 150 additional parking spaces from last year? MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. RINGER-And they’re all going to be in Animal Land? MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. RINGER-Okay, and John Collins, the additional parking spaces, that would probably alleviate some of the problems you had last year where you actually were over capacitated? MR. COLLINS-Yes, that’s correct. Your 165, we’ll pick up 900 people, roughly five people per vehicle, which minivans, the amount of minivans, the proliferation, if you will, of minivans, our average person per vehicle count is four and a half to five. So you’re picking up about 900 additional guests, which would alleviate. We’re talking two days where we had the problems, and the 165 will be more than adequate to handle that. MR. RINGER-Very good. Are there any plans that you can see down the road for more parking, you know, increasing, you’ve got 150 now, additional, which is outstanding. Your business is going to continue to grow because I agree with everything you’ve said, John, the Park is much better now than it was five years ago. I’ve been there the last three years, and I can see it’s cleaner, that your employees are friendlier. I’m really pleased and impressed with it, and it’s grown because of your marketing and what you’ve done. I see your business continuing to grow, and 150 parking places is good, but I’d like to see, here’s something that, hey, we’re planning on additional parking down the road. MR. COLLINS-Right. That was the main purpose of acquiring the zoo property to begin with. We have 10 acres. Obviously, we have to go through and make sure, we do have a crate that runs through there. Obviously, that’s got some impact we have to be cognizant of, but I could see developing that even further. That goes back to Warren County’s meeting. We will meet with DOT to talk about the feasibility of pedestrian traffic and, you know, traffic flow here. They’ve cut off one of our entrances. We now have two entrances. We’re going to have to take out some 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) planters because what was the entrance up the main drag is no longer there. So I can see using that to a greater extent in the future, and working on a plan to get whatever overflow parking we have down to the Park and across the road, whether it be, you know, if we look into what the feasibility of a pedestrian bridge would do for us, or something of that nature. So I can see us using this property to the fullest extent that we can with it as parking. MR. RINGER-One other thing. Last month at the public hearing, one of the people in the public came out about parking in the wetland area, and I don’t know if you ever had a chance to address it, I’m sure you’re not doing it, but I’d just like to hear that you’re not. MR. COLLINS-We’re cognizant of the 100 foot buffer. One of the things that was brought up is we tow as many cars as we physically can tow. We are cognizant of keeping that buffer there. People have a tendency to park and just start walking because it’s an open spot, and we talked about it on the hill aspect as well. We don’t, you know, we will not park there and this, hopefully, will help alleviate that problem as well. I also want to, and I brought this up at the Zoning Board meeting. Some of the things that we’re doing, obviously to grow the business, but to also help with traffic flow, with parking, and, you know, I also want to get it on the record that it’s not necessarily just creating new parking spaces. We don’t want people to wait in traffic. I mean, it’s not in our best interest. It’s not in the Town’s best interest for people to wait to get into the Park. Some of the things that we’ve done, in no particular order, is we’ve pre-sold a lot of our tickets. That was never done before. What that did was, the first week I was there, the first summer I was there, was to see the amount of people that stood in line, basically across the road, which is still used as a drop off, which would back traffic up. Well, we went out and were packaging with a lot of the hotels and motels. That’s been very successful in getting a large share of our tickets pre-sold so they don’t have to wait in line to buy a ticket. It’s kept the lines down. The second thing is is we’re underwriting a bus route with Glens Falls Transit. Hopefully, we get the word out, I’ve got to work with them, how they get the word out, I mean, I’m trying to shoulder as much burden as possible, but I’ve got to commit my advertising dollars, but trying to get people, in particular the ones staying in the properties, to take advantage of the direct route that we’re sponsoring to take a bus to the Park. That’s not creating another car. The same with the extended hours. Have an opportunity for people to come later in the day. We’re starting to discount them after three. So you get turnover. Once again, if you can get two cars into a spot that you have one, you can grow the Park without adding to the traffic problem, and the last one’s the season pass. The season pass gives people the ability to come in non peak times and feel they’re getting their money’s worth, and we’re going to lower that even further this year, $49.99, but it’s considerably less than what it started out with, because they can come after five o’clock, when the Park has had people leave, and still make use of the parking. So, yes, we have bought more land, but we’re also doing things to help the situation as well. MR. STARK-You used to park up behind the Trading Post, and now all your dirt’s going up there, and you still have some more dirt to go up there. Is that being used as parking? Do you anticipate this year or what? MR. COLLINS-We’re going to have to survey that to find out the property line. We’re currently in the phase of doing that, but that, obviously that dirt is getting pushed up against the hill. So the intention is still to use it as overflow, with the buffer 100 feet off the wetland. MR. MAC EWAN-That far up, though? All the way up to your sand pit is now? MR. COLLINS-That was used last year, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you shuttle people back down? MR. COLLINS-We did, yes. We used our trolley. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-You mentioned the hill, the grassy hill going up to the Coachmen. That doesn’t look good, but it also looks unsafe to me. Now that you’re doing this, which is a great step, can you do something to stop the parking on that hill? MR. COLLINS-I think you mentioned last meeting, look at doing a fence. We can do that. We can look at putting a fence there, but as far as on our property line, okay. That’s Charlie’s property, I believe, that hill. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. PALING-But they would have to drive from your property to his to get on the hill. They wouldn’t come down the hill. MR. COLLINS-Yes. We can work it, the property line, putting a fence there so people don’t park there, but, you know, what they do, I hate to say this, is they pull right off the road, by that pine tree, and go right to that hill. So will that stop that? No, but we’ll look at doing that. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, I have a question, when you said you were work with the Glens Falls Transit, I don’t know if this would be in their jurisdiction or if the State would be, but on Saturday, Sunday mornings when I’m heading up to the lake, I get off at Exit 20 on the Northway, it’s backed up almost a mile because people getting off the exit are going south, to go to The Great Escape, I’m assuming, even though I want to go north to go to the lake. I can’t get off that exit. Has that been addressed? I mean, we’re talking backed up past the sign that says Exit 20/Whitehall/Points in Vermont, etc. MR. COLLINS-I believe they’re working on that turning lane there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s another thing. I thought I saw, the other day when I was coming south on Route 9, between there and the municipal center, that they were putting in an extra lane there. MR. COLLINS-I believe that’s what they’re, they’re widening that turning lane, I believe so. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, because, boy, that is necessary. MR. COLLINS-I don’t know that for certain, but I think that a lot of that is also, you know, in our discussions with DOT, is what we can determine. I don’t want to say using Exit 18, they know we have enough traffic up there as it is, but, you know, there’s always that option. So, you know, local people use Exit 19 because they know you’re going to get quicker to the Park. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions up here from the Board? Staff? Anything you gentlemen want to add? Okay. Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and address this application? You’re welcome to do so. We’d ask that you direct questions or comments toward the Board, and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHUCK MC NULTY MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m Chuck McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane in the Twicwood development. Several points. One of the points that the lawyer made early on, that this Park started in 1954. Well, this Park has changed its nature substantially since 1954, when it was a nursery rhyme theme and had five little rides in the parking lot. So, the argument that people have built houses since the Park was started, and therefore they have no complaint is a bunch of baloney. The Park substantially, change it’s name because it change its nature. It’s turned from a family Park into an amusement Park. It’s no longer a nursery rhyme Park. The noise on the Bobsled, I’m sure you’ve heard about before, it does sound like a constant jet plane taking off or a thunderstorm all the time, all summer. Real loud, no, but you can hear it, and in a residential area, it’s a change, and I think that’s one of the concerns that may or may not have been voiced by people that have spoken to you before from the residential areas, but we’re being nickeled and dimed to death. Every couple of years Great Escape or Suttons or somebody else comes in and says, we’re a business, we’re going to bring money into the Town, you’ve got to be kind to us and let us build this building right next to the lot line, even though the zoning laws say you can’t, or you’ve got to build this building 12 feet higher than what the zoning laws say because we’re a business, and we’re bringing money in. Well, in the process, you’re destroying the residential areas that are anywhere near the commercial areas, and I think it’s time that the Planning Board and the Town took a long look at that, going to the point that was made about the cumulative effect of ambient noise and everything else. Traffic. It’s been mentioned. You’re right. It’s not just Saturdays and Sundays that that Northway’s been backed up. I live in Queensbury. I work in Lake George. I travel up there every day, all summer, and I lost count of how many days that traffic was backed up, up past the Municipal Center, around, and onto the Northway and back down past where The Great Escape is. It’s dangerous. We’re lucky that somebody hasn’t had a major accident on the Northway because of that, and the problem is not just parking. It’s the fact 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) The Great Escape can’t get the cars into the parking lot fast. If there’s going to be any solution to that, they’ve got to find a better way of getting cars in fast. They need to take some lessons from Disney or somebody, but they’ve got to get the cars moving. Between their stop lights there at Great Escape and the cars going in one at a time and following five or six flagmen to where they park one at a time, is just a mess. If you haven’t, you ought to talk to the Sheriff’s Department. I know some people that have had kids that have had car accidents in front of The Great Escape, and their basic response to these kids is, don’t feel bad, we get five or six of these a week, people gawking at The Great Escape and causing accidents. Now, I don’t know what Great Escape can do about it, but it’s become I guess what you’d call an attractive nuisance. In one sense, they are causing the accidents. So, I guess I’ve got two things I’m concerned about. One is the specific effect, so you add another one of these rides now, you allow one to exceed the variance, or go for a variance on the height, and it’s another attraction that’s going to bring even more cars in there, and you’re just going to compound your traffic accidents and your traffic problem. You may or may not add to the noise. My other concern is just general, not just Great Escape, but all the different commercial establishments. You establish rules in the Town of what can be built and how it should be built, and then you gradually, all the various boards say, we’ll give this guy a break and we’ll give this guy a break, and this guy’s going to bring in some money, so we’ll let them do it, and you’re destroying the residential character of the neighborhoods, and it’s time that Queensbury paid attention to the residents, as well as the commercial businesses. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Just before you go, just so that you understand. This Board does not review variance applications. That’s the ZBA. MR. MC NULTY-I realize that. MR. MAC EWAN-And I would encourage you to share your thoughts with the ZBA as well, when they review this application, or any others that you feel concern your neighborhood. Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? ROBERT TOMPKINS MR. TOMPKINS-I just want to make a brief comment. My name is Robert Tompkins. I live on Glen Lake Road. I think the gentleman just discussed, my major concern is the infrastructure. That two lane highway has probably been like that for the last 80 years, going past The Great Escape. We can’t even use it in the summer time, and I don’t know what we’d do if we needed an emergency vehicle to get through there. It probably couldn’t get through. My concern is the Park expanding faster than what the infrastructure is. It just can’t handle that volume of traffic. I like the Park. I go to it, but I walk down to it, but the rear, we can’t even go down to the shopping center to shop. We have to go all the way down around Bay Road to get down, because you cannot get through Route 9. Either way, it’s blocked up tight. All summer long, and now it’s even blocked up at night. So that’s my main concern. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-Craig, I’m going to read the letter addressed to the Planning Board/Zoning Board of Appeals from Chris Round into the record. It’s dated November 30, 1998. “The Great Escape continues to add new amusement rides, modify, improve, and generally expands their facility, presumably to become increasingly attractive to their target market. While it has been argued no individual proposal/improvement may have a significant environmental impact, the cumulative result of the improvements/additions have never been analyzed. The 1998 season was marked by increase in traffic as demonstrated in the delays and backups encountered at the Exit 20 ramp and Route 9 approaches to the park. Several complaints were received during the year regarding noise associated with the “Bobsled” and “Boomerang” rides. In order to effectively identify the overall noise and traffic impacts and to assist in the evaluation of the effect of individual proposals on stormwater, impermeable area, other site development characteristics, the Staff recommends that the Boards consider requesting the preparation of a Master Plan or Overall Site Development Plan for the Great Escape Park as a condition of approval of the pending application. A Master Plan would not only assist in the evaluation of the individual proposals but would provide the owners (Premier Parks) with a planning tool to support long range improvements to their facility. Preparation of a Master Plan and a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) would alleviate the Boards and the applicant from having to conduct individual SEQRA reviews. A GEIS 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) could be drafted to allow for replacement/expansion/modernization of the facility without any additional SEQRA review.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything that you wanted to add? Okay. Does anyone else want to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, come on back up. Before we do a SEQRA, any other questions? Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. MR. ROUND-Excuse me. That’s all that’s going to be conducted tonight is the SEQRA review. MR. MAC EWAN-The SEQRA review for the benefit of the ZBA, and our site plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We just talked about noise. We just talked about traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I think we should note that they’re taking measures to control the noise by having an enclosed building with the installation package they’ve got. They’ve submitted data to support the fact that it’s not going to have excessive noise with this ride, and the concerns that people are giving are not this attraction, but it’s other attractions already existing in the Park, that aren’t part of this review. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that regarding traffic or noise? MR. MAC EWAN-Noise. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to add one thing to that. That the insulation that they gave us here is strictly thermal insulation. It’s R values. It’s not acoustic insulation, and I don’t have any quarrel with the dB levels. I’m just saying that the insulation they’re putting in the building is a thermal insulation. It has nothing to do, it will help, but it is not acoustic insulation. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think what they’re proposing, as far as the insulation, is enough to kick this into the next level or something? I mean, what I’d be willing to do is obviously Rist-Frost is going to review this application again, with the additional information they’ve given us, and if Rist- Frost feels, and our consulting engineers feel that more of a sound deadening material needs to be added to the building, would you be willing to do it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the fact is, their data doesn’t show that. I have to agree with that. The data does not show that they need anymore. I mean, I’ve looked at the data, and the ambient noise and the noise coming off that thing mitigate one another. You’re not going to hear this. If the data is correct from the Park at Dallas/Fort Worth, that’s where this was taken from. MR. COLLINS-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-This information, that we’re really taking a hunk of data now, and we’re transferring the results of that data over to The Great Escape on a one for one basis. I’m not sure that’s a valid transition, but I’m not going to, you know, it’s going to take a lot more engineering to determine whether it is or it isn’t. I’m just saying that when we talk about thermal insulation mitigating an acoustic problem, that doesn’t wash in my mind. So, I don’t think that the thermal insulation has anything to do with it hardly at all. It’ll help, but not much. MR. MAC EWAN-But do you feel comfortable in what they’re supplying for this review? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets move on, C2. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. RINGER-Lets go back to C1 for a minute, because the existing traffic pattern, it is going to have some effect, whether this particular ride is going to be an adverse effect, but it is going to have an effect, to an already bad situation. I guess I’d have to define how adverse an effect it’s going to be to that, but it is going to have some effect. MR. MAC EWAN-And although it’s not tied in with this review, you have to ask yourself, what kind of impacts are the State making along that corridor now going to have on it, what kind of improvements is this additional parking going to, across the street? MR. RINGER-I guess, you know, this particular ride having an adverse effect, I would say no. So I would pass, but I did want to comment that there is some problems there with the traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with Larry on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me, to take this a little bit further, if we don’t, if we’re going to look at each one of these on an individual basis, that’s one thing, but if we’re going to consider the cumulative effects, as Larry said, then that’s a whole other thing. It depends, in my mind, how we view and judge as The Great Escape grows. Do we view it in on a cumulative basis, or on a one for one, each time it comes up? See, when you do it on a one for one, there’s no way of judging the cumulative effect one at a time. You just can’t do it. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the cumulative effect, they’re taking measurements, now, to address the parking concerns by developing more parking areas across the street in the former Animal Land parcel. So they’re addressing the concerns as well, and the only thing that I think that this Board can do is, as we monitor these site plans, and if any other future site plans should come in front of this Board and we see that measures that are taken to address the Park’s parking and traffic problems that they’re having now, I’ve got to tell you, I’m going to be in a position where I’m going to want to dig in my heels real hard and get parking cleared up and the traffic cleared up before we would approve any other expansions or additions. MR. LEMERY-I think you’ve got a couple of things that are working in the area, that have nothing to do with The Great Escape. Martha’s is a destination point, and there’s traffic that gets backed up on Route 9 both ways, going into Martha’s, people standing in line there, and sometimes it can get so crowded that the people can’t get out of The Great Escape because of the problem at Martha’s. One of the other issues is people getting off at Exit 20. Of course that’s a so called shopping area. So cars get backed up, in the summer, you can’t get in and out of there. So part of that problem backs traffic up on the Northway. So it’s, you get into a situation where it’s impossible to quantify, in a lot of ways, what it is that The Great Escape contributes to that overall issue. It’s a DOT issue. It’s something whether they should expand the ramps, whether they should try to move traffic, you know, over the Greenway bypass, for example. Other areas that impact this, and one of the problems that we’ve had with dealing with this so called Environmental Impact Statement, or Generic Impact Statement, as you get into it, you get into all kinds of issues regarding, you know, operations of hours of the Park, and all these things that no other business in the Town of Queensbury has to deal with. I sat here one night when Marianne McDonough came and begged the Planning people and others to do something about the fact that the people across the road who operate the go kart track had an amplification system that was on until midnight. The Great Escape is very sensitive to its neighbors, and is trying its best to address the concerns and mitigate the issues that come forth, but the whole area is a traffic issue, and I just want to point out that it’s not possible in some ways to quantify what’s their problem and what’s the problem created by the economic activity, which we should be all thankful for. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could we get back to our SEQRA? How do we feel about C1, then, as a whole? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think John gave a very convincing argument for just that, about quantifying just specifically toward The Great Escape. There are an awful lot of very lucrative, busy establishments along Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-But we have to deal with this SEQRA review for this application in front of us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Then lets go on. I feel like we should move on now. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Do you feel comfortable in the fact that we’re addressing this and saying it has no adverse effects? MR. STARK-No adverse effects. MR. MAC EWAN-Or there are some, but we can mitigate them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There are some that can be mitigated, and I think as far as the existing traffic conditions, The Great Escape can’t be blamed solely for that, and I think it would be picking on one establishment, and it’s something that needs to be looked into by the DOT. MR. PALING-I agree with Cathy and with what the applicant’s saying, and I think that Chris’ letter is right on, but I think the letter should be directed to the Town, and let them run a study of the entire area, but for us to pick out Martha’s or pick out the go kart track, or pick out The Great Escape. MRS. LABOMBARD-Or the Million Dollar Half Mile, or the Montcalm. MR. PALING-Or whatever one it is and run a whole environmental study I don’t think is right, and would give us an awful lopsided picture, if they were limiting it to their own area. I think the only one that can run that is somebody that can look at the total picture, and that, to me, would be the Town. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. PALING-And I don’t think that the traffic generated by this one ride has any significant impact on what we’ve already got. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Transportation Council has done several corridor studies up through there, haven’t they, with traffic counts and stuff? MR. ROUND-There’s proposed modifications, as was talked about tonight, and most of those are cosmetic improvements, including sidewalks, and some turn lanes, and also some access management improvements, and that’s what Mr. Collins talked about, consolidation of a driveway access location. There’s no proposal to examine traffic impacts and attribute particular traffic volumes to particular destinations such as The Great Escape. Whether that’s a local initiative by the Town Board or by the A/GFTC, or whether that’s an issue that could be attributed to a project applicant, that’s something that you’re weighing right now, and I’ll let you guys make that decision. MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a side note, on behalf of the Board, I’d ask you to look into the Transportation Council’s, I think they did a corridor study within the last few years, like from Farm To Market Road all the way down. MR. ROUND-Well, from Sweet Road to 149 is they did a, not for traffic volume, but they did an access management plan, and they’re doing some pedestrian improvements, those sidewalks that are being constructed, and that’s the extent of the improvements that are going to be happening within the next, these are typically 20 year capital improvement plans. Nothing is scheduled (lost word) to be examined or constructed within the next 20 years, once this project is completed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Lets move on to C2. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 62-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PREMIER PARKS d/b/a The Great Escape , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Staff, this goes to the ZBA tomorrow night, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-This will be in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night for their variance application. Next item. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1998 PRELIMINARY FINAL TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL KNOX OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A/CEA LOCATION: KNOX ROAD, ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.85 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS; 1 ACRE AND 3.85 ACRES. [SUBDIVIDED PARCELS ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW FOR ADDITIONAL SUBDIVISION. THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION 6-1998 EXPIRED AND IS NOW TREATED AS A NEW SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.] CROSS REFERENCES: SUBDIVISION 6-1998 11-91, SITE PLAN 40-91 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1, 16.4 LOT SIZE: 4.98 ACRES, 1.06 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PAUL KNOX, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1998 Preliminary and Final, Paul Knox, Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a previously approved subdivision. Staff Notes The applicant was informed that the Planning Board approval of August 18, 1998 for Subdivision 6-1998 had expired, per Section A183- 13G(2). Therefore, the applicant has resubmitted the subdivision application for preliminary and final review. The subdivision has not been changed or altered from the original submission. The applicant does not wish to apply for the previously proposed property line modification (11/24/98, Sub. 6-1998 Modification). Staff has no additional concerns.” 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? It’s our efforts tonight to make this as painless as possible. MR. KNOX-I’m Paul Knox, and I have a five acre lot on Assembly Point, Lake George that I propose to subdivide into two lots, one being a one acre, and the other being just four acres. MR. MAC EWAN-A curious question up here that was just asked is, why is he back in front of us. Why didn’t it get filed? MR. KNOX-Well, I dropped the ball. I made a big mistake. I didn’t file the approved subdivision map within the 60 day period. It’s completely my fault. I overlooked the 60 day time period, and that’s why I’m back. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Stop. I think there’s more to it. I mean, after all we went through, that would have been on my mind. I wouldn’t have slept until it was done and a sealed deal. Now how come I’m getting rumors about so and so was supposed to do this, and somebody was supposed to buy that, and this was supposed to be fixed, and that was supposed to get fixed, and something happened, seriously, Paul. I mean, you came up here and you played to my heart on this. You didn’t forget about it. MR. KNOX-Let me explain. No, I didn’t forget about it. I simply dropped the ball. I forgot about the 60 day requirement. I forgot about the 60 day requirement. I assumed, and that’s a big mistake, but I assumed that I could file the subdivision map at any time, and that’s where I made the mistake. As you know, when I came before the Board originally, I told you that my intent was to sell the one acre, and that’s still my intent, and I’ve had a buyer waiting to buy, pending the approval of that subdivision, which I got back in August, and as soon as I got the subdivision approved, I notified the buyer, and I thought it was going to close fairly quickly. Well, it got bogged down with the attorneys, and it dragged on. I lost track of time, quite honestly. I just totally overlooked the 60 day requirement to file the map, and when I prepared to file the map, I was told by the County Clerk that the 60 day requirement to file the map was up, and it’s very embarrassing to me because, you know, I don’t want to sell the property, I’ve told you that from the get go. I’m selling property, that one acre lot, because financially I have to, and filing the map, as I said, the deal to sell that one acre lot dragged on, and I simply overlooked the one piece of paper that I got from the Planning Department which specified that to finalize the approved subdivision, I had to file the map within 60 days. I have nobody to blame but me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How could you have sold the property unless it was. MR. KNOX-It’s not sold. It’s under contract. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but the deal with the potential buyers could not have gone through until everything had been filed and was completed, and there was closure on it. So, then you never could have even sold the property. MR. KNOX-The map was going to be filed the day of the closing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add? MR. KNOX-No. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing’s really changed from the last go around. MR. KNOX-Nothing. No. I’m back here asking for the same subdivision, nothing’s changed. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PAUL KNOX , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1998 PAUL KNOX , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As per Staff’s written resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 13-1998 to subdivide a 4.85 acre parcel into two lots of 3.85 ac. and 1.00 acre; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 11/25/98, consists of the following: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) 1. 11/25/98 - Final Stg. Application 2. Map revised 5/26/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/18/98 - Letter from P. Knox to L. Moore 2. 11/30/98 - Letter from L. Moore to P. Knox 3. 12/3/98 - Letter re: mtg. Dates 4. 12/7/98 - Letter to neighbors within 500’ & Copies of certified mail receipts 5. 12/15/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on December 15, 1998 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 13-1998 - Paul Knox. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion for Final Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1998 PAUL KNOX , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 13-1998 to subdivide a 4.85 acre parcel into two lots of 3.85 ac. and 1.00 acre; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 11/25/98, consists of the following: 1. 11/25/98 - Final Stg. Application 2. Map revised 5/26/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 11/18/98 - Letter from P. Knox to L. Moore 2. 11/30/98 - Letter from L. Moore to P. Knox 3. 12/3/98 - Letter re: mtg. Dates 4. 12/7/98 - Letter to neighbors within 500’ & Copies of certified mail receipts 5. 12/15/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on December 15, 1998 concerning the above project; and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Final Stage for Subdivision No. 13-1998 - Paul Knox. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Get that plat up here so you can get it signed, so you can get it filed. MR. KNOX-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go on to the next item, could we just go back and re-visit when we tabled Site Plan No. 47-98. I failed to open up the public hearing. I will open up the public hearing and leave it open, and please re-notify neighbors within 500 feet. Next item. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 66-98 TYPE: UNLISTED CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNER: CAREY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUSINESS IN AN LI-1A ZONE. ALL PROPOSED USES IN AN LI-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCES: SUB. NO. 6-87 TAX MAP NO. A PORTION OF 137-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 43.05 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TED BIGELOW, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 66-98, Carey Industrial Park, Meeting Date: December 15, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to locate a light industrial business, Northeast Power Systems, in the Carey Industrial Park. A 4,000 sq. ft. metal structure is proposed with eight employees anticipated. The office portion of the building will be two-story and the assembly area will be one story with the same height as the office area. Northeast Power Systems assembles electrical components. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the Site Plan review requirements. The future building area may be used for sheet metal fabrication of cabinets to house the electrical components. Currently, the sheet metal fabrication is handled elsewhere. The applicant is requesting waivers from certain requirements of the site plan application. The requested waivers would not impact the site and will be addressed with the Building Department for review prior to any construction. The following is a summary of the waivers requested: • location and type of sewage disposal • location and type of water supply • location and type of sign • location of proposed utilities The proposed project complies with Light Industrial uses and is in conformance with the other businesses on the site. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other notes, letters, nothing, is there. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BIGELOW-Good evening. I’m Ted Bigelow, and I work for Peter and Paul Steciuk who are with me tonight, two owners of Northeast Power Systems. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your application? MR. BIGELOW-Yes. The proposed building that they want to construct will be approximately a 6,000 square foot building that they will use for office space and for assembly of capacitor banks that they sell to private and municipal clients all over the United States. They’re looking to build a metal building that will be two stories of office space. The building will have approximately a 14 foot eaves height, rectangular in shape. You can see from the site plan that it’s going to be set back well within the setback limits that are prescribed by the zoning. At maximum there’ll be 10 employees. Initially, they won’t be doing the fabrication of the metal cabinets at the site. Those are done by a subcontractor in the Albany area that’ll be transported to the site. The assembly of the capacitor banks will be done at the site, and transported by flat bed truck to wherever the destination is. Their business currently is located down in Albany, and they’re relocating to this area. This will be the first industrial, not tenant, but purchaser in the Carey Industrial Park, which has been there since about ’92. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been a long time in coming. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, and I think good things will happen from this. Also with us tonight is Ken Davis, who represents Northern Distributing, Mr. Carey, actually, who the site is being purchased from. He can verify any information. On your application, you’ll notice that the lot size is 43.05 acres, and that’s incorrect. It’s a portion of that. The subdivision, when it was approved back in ’92, or whatever the date was, they weren’t required at that time to dedicate each lot in a subdivision to a tax map number. So the actual lot size is 43 acres, but there’s actually three, I think three lots in that particular lot, and the way the tax map shows, there’s actually three large parcels of land in the Industrial Park, but I believe there’s 15 lots in there that are laid out altogether. This one’s, if you’ve been out to the site, it’s right on the corner of Town Line Road and the Carey Park that goes down into the Native Textiles site. MR. MAC EWAN-The question regarding the site plan map that you have here, is the main entrance into the parking area for the employees, is that off Carey Road? It’s hard for me to understand whether it’s off Carey Road or off the other road. MR. BIGELOW-The main parking lot is going to be off of Town Line Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BIGELOW-The delivery access is going to be off of Carey. MR. MAC EWAN-It will be off Carey? MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s this “Wells Road” that’s on this map? I thought that was Carey Road. MR. BIGELOW-Wells Road? MRS. MOORE-Are you talking the GIS map? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s known as Carey Road. MRS. MOORE-That’s Carey Road. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, I don’t know what you’re looking at. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. MAC EWAN-So the truck entrances, then, are going to be used in Carey Road itself, while the sales visitors and employees. MR. BIGELOW-Will come down Carey and then turn into, onto Town Line, and then into the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Will there be signage delineating that, truck entrance? MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Shipping/Receiving only, something to that effect? MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been to Beautification with a landscaping plan, yet? MR. BIGELOW-No, not yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Were they referred to Beautification? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. ROUND-It’s not required. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not required? It certainly would be a good idea. MR. ROUND-Generally we refer commercial applications, that’s been the policy for referral to Beautification. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a good policy to do industrial applications as well, especially something, I’m assuming this is something similar to a butler building, along those ideas? MR. BIGELOW-Yes, it’ll be a metal building. It hasn’t been decided yet, but there might be some brick accents on the front of the building, which actually would face the Town Line Road. There’ll be landscape accents in the front of the building. If you’ll notice, from the plan that we provided, there’s a buffer zone, a 50 foot buffer zone around it, or actually that’s a setback, a building setback line. They may do some selective cutting in there, may infringe a little bit in that area for lawn and what not, but they don’t plan on clear cutting that at all. You’re really not going to see a whole lot of the side of the building from Carey Road. You’ll see it, obviously, through the trees, and mostly pine trees out there. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. BIGELOW-There’ll be a maximum of 10 employees, is what they’re predicting right now. You’ll notice that on the site plan, it would be the westerly side of the building, if there is an addition to be done, it would be on that side of the building, which would be not facing Carey Road. That, if it comes to be, is where the metal fabrication would happen. The size of their units, the largest that I know of are approximately six by eighteen, six feet by eighteen feet, and these capacitors are loaded into these banks. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t ever say that, a maximum of 10 employees. You never know where you’re going to be, five or ten years from now. MR. BIGELOW-Well, that’s what they’re projecting right now. Hopefully it’ll be more than that some day, but I subscribe to the skinny rabbit approach to economic development and not the fat cat approach. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. Okay. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have a couple. You talked about the parcel size. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. The actual parcel that they’re buying is Lot Number 8. It’s 2.402 acres. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m just getting at here is, when you do your site development data, your parcel area is 104,631, is this still accurate? Because that’s how you’re getting your non- permeable. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, that’s the square footage. That’s based on 2.402 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that 104,631 is a correct number. MR. BIGELOW-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The next question, I guess, is what does the 4400 square feet, what is that going to be used for? MR. BIGELOW-Well, in figuring the non-permeable area, you need an amount of the paved area or the gravel area. The gravel area is also considered non-permeable. So that 4400 square feet is the amount of the parking lot and the driveway coming in, and with that, you’ll notice on the other side, the main parking lot, that’s 5400 square feet, that’s the size of that parking lot and the driveway coming in. So you’re going to have a total non-permeable of pavement and/or gravel of roughly the 9,900 square feet, plus the size of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s how you get your 15%? MR. BIGELOW-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What’s the dielectric in these capacitors? Are they oil filled? PAUL STECIUK MR. STECIUK-Yes, they’re oil filled. It’s a mineral. I’m Paul Steciuk. I’m one of the principals. The dielectric fluid is a mineral oil, okay, and each capacitor, just for your information, contains approximately one and a half gallons of mineral oil. We don’t have access to that oil. It’s packaged inside the can, and sealed. So we may have on the order of 20 or 30 of these caps in stock at a given time. MR. VOLLARO-This is going to be a high voltage system, then? MR. STECIUK-Yes, they’re high voltage caps. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just before I proceed, Staff, was this sent to Rist-Frost for review? What criteria do we need for stormwater management and that sort of thing? MRS. MOORE-I felt that he had enough area, looking at what he’s developed. If the Planning Board feels that we should send it, then I’ll. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’m asking those questions, that’s all. Okay. MR. PALING-You don’t manufacture any of the components and you don’t unseal any of the capacitors ever? MR. STECIUK-No, we do not. MR. PALING-Do you use any cleaning, lubricating, liquids that you dispose of? MR. STECIUK-No, just Windex, household cleaners. MR. PALING-Windex and stuff, yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-No generation of hazardous wastes of any kind? MR. STECIUK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Storage of any volatile, flammable type liquids that you use in your process? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. PALING-You don’t break into them. They come all made, and you just? MR. STECIUK-Right. We purchase them from a place like Fort Edward. They’re shipped to us. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have, some of the things that you’ve asked for, like the waivers on the sewage disposal, actually, at least when I look at these site plans, and I think that goes for the whole Board, usually we take a look at everything that’s on the plan, and I was wondering, why did you want a waiver on perc, for example? MR. BIGELOW-Well, the perc has been done, and I don’t have it listed here, but they’re on the subdivision plan, when it was all approved. Those are all very sandy soils out there, if you know the area. The septic system hasn’t been designed yet because the building hasn’t been designed yet, but the septic system is going to be used only for a men’s and women’s bathroom, for the employees. It’s not going to be for any other waste, and the perc test that will be utilized will be the ones that were taken from the subdivision plans when it was approved in ’92, unless the Building Department asks us to update the perc tests. Nothing’s been done to the site since the roads were constructed in there. So I can’t imagine they’ll request that, but if they do, they’ll have to go out and do them again. You’ll notice from your, we made a little symbol on there for the septic system that’s off the side of the building there because that’s the area that’s going to be lawn and not used for anything else, and we asked for a waiver as far as the water goes, because where the water hits the building is pretty much going to be dictated by the Town, wherever the water tap is out there. It would probably be a one inch line going into the building. MR. VOLLARO-You did say that this was a 40 foot high building? MR. BIGELOW-No, 14 foot eaves is what it’s going to be. So it’s probably going to be a less than 20 foot high building in total. MR. VOLLARO-Single story? MR. BIGELOW-Single story in the manufacturing section, but in the front section, on the Town Line Road side, that will be two stories. There’ll be offices on the first floor. The second floor will be left vacant for now, in anticipation that that’ll be offices in the future. MR. VOLLARO-That won’t exceed the 50 foot height, though. MR. BIGELOW-No. The whole building is going to be approximately 14 feet. MR. VOLLARO-All right, that’s 14 all the way over. MR. BIGELOW-Yes, at eaves height, which probably puts the peak of the building around 20. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, then I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 66-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-One question I’ll put up to the Board. How does everyone feel about having Beautification review this? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s necessary. Being out to the site, there’s so many trees out there. So long as they don’t knock all those trees down and just. MR. BIGELOW-They’re not going to clear cut that buffer zone at all. MR. MAC EWAN-I.E. Columbia Development. Okay. Does someone want to put up a motion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve Site Plan No. 66-98 for Carey Industrial Park, as written. MR. STARK-Second. MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, the applicant has mentioned that the size of the building has increased from 4,000 to 6,000. Is that correct? MR. STECIUK-It would be four to six thousand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s if there’s a future addition. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that right? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. PALING-That’s on the print. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re dealing with what you’re proposing right now. Should you want to put an addition on the building, one, two years down the road, you come back here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute, but right now the building is. MR. VOLLARO-Fifty-four hundred square feet. MR. STECIUK-It’ll be four to six thousand square feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Right now it’s between four and six thousand. MR. STECIUK-Right. It’s in the design phase. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to have a set number. MR. BIGELOW-Six thousand, because it may be a maximum of six thousand. It’s in the design phase right now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but it’s not going to go over six thousand? MR. BIGELOW-In the initial phase, it will not go over six thousand. If they put the addition on, then they’ll have to come back for. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, because right now, when I look at this, I see 4,000 square feet. So does the 6,000, if it goes to 6,000, does that mean you’re just going to increase the width of the rectangle, or are you going to increase the length? MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it. Your application says for a 4,000 square foot building. That’s what we’re reviewing tonight. If you want more than that, the bad news is, we’re going to have to re- advertise this thing. Because that’s what the public notice says. I didn’t realize it. MR. BIGELOW-The footprint is 4,000. Part, that’s two stories. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you see, if you say 6,000, do we know if you’re going to go out with more length, or more width? MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t really matter. The application says 4,000. MR. BIGELOW-If there is anymore square footage added to it, it would be in the direction of westerly. MRS. MOORE-Is there a time that you’re going to have completed plans, that maybe we could see it again, or table the application, or something to the effect where we can see something more permanent, because you’re still bickering between four thousand and six thousand? MR. BIGELOW-Well, could I ask what, besides the advertising? MR. MAC EWAN-Legality. Very simply, one word. MR. BIGELOW-What difference, I don’t believe it makes any difference in the permeability. We’re so well within those requirements that you can go up, I think it’s the 70%, and I think we’re at 15 right now. I guess I would ask the, we really don’t want to come back if we don’t have to, and I’m going to have to leave it to these gentlemen to tell me whether or not it’s going to be four or six. I guess I would ask Mark if it makes a difference. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you this. How far away are you from developing your final plans? So that you know you have something to build by? One week, two weeks, two months? MR. BIGELOW-I would say a month to two months, is where they’re at. They’re in the process, now, of negotiating with builders to design. Probably going to do a design build, and they’re negotiating with them now. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the situation that this Board’s under is we legally advertised that we were going to do a site plan review for a 4,000 square foot building. MRS. MOORE-No, Craig. The legal advertisement says it was a project in a light industrial park. It doesn’t mention, it doesn’t specify square footage. I’m concerned about proving the site plan, whether it’s 4,000 or 6,000, because they’re going to have to submit final plans to the Staff, so that we can be stamped and things like that. MR. ROUND-Yes. You’re issuing a 4,000 square foot site plan approval. The Building Department looks at it, this is a 6,000 square foot building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, then why don’t we have some ground to move here. MR. BIGELOW-It’s not going to be more than 6,000, initially. Does that create a problem? MR. ROUND-You could certainly address that as part of the approval process, that it’s no greater than 6,000 square feet, and that there should be. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s easy enough. There’s a heart attack out of the way. All right. So who had the motion up? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I had it. MR. MAC EWAN-Then just amend your motion to show that the building size is a maximum of 6,000 square foot. MR. BIGELOW-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m still troubled by this. Staff is telling me that there’s a site plan that has been submitted as part of the application, and that the site plan shows a building of 4,000 square feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I thought. MR. SCHACHNER-So, I mean, if the application is not for a building that’s 4,000 square feet, and it’s an application for a building of 6,000 square feet, then my rough math tells me that’s a 50% larger building than what was applied for, and that’s wonderful. I mean that may be wonderful. It may not be, I don’t know, and I don’t care, but from the legal standpoint, you need to have in front of you, you need to rule on what’s been applied for, and if they want to change what’s been applied for, they certainly have that prerogative, and that’s fine. MR. BIGELOW-Do we have the ability to modify our request at the meeting, legally? I guess that’s what we’re asking, then, that it would be, I’d like to tell you that I knew exactly what the square footage is going to be. A lot of it is going to depend on the building manufacturer, because they’re pretty much going to go with a standard building, and a standard building for one manufacturer may be 4400 square feet, and the same design that they’re looking for may be 4800. All I can tell you is it won’t exceed 6,000 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t certainly mean to be causing you heartaches, here. We just want to do what’s right, legally, so that it won’t be in a position where you would have to come back to either modify or find out that this approval was null and void because of legal nomenclature and so on and so forth. MR. BIGELOW-I believe Staff has said we could request a modification. I guess that’s what we’re requesting, is that the applicant. MR. ROUND-You show on the plan a 4,000 square foot structure. Then you have a future addition area. So that the additional 2,000 square feet would take place within that addition envelope. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re looking to get approved, 4,000 square foot, with the anticipation in the future of having expansion allowable up to 2,000? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. ROUND-You have 4,000 square feet and you’re approving an up to 6,000 square foot structure, and that 6,000, any addition, any modification to this particular plan, the increase in square footage will take place within the area identified as a future expansion area. So now that you know, we know what you’re approving. You’re approving, I don’t physical dimensions on here. You’re approving a 24 by. MR. BIGELOW-No, actually, what’s laid out there is a 40 by 100. It may be up to a 60 by 100. MR. ROUND-Right. So now we know what you’re approving. MR. BIGELOW-It would be up to a 60 by 100 square foot building. MR. PALING-But the envelope is shown on the print. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 4,000 on the print. MR. BIGELOW-Well, 4,000 is shown on the print, but if you look at the addition there that’s proposed for future expansion, which they’re not asking for right now, but that would be another. MR. MAC EWAN-But if you’re not asking for that right now, why are we approving that right now? MR. SCHACHNER-The more normal course of events for this Board would be to approve the 4,000 and if the applicant wants to, that’s exactly correct. That would certainly be the normal course of events. MR. BIGELOW-We’re asking for a modification to that, though. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t be, because we haven’t even approved your site plan yet. So you can’t ask for a modification to it. MR. BIGELOW-We’re asking for a modification of our request for our site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, they want to modify their application. MR. BIGELOW-We want to modify our application. Is that legal? MR. ROUND-That is acceptable as part of the procedure of the Board. They can modify applications in front of you. MR. MAC EWAN-While you’re reviewing it? I’ve never seen that happen. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think we actually have seen it happen. I think you’ve done two things when it’s happened. Either the modification has been so minor that you have felt that there is no need for further submissions, or you’ve certainly seen, I can think of subdivisions this has happened, I believe I can think of site plans as well. During the course of your review, sometimes you have suggested certain modifications, fencing, parking access curb cuts and different other things, and you have requested, you have tabled applications or not ruled on them in a given week or a given month, and said, we want you to come back with the following modifications next month or next week. You’ve certainly done that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think we’re thinking of this in the scenario that you’re approving a 4,000 square foot building with the possibility, if they wanted to add on another 2,000 square feet, it wouldn’t have to come back in front of us. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and that would be a little different than this Board’s normal procedure. I’m not, myself, understanding whether the applicant is seeking what you just said, or the applicant today wishes to get approval for a 6,000 square foot building, and if that’s what they want. MR. BIGELOW-May I answer that? MR. SCHACHNER-As soon as I finish, and if that’s what they want, then if I were advising the Board, I would suggest that they show the 6,000 square foot building, and they can either show it right now, or they could show it some time in the very near future. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. PALING-Why can’t they say that they anticipate a building up to 6,000 square feet, all of which will be contained in the envelope as illustrated by the 4,000 square foot plus the future addition? MR. SCHACHNER-As long as you’re comfortable with that, they probably could do that, but again, notice that the future addition area is far larger than 2,000 square feet, and in theory, that would mean you’d be approving something that you don’t, you haven’t really seen, in terms of size and shape. If you have absolutely no concerns about the size and shape, so long as it’s 2,000 square feet maximum and so long as it is in that envelope of future addition, you could do that. MR. PALING-Knowing the nature of the business and knowing what the envelope is, they’re limited to it, I don’t have any problem with them going for a building up to 6,000 square feet. MR. SCHACHNER-In which case you’re approving a building up to 6,000 square feet. MR. PALING-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, when you reviewed this and determined that you didn’t need send it to Rist-Frost, was it based on 4,000 square feet or 6,000 square feet? MRS. MOORE-I don’t think it’s relevant. I was comparing how much impermeable versus permeable surface was available. MR. MAC EWAN-So with another 2,000 feet on there, you feel comfortable that it’s not going to? MR. ROUND-It’s insignificant. MR. BIGELOW-We’re so far below. You can go up to 70%. We’re at 15. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does everyone feel comfortable with it? Okay. Someone put a motion up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-98 NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS, INC. (CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK) , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As written in the prepared resolution, amended to allow up to a building size of 6,000 square foot. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 66-98, Northeast Power Systems, Inc. to operate a light manufacturing business in a LI-1A zone; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 11/25/98, consists of the following: 1. 11/25/98 - Application 2. Map dated 11/25/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 12/1/98 - GIS Map 2. 12/3/98 - Letter re: mtg. Dates 3. 12/8/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 4. 12/15/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 12/15/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of 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 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 66-98 for Northeast Power Systems, Inc. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-All set, gentlemen. MR. BIGELOW-Thank you. You’ll be very happy with this business in Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-We just didn’t want to see anything get caught between the boards here. MR. BIGELOW-I understand. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-One other comment, before we break up, regarding our visit to Schermerhorn’s site on Saturday. I’ve asked Laura, she’s going to research it tomorrow, regarding the no cut area that we were concerned about, and how much has been cut. Also we’re going to review the landscaping plan for that particular corner. MR. STARK-How about the closeness of the building to the road? MR. MAC EWAN-We measured it tonight on the plan, and it seems to be right on par. MR. VOLLARO-Can I inject something into here, on this whole thing, on what Craig’s talking about? Not too long ago, I made a presentation to Chris Round and to Dick Merrill, over at the Town Hall, on this whole program, and originally the road, Walker Lane, was defined as a 20 foot wide road, on the map prepared by Van Dusen and Steves. I went back to 1950 with all the indentures and so on, and found out that the road is really 33 feet wide. It has been 33 feet wide since 1950. There was a conveyance on the eastern side of that road for 17 feet, which made the road 50 feet wide for a distance of 758 feet. Now, what’s that all about. It boils down to the fact that the property line for Schermerhorn and the right-of-way line for the road are coincidental. They’re the same line. I’m saying the lines are the same. So his foundation, as I taped it this morning, he’s setting a new foundation in there, you can see, and it’s exactly, it’s a hair under 30 feet, but it’s close enough. So he’s okay with respect to what he is off the line. My question to the Town Board the other night was, if the road is 50 feet wide now, right-of-way, for a distance of 758 feet from the Bay Road in, why doesn’t the Town claim that other 17 feet for a future right of way that may go down to Country Club Road? Now, I think we decided not to do that. The last time I talked to you, Chris, you said that probably was not going to go through. In other words, claiming the other 17 feet to make it a 50 foot right-of-way road. MR. ROUND-I guess specifically I said that I’m not aware that the Town policy, the Town hasn’t been proactively acquiring a right-of-way for road usage. MR. VOLLARO-I did that for the record, so that the Town knows that they have, that they could claim that right-of-way, if they wanted to. If they don’t want to, that’s up to the Town, but looking 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) at the Schermerhorn property, the distance from his foundation to this coincident line I’m talking about is 30 feet. MR. RINGER-What’s this have to do with us as a Planning Board? MR. VOLLARO-Your Chairman raised this issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we raised the issue because when we were over there and we did a drive by siting, we noticed that we thought it was, A., too close to the road, and B., that a lot of the vegetation that was to be a no cut, no clear vegetation is gone. So I’d like to get that verified. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When that building goes up, it is going to look like it’s on top of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Also, would you please reiterate with the building inspectors, when that thing starts going up, earth tone exterior, earth tone shingles. MR. ROUND-It was identified on the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-I just don’t want any rugs pulled out from underneath us at the last minute. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at the drawing. I’m particularly interested in that site. MR. STARK-Mark, you wrote us a letter about undue pressure because of articles in the paper and so on. MR. SCHACHNER-We talked about that last month, also. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, yes, we talked about it. MR. STARK-Where was I? MR. SCHACHNER-You said, I don’t feel any pressure. MR. RINGER-That was before the letter, before Mark wrote the letter, at last month’s meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. RINGER-Before the letter. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I didn’t mean to cut you off. MR. PALING-Mark, I’ve got a question for you. I need a little more verbiage or confidence or something. When we have someone come before here, before the Board, either on the schedule or they just come up for any business that comes before the Board, can we not respond in any way to what they’re asking us to do? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. PALING-And does that apply, what do we do with their request? MR. SCHACHNER-You are only obligated by law to deal with those matters which are properly before you by way of applications, in this case applications for subdivision or for site plan review or for referrals or recommendation referrals of re-zonings. You don’t have an obligation to have the, or any further business that may come before the Board. You’re generally, this Board has typically, over the years, been fairly gracious in that regard, and you have allowed anybody who wants to come up here and express an opinion or a beef or a comment or whatever to you, but you’re not legally obligated to do anything at all, including you’re not legally obligated to allow people that opportunity. MR. PALING-If the situation is with an application, but yet they’re asking a question that really isn’t germane, then we can also say, no comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. PALING-Okay, and that’s all we need to do? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true. MR. PALING-And their recourse is to the court if they think we’re not, whatever they want to do. MR. SCHACHNER-There essentially is no recourse. I mean, for somebody, again, because you have no legal obligation to even provide this open forum, there is no recourse against you for not responding to something that’s asked you of somebody who happens to wander in. MR. MAC EWAN-Any particular thing in mind? MR. PALING-Well, John Salvador coming before us, is the last one, but we’ve had a couple before that, and he could have, I chose to say absolute zero to Mr. Salvador, and I’m only one Board member, but the Board could have said to him, thank you, good evening. MR. SCHACHNER-And just to make this clear, the Board can also not even allow the open forum to begin with. That’s something that you are not obligated by law to do. Now, you’ve been very generous over the years. You’re also not often abused over the years, meaning you don’t have 50 people that line up here at nine o’clock and make this go until midnight, but I can tell you that there are places, and there are people, including the specific individual you mention, who sometimes abuse the generosity, and if that happens, you might be less generous, and that would be fine, too, but you definitely have no obligation. MR. RINGER-Craig, one thing on the Premier Parks, we had the letter from Chris, and we never really addressed it, and Chris has made some recommendations in there, and I think we should address the letter and decide that we want to go with those recommendations. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be very appropriate for us to address it at the time we start doing site plan review. MR. RINGER-Okay. I just didn’t want it to go by the wayside. MR. MAC EWAN-I just figured for tonight, doing the SEQRA tonight, to get. MR. RINGER-It’s obvious John doesn’t want to do it, but I think the letter is important, and I think it’s a foundation to start something. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I agree with you. MR. ROUND-It is a SEQRA issue, though. It’s part of your Environmental Quality Review, and frankly, I gave you the information that I thought was necessary for you to weigh, and my comment was, you have in front of you, we talked about cumulative impacts. I left the cumulative impacts section blank on the prepared response to that I provided to you, and that was your opportunity, grant it, you may struggle with attributing the traffic to a particular location, but I didn’t think it was unreasonable to attribute the lion’s share of the traffic to this particular location, given the size of the facility, given the parking areas associated with the facility, given the order of magnitude difference between this particular property and the volume of attendance at this location compared to other facilities on the roadway, and it wouldn’t be, in my judgment, it wouldn’t be a long reach to make that determination, but that’s what the Planning Board does, and that’s why I gave you that information. MR. RINGER-And I don’t see any difference with what we might ask them to do than what we’ve asked Lowe’s to do for traffic studies, what we’ve asked them to do at Cracker Barrel for traffic studies. MR. MAC EWAN-Hold your thought for just a second. I guess I could see both sides of the issue here. I could see the side of the issue of The Great Escape, where this is historically, it’s a parcel of land that’s zoned for recreational amusement uses, why should they be subjected to doing a SEQRA or generic SEQRA or SEQRA review every four or five years. On the other side of the coin, very recently we were dealing with the Aviation Mall’s proposed expansion. Here is a huge parcel of land that’s zoned for enclosed plaza commercial, and yet we’re doing an Environmental Impact Statement for the size of their additions and stuff. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. SCHACHNER-And if I could add to that before I make my two comments, notice that in that particular case, you’re not in the Environmental Impact Statement mode because you had to shove it down the applicant’s throat. In fact, you had an applicant who recognized that although we’re doing something in an allowed zone, the thing we’re doing is a fairly significant project, and it would be appropriate to have an Environmental Impact Statement. Correct? I mean, that’s how that came about. MR. ROUND-They volunteered that. They volunteered it with another project, the Cracker Barrel, which has a minor impact with regard to the traffic, but traffic was one of the issues that was raised as having a negative impact on the neighborhood character. So, I mean, it’s not a, you know, SEQRA and Impact Statements are not an enforcement tool. They’re not a, they’re a planning mechanism to identify all the areas. They’re a public input mechanism. They’re not an encumbrance, and the whole idea behind developing an Impact Statement was to alleviate the applicant and the Planning Board of some procedural requirement, and also, you know, the comment was offered tonight, no way can we identify all the noise and impacts and it’s impossible to do. Well, as a part of the Impact Statement, as a part of the Master Plan, a creative individual could put forth, well, lets make some revisions to this particular zone. Lets allow magnitudes of disturbance. Lets allow height measurements. Lets establish thresholds whereby we have to revisit Environmental Impacts. Lets establish thresholds whereby we have to come back in front of the Planning Board for discretionary approval. They could propose a modification to that zone to allow them to not come in front of the Planning Board for change to other rides, so long as they met X, Y, Z condition, but they haven’t seen that as an advantage, and I see it as an advantage to them to allow that, and other projects and other applicants have seen the Impact Statement, the Generic Impact Statement process and the Master Plan process, as an advantage versus an encumbrance. MR. MAC EWAN-I think they’re looking at a Generic Environmental Impact Statement as being a tool to be used by the Town as a deterrent to them to expanding more in the Park, but I think that’s the tunnel vision in them. They don’t see any other advantages to it like you just cited. Have they been given that information? MR. SCHACHNER-They have absolutely been given that information. They just don’t see it, but, you know, you need to appreciate, as a Board, one of the things Chris is saying is that it’s a useful tool, and it’s not being suggested as a detriment to the applicant, and let me emphasize that, and I don’t think this has been made clear at all. The step by step, one ride at a time, SEQRA review approach is extremely suspect, legally, and although the applicant seems unwilling to recognize this, every time you make a SEQRA decision at this particular project site based on review of one specific sub part, if you will, or component, without looking at the overall entire Park, you’re doing something that is frowned on, expressly frowned upon in SEQRA law, called segmentation. That’s the term of art, the legal term, and the SEQRA regulations say you should not engage in segmented environmental review, and they define segmented environmental review as meaning piecemeal, incremental, one step at a time review, exactly what this applicant is insisting upon, and I have three other comments that I’d really like to make on this topic, if you’ll let me. The first one is, Bob Vollaro asked a question, and the applicant, a fairly simple, I thought, straightforward question, and the applicant gave an extremely lengthy, I thought, extremely cumbersome, extremely complex answer, which Bob Vollaro synthesized, I thought, beautifully, when he said, so you’re saying no, and I think the Board needs to understand, the decision is not up to an applicant, okay. That decision, the SEQRA review decision is not up to this applicant or any other applicant. That’s your call as the SEQRA lead agency. An applicant doesn’t have the ability to say, the only way an applicant can say no to you under SEQRA law is if they then say, we’re not going to do our project. You hold the cards. You’re in control, and I’m not sitting here saying you should force them to do an EIS or not. That’s your call and that’s your discretion, but I need, as your Counsel, to make sure that you understand that it’s not up to an applicant whether they do an Environmental Impact Statement or not. That’s up to you because you’re the SEQRA lead agency. Secondly, although I appreciate Larry’s comment a lot that, you know, we never really dealt with Chris’ recommendation memo, maybe we should do it, quite frankly, I think at this point, on this particular application, don’t bother. You’re too late. The horse is out of the barn. Chris’ memo speaks to a recommended approach for SEQRA review, and you’ve now done your SEQRA review for this new ride. So I think you’re just going to belabor the point, and cause needless delay and antagonism and hostility, you know, all of which you can do if you want, but the bottom line is you don’t have anymore leverage on SEQRA review of this particular application because you’ve just completed your SEQRA review and you’ve decided to do it incrementally and not require an Environmental Impact Statement, and that’s fine. I’m not too troubled by that, because we didn’t have a lot of hue and cry and opposition here. If we had opposition here, I’d be very concerned, because if somebody takes an Article 78 proceeding against your SEQRA review, there’s a real 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) substantial exposure here because you’re doing this thing called segmentation, and not looking at the Park as an overall entity. Now, having said it’s too late, what I will say is that Chris and I have talked about this before and after his memo was issued. One of the reasons he issued the memo was to give you, to sort of lay a foundation, if you will, for future review, for future applications, and one thing you can consider as a Planning Board is you can, as a SEQRA lead agency, is you can consider either now, as a condition of this specific project, or just keep in your minds for when the next project comes along from this applicant, you can certainly consider saying, okay, we’re going to need some kind of overall, cumulative, comprehensive SEQRA review, whether that’s an Environmental Impact Statement, a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or whatever it is, and again neither of us is saying you must do these things. We’re just pointing out to you that these opportunities exist, and that SEQRA policy and SEQRA law would certainly encourage you to do these things. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be safe that we don’t have to wait too long, because you can pretty much rest assured they’ll be back here sometime next year for another ride they’re going to be proposing. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s certainly possible. I have no idea. MR. PALING-I have a hard time with that, Mark. Chris, what area are you talking about you want them to do this? MR. ROUND-I’m not sure I understand. What’s your question, Bob? MR. PALING-What’s the geography, what do you want them to cover? MR. SCHACHNER-Their whole Park. MR. PALING-How about outside of the Park? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I think the comments that some of you, and yourself included, Bob, have made about, you can’t make The Great Escape do an EIS for the entire corridor, those are fair comments. That’s generally true. MR. PALING-So you’re going to make them do an Environmental study for just the Park. I have a hard time with that. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say just the Park, any Environmental Impact Statement of that site, just like any other site, will take into account traffic conditions somewhat outside the site, not traffic conditions in Hudson Falls, but traffic conditions nearby that lead to the Park. Any Environmental Impact Statement is not done in a vacuum. No matter what the project is that an EIS is done about, especially if traffic is an issue, obviously, you have to look outside of the geographic boundaries. MR. PALING-It’s not just traffic, though. It’s noise, it’s pollution, and all of that. I don’t see how you can say we’ll do the Park and we’ll be covered. MR. ROUND-That would be identified through the SEQRA process, okay. We feel that there are cumulative impacts, and then through the Scoping process you would say, okay, here’s the areas of concern, and you would come to an agreement, you know, as a part of Scoping that, okay, traffic, noise, visual impacts, stormwater impacts are the areas of concern. Then you say, well, it’s reasonable to attribute traffic problems from Point A to Point B. The Aviation Mall right now is looking at traffic impacts to 9 and 254, although they don’t have frontage on 9 and 254, but they’re going to aggravate that situation, and just as Larry said tonight, there’s impact statements being prepared for Lowe’s, that had relatively minor traffic impacts, but they were asked to look at and put a signal in, you know, and coordinate signals and develop stormwater management for a project that’s much smaller than some of the singular rides that are being proposed at this much larger site. So, I mean, it’s not a big reach. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. In fact, think of the EIS’s that Chris has mentioned, think of Lowe’s, think of the Mall. Both are located at areas that have some substantial amount of other commercial entities nearby. Both of those applicants came and said, hey, we’re doing a project that’s allowed under zoning. We have an existing, well, in one case we an existing project, in the other case it’s a new project, but we feel we have significant environmental impacts, and in order to do this thing right, in order to cross our “T’s” and dot our “I’s”, we’re prepared to do an 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) Environmental Impact Statement. What you really have here is basically a different applicant that has a different view of these things than most applicant/developers do. Just to give you my perspective on this, I mean, I think most of you or all of you know, I also represent lots of private applicant/developers, just not in this geographical region for obvious reasons, and, you know, as project counsel to projects like this, I want to get an approval that is not going to be subject to some kind of litigation attack, and that is going to have every “T” crossed and every “I” dotted, and that’s what the Aviation Mall people did and that’s what the Lowe’s people did and that’s what any number of other people did. MR. PALING-But, Mark, you’re not making a fair comparison when you compare Lowe’s or Aviation Mall to The Great Escape. The Great Escape is a dynamic changing thing, and it will change often. I doubt Lowe’s or Wal-Mart are going to change the dimension of their building or anything in there, once it’s constructed. I think it’s very difficult when you’ve got I don’t know how many different things they’ve got in Great Escape, but they’ve got a bunch of them. MR. SCHACHNER-Less than the Aviation Mall. MR. PALING-And technology can change. Competition can change. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. PALING-And make it a lot different. MR. SCHACHNER-Amen. MR. PALING-So you’ve got a different ball game when you’re comparing it to Aviation Mall or to Lowe’s. MR. ROUND-Sure. People do impact statements for the Woodstock gathering. How do you encapsulate this event as compared to a physical improvement or a physical construction project? You can’t. You’re confusing the, they’re all the same. There’s going to be differences, and you may not, as a part of the impact statement, and drafting that, you may not say, okay, if you put in Ride, you know, the maniac or the roller coaster, you don’t have to craft it in that. That’s why we use the term “generic” is, okay, we’re looking at noise, we’re looking at height, or we’re looking at physical occupation, but the other point is, what if you look at this particular site from Ground Zero, from 1949 or ’52, as Mr. McNulty said tonight, when you had six or eight, you know, Humpty Dumpty rides, and now you have a Park on the order and magnitude of, that would have rivaled Walt Disney 10 years ago. Now, there’s no cumulative impact or there’s no growth, there’s no attributed traffic impact associated to our highway system, there’s no noise that we’ve heard about from the adjacent residential properties? MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a couple of questions, here, and maybe we can do some research on this. Is there some way that we could contact some other townships in the State that have amusement parks of this size, and maybe just get some in put from those townships, how do you deal with it? Obviously, you get out in the Buffalo area, there’s two or three big amusement parks out there, and they’ve got to be doing the same thing, constantly upgrading their rides, changing their attractions. How do those townships deal with them? MR. PALING-They might be out in the middle of nowhere, too. MR. MAC EWAN-No, there’s a couple of them out in Buffalo right in areas just like this. MR. STARK-When did Mr. McNulty buy his house in Twicwood? Didn’t he just buy that last year? MR. ROUND-I don’t know that. MR. STARK-He knew the Park was there when he bought his house. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think that’s a different issue, though. I mean, it’s a valid point, but as far as disclosure and knowing what you’re getting into, but I don’t know how that relates to the. MR. STARK-Well, you’ve got one person coming down saying a few words about it, and you’ve got another 50, 60 people. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. ROUND-You’ve got to look at the environment, though, as well. This is an entity that’s been there. This is, you know, something that’s continued to grow, that is, you know, we recognize it as a vital component of our economic community, and it’s accepted to a certain extent, but when do we bear the burden of traffic improvement costs for the benefit of a single enterprise within the community? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s understandable. I mean, we’re walking a real fine line here. We really are, and I think we have to do. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s also not a bad thing. People seem to have the perception that having an applicant do an Environmental Impact Statement or this applicant, would be a terrible thing, or a terrible burden, and it’s really not. The numbers that the applicant threw around were either completely fabricated, or something is different about their experience than every single every other experience in the State of New York. I mean, I’ve been involved in dozens of Environmental Impact Statements for projects of tremendous magnitude, to down to small ones, and the numbers they’re throwing around, I honestly think are just pulled out of thin air. MR. RINGER-You mean the dollar amounts? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I was going to say to him, gee, you would have gotten better legal advice if you’d have cut the price down, but anyway, that’s neither here nor there. MR. ROUND-The other thing that might come out of it is that they might, as part of this evaluation, as part of the Impact Statement process, is identify that, hey, no, we are not the major contributor of traffic. I mean, there’s always positive things that may come out of this process, and that may say, well, you can’t lay the burden of improvements upon our project, given what we’ve revealed to you, noise is not an issue, and then you would be relieved of examining noise, each and every time you do a project review. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it makes a lot of sense that we try to put something together that’s got some thresholds on it, as long as you stay within those boundaries, you know, and it’s going to free them up so they don’t even have to come back here every time. MR. SCHACHNER-At least not have SEQRA review every time. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, the principal purpose of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is exactly that. It’s to establish some big picture parameters, so that as long as you fit within those big picture parameters, you don’t have to do SEQRA review each and every time you move. MR. MAC EWAN-One other question, it’s kind of a dumb question. Do other States have something similar to SEQRA review? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, not all 50, but SEQRA itself is what’s called, well never mind. It’s based on a Federal statute called the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, and more than half the States have their own NEPA’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we get Staff to maybe research this a little bit and try to inquire of some other townships in the State, and other States themselves that would have this kind of situation, just so that I understand. MR. ROUND-That’s a really complex project. . MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I wouldn’t suggest you do other States MR. MAC EWAN-Can we just stick it in New York State, then? I mean, I’m not asking for a whole bunch of, you know, detective work here. I guess what I’m looking for is a simple letter from a township, saying, yes, we have an amusement park of such and such size, it comes to such and such acreage. We’ve done a GEIS with them, so that they can continue going on, or, no we don’t do that, every time they come in we do a Full Environmental Impact Statement. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) MR. ROUND-We can certainly explore that. We’re not sure that it’s going to give you a right or wrong answer, though. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not looking for right or wrong answers. I’m only for what other communities do when they are faced with the same situation. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-If you were to look at Pyramid’s business plan, they’re long range business plan, all of what we’re asking for, in terms of what is liable to happen in the future, is in their long term business plan, because they’re in competition with other rides in other parks, and they could easily pull that out and fold it in to something like Chris is talking about. That’s what I tried to, unfortunately, I didn’t connect this memo, when I was talking to. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounded like you did. MR. VOLLARO-No. I didn’t connect it with the fact that we were going to do a SEQRA, and that this had to be implemented before the SEQRA process. If I’d have known that. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ll have another opportunity. MR. VOLLARO-Because when he said no, my, when I said, well, your answer is no, the answer was no, in my mind, to this piece of paper. Because I was talking to him about a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and not having to look at this incrementally, but to look at it cumulatively. MR. MAC EWAN-George just came up with an excellent idea. MR. STARK-A fact finding mission by the Board to Disney World to go into this item more deeply. The Town Board would be happy to pay. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to talk about funding now, George. MR. MAC EWAN-If we can get something along that line, just give it a little, I’m not looking for guidance. I want to know what other communities are faced with, and how they’re dealing with it. There’s got to be a couple of communities in New York State that have got amusement parks of this size. MR. STARK-Nobody has an amusement park. Who the heck has an amusement park in New York State? MR. MAC EWAN-Out in the Buffalo area. MR. STARK-They own the one out in Buffalo, Crystal Beach. MRS. MOORE-They own the one out in Buffalo. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not contacting the amusement park. We’re contacting the township. MR. ROUND-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/15/98) 39