The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.10.21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 1. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38 Special Use Permit No. 30-2008 Marylee Gosline/John & Kim Polunci 2. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 Site Plan No. 40-2008 The Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls, 2. NEWCO, LLC Tax Map No. 302.5-1-93.1, 93.2, 92.4, 92.11, 96.1, 96.2, 97 Site Plan No. 18-2008 Jolley Associates 4. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29 Site Plan No. 7-2008 K Twin Holdings 9. Freshwater Wetlands 4-2008 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9, 10 Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 12. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Subdivision No. 7-2008 Keith Harris 22. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.-1-25, 26 Site Plan No. 42-2008 David & Nancy Parsons 26. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28 Site Plan No. 41-2008 Great Escape Theme Park 33. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP TANYA BRUNO DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to order, on Tuesday, October 21, 2008. The first item on the agenda is approval of thth minutes from August, specifically August 19 and August 26. Would someone like to put forward a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 19, 2008 August 26, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF THTH AUGUST 19 AND AUGUST 26, 2008, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 2007 BRIAN MC CALL FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-And there was a draft resolution prepared by Staff. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we know the reason for the tabling request? MR. OBORNE-They wanted to have time to address VISION Engineering comments. They did not have enough time to do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. KREBS-It’s on the next page after the resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they submit new information to get on the agenda for November? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So this would be considered, then, in December? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have a date in December, then? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) thth MR. HUNSINGER-The two scheduled meetings are the 16 and the 18. th MR. SEGULJIC-Make it the 16, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: At the applicant’s request, to the December 16, 2008 Planning Board meeting. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next item is a similar resolution. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 30-2008 MARY LEE GOSLINE/JOHN & KIM POLUNCI FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-They’ve requested it to be tabled to a December meeting. They do th need to submit requested information by November 17. So if they don’t, they won’t be heard in December. th MR. SEGULJIC-So let’s say the December 16 meeting again. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 30-2008 MARY LEE GOSLINE/JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tabled to the Planning Board’s December 16, 2008, with the submission of the requested information to Staff by November 17, 2008. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2008 SEQR TYPE I – PREVIOUS EIS [ADOPTED BY TB 8/6/01; ADOPTED BY PB 9/4/01] THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, NEWCO, LLC AGENT(S) CHAZEN COMPANIES; B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING ESC-25A LOCATION AVIATION MALL AND OUT-PARCELS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,400 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT BUILDING, 11,500 SQ. FT. ND MIXED USE BLDG. [RETAIL & RESTAURANT], 93,055 SQ. FT. BOX STORE W/ 2 LEVEL RETAIL, AND A 65,000 SQ. FT. THEATRE EXPANSION. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWABLE USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REVIEW FOR SEQR CONSISTENCY AND BEGIN SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63-08; SP 21-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/10/08 LOT SIZE 7 LOTS TOTALING 52.05 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-93.1, 93.2, 92.4, 92.11, 96.1, 96.2, 97 SECTION 179-9-030 MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally we have a request from Pyramid Company to table th their project until November 28. That’s a Friday. MR. TRAVER-We were going to be doing a Special Meeting, I believe, for that project. MR. HUNSINGER-We were. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. TRAVER-So it sounds like they’re asking for a re-scheduling of that Special Meeting for November. th MR. KREBS-That’s right. They had a Special Meeting scheduled on the 30 of October. MR. OBORNE-Well, certainly not on a Friday. That date, obviously, is misrepresented. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in their letter they say the applicant hereby requests that the Board reschedule the meeting to your second meeting in November and allow submission deadline two weeks prior to that meeting. MR. OBORNE-You can grant that request, or you could deny that request and set a separate date, if you wish. MR. HUNSINGER-I did see the draft list of agenda items for November, and I think there were 10. So we probably could hear it at a regular meeting, if we so chose. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do we have a date for that, then? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the second meeting is the 25. th MRS. BRUNO-But they’re also saying that they can’t meet the October 16 submission deadline. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the other issue. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re asking for a submission. MR. OBORNE-Two weeks prior to the November. th MR. SEGULJIC-Can we work with that, November 11? MR. OBORNE-If that works for you, that’s fine. I do warn that obviously this is a large project. When we already have five, five on the November meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll do six and four. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So this would be a fifth item. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So everyone’s okay with the submission of materials by th November 11? MRS. BRUNO-Well, I’d like to ask, how often do we, is this consistent with our practice? I’m trying to remember, just for somebody asking for tabling if we’ve done that? I know sometimes when people come in front of us and it’s a small item, I just want to make sure we’re consistent. Do you guys recall? MR. KREBS-Anybody can ask for tabling. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, anyone can make a request. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I know that, but I’m saying, asking for a special submission date. Sometimes we waive the set date for those that we know are very small, you know, that have come in front of us and they only have a few items, we’ll accommodate them then. MR. OBORNE-I think the short answer would be that you’re not setting a precedent, but it is a rare occurrence. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s a good answer. The bigger question is, is there enough time for Staff and the engineer to respond with only two weeks, given that that’s also Thanksgiving? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. OBORNE-Yes, and Staff would request that you possibly follow regular protocol on their submission date. MR. HUNSINGER-Then we’d be looking at a December meeting. MR. OBORNE-Yes. nd MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we could do a Special Meeting maybe like December 2. MR. OBORNE-If that is the will of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this room open on every Tuesday? MR. OBORNE-I would have to find that out for you, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and you could let us know for next week? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that would be my preference. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that makes sense. We’ll hold off on this. nd MR. HUNSINGER-A special meeting on December 2, and if you can find out between now and next Tuesday, the availability of the room that week. nd MR. OBORNE-Are you looking specifically for December 2? ndth MR. HUNSINGER-Well, either the 2 or the 4. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So hold off on making a motion at this point until we’ve got, until next week. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ll hold off until next Tuesday. th MRS. BRUNO-I won’t be here the 4. nd MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll try for Tuesday anyway, Tuesday the 2. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 SEQR TYPE II JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 777 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING 944 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE. GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 LOT SIZE 0.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 TOM NACE & SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think the Board is familiar with this application. This is 777 Glen Street, and it is a tear down of a 944 square foot convenience store and replacing with a 2,288 square foot convenience store with associated sitework, and again, to reiterate, I believe the Board is familiar with this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Sean Crumb from Jolley Associates. I think the last time we were here in August, this was tabled for a revised lighting plan, revised signage plan, notation on the plat about the stormwater management, signoff by VISION Engineering, and I think that was it. I think we’ve answered all those, and I believe Staff comments and engineering letter are at this point a signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else to add? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. NACE-Not unless you have questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for questions and comments from members of the Board. MR. SIPP-After last meeting, one of the Board members who is absent tonight said that she felt that there was an awful lot of light spilling out of the building, through the front glass, the glass front you had, there was an awful lot of light. So I drove up there that night, and it is quite light, due to the interior light shining out through. Now I don’t know as this is anything that’s harmful, but it is bright. Now with the leaves off the tree, or starting to come off the tree, I can see your place from my back porch, and I can see the light, although it’s in the opposite direction, spilling out into the fueling area. Now is this going to be the same type of lighting effect that you’re going to have here? I see the north elevation is the one that has the greatest amount of glass area, and that would be facing 254, I believe. MR. NACE-Are you comparing it with the new store at Exit 20, Don? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. NACE-I think the front elevation is pretty similar, isn’t it? MR. CRUMB-It’s fairly similar, yes. MR. SIPP-It looks it. I don’t think it’s the same, but it’s similar. MR. CRUMB-It’s similar, but certainly the building design is entirely different. That’s a good question. I don’t, at the moment, have an answer for you. MR. NACE-Well, in this case, I think if you look at the plans, the canopy in front will end up as a shade for some of that light, okay, because the front of the building is back under the canopy. Up at Exit 20, the building is set back a significant ways from the canopy, and we have, if you look at the lighting plan, we’ve significantly reduced the amount of light around the building and under the canopy. MR. SIPP-As it is, you know, if you drive up Route 9, as I did last, at the last meeting about eleven o’clock at night, it’s bright up there. It is bright. MR. CRUMB-Well, it’s certainly different from the old station that was there, that was rather dark and dingy, and there certainly wasn’t near as much glass in the old building as there is in the new. MR. SIPP-It looks nice. MR. KREBS-The whole intersection is bright, I mean, it’s not just. MR. NACE-Well, it’s a commercial area. MR. KREBS-It’s just not coming from that one area. MR. NACE-It’s a commercial area. Everything along that strip is lit up fairly well. MR. HUNSINGER-And that was actually the question I had on the lighting plan. Did the lighting plan take into account the street lights? My guess is no. MR. NACE-The existing streetlights? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-No, it did not. They’re fairly low level. There’s no way we could simulate those, not knowing the brand or the details of them. MRS. BRUNO-No, because if you look, there’s one light pole right out by the, where it says grass area and there are zeros around it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s why I didn’t think it did, because there’s quite a bit of street lighting there. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. NACE-Without knowing the luminare details, it’s impossible to model that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess, I brought it up because I think that if you take into account the streetlights, it will make the uniformity ratio better. MR. NACE-A little better, that’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I brought it up to raise the question. MR. NACE-No, that is true. Obviously, from our lighting we show it as you get out into the intersection, tailing off to zero, obviously it does not. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, did you have other questions, Don, on lighting? MR. SIPP-Well, I just wanted to compare what would happen, what’s going to happen with the new store, but the canopy will shade quite a bit of that. MR. NACE-Yes, if you look at the plan, the canopy extends quite a ways out in front of the building. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. CRUMB-And this building is considerably smaller than either Exit 19 or Exit 20. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We did table the public hearing until this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are people ready to move forward? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II. I think they submitted a Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Are we ready to go? MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you are. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore, I make a motion for a Negative Declaration. MR. SIPP-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, 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 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) 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. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, just in the future, when there’s a Type II SEQRA, there’s no requirement to go through an EAF or an EIS at all. There is no action required for that. Only Unlisted and Type I. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sorry. We got ahead of ourselves. We got excited. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes replacement of the existing 944 sq. ft. convenience store with a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store. Gas Stations and Convenience Stores in the HC-Int zone require Site plan review and approval from the Planning Board 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/17/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Five, Negative, and we’ll approve the waiver for grading. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. BRUNO-We have the waiver that we granted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there were waivers. MR. SEGULJIC-The grading waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. NACE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED K TWIN HOLDINGS AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) K TWIN THREE, LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION WEST SIDE MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,886 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE, FILLING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DEC DESIGNATED WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW AND UPON COMPLETION FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC DEC; GF-19 LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9, 10 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020, 94-5 RICHARD JONES & DANIEL KRUEGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Once again, the Board should be familiar with this application. The action is a proposed construction of a 2,886 square foot office building with associated parking and site work. All activities with the exception of 408 square feet of road access are to be performed within 100 feet of the DEC wetland. One note, though, the applicant must consolidate parcels to avoid a further Area Variance and obtain a DEC wetlands permit for this project prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Board may wish to make the above a condition of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project, an with me is Dan Krueger from K Twin. We have gone through re-submission, based upon comments from the Town review engineer, and we did receive copies of Staff Notes, and basically all of the Staff Notes were either completed or addressed. The subsequent comments that we got back from VISION are minor comments regarding requirements for additional notes to be added to the drawings, with regard to maintenance type items and that type of thing. Item 22 on his list, he was asking about providing adequate access to the hood and the orifice control, and that access has been 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) provided and will be noted on the drawing as such. Item 23, he indicates a New York State DEC permit for stormwater discharge, and in reviewing the requirements, the stormwater discharge permit is only required when you disturb a site of one acre or greater and basically we’re .61 acres. So I’m not sure what he’s referencing in that regard. We don’t believe that we need to do that. With regard to the DEC permit, I spoke with Rich Spiedel at New York State DEC, on Monday, and a draft permit has been prepared, and they are anticipating issuing the final permit this week. So we should have that, if not Friday, by the beginning of the week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-So that is taken care of. In reference to the consolidation, we did send th Mark Collyer the consolidation form on September 19, and we’ve not heard back from either Warren County or him at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-So that has been done. We just haven’t received the approval yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-And with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. You’ve been here enough. MR. HUNSINGER-So who would have the final say on whether or not the stormwater permit is required? MR. OBORNE-Well, you probably would want to direct the Town Engineer to clarify his notes there. It is one acre before you have to apply. However, there may be provisions in that that I’m not aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JONES-Yes. In looking at the DEC requirements, they basically say disturbances of one acre or more, including disturbances of less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan or development, which we’re not. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, which you’re not. Yes. MR. JONES-Then they also talk about construction activities involving soil disturbances of less than one acre where the Department, DEC, has determined that a SPDES permit is necessary for stormwater discharges, and at this point, we haven’t received a permit, and I am not aware of them requiring a SPDES permit. So, I mean, it may be part of the permit, and if it is, then that’s fine. We’ll comply with that requirement, but we just don’t believe that we need to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, as a condition, because there are some engineering comments that have got to get addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. The public hearing was held open until this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this application? Seeing, none, I will open the public hearing, and if there’s no written comments? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? This one is an Unlisted action. So I’m positive we have to do SEQRA. MR. JONES-We did a Long Form. Do you still need to do the Short Form as well? MR. SEGULJIC-We haven’t done SEQRA yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t done SEQRA, no. No, we’re going to do that now. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll do a Short Form, then? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know what they submitted. MR. JONES-Well, we submitted a Short Form initially, and then we submitted a Long Form, which you did review and returned to the Zoning Board as part of their review process, and that was approved, I think in the August or September meeting of the Board. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-Did we approve SEQRA, then, the Long Form? MR. OBORNE-Have you approved SEQRA? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Unlisted SEQRA Negative Dec August 26, 2008. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’re ready for a motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the only two conditions that I see is address engineering comments, and then the consolidation of the parcel, which I guess you’ve already taken action on, but we’ll just memorialize that. MR. JONES-We just haven’t received anything back yet. MR. OBORNE-If I may, specifically state which engineering comment you want to have taken care of. I’d prefer that for clarity, when I’m doing the building permit vetting. MR. HUNSINGER-Seven, twelve, and twenty-three. They ask for additional notes on Drawing SP-3, minimum depth to the water service, maintenance for the outlet control structure, and installation of the stone infiltration trench. MR. JONES-Yes. I think it was Item Seven, Twelve, Eighteen, Twenty-two, and Twenty- three. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. Okay. Can we do both at the same time? MR. OBORNE-You should have two separate resolutions. If not, make sure you mention the Freshwater Wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-I only have one, Site Plan and Freshwater Wetlands. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ve frequently done them as one resolution. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of an office building with 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) associated site work. Office Buildings in the HC- Int. zone require Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Applicant proposes disturbance, filling and construction within 100 feet of a DEC designated wetland. Construction within 100 feet of any regulated wetland requires a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the Planning Board. The Planning Board may request lead agency status for purposes of SEQR review. 1)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/18/08, 5/20/08, 7/15/08, 8/26/08, 10/21/08 ; and 2)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 3)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 4)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 5)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 6)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 7)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 9)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five is Negative, with the following conditions: a.That engineering comments, seven, twelve, eighteen, twenty-two, and twenty-three, within VISION Engineer’s October 17, 2008 letter be addressed. b.That the two parcels be consolidated prior to application for a building permit, and the submission of a DEC wetlands permit. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-And I would like, as part of that condition, he needs to have a DEC Wetlands permit. We have not received that yet. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) BETWEEN GENEVA DR. & HOWARD ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.81 +/- ACRES INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 TO 0.54 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE 52-2007 REFERRED TO PB FOR RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC IMPACT; LOT SIZES; DENSITY VS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; STORMWATER; DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE; 175 FEET CENTERLINE VS. 300 FEET CURVE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA/NYS DOH NYS DOH LOT SIZE 7.81 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION A-183 STEPHANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-One moment, please. Again, I believe that the Board is well aware of this application. The applicant’s agent has informed Staff that blue lupine is present on the property, as the result of a recent Department of Conservation visit. The recommendation of the DEC Biologist, Kathy O’Brien, is attached. The Planning Board may consider re-opening SEQRA in order to determine the extent of potential Karner blue habitat on this property, and to discuss any mitigation due to destruction of the wetland. I’m assuming that the Board is aware of what the parameters of his subdivision are, i.e. what the lot sizes are, and the amount. I would like to add that the applicant has submitted revised plans that show the preliminary site plan conditions of approval. The revisions are as follows. VISION Engineering comments attached. A ten foot wide no cut zone has been incorporated to the plan. However, no mention of this being a deed restriction has been added to the plan. A notation has been added on Page Eight of the final submitted plans concerning the septic absorption system. Staff recommends a note stating that all lots require a perc test prior to construction be placed on the front page and septic system detail page of the final plans. This will ensure clarity of the revision, and let me just go through one more. The following is in response to the letter from Nace Engineering dated September 16, 2008 concerning the Karner blue and Frosted Elfin butterfly mitigation efforts for the proposed Geneva Drive subdivision. Number One, please clarify the overall plan to include timetables for all aspects of the plan, what entity will develop these lands to support habitat for the Karner blue and Frosted Elfin butterfly, what entity will continue to oversee these lands upon the completion of habitat restoration, fencing and signage, buffer, if any, and to what extent. Number Two, the Department of Environmental Conservation has stated that they cannot accept the proposed mitigation parcel. What is the protocol for the transfer of property to the mitigation land bank if that is the course of action? Finally, Number Three, these questions will need to be answered in order to pursue the proper course of action concerning this issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. BITTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Stephanie Bitter. I’m here this evening with Tom Center as well as Larry Clute. It’s our understanding that you will be re-opening SEQRA this evening due to the new information that was addressed at last month’s meeting. We were also seeking Final approval of the subdivision, based on the conditions that DEC has recommended and that we are proposing as well. Just to kind of recap what Jon Lapper had discussed with you at last month’s meeting, as you’re well aware, this was brought up due to a neighbor’s concern that there might be a protected butterfly species at this site. The DEC did observe that blue lupine was present at the property, but only enough to support a small population of Frosted Elfin butterflies, which are a threatened species but not endangered. There wasn’t any information to support that a protected butterfly species was at the site. However, there are sandy soils that do exist on this site, but due to the unauthorized use of ATV’s has created this blue lupine to exist. In response to this concern, Mr. Clute has proposed, which was discussed at the last meeting, that a .5 acre parcel be dedicated to the Town, which is immediately adjacent to the mitigation area that Rich Schermerhorn had dedicated to the Town, that isn’t part of this subdivision, but is an area parallel to Sherman Avenue. That dedicated area will then be cleared by Mr. Clute, based on DEC’s recommendation of clearing limits, and then DEC would be allowed to plant what they find is required to have that be a mitigated area as well as well as have any studies or analysis that they would like to see occupied by that property. Mr. Clute is prepared to move quickly with this dedication process, to get this moving, and in an effort to address Staff comments, I know Mr. Center has a letter that he has submitted or can address. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. CENTER-I can address them. MS. BITTER-He can address them in detail. MR. CENTER-In regards to the VISION Engineering comment, I believe there was only one outstanding comment, we had discussed that at the last meeting, in regards to the direct entry of the pre-treatment requirement for the drywells. The plan is similar to what’s approved in Queensbury for drywells with wing swales. The Highway Department has an understanding with DEC to allow direct entry to the drywells without having prior pre-treatment, with the understanding that they clean them out every year, annually. So this isn’t any different than any of the other approved subdivisions that we’ve provided. So I believe we can come to an agreement with that comment. As far as Comment Number Two, we don’t have a problem putting a note on the front Drawing, S-1 and S-2, basically stating that the percolation tests shall be performed in the area of each proposed septic system prior to construction of the absorption system to confirm that stabilized percolation rate and appropriate design are performed. We’ve already added the note to Drawing S-6, I believe, or S-7, S-7, we’ve already added the note to the drawing that’s been submitted stating basically that we’ll perform a percolation test for every system. Number Three, in regards to the Staff recommending, I’m sorry, Number Four, Number Four has been taken care of by the hydroseeding of the rear yards. So we believe we can address these comments or make it conditional that we put those notes on the drawing. MS. BITTER-And then you put a note on for the deed restriction. I’m sorry. MR. CENTER-Yes, and the note for the deed restriction basically stating on S-2, S-1 and S-2 stating that the deed shall be restricted to the no cut areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-I think that’s all the Staff comments that there were. Any questions from the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’m just questioning the, with regards to DEC letter and they’re saying that they cannot accept the property. Is the plan to add this piece of property to the existing property and it would then I guess belong to the Town of Queensbury? MS. BITTER-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then the question was also raised about ATV access to this habitat from the adjacent property. Was there some discussion about a fence? MR. CENTER-Yes. No, the discussion in there, that she had, with the parcel that we were looking to deed over to the Town, what they wanted to do is along the trail, the future subdivision and plans for that area that are coming had a walking trail connecting the two, the land bank to the existing subdivision, and her concern was making sure that when we cleared it that we left a stand of trees or created some sort of a berm, buffer, whether it’s stacked trees along there, not necessarily a fence. I don’t believe there’s any fencing in the land bank currently. I wouldn’t want to be quoted on that, but talking with Larry real quick before the meeting, I think her concern here, and that’s why it was added into that comment, was DEC wanted to set the clearing limits so that they left a buffer to keep people out, a natural buffer, not necessarily a fence, per se. So that’s where that comment came from. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Has there been any discussion of whether or not Queensbury will accept the property next to Schermerhorn’s previous? MR. CENTER-I think it was going to be added, a boundary line adjustment to this parcel to allow that to be added on to the existing land bank, similar to what they did for Mr. Schermerhorn for the 14 acres. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. CENTER-Fourteen acres was turned over to the Town for the same reasons, and there’s been some discussion, I guess Mr. Lapper called me late last week, that the Town may want to have the actual cleared area be contiguous to the existing land bank, and then this parcel just turned over, so we don’t have one spot over here, and nothing contiguous. Maybe make it contiguous, but that would have to be worked out in that agreement, and Mr. Clute doesn’t have any problem with doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-So obviously any approval this evening would have to be contingent on, the Town Board ultimately has to accept this, right? MR. OBORNE-I would say yes, and also, I do have a question as to the parcel you’re offering, it’s not an approved parcel at this point. It’s in the conceptual stage, if I’m correct. This is the parcel, the mixed use, I believe, parcel? MS. BITTER-Right. It’s my understanding that they would approach that as a boundary line adjustment. So that that’s at least what the proposal would be. MR. OBORNE-For the whole parcel, that is just vacant at this point, just be a boundary line adjustment. MS. BITTER-Right, right, because it’s immediately adjacent to the parcel that’s owned by the Town at this point. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and obviously we would want that contiguous with it, the land bank. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So, just so I understand. We approved SEQRA on this, and then we got this information. So that means what we have to do is first of all we have to decide if we want to re-open SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and they have developed a plan already, conceptually. MS. BITTER-A mitigation plan. MR. SEGULJIC-For mitigation, yes. MR. CENTER-A mitigation plan. MR. SEGULJIC-But we don’t have the details of that plan yet. MR. CENTER-The details are in, I think pretty well laid out in Mrs. O’Brien’s letter what she’s looking for from us to mitigate the lupine that’s on this subdivision. Her four comments that she has in her letter is kind of what we agreed to, between the two of us worked out. th MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, that’s the September 16 letter? thth MR. CENTER-The September 16, yes, her letter on September 16 to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s all conceptual now because what you want to do, is that lot is going to be a boundary line adjustment, I think is what you said. MR. CENTER-It’s a boundary line adjustment would have to be done, but anyways, that would have to be done, but anyway, that would have to be done afterwards, because we have to go to the Town Board for them for the dedication. MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve got to get the approval, then you’ve got to get, okay. I just want to understand how this all plays out, and I guess my other confusion is, you’ve made some changes to the plan, some notes on the plans, correct? MR. CENTER-I added notes today addressing Staff comments that we received Friday afternoon. So it would be conditional. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we haven’t seen those. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. CENTER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CENTER-Because I got the Staff comments on Friday, and in order to, you know, we addressed them, I put some notes on the drawings, that if they were acceptable to the Board, that’s what we would add on the final plot submitted, if we want to make a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now what say does the DEC have in your mitigation plan? They’ve conceptually agreed to it, but they haven’t agreed to the details of it, is that accurate? MR. CENTER-They’ve agreed to basically the actions, one, two, three and four and us working with them, they’ve laid it out pretty clearly. They agree that the half acre lot or parcel, that Mr. Clute will clear that half acre parcel, including trees and stumps, as they direct. They may retain some trees. So they’re going to come out with us and show us the clearing limits, whether they want any trees to remain. Mr. Clute would stump it. The DEC would then, they just need to be allowed to have access and do an established study and maintain the habitat. Lupine isn’t something that can be bought and planted, as it was explained to me by Mrs. O’Brien. That’s what DEC would do. They would plant the lupine. They would maintain the lupine and study the area and the habitat. So they were just, they were looking for access through there. Right now Mr. Clute owns the parcel, but it would be, when we make that presentation to the Town Board, for the land to be hooked, you know, boundary line adjustment, so the DEC could, I’m assuming they already have permission to study, maintain and do the work on Mr. Schermerhorn’s parcel, the 14 acres that’s in the land bank where they have the lupine currently. MR. SEGULJIC-So what about the details, like the fencing and the signage and things like that? MR. CENTER-That was not in our, like I said before, that was not something we discussed. She asked for a clearing limits so that they could provide a buffer, if there is, on the continuous portion, if there is fencing already, that would have to be something that we would sit down, I mean. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re telling me the DEC would direct a lot of this, then? MR. CENTER-Yes, the DEC and Staff. I mean, I think the details are something that the three of us, Staff, DEC, Mr. Clute, would need to sit down and come to an agreement. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CENTER-If we couldn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-But you can’t do anything until you get our blessing, shall we say. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So I think I understand what’s going on. MS. BITTER-So essentially we’re looking for a conditional approval so that we can get everything moving. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess there’s at least two specific conditions. One is that the Town Board accept the parcel and the boundary line adjustment, and then the second one is that you can work out with DEC the actual mitigation itself. MR. SEGULJIC-Now with this information, I think we have to re-open SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-We do, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then we can small to moderate with the submission of the mitigation plan, and then as far as the final approval, the conditions you just mentioned, they’d want (lost words) final approval, we have to re-open that and put those conditions on it, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-So what do we do, negate our former Final approval, or I guess we amend it. MR. OBORNE-No, you would negate it, and then you would open it again. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we gave them a Preliminary approval. We haven’t given them a Final approval. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s correct. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So this would be part of the Final approval. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, so we haven’t done Final approval. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other questions from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-Well, I actually have one. To me it sounds like a Catch-22, because if we approach SEQRA this evening, we can’t really say that it’s a neg dec, because we don’t know if this portion is actually okay. Do you see what I’m saying? In terms of, we can’t really give the SEQRA without knowing what the decision is on the blue Karner, but on the flipside. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s why we have the conditions in there. MS. BITTER-Right, that’s why there’s the conditional approval. MRS. BRUNO-I think I’m a little slow this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of re-opening SEQRA, do we need to re-open the public hearing? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought so. All right. Are there any other questions from the Board? Then I will re-open the public hearing and I will re-open the SEQRA process. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board on the blue Karner issue or any other SEQRA issue on this project? Hearing none and seeing none, I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of Long or Short Form, which one would we reconsider? I mean, the only issue, really, that requires reconsideration is the Karner blue butterfly issue. MR. OBORNE-Right. You did a determination concerning SEQRA with the Zoning Board of Appeals also. So you would automatically have to do a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, all subdivisions require a Long Form. MR. OBORNE-Once you come to the endangered species, you say yes, and then they say how are you going to mitigate it. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we have to go through the entire, I guess the real question I meant to ask is do we have to go through the entire Long Form, or can we just go to the item that’s in question? MR. OBORNE-I would suggest that you go through the whole Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Safety first. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MS. BITTER-Not to be nit picky, but actually that it’s actually the Frosted Elfin butterfly that was approached in the letter, not the blue Karner because of the amount of the lupine. Just to detail it that way. MR. OBORNE-And that’s an important detail, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-It is. Yes. Absolutely. Can’t we just amend the items? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I think that would be my concern now is don’t we have to make sure we’re consistent with what we said before, because now if we have two different things. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. That’s why you would go ahead and negate the other one and open up a new SEQRA determination, and eventually you’ll end up with a Neg Dec because you are comfortable with the information they have given you as far as the mitigation for the endangered species. I would suggest strongly that you do the Long Form and not necessarily take your time, but go through it. You know all the issues. You know that there’s one issue that was left out of the Long Form that was prepared by the applicant, and you just need to go ahead and acknowledge that there is an endangered species issue on. MS. BITTER-Threatened. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I guess we’re going to do the Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to do the Long Form, and we’re going to pretend like we never did SEQRA on this before. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is basically what you’re saying. Understood. MR. SEGULJIC-But we don’t have to negate the other one, then? We can just go right on to the Long Form. MR. OBORNE-Just re-open. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to make a motion to re-open SEQRA? MR. OBORNE-You need to make a motion to, I’m looking at what the resolution says here and it says that the application is a modification and the requirements of SEQRA have been considered and the proposal or modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts. I would re-open SEQRA. Maybe not totally disregard the previous one, re-open SEQRA, go to the mitigation area, and then vote on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think that makes more sense. We’re just going to discuss the Frosted Elfin issue. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to go to Question Eight, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Question Eight, yes. MOTION TO RE-OPEN SEQRA FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 FOR LARRY CLUTE, IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARDS TO QUESTION EIGHT, WILL PROPOSED ACTION AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Seguljic. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Should I read Question Eight? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would say small to moderate impact since the applicant has submitted, is in discussions with DEC in discussing various mitigation plans. MR. HUNSINGER-And really the issue is the habitat, not the actual butterfly. MR. SEGULJIC-Wildlife habitat. Removal of any significant wildlife habitat. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So, what’s the opinion of the Board, small to moderate impact? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, assuming that the mitigation plan is approved by all the parties involved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’ve determined that it’s a small to moderate impact. Do we then need a new Declaration? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I will motion to make a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LARRY CLUTE, 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we can consider the Final approval. We do have the conditions from Staff comments, the notations on the plan that Mr. Center said have already been made. MR. SEGULJIC-But we should acknowledge those, still? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, mention the deed restriction, on Drawing S-1 and S-2, and also the perc test, and then we have the condition of the Town Board accepting the half acre boundary line adjustment for the mitigation plan, and then subject to DEC’s approval of the mitigation plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Town Board acceptance of the proposed, what are we going to refer to that as, I’m sorry? MR. HUNSINGER-Half acre boundary line adjustment, necessary for the mitigation plan. Is that clear enough? MR. OBORNE-Well, for mitigation or however you want to. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we can always, well, I mean, the letter’s already in the th package, but we can reference the September 16 letter from DEC. MS. BITTER-Yes, Mrs. O’Brien’s letter. MR. OBORNE-And I would recommend that somewhere in that condition with the mitigation that Staff is involved in that. I know it’s assumed, but I want to get it on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Subject to DEC approval and Staff notification. I mean, what were you looking for? MR. OBORNE-Well, DEC has set forth a plan. There are not any nuts and bolts attached to that plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. OBORNE-And the people that will be figuring out which nut goes on which bolt, per se, will be Craig and myself, and probably Bruce Frank also, hence Staff. So if that’s clear as mud, tell me. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m thinking in terms of the resolution how we would include that. Subject to the DEC final approval and Staff notification. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. th MR. HUNSINGER-I think we should probably reference the September 16 letter. th MR. CENTER-You can reference my letter of September 16, because that also shows the parcel, the boundary line adjustment, so that has, that’s in response to her letter, that kind of shows, covers the drawing at least, that shows the parcel. That’s also dated th September 16. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s as if that first SEQRA never existed. We amended it. Well, I guess what I’m getting at is. MR. OBORNE-It certainly existed. You’re just amending or modifying it. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-We’re modifying Question Eight. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 7.81 +/- acres into 18 residential lots ranging in size from 0.34 to 0.54 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance 52-2007 referred to PB for recommendations relative to traffic impact; lot sizes; density vs. the Comprehensive Plan; stormwater; development of open space, whether it would be positive or negative; 175 feet centerline vs. 300 feet curve. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/22/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, Negative. The SEQRA declaration was modified. In accordance with the following conditions: a.That DEC approval of the mitigation plan outlined in the Nace Engineering th and DEC letter dated September 16 be approved, that the Town Staff be properly notified of the DEC’s approval. b.That the Town Board accept the proposed half acre boundary line adjustment offered as part of the mitigation plan. c.That a deed restriction for no cut zones be noted on Sheets S-1 and S-2. d.That a note stating that all lots require a perc test prior to construction be placed on the front page, the septic system detail page, of the final plans. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. CENTER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE I KEITH HARRIS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) D. SCOTT MC LAUGHLIN ZONING SR-1A LOCATION JENKINSVILLE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE A 37.95 ACRE PARCEL INTO 14 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.14 TO 11.45 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA APA, DEC LOT SIZE 3.92, 34.03 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-25, 26 SECTION A-183 STEPHANIE BITTER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 7-2008, Sketch Plan, applicant is Keith Harris, Sketch Plan Review of a 14 lot subdivision. Location is Jenkinsville Road, east of Ridge Road. The existing zoning is Suburban Residential One Acre. This is a Type I realty subdivision. The parcel history, it’s a vacant land. It’s a previous commercial demolition landfill on the property. The project description. Applicant proposes the subdivision of 37.95 acres into 14 lots, ranging in size from 1.14 acres to 11.45 acres. What follows is Staff comments. Just keep in mind that the Adirondack Park boundary line runs through the southern portion of the proposed subdivision and as such may require the Planning Board to determine that this project will be subject to the special requirements of Chapter 183, Article 11 Regional Projects within the Adirondack Park. What follows is a quick Site Plan Review, and I assume that each and every Board member has read it. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter here with Tom Hutchins and Matt Steves, for the applicant. We’re here reviewing the Sketch Plan of this proposal as Staff had just explained, 37.95 acres is the parcel size. Fourteen lots are proposed. Just to kind of go over the Staff comment questions, first to address the APA concern. The applicant is aware that a portion of this property is in the Adirondack Park. In the past, the Adirondack Park has liked for us to seek their jurisdictional determination once we’re at the Preliminary Stage, which we have every intention of doing. So we haven’t obviously submitted that request as of yet, but we will proceed in that fashion. With regards to the landfill, we are aware of the proximity of the landfill, and our plan is to have test wells which we’ll have DOH witness those test wells to ensure that the water will be acceptable at that time. With regards to the cul de sac, it’s our understanding from our land surveyor that we do have the adequate distance, which is 930 feet to the throat of the cul de sac. MR. STEVES-I believe in the Code it was read from the edge of the existing right of way to the throat of the cul de sac, that’s what we’ve used on every application since I can remember, that it can’t be over 1,000 feet, because once you get into the throat of the cul de sac, you really have a two way road, just like you would the boulevard, and from the edge of the right of way with Jenkinsville Road, to the radius of the throat of the cul de sac is not 930 feet. It’s just over 1,000, as Staff has said, to the center of the cul de sac, but we, with this Board and with Staff in the past, have always utilized 1,000 feet to the throat of the cul de sac. MS. BITTER-And then the next question was with regards to Lot 13, the leach field, that was just an oversight. We have made the modification. That reserve area will be provided for that lot. It was just a mistake on our part. The last observation by Staff was with regards to the soil tests, which we did indicate the test pits on the submission indicating that there are areas that will provide for adequate septics on each parcel. So we wanted to open it up to questions from the Board at this time. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I didn’t see any calculation for any steep slopes. MR. STEVES-One of the sheets, I’m not sure, actually, (lost words) has it open, Chris, there are calculations there for steep slopes on the map. There is not a significant amount over the 15%. If you got a chance to visit the site, there is a pile of topsoil that’s there, and basically all the slopes, 15% slopes are on the side of that pile of topsoil that exists with a few other small ones, but if you come in to the south side of the road, as you come in, that is an existing pile of topsoil, and that’s where most of the steep slopes, but it’s still well within the range of the density. MR. SEGULJIC-So this site, what’s it say, on or near a decommissioned commercial landfill. MR. STEVES-It is part of the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we know exactly where that is? TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There’s a closure plan, and it’s defined within, the landfill site is closed, per DEC per an approved closure plan, and that’s well defined. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay. All right. So you’re not going to be building on that at all? MR. HUTCHINS-No, no. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then I misunderstood, then. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s part of the contiguous parcel. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. STEVES-But there was a DEC closure plan and a buffer from that and anything within our new lots are beyond that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you would be upgradient of the landfill, then, or downgradient? Upgradient of the landfill? MR. HUTCHINS-Down. MR. SEGULJIC-Down. Even more interesting then. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Water supply is going to be an issue here, and we realize that if we can’t provide good water then we’re not going to have a project. We’re working with the Health Department to come up with a good protocol to get the test wells in, get them analyzed and get some good information on what’s available. MR. SIPP-What is the experience of the people already in this area? Do they all have wells? They must have. MR. HUTCHINS-There are a number of wells in the area, yes. MR. SIPP-And they have had them tested? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know about individuals. I know of one area that there was an issue with groundwater and some will say it was this site. Some will say it was the Queensbury site. Keep in mind there’s the Queensbury landfill right across the road. So, what we felt would be best, and the downgradient areas, to my understanding, have no issues. So what we felt would be best is to go in and get the test wells in, in the area that we’re going to be working in, and get them analyzed. I mean, we really don’t have concrete answers until we do that. MR. SEGULJIC-And how long ago was the landfill closed? MR. SIPP-Ten years. MR. STEVES-I believe it was nine. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUTCHINS-Is there a date on the closing plan? MR. STEVES-The closure plans were ’99. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. KREBS-Was any of McLaughlin’s land part of the landfill? Scottie’s land, was that part of the landfill? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. So the areas where the pipes are, are his area? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. KREBS-And the area immediately outside it, but not in the area that you’re talking about? MR. HUTCHINS-No. McLaughlin is the owner of this property. This is Scottie’s parcel. It’s all one parcel right now, that the landfill is on and that. MR. KREBS-Well, it shows here Lot 14 is going to be retained by him but the rest of it is not. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. KREBS-Okay. Because there are a lot of developments in towns in New York State around landfills that have been closed with the vent pipes. I mean, that is a common thing. MR. HUTCHINS-No. The ownership of the landfill area will be retained by Scotty McLaughlin. MR. KREBS-Yes, that’s just Lot 14. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s Lot 14. MR. STEVES-Because of the fact it’s part of the entire property we have to give it a lot number. It is not an available lot, obviously, but it is one of the lots within this subdivision. MR. KREBS-Okay. Gotcha. MR. SIPP-I notice Test Pit Number Four you’ve got 31 inches to mottling, and where the test pit is on the plot, you’re not that far from the so called septic system of Lot 11. You’re mottling at 31 inches. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-And you’re within 50 feet or close to 50, 60 feet of the so called septic system of Lot 11. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We went in and did the test pits prior to having a final layout, and on a parcel of this size it’s kind of hard, when it’s wooded, to figure out exactly where you are. That test pit, the intent of our test pit program was to get us a generalized feel for the soils on the site, and what we found was generally they’re manageable. There was one area that was rather lousy down around six, as I recall, and that was pretty clay type, silty clay down in that area. The remainder of the areas were granular soils. What we would do, further on down the process, is pinpoint the locations of the septics and get test holes there. MR. SIPP-Now what’s your plan for the steep areas? MR. HUTCHINS-We don’t have a whole lot of steep areas, but this steep area here, that’s a pile of topsoil that’s been there for some years. It’s just a big pile. MR. SIPP-I’m looking at Lot Four and Five. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the topsoil pile. MR. SIPP-That’s topsoil. MR. STEVES-But it’s existing grade, so I have to show it that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. SIPP-Let alone the fact that you’ve got mottling, the surface soil is not a very good soil for filtering. MR. HUTCHINS-The surface soil was decent, it was granular. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that’s fine, but it’s too fast. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, if it percs too fast, obviously we’ll have to perc the area. If it percs too fast, we’ll have to amend the soils. MR. SIPP-I mean, the soil type is not conducive to a good septic system. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, maybe the soil type as read out of the soils map. I mean, I did all the test holes, and with the exception of this area down by Six, I think the surface soil is reasonable conducive to a septic system. It’s granular, it’s sandy, and I haven’t perc tested them all. I don’t believe that we’re going to be in a situation where we’ve got 20 second perc rates. If we are, then the soils have to be amended. MR. OBORNE-If I might add, it’s not so much the rates. It’s the filtering of the effluent that these soils have a problem with. They don’t have the right charges in the soil, per se, to filter them, and that’s specifically stated in the soil survey, and that’s a generalization. It is a very broad brush that is used in that soil survey. If those soils are as they say, perking might be fine, but their filtering effect might not be, and I think that was spelled out in that, in the soil survey. MR. HUTCHINS-In the soil survey. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. KREBS-What are you conveying to the Town of Queensbury? Is that an access area? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s an access area to Ridge Jenkinsville Park. MR. KREBS-For the residents in here? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. There is no plan, then, to extend Old Cronin Road? MR. HUTCHINS-No, MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So your plan is to go out and do some monitoring wells to see if the landfill’s impacted the groundwater there? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Our intent was to actually drill wells, test wells. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, for a subdivision of this size under the Health Department we have to do test wells anyway, but those are generally set up to determine if there’s enough yield and not necessarily for quality. We are going to work, we are working with them to develop a program to analyze, in this particular case. MR. SEGULJIC-Because one of my concerns would be if, you know, you go out there and you do your water sample and you show that the landfill has not had any impact, 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) then over the years of people drawing upon these wells, it could draw the contaminants, that’s assuming there might be some, draw the contaminants in. I don’t know how you’re going to. That’s going to be a concern of mine. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s something that we’re going to have to address, and I don’t know the answer right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Groundwater contamination is a funny thing. I mean, it can travel, very easily. MR. STEVES-We will be working with, as Tom said, the Department of Health and however they want it to be done. MR. HUTCHINS-There may be something that we draw on the thing for a period of months, is draw on it for some time. MR. SEGULJIC-And see what happens. I’m all set. MR. KREBS-So access to Lot Two, the guy’s going to have to have a pretty good snow plow, right? I take it that’s a driveway going in from Cronin Road. MR. STEVES-Yes. The lot you’re saying that exists on Old Cronin Road. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but Old Cronin Road still exists back to here. MR. KREBS-I know that. That’s my point. It’s a long ways back. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? So you’re going to do the test wells soon? MR. HUTCHINS-Our intent is to, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good luck. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure we’ll see you back. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2008 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & NANCY PARSONS AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING PO LOCATION BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,077 SQ. FT. DENTAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN A PO ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 15-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA NWI & ACOE WETLANDS LOT SIZE 26.16 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-28 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 TOM JARRETT & DAN VALENTI, JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-When you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 42-2008, David and Nancy Parsons. Site Plan Review for a dental office, location Bay Road, Fairfield Professional Park. Existing zoning is PO, or Professional Office. This is on the Bay Road corridor. The SEQRA status is a Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a 3,077 square foot Dental Office located in the Fairfield Professional Park. Staff Comments: Although the proposed lighting is cut off, there still will be limited up lighting as per the supplied cut- sheets and as such will need to be approved by the Planning Board. According to the subdivision resolution dated August 21, 2007, ‘all street construction / landscaping, proposed multi-use path and street lighting to be installed prior to the acceptance of the extended Baybridge Drive right of way by the Town Highway Department’ (see attached). It appears, according to a condition of the final resolution for this subdivision that the above mentioned items will need to be installed prior to issuance of a building permit. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I assume that each and every member of the Board has reviewed that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me are David and Nancy Parsons, the applicants, and Dan Valenti, the owner of the subdivision. We are here proposing the first use, the first lot development in the Fairfield Professional Park, which you approved last year, as I recall. Our proposal is for Lot Number Six which is the northeast corner of the site, at the intersection of Walker and Bay Road. It’s a parcel, it’s a lot that’s slightly smaller than one acre, and our proposal is for a dental office, a single story dental office. Architectural plans are in your package as you will see, or have seen. Our plan, if you recall from those of you who were on the Planning Board at the time of the subdivision approval will recall this, and those of you who were not, are plan for the subdivision was for common access and common parking, shared parking, amongst the lots, on both sides of Baybridge Drive, but especially on the north side, and as such what we’ll be doing is building the entrance drive sufficient to access this Lot Six and it will be expanded later into the common parking area, and common driveway for all those lots north of Baybridge Drive. The subdivision, the stormwater system is largely installed. The ponds, the wet ponds at the southern part of the site are all constructed and have been stabilized. The wet swales around the perimeter of the site are under construction right now, but they’re awaiting, the finish of those swales is awaiting National Grid power to this site and to some of the other sites in the subdivision. As is the multi-use path. There’s a multi-use path around much of the site, and we plan on connecting our project to that multi-use path, and that is awaiting National Grid power service before we can finish that path. As you can see from our proposal, the building is situated within the footprint designated on the subdivision plat. Our parking area is also as designated on that plat. You’ll notice that we plan 19 parking spaces in lieu of the 10 that are required, allowed by Town Code. We’re asking for a waiver. Our basis for the waiver is that the Parsons have operated a dental office in the Town for a number of years and they have demonstrated a need to have more than 10 spaces. They need patient and employee parking that is equivalent to 19. What we will do is build our parking slightly west of the line, the ultimate line that’s shown on the subdivision plan, and hopefully we’ll never have to expand into that future parking area with those four additional spaces, but it depends on the uses that come in to the subdivision. We may have to ultimately build those four spaces and turn over spaces that we now plan to use through temporary easement on the adjoining lot, we would have to turn those over to the adjoining user. I know I’m confusing you. Well, let me back up. MR. KREBS-Why would you do that in the first place? Why not just build the four there and? MR. JARRETT-Because we promised to the Planning Board at the time we built this we would build spaces as far west as we could and away from Bay Road. We would develop those last. So we’re in keeping with that theme. We’re leaving the four easterly spaces undeveloped, leaving those as grass, green space, taking four spaces that are actually on the adjoining lot next door right now, building those right now, and if that adjoining lot actually needs as much parking, if they need that parking, that we’ll turn those over to them and build our parking on our lot to the east. We hope we’ll never have to do that. It depends on the uses that come into this subdivision. MR. KREBS-Gotcha. MR. JARRETT-We’ve laid out our landscaping with that in mind, stepped back from those spaces so we wouldn’t have to cut those or move those. I think the building itself is pretty straightforward. I think the application is very straightforward. What I’d like to do is go to the engineering and Staff comments, and I was not sure I would be able to be at this meeting tonight, so I did prepare written responses. I’ll be glad to go through these orally or hand out the written to you as you wish, or both. MR. HUNSINGER-Both. Maybe you can summarize them verbally. MR. JARRETT-All right. We’ll hand out the letters, and we’ll review these very quickly, and then see if you want to lit on any particular comments. We’ll start with the VISION Engineering comments first. Number One, as the detailed the specs for the entry road. They’re on the subdivision design, and we’re utilizing those subdivision design standards that were approved by this Board. Item Number Two, the construction entrance shall be provided, and that’s also a detail on the subdivision, and I think actually it’s in our plans here. We plan on using a construction entrance. Number Three, garbage and refuse, we have an enclosure on the west side of the building that is shown on our plans, and that enclosure will match the building design and it will have a concrete slab. Item Number Four, check dams should be considered for the two swales around the lot, and 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) check dams were shown on the subdivision design plans, and they will be installed. Number Five, I have just addressed that. We’ll have a slab within the trash enclosure. Number Six, sidewalk to the building entrance does have a handicap ramp. We have two. We have a step as well as a ramp around that step. Number Seven, the culverts under the multi-use path. We propose a six inch culvert under the path that we’re constructing from this lot because we’re going to use that similar to a check dam. We’re trying to impede flow, whereas the culvert underneath Baybridge Drive is large for maintenance purposes and it also accepts drainage along the frontage of Baybridge Drive. So it has a separate purpose. Item Number Eight. Electric service will be underground. We’ll add a note to the plan to that effect. Staff comments. The first is a general comment, and it’s regarding lighting and other utilities. Our response is that lighting fixtures are cut off style as noted in the cut sheets provided with this package, and the illumination patterns on our site show that with landscaping we’ll essentially have no spillage off site. I think there’s a couple of spots where there’s .1, .2 foot candles, but essentially with landscaping taken into account, it’ll be zero in our opinion. We’re waiting for construction of the multi-use path, to finish that multi-use path until National Grid decides on where they’re going to enter the site, and until that construction is done. MR. VALENTI-Right, and they are kind of the hold up right now. I’ve been waiting for them to get in there, do their work. I don’t want to put a multi-path, that path in and then have it torn back out. It’s pretty much the essence of it. MR. JARRETT-But Dan’s prepared to finish that path and swale as soon as that’s in. MR. VALENTI-Absolutely. I want to landscape it, put trees both sides of the road, as soon as I can. It might not be until Spring at this point. I don’t know. MR. SIPP-But the water and sewer lines are in? MR. VALENTI-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Under the more detailed comments from Staff review, Drawing C-1, on Site Plan Drawing reinforced turf is noted. The detail appears to have limited reinforcement concerning vehicles. Please clarify purpose. There may have to be equipment brought to that service door on the side of the building. Rather than hard surface that, we felt that some reinforced turf would serve to allow vehicles to back up to that entrance. Number Two, on site plan drawing trash receptacles are typically located on hard surfaces. That’ll be a concrete pad. No snow storage dedicated on plan. Please dedicate. We didn’t designate it on the site plan, but snow storage is anticipated on the area for the potential parking to the east, and on that biofiltration strip along the south edge. If you wish, we can note that on the plan prior to receipt. The applicant asked for a parking waiver which we are asking tonight as well. On Drawing C-2, the question regarding landscaping, we show street trees and trees around the perimeter that essentially meet Town standards but are landscaping within the lot interior has been chosen based on aesthetics and maintenance consideration, and also we chose them based on the needs of a biofiltration strip, essentially like a rain garden. The next comment is regarding lighting photometrics. The comment is that they’re ambiguous, and maybe Keith can elaborate on that tonight while we’re here. I’m not sure I understand the comment totally. I think we feel the plan is clear, and I’ll open it up to the Board to tell us if they feel it’s not clear, and that essentially addresses the comments received. I guess we’ll open it up to Board comments, questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I had a question on the parking issue. I thought that if they were proposing something that was outside of the Code it required a variance, not just a special approval of the Board? MR. OBORNE-I think you’re allowed to approve a certain amount over, outside of the Code, to get to that number. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I have the Code right here, and it says no use may provide parking in excess of 20% over the amount specified. So 20% is only two spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-But didn’t they make that 100%? MR. SIPP-They made that 100, the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. I forgot. Yes. I had forgotten about that. Yes. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Overall it looks good to me, other than details. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. VALENTI-Hopefully the main sign will go up here in the next week or so. I think you’ll be happy with what you see go up there. It’s high quality stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I had is color scheme. I mean, the building details look really good, but you didn’t, I thought maybe you were going to bring them with you. MR. VALENTI-I’ll give you an idea. DAVID PARSONS MR. PARSONS-Just some earth tone colors. Nothing, fairly muted. MR. VALENTI-The whole plan I have for this subdivision is, and you’ll see as this sign goes up I have a couple of tapered columns where it talks about craftsman style type of theme through all the buildings in there, and we’re going to have some main tapered columns on each side of the sign with some cultured stone underneath it as a pier. I’m going to take that cultured stone, and it’s an earth tone obviously, we’re going to implement that on each and every building, that same stone, to accent certain areas of each building that goes in there, and also incorporate the columns, similar columns with the same columns that are out on that front sign with each building at the entries. So at least they all have some kind of common theme to create that park style atmosphere, but yet they will be different colors, each building, and they won’t be pink. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-And those will not be lighted? The individual signs will be lighted or not lighted? MR. VALENTI-Well, there’s one main sign out at the road, and then I believe they have a proposed sign for the lots that do front Bay Road, that we’ll be allowed to put their own sign there. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. JARRETT-A monument style sign with ground lighting, external. MR. SIPP-Ground lighting. MR. JARRETT-Right, but there’ll be one sign out by the road that just simulates that, you know, stating that this is the Professional Park. MR. PARSON-And we like the whole style that he’s proposing. The sign would be the same. MR. VALENTI-One thing I did do when I created this subdivision is I maintain architectural control over everything that goes in there. So, not only are you guys concerned, but I am also. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SIPP-Do we have colors picked out? MR. VALENTI-They had stated they’re going to go with some kind of earth tones. MR. HUNSINGER-If I remember, that’s what we had approved on the subdivision, yes. MR. JARRETT-Right, that was discussed. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the lighting, as I read this, the pole’s going to be 15 feet, correct? MR. JARRETT-The parking lot, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and all that’s going to be downcast lighting, then? MR. JARRETT-Yes. They’re the antique style fixtures that we used for the subdivision itself, but they have an internal cut off shield. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s in the plan here? MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s in your package that you received. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. JARRETT-And it states cut off in there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-There’s a picture of it that’s in your package. There’s an internal cut off shield in here. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. People ready to move forward? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think there’s much in the comments that can’t be. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I will close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-I think all the comments can be addressed, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so, too. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II. Conditions. I think the only condition I’d want to see added is that the colors of the building be earth tone, as approved in the subdivision approval. Just to reinforce that. Any other conditions? Address engineering comments. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to do anything special on the parking, though? Maybe we should probably just say as a condition that the parking is accepted as proposed. So make that a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Approval of parking for up to what, 19 spots, then? MR. JARRETT-Nineteen is what we show, correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2008 DAVID & PARSONS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 11)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 3,077 sq. ft Dental Office. Professional Offices in a PO zone require Planning Board review and approval 12)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/21/08; and 13)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) 14)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 15)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 16)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 17)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 18)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 19)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2008 DAVID & PARSONS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Five does not apply [deleted]. In accordance with the following conditions: th a.That the engineering comments one through eight in the October 17 VISION Engineering letter be addressed. b.That the applicant will address the Staff comments contained within Jarrett- Martin Engineering’s October 20, 2008 letter within the plats. c.That the color of the buildings will be earth tone, as noted within the subdivision approval. d.That parking for up to 19 spaces will be approved. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-On the motion prepared by Staff it says Legacy Land Holdings. MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry, did I miss a question? MR. VALENTI-Legacy Land Holdings is my land holdings corporation. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that matter? I mean, who’s the approval for. MR. OBORNE-Well, this approval is for David Parsons. MR. KREBS-David and Nancy Parsons. MR. SEGULJIC-But the resolution says the applicant’s Legacy Land Holdings. Does that matter? MR. HUNSINGER-No, you’re looking at the subdivision, the last page. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sorry. Okay. MR. OBORNE-If you could be specific on which comments need to be addressed. MR. JARRETT-I think we have to submit the whole list, I think, to Dan Ryan, and let him respond that they’re acceptable, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. OBORNE-If that is the case with the engineer, that’s fine, but as far as the Staff comments, it seems that he’s taken care of quite a few of them. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just say the comments noted on the Staff letter, for Drawing C-1 and C-2? Would that do it? MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Why, what are you looking for? MR. OBORNE-I’m looking for specifics on what you want on there. Do you want the snow storage on there? The waiver for parking is already part of it. A reinforced turf has been taken care of. You seem to be satisfied with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think he addressed all the Staff comments. MR. KREBS-He addressed snow storage. MR. SEGULJIC-He addressed it, but he didn’t put it on the plan. MR. JARRETT-We promised to note snow storage and the underground power, we would note those two things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think he’s addressed all the Staff comments in his letter. MR. SEGULJIC-So we don’t need to have the Staff comments addressed, then, is that what you’re saying? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, unless you disagree. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, so what he submitted tonight’s part of the record, then? Is that what we’re saying? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They’ve already agreed to make those notations. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we’re satisfied with that. So we only have to address engineering comments one through eight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s just my opinion. Okay. MR. KREBS-Well, I guess we should ask, is Staff satisfied with that? MR. OBORNE-I’m not, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Which item are you? MR. OBORNE-I would like to see specifically the snow storage on the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. He offered in his letter that they would do that. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s in the letter. MR. JARRETT-We agreed just now we would do that. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. Go ahead and reference the letter in the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-They need to put it on the plan, yes, understood. MR. OBORNE-Okay. You reference the letter in the resolution, if you could. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SIPP-What about the landscaping? Do we want to change that spruce or pine? MR. OBORNE-If you guys are okay with the landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Just say that the applicant make the corrections on the plot as th indicated in their October 20 letter. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So they will include, so I’ll say applicant will include the th comments within their October 20 letter on the plans? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is that understood? And that they address the engineering comments. The one engineering comment, though, Item Six, it should be clarified on the site plan if the sidewalk to the building entrance includes a handicapped ramp, I mean, it should. MR. JARRETT-It does. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. JARRETT-It’s shown on the details to that effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I can corroborate that, too, it does. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think you can just say address engineering comments. MR. SEGULJIC-So address engineering comments, and that the applicant will include comments within the October 20, 2008 letter on the plat, and we will approve parking for up to 19 spaces, and then colors will be of earth tone as requested, as noted in the original subdivision approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2008 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC-15, LC-42A LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AMUSEMENT PARK ATTRACTION CALLED SASQUATCH. THE RIDE HAS TWO (2) 192 FEET HIGH STEEL TOWERS. NEW ATTRACTIONS/RIDES AT THE PARK REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 DEC/CEA/NWI DEC – GF 15, GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS [35.46 AC] LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1- 20 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 JOHN LEMERY & DON MC COY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 41-2008, Great Escape Theme Park, Site Plan Review for a 192, which I believe is a 195 foot ride, I don’t know, you may quibble over that, foot tall thrill ride. Location: 1172 Route 9 SEQRA Status, previous EIS dated and the actual th date was omitted on accident, and I believe it is July 11 of ’01. MR. LEMERY-This ride is 192 feet. MR. OBORNE-192 or 195, one of the two. MR. LEMERY-192. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. OBORNE-192. Okay. Then I got it right. Good. Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of an amusement attraction called the Sasquatch, a 192 foot tall, 24 passenger thrill ride. The attraction has an associated two story 1,100 square foot mechanical building which houses the machinery for the ride and also houses the ride operator. The building has a glass ceiling by which the operator can observe the ride in operation and for safety purposes according to the applicant. What follows is Site Plan, and I assume that everybody has read the Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape. I have with me, on my left, Don McCoy, President of The Great Escape, Mark Noordsy, who’s joined our law firm and is with me, tonight, Brian Martino, who is sitting behind me. He’s the Safety Director for the Theme Park, and Jim Martin and Lisa McCorkle from the LA Group, who are our consultants with respect to the transaction. I think the only person who is still on the Board is you, Mr. Chairman, when we put this project, this plan into effect back in 2001. I know Mr. Sipp was involved in a lot of the discussion, and matters that came before the Planning Board, but for those of you who were not on the Planning Board at that time, I wanted you to see what the result was. The Theme Park spent close to two million dollars doing a full Generic Impact Statement for the Town at that time. The Park was permitted to go to 1.5 million visitors under certain conditions. There were thresholds set for traffic. There were thresholds set for noise standards. There were thresholds set for visual standards, and matters of that nature. One of the big issues, obviously, was the thresholds for the height, which was a big issue at that time, and the Planning Board approved three different zones. We have the drawing over here of the three height zones that were approved by the Planning Board and are in the final Impact Statement. This attraction is in the 200 limit which was approved at that time. The 200 foot limit was based on the ability to see any structure at any of the receptor points that were identified back at that time. There were receptor points at Glen Lake, receptor points at the Glens Falls Country Club, Courthouse Estates, Twicwood, and those receptor points were noted as where we could not have an attraction that exceeded certain height levels that could be seen in those neighborhoods. This ride is 192 feet. It is at the grade level for 10.54 feet, which is within the zone. We went out and we had the LA Group re-do everything here before we submitted, so we could be certain that nothing had changed in terms of, A, the topography, B, the screening. As a matter of fact, there’s more screening now than there was at the time that we did the original Impact Statement. As a result of the Generic Impact Statement, the Planning Board, at that time, and all the agencies involved, wanted to accomplish a couple of things, make it easier for the Theme Park to come in, over a period of time, with attractions. We’ve come in, I think, with several attractions since 2001, all of which have been within the thresholds provided by the Board, and so the SEQRA was never an issue in terms of the thresholds, and the other reason, of course, was to make sure that the thresholds were provided for, for example, traffic. There were certain thresholds at a point where the patrons reached 900,000, there was a certain traffic mitigation. There was another traffic mitigation required when the population of the Theme Park got to 1.2 million. None of that’s ever happened, but of course in the meantime, with the direction of this Board, the pedestrian bridge was built. The ring road was put up. The traffic signal at Route 9 and the Glen Lake Road, and the turning lane on Route 9 coming south was put into effect, none of which would have been required under the original Impact Statement, until traffic levels had much exceeded where they are now. We are required, every year, to provide the Planning Department with a noise study and with a traffic study. We’ve provided a 2008 noise study. We will have a requirement in 2009 for both a noise study and a traffic study. Those are done every year, and we’ve never exceeded either one of those requirements that were put into place at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, those studies are provided to all the members of the Board and we do address them and make sure it’s part of the record. MR. LEMERY-Sure. Fine. Good. Excellent. So what we have here tonight is a new attraction, which Don McCoy is going to talk to you about. We have very carefully, as is the case with the Theme Park, looked at the thresholds. We believe we’re in compliance with every one of the thresholds. The only issue regarding lighting, there are two actual issues regarding lighting. Your Planning Staff believes that we need a waiver for the up lights on the ride, during the time the ride is in operation. I’m not sure we need it, but we will certainly defer to the Planning Staff. Your Code requires that fixtures will be shielded and have cut offs to direct light directly to the ground, but it doesn’t expressly prohibit up lighting. The lighting design conforms with the basic precepts of the Town’s lighting 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) regulations, lighting levels at the ride base begin at 3.9 foot candles and diminish gradually to .9 at the top. The Code does not contain a luminescent standard, but instead refers all of this to the standards set by Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. So we’ve complied with that standard. The reason that we need the up lighting is that during the periods of time when the ride is operating in the dark, the ride attendants need to be able to see up and see what’s going on with the patrons on the ride. Nothing will be lighted after the Park closes. There’s no request here for any lighting beyond the hours of operation. The rest of our lighting plan, it’s still in the planning stage in terms of, not lighting, but signs. So we don’t have any signs designed yet. Our mandate by the CEO and the rest of the company is try to get the ride approved as quickly as you can. If you can get it approved, because we need to get it started, and we need to want to have it available for the Park patrons for the 2009 operating season. I think with that, as far as the sound is concerned, we will do the sound studies in 2009 that would be required under the Impact Statement, and to the extent, if we’ve exceeded any of the db levels as provided for in the Impact Statement, we obviously have to mitigate that and deal with it at that time. So we will provide you with the sound studies. Also, Mr. Chairman, if for some reason this generates some gigantic amount of traffic that’s not called for, we will obviously, when we provide the traffic report, have to do the mitigation required under the Impact Statement. We don’t anticipate that to be the case. We have looked at the Staff comments. I know there was an issue raised by the Planning Staff regarding the snow and ice that might come off the ride. We’re here to talk about that. We think we can tell you how that works. There were questions of the Staff regarding, you know, patron safety, how do you get people off the ride. Our Safety Director is here to discuss that. So I think we’ve got the people here we need to have to try to answer all your questions as best we can. So with that, I’d like to turn it over to Don McCoy, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC COY-Thank you, John. Good evening, everybody. About a year ago I was here in front of the Board, and there were some comments about my southern drawl. So I suspect that’s been largely diminished since the last time we met, but before we get into 2009, I thought it might be appropriate to put a little color on what 2008 was like for us. There are several ways that we measure our business. Most people like to look at attendance as one of the key indicators, and it certainly is. In 2008, as you know, we introduced the Mega Wedgie and the Wiggles World, kind of our one two punch, to continue to attract guests to our Park. 2008 we’ll see attendance running relatively flat, if not just slightly above prior year levels. Obviously I think as everybody here knows we experienced a significant amount of rain in 2008. Most notably 60% of those days happened on our peak days, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, of course, and more than a third of our days were effected in total. So we saw a little bit of challenge there, but we do try and measure our business, as well, both internally and externally, to get some validation as to how we’re doing as a property. We do employ a third party company that contacts guests after a visit, after a little day time, when the pixy dust has worn off, to kind of ask how we’ve done. I’ve been very proud of those results within our company, and we saw improvements in virtually every single category in service and product. So we’ve been able to keep our Park cleaner and provide a better service overall. We also do internal quality assurance reviews, and I’m proud that our Park has received the top honor in the entire Six Flags chain. Those audits look at employee performance. They’re random audits. They’re unannounced audits and they evaluate us all across the board. So I’m pleased to say that 2008, although we didn’t see the levels of attendance we had hoped to see, we still performed well and took good care of our guests. Moving into 2009, as you know, we’re very thrilled to present the new ride that we’ve called Sasquatch. Although The Great Escape has been the beneficiary from our company, marketable capital over the last few years, this year in particular is very important to us. We’re proud that Six Flags has continued to invest in our Park at very significant, if not unprecedented levels. Over the last few years we’ve made large investments in infrastructure, restaurants, and retail outlets, and in fact this year we also plan to invest about another million dollars in our beer garden to improve that venue, create a new food court and a new family show inside. We have plans, also, to renovate our exit shop, add some new restaurants up in the water park to take care of the crowds. So as you can see, the company not only is trying to provide something in terms of rides, we’re trying to improve the Park. The emphasis, as you know, has been on families for the past few years. That’s been very important to us. So the foundation here is we feel like we’ve done a good job providing the right service and the right product and gone after the family demo, but this year we need to go after a lagging segment in our business, and that’s the teen market. We have attendance tracking surveys, and we know, year over year, what’s happening. In our particular case, that particular market, the 18, or 17 to 24 year old market it down significantly. They’re seeking entertainment elsewhere, and of 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) course they have families that go with them. This ride is intended to go out and reach them, as well as families. The height restriction on this ride is only 48 inches. So we do have a wide appeal, so we know that this will appeal to that particular missing segment. We’ve seen good results and received great feedback on this ride throughout our system. Sasquatch itself, I just want to share a few comments about what the ride experience is. It is a 192 foot tower, or I should say twin towers connected at the top. When riders board they are secured in a seat with a shoulder harness. I think you’ve done quite a bit of research on it, secured snuggly. At that point, they are accelerated up at four and a half G’s up into the sky, and you’re all welcome to come try this out. If your eyes are open when you get to the top, I’m sure it’s a spectacular view, and I will have to know that for sure, assuming we get through this process, but at that point, you don’t just fall back. You are sent back to the ground, only to land gently in a slight little bounce at the bottom, but the ride experience is intended to be absolutely thrilling, and I think everybody would agree. We do have quite a few of these in our system. We’ve got several of them operating with varying designs, but with this manufacturer and this design, it’s a proven crowd pleaser and we do know how to run them. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Lisa. LISA MC CORKLE MS. MC CORKLE-The proposed ride site is immediately south of the main entry gates. It’s the area of the previous ride, what was called The Rainbow. Some of you might know the area. There’s an existing emergency access drive and gate in this area. Route 9 is right to the south of the ride area. The swan boat loading area is adjacent. There’s paved walkways and there’s a small building in the existing site area. As Don mentioned, the proposed ride are two towers. They’re located just about exactly where The Rainbow ride was. The Rainbow was right in this area. That ride’s been removed already. There’s a control building associated with this ride. That building has two stories. The first story houses the mechanical equipment, and the second story has the operator in it. The operator needs to see the ride at all times, and so there’s a glass ceiling and window so that they can view the ride. The queuing works very similar to the existing Rainbow. Patrons can come in to the north and come along, we’re going to re- pave the walkways that are in this area, and they can come to one of two queues. The ride will be sequenced differently for each tower, and so they can, if both towers are operating, they can choose which tower they want to ride on. They exit right from the middle out into this area towards the swan boat. The emergency access drive will be re- paved, re-graded a little bit, but it’s in the same location. The same gates would remain for that. We are replacing the pavements in this area with new asphalt pavement for the queuing. We are increasing the amount of impervious. The queuing requirements for this ride are larger than for The Rainbow. So there’s a little bit more pavement. The grading design follows the existing grades. There’s two storm inlets adjacent to the stream, and the proposed grading follows that. You’ll walk up a slight hill to get up to the ride level. We are increasing the impervious, and so we have a stormwater detention area, treatment area to handle that increased impervious. The ride and the control building are placed to be within the requirements of setbacks from the property line and setbacks from the stream. None of them encroach. We have proposed landscaping. Any areas that are not in the walkways or the queuing will be planted with lawn. We have trees and shrubs that would have seasonal interest for the summertime. Let’s see. In regard to the storm drainage, The Great Escape has an overall stormwater management permit for the SWPPP, and this will be a modification or amendment as other rides have been in the past for that permitting process. We have received the comments from the Staff and from the reviewing engineer and we’ll be able to comply with all of those. We do have, this evening, if we’re permitted to hand it in, we have an updated utility plan. The reviewing engineer requested some information. There’s an existing water line to be relocated. We have that this evening, and he also requested some building plans, which we also have those. We have a prototype from another Park, and this building, as the Six Flags works on the theming, will be the, idea is kind of like a park like building to go with the theme of the ride. So we have that information. I don’t know if you want it. It’s right over here, and we will be able to address all of the reviewing engineers on stormwater management. He requested that we consider a couple of items that are above the requirements, but we certainly can address them, about emergency overflow from the basin, and improvements to the existing catch basins to improve the treatment quality of that stormwater. All right. JIM MARTIN MR. MARTIN-Good evening, everyone, I’m Jim Martin with the LA Group. I’ve worked on the visual aspect, predominantly, and I’ll also try and address the comments related to lighting, noise, and we’ll talk a little bit about the structural design, predominantly the 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) subsurface stuff, and then I’ll defer to Brian about some of the things that go on the upper part of the structure and the safety procedures and so on. As previously explained, I’ll start with visual. The ride itself, overall, is 192 feet high. The ride travel distance is 155 feet. So these carriages travel along the ride in that 155 feet distance. So they don’t go all the way to the top. Now, as John explained, this is in the 200 foot zone that was determined as a result of the work that was done in the prior GEIS, and what was done to arrive at those zones were digital elevation models, were done at a series of locations throughout the Park, and if you’ve looked carefully at the topography in that area, it’s basically the Park is in a bowl in the front towards Route 9, and gradually steps up as you go in through the Park and up through Ghost Town, and it’s really at its highest point there. So correspondingly, when you look at that visual map, that visual zone map, it reflects that. The higher rides are permitted closer to Route 9, in that lower part, and those ride requirements, the height requirements, diminish as you go up in topography. So we have the benefit of being located in the 200 foot zone for this ride. So we just wanted to make sure, though, in assessing that, that we went back and looked at all the receptor locations that were done in the prior EIS to make sure that there’s not some change in the conditions, whether it be vegetation removal or other structures or what have you, that might have impacted that visual assessment. So we went back through all those receptor locations, and in the original EIS there were three locations in this 200 foot zone where rides were going to be seen. They were proceeding northward on Route 9, southward on Route 9 and looking eastward from the Northway as you travel on the travel lanes on the Northway, and what we found was, that is exactly the case again. Those were the three receptor locations where this will be seen, traveling north and south on Route 9, and from the Northway. We went back to all the locations on Glen Lake. We got on a boat again, went to Courthouse Estates, Twicwood area, Round Pond Road, even went to the bike bridge on the bike path, and in none of those locations could the ride be seen at the proposed height here of 192 feet. We actually flew the balloon, for the purposes of the assessment, at 200 feet, just to be sure. So the results from the original EIS maintained, and so that was good news. Okay. Now, in terms of the visual, the next aspect of it was at night, and in terms of the lighting, this was the lighting plan that was submitted shortly after the application went in. It was slightly confirmed as to what the lighting plan would be, and that’s what’s reflected here. It is up lighting. A waiver, if possible, is requested, and as John indicated, I think the lighting plan is in the spirit and intent of the Ordinance in trying to shield light from impacting travel lanes of nearby cars or something like that. The proper shielding will occur. We’re kind of taking the Lighting Code, the requirements of it, and just simply shifting it from going downward, sending it upward. It is going to be shielded and directed, but it’s occurring upward and given the fact that we were something that didn’t fit on the use schedule of your Lighting Code, we were directed to the requirements of the Engineering Society, as John mentioned. We consulted that. The nearest one that I could find, that had upward structures like this, there were no amusement rides or anything like that in those standards, there were monuments, however, and the monument standard was a limit of I believe five foot candles ranging up to 15 foot candles depending if you’re in a bright or a dark condition. So arguably, if this is a dark condition, those standards lower to the five foot candles, whereas you can see here in the lighting that’s proposed, the maximum levels go from 4.3 foot candles and drop down to .9 as the light travels up the ride. The ride will be a white paint in nature, so that illumination will carry up, and the primary purpose is for safety. In the control building that’s just off to the side of the ride, there is a glass ceiling. So the ride operators can track the patrons as they’re going up the ride and coming back down, and obviously lighting during the evening hours would be important for that function. So that’s the primary reason behind the lighting, and it stays within the standards that are in those Engineering Society standards, and those levels stay within the standard. In terms of structural design, Fred Dente was out on the site in early September, full depth borings were done, assessing the soil conditions, and it ranged from sand and gravel fills in the first 14 feet to fine sand and peat to an out washed sand and bedrock was encountered at 65 feet. This will figure in the structural engineering that’s done for the footings for the ride. The Great Escape, or Six Flags has retained the engineering services of Glen Associates, Mark Glen. They have done several of these rides and designs in the past for Six Flags. So this is not a first time venture for them. They know what they’re up against here. They’re preparing those designs right now. They will submit stamped drawings to the Building Department for their review and approval for the building permit on the ride, and that will serve as a structural basis for subsurface. Going above that, the ride has been inspected before it left the site, at its current location it was inspected by the ride manufacturer for all the structural integrity, the various joints and so on were all inspected. They passed that inspection. The ride is completely refurbished, reassembled on the site. It’s inspected by the ride manufacturer again, by Great Escape staff, and is also subject to a New York State permit prior to it being operational. So, from top to bottom, there’s a lot of engineering design and inspection that occurs, even 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) before the first patron gets on the ride, and at that point, I’ll hand it off to Brian to talk about any follow up on the inspection of the ride as it goes on, and also the safety procedures in the event of a failure. BRIAN MARTINO MR. MARTINO-Okay. With the inspections, Brian Martino. I’m actually the Safety Manager for The Great Escape. I’ve actually been at the Park since about 1979. Besides being the Safety Manager, I used to work maintenance, help build a lot of the rides that were there. Worked on them all the way through the years. When it comes to the maintenance inspections, inspections like we said, we have to go through, every year, a yearly application for a permit to operate, for which the State comes out and inspects everything through. The company itself will come out and do an inspection, that manufactures it. There’s a daily inspection done by The Great Escape employees before the ride can even be put in operation, every day that we’re open. The manufacturer actually comes up with points and stuff that we have to inspect, check, you know, it’s the same thing as the maintenance procedures. There’s our daily inspection. There’s a weekly inspection. There’s a monthly inspection, and also there’s stuff yearly inspected that we have to inspect every year, and have done, even as far as non destructive testing and stuff, which has got to be done every year, when we’re closed, to check for any metal fatigue or anything else that could be going on. Evacuations. Evacuations is another thing that I go through and do, to make the plan and stuff, it starts right from the manufacturer. They come up with a, the basic evacuation procedure, so if something minor or whatever happens, how to bring the ride back down. It’s a written process for them on every way from just, if there’s power failure, or anything that could come up through. They actually come up with a scenario in the manual of about 41 different types of scenarios going through, and then as the Park, and being the Safety Manager, I go through and I reach out to our Fire Department and our HC’s to go through and do the what if, you know, this happened, or what if that happened we couldn’t get it. So I get with the Fire Chief. We review stuff, we look at stuff. We run drills every year to look to see how we do, and we look for any other people that we might need, if it’s another fire company or another outside agency, as in this, you know, it might be high angle rescue that we might have to look at or New York State Police or anything else to cover any what if situation that we might go through. Icing. It’s just like any other ride in our Park. We monitor any icing, snow build up in our Park and our attractions and structures and stuff, we actually have teams that go out and remove the stuff if we start building up any amount of snow or anything. Actually years ago, I used to be on that team, go through to make sure that we don’t have too much snow on top of structures or buildings or anything else, but I can tell you in my experience through, most of the rides has never really been a big issue, you know, especially when it comes to the rides that have a similar type structure that’s round, even when it comes to, like, freezing rain and stuff, it always seems to run to the base and not build up on the top, but, you know, it’s still stuff that we monitor and look through. If we see a point or something where we think we might have an issue, you know, we go and remove it. If it’s something that looks like it might be ongoing, then we come up with a procedure, if we’ve got to run heat tapes or some form to stop any kind of build up. I did call around, because we were doing this, and talk to some other parks. Montreal, we have a park up there in Laron. They actually have a 300 foot observant tower, and it’s not quite the same as ours. It has actually more flat surface and stuff on that. I asked them, because their weather’s similar to what ours is, if they had any issues with ice build up or anything like that, and they told me they never had an issue. It’s been there for a number of years. They’ve never had an issue with any ice building up and falling or anything from that. MR. LEMERY-Yes, just as we did with the Sky coaster, we retained the same people who worked with us on that one, and we submitted the application to the FAA. So they’ll tell us, what they’ll come back with is whether or not this needs a light at the top or not. If it does, it would be required. It supersedes anything that the Town or the State could do. We don’t have an answer yet, but the application is in to them, to let us know whether this is in the glide path in such a way that they would require the light at the top. Mr. Chairman, I think that’s basically the overview. I’d be glad to try to answer any questions. I know there’s a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-In your application there was some discussion about a sign, and you requested that we omit that design at this time because you wanted to spend more time to take a look at that. Is that the sign that would be at the top of the ride? MR. LEMERY-Correct, yes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. TRAVER-Okay, because I saw some photographs and so on in the material. So essentially what you’re asking of us, then, is to, what you would like us to do is review the application without the sign, and then you would conclude your sign design and submit that and providing that it satisfied the Sign Ordinance, you would install the sign? MR. LEMERY-Correct, and if it doesn’t, we have to come back to the Zoning Board for a variance for the signs. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How would you feel about, for us to approve this without that sign, how would you feel about bringing your design back to us for approval? MR. OBORNE-This, let me start from the beginning. If they go to the Zoning Board for a Sign Variance, and this is assuming that Site Plan Review for this has been accepted, they would most likely have to come back for a Site Plan Review modification. MR. TRAVER-For the sign. MR. OBORNE-For the sign. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That was my only concern. MR. LEMERY-If it’s not compliant. If it’s compliant, I think we’re in good shape. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Well, you still would have to come back for a modification to Site Plan Review, for the signs. MR. TRAVER-I just wanted to clarify. Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I still don’t think I quite got what you said. If you had a customer stuck at 192 feet, which is as high as they can be, correct? Or can’t they be that high? What’s the highest they can be? MR. MARTINO-155. MR. SCHONEWOLF-155, okay. MR. MARTINO-Yes, well, 155’s the height where the seat goes up to, that the guest would be on. The tower is higher, farther to travel, also because you have this stuff above it, but also, you know, maintenance would be the only ones, so you could get to the top. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you obviously work it out with Central and their 150 foot aerial as to how you’re going to address that. MR. MARTINO-I actually, I’ve spoken with the Chief, we actually had a meeting and stuff planned, but then we had an incident on Quaker Road whatever that interrupted it, and I actually talked to him, and like he told me, he said it’s like everything else. We’ll sit down and we’ll go through and we’ll figure out who we need and like he said, he said probably some of the Board members will want to come, which, you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they can get to that height, just about, and if you put that new road in there with the new access, if you’re comfortable that the truck can get to the bottom of that, or within 20, 30 feet of it, it should be no problem. MR. MARTINO-Right, and that’s the whole thing, but you know, I’ll still meet with the Chief and we’ll look and we’ll have to see where we’ll put the truck and how we want the truck and determine what to go through. I mean, that’s the important part where I’ve always got to have the Chief involved, because he knows all the outside people and stuff to make sure we have the proper stuff through. So if we get a what if this happens, you know, and our normal evacuations where we can just go in and release the air or whatever and bring it down doesn’t work. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they have the highest aerial truck this side of the Mississippi.. MR. SIPP-What is the age of this ride? How long has it been use in New Orleans? How many years has this been in operation? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. LEMERY-I don’t know the answer to that. It survived the hurricane fine. It never moved. MR. MC COY-I’m not sure of the exact manufacture date, sir, but it did, it obviously was in during Katrina, and it’s been out of service obviously since that time, since the New Orleans park hasn’t been running. The ride is being taken down, as we speak, and it’s being taken down by the manufacturer and our Vice President of Maintenance. He’s indicated that, and we have a letter as well from the manufacturer, stating that the ride is in good shape, and as they’re taking it down, they’re finding that the ride experience absolutely no signs of damage. The winds in that area from the hurricane ran up to about 90 miles an hour, and the ride is rated to 130 to 135 miles per hour. I believe that’s what your researched showed. So right now the ride is in good shape, and is coming down. MR. SIPP-Okay. Let me understand this. This is a basket which holds 12 people? Three on each side? MR. MC COY-Correct. MR. SIPP-And this one below it is the same, and they both operate at the same time? MR. MC COY-No. There’s only two ride units. MR. SIPP-There’s only two. MR. MARTINO-Yes. There’s only, if you look at these pictures, these are shown at different heights. It goes like if it’s a maintenance mode, if it had to go up. The actual, it’s only one car on here that has 12 seats all the way around, and like I said, when it’s operation with people on it, the heights of the seat only goes up to 155 feet. Yes, there’s higher areas, but that would have to be in maintenance modes to go through to do inspections and stuff. MR. SIPP-All right. Now this is operated by electricity? In other words, there is a table that raises this basket? MR. MARTINO-Actually it’s air. MR. SIPP-Air. MR. MARTINO-It’s an air cylinder that runs up through. There’s four cylinders in each tower that runs up through, which works a cable, but it works off from air. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the air is controlled by electric? MR. MARTINO-There’s air that runs it, yes. MR. SIPP-Now, if the power shuts down, what happens? MR. MARTINO-Well, part of the procedure that comes up through that they built into this is if there’s no power, then the maintenance can actually go in and open them up and bring the ride back down by releasing the air pressure. MR. SIPP-So the air pressure holds it in position? MR. MARTINO-Yes. MR. SIPP-Until you let it down slowly. MR. MARTINO-Yes. MR. SIPP-Even though there’s no electricity, no power present. MR. MARTINO-Correct. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. MARTINO-And then even, for even the restraint system, which is controlled partly be electrical, there is actually a battery back up that you go, you plug in, so you can release, once you get them down. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SIPP-Now, I’m familiar with a ride in New Jersey, which is not anywhere near this high, but what they do is they take everybody up to the top and then they drop them in stages. This does not do that. This goes to the top and they drop the whole way in one shot? MR. MARTINO-Well, it’s, on this here there’s two styles. There’s one that shoots you right up, and then there’s one that, actually it shoots you back down, and there’s a cushion in between, you know, so you never come all the way to the bottom. You never go all the way to the top. MR. SIPP-But that’s the only way it operates? MR. MARTINO-Right. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, this is going to be right out practically on Route 9, and what I’m considering here is that a motorist traveling down Route 9 is going to be doing this. MR. KREBS-He can’t see it. It’s too high. MR. SIPP-Well, now, if he comes down the hill, and this thing, ride is in operation, as it goes up, he’s going to be watching it, and does it stop and hold for ten seconds at the top or five seconds, or does it immediately drop? MR. LEMERY-Well, our position with that, Mr. Sipp, was that The Rainbow ride actually had a bigger visual sort of impact than this thing, and we think that once we put the pedestrian bridge in there and put the fencing up, there are no longer any stoplights there. There are no longer any places where pedestrians can wander across and where people who are driving get distracted by the people going back and forth across the roads. So, by fencing both sides, by putting the bridge in, you know, I mean, if somebody wants to rubberneck and try to look at the ride as a driver, we can’t do anything about that. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s what I’m concerned about. Rubbernecking as a driver. I mean, somebody takes their eyes off the road watching this ride, and runs into the back end of somebody else. MR. KREBS-They’ll get a ticket. MR. LEMERY-Somebody will call a lawyer and somebody will get a ticket. MR. SIPP-I understand, but I’m just. MR. LEMERY-We understand that. MR. SIPP-That you’re not. MR. LEMERY-We think the traffic, sir, will move there at a much different pace than it had historical been. MR. SIPP-I agree, but there are the rubberneckers with the rollercoaster out front. MR. LEMERY-Right. This ride can’t be seen until you start down the hill, if you’re coming south, this ride really can’t be seen until you get about opposite Johnny Rocket’s and then you can see this ride as you come down that hill, and as you come down going north, it can’t be seen until you get over the hill and you’re coming down near Menter’s property, but you’re right, you can eyeball it on both sides all the way down and across the area. MR. SIPP-The noise, your decibel levels are going to be taken when there’s screaming? MR. LEMERY-Yes, we can do that. I mean, it’s pretty difficult, the ambient noise over there, but we will certainly look at all that. MR. SIPP-Well, you know, it depends upon which way the wind is blowing as to, if you get a south breeze, I can hear The Great Escape. If you get a north breeze, Twicwood’s going to hear it. So I think it depends upon which way the wind is blowing, but, you get, and I don’t know how many people you get at one time, 12, 24, 24, at one time. Half of 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) them women, the other half men, screaming, as this thing drops, and as I say, I’ve seen this ride, or one similar to it, in New Jersey, and there are screams. MR. KREBS-The one across where you get an ice cream cone, there’s about 40 of them screaming over there. MR. LEMERY-Yes, I guess I asked Don to do a little bit of economic homework before he came up. So, you know, I understand it’s a theme park. This year so far the combination of the theme park and the hotel water park has contributed one million nine hundred and seventy-seven thousand and four hundred and thirty-six dollars to the sales tax and bed tax base in the County. The bed tax alone from the Lodge is already $870,000. The Great Escape is over, close to $800,000. So we think that’s a good thing and that’s healthy for our economic environment, but hopefully they won’t scream too loud. MR. SIPP-Now, you accuse me of being, the stock price the last time I looked at Six Flags was .93 cents a share. That was before the market dropped. I don’t know what it’s selling at now. Will this recession be over in time to build the stock price back up so somebody’s going to invest in this outfit? MR. KREBS-I don’t know if Don can legally answer that, can you, without some kind of a disclaimer? MR. HUNSINGER-Insider trading. MR. MC COY-I think that’s correct. What I can tell you is this, and what will come out is our CEO is obviously communicates with us frequently on the financial health of the company, and it does talk to how important this investment is to the company. They’re very, they use a lot of discretion when making investments. Our third quarter earnings will be coming out soon, and while I obviously can’t discuss any of that, I can tell you that our CEO has expressed to us and will express then that they are very comfortable with our liquidity and our cash position going forward and we, as an organization, have taken and will continue to take all of the aggressive measures, because we are in uncharted economic territories. We realize that. That’s why this ride is so important to us this year in particular, and we are taking measures to be prudent, and we are positioned to make a long run, and we’ll have a long runway in front of us. MR. SIPP-I hope so, because I’d hate to lose the sales tax in this Town. MR. MC COY-Thank you, and I share that. I hope so, too. MR. SIPP-I’m not a fan of The Great Escape, as Mr. Lemery has probably told you, but I did see that we have made a difference, over a period of time, in questioning some of the things that have happened at The Great Escape, and probably one of the best things that ever happened were those lights on Glen Lake Road. MR. LEMERY-Actually, you’ve been very fair to us, and we appreciate it. MR. SIPP-And the overhead bridge, the overhead walkway was probably the best thing that ever happened, but I do question the amount of noise that is generated, and I always wonder how you can possibly get more noise when the Park is closed than when the Park is open, and consistently year after year, these sound studies have shown that there’s always a baseline or individual readings that are always lower when the Park is in operation on a weekday than when it’s closed. I guess it happens, but. MR. LEMERY-Well, these noise studies are done by an independent company. They’re not done by The Great Escape. MR. KREBS-And when you say it’s closed, do you mean it’s closed for the season? Okay. Well, you have less leaf coverage when it closes then you do in the summertime. MR. LEMERY-You’ve got a huge amount of ambient noise coming off the Northway. There’s where most of the noise that you’re going to hear, the background noise, is the Northway traffic, and Route 9. It’s really not coming out of the Park, but that’s an independent company. We don’t sit there and tell them what to put in the report. MR. SIPP-I realize that, John. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-So with regards to the noise from the ride, the schematic, other than screams, it should be relatively minimal. MRS. BRUNO-Could you explain, again, your theory about the lighting? You were specifically referencing, I believe, Part C of the lighting in the Code, and while you were speaking, I was kind of disagreeing in my head, but I need to put my finger on it. MR. LEMERY-That’s all right. Let me brief it for you again. The Code requires that fixtures such as the lighting has to be shielded and have cut offs to direct light directly to the ground, but the Code doesn’t expressly prohibit up lighting. We’re talking about up lighting, not lighting generally. So the Code doesn’t speak to up lighting. The lighting design that we’re proposing here conforms with the basic precepts of the lighting regs, except that it’s up lighting. The Code Enforcement Officer said we needed to get a waiver because it’s up lighting, but the Code doesn’t speak to up lighting. So we said, fine, okay, we’ll ask the Planning Board to give us a waiver, but the foot candles that we’re using are lower than the Zoning Code provides for, and the only other standard we could use was the IESNA, which is the Illuminating Engineers Society of America. So the Code is deficient in regard to whether up lighting is permitted or isn’t permitted in the Town by the Code. So, in other respects, the lighting design conforms to the lighting requirements of the Code. So that’s why we did that. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I’ll just give you my spin on this. That I agree that, partially agree that the Code may seem deficient, but I think you’re starting to split hairs a little bit in terms of what it is saying and what it’s intent is. Perhaps we should start using such terms as dark sky compliant and that type of thing within the Code. We can take that up, but in your, bear with me for a second, your SEQRA Findings, adopted May 20, 2004, you seemed to recognize the intent of our Code when saying that the water park interior lights will be mounted high and directed downwards away from the sky, and this is interior lights, and that no floodlights will be directed up through the skylights. So you seem to recognize at that point. MR. LEMERY-Well, we didn’t ask for any at that point. We didn’t ask for any up lighting. The only reason we’re asking for up lighting here is it’s a safety issue, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it here. The only reason we’re asking for a waiver is so the ride, the patrons can be seen. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I think we should at least review it as a waiver and not assume that it’s deficient in the Code, and that that we should. MR. LEMERY-No, ma’am, we said, we asked for the waiver. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. LEMERY-We didn’t say that we were compliant. We asked for a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-And the other thing is the Lighting Code change since the EIS was. MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why the prior lighting regulations talked about dark sky compliancy. MRS. BRUNO-It did, and we went backwards from that. MR. HUNSINGER-And now we talk about, you know, now the intent is to minimize glare and provide the minimum amount of lighting on commercial sites necessary. It doesn’t speak to dark sky compliancy. MRS. BRUNO-We actually kind of went back, went opposite of the typical trend. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, the one thing we do, do, as the applicant has pointed out, is we now reference the IESNA Handbook as sort of the guiding principal. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I’ve said my peace. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s apples and oranges, is why I wanted to make that point. Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Okay. I would ask that you identify yourself for the record, as we do tape the meetings, and if you could keep your comments to three minutes, it would be appreciated. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LINDA CLARK MS. CLARK-Hello, again. I’m Linda Clark. I live at the end of Ash Drive, on Ben Most Bur Lane. Let’s see here. Great Escape. I recognize the fact that The Great Escape is necessary for the local economy. I have no animosity towards The Great Escape, but I do look for a neighborly working relationship with them. The Great Escape, when Six Flags purchased this, understood that the Park was situated in the middle of several neighborhoods, and when they came in, they assured us that they were going to have a neighborly working relationship, which is great. However, I have concern with the noise issue. Recent history has contradicted their noise promises. They assured us that Wiggles World would not be heard outside the Park, and here I live in the woods, and I could dance in my front yard on days with Wiggles World running. It’s not every day. Of course it is related to weather usually. I also not only hear the music, but the speaker, the announcer is just blaring at times. They come in with their sound tests and they do their sound tests, and granted it’s not at the high decibel rate that these reports allow for them, but the promise was that Wiggles World would not be heard. That was part of the working neighborly relationship that we all have, or should have. Justification for noise, in terms of it being an economic advantage, is not part of a working relationship. It’s only justification of doing something that they promised they would not do. Now we’re looking at more noise, and I have concern with 24 people screaming, what’s going to happen when we have Wiggles World, the announcers, and now 24 people screaming, and it still doesn’t go above that decibel level, but it’s created, once again, more noise in our yards. What recourse do we have? Because obviously there’s been no recourse on Wiggles World, and there should be recourse. There should be attention drawn to the Town that there’s this issue. I mean, I know several people in my neighborhood, we’ve all called. I haven’t called the Town. I’m guilty of that, but I have called The Great Escape and said, look, you know, it’s loud today, and I hear nothing back. So I have some concerns about the noise issue, again, no animosity, but I do have concerns. We need to work together as a neighborhood. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Do you know if any of your neighbors have called the Town? MS. CLARK-Yes, I do. There are several that have called. The Town? I don’t know about the Town, but I do know they’ve called The Great Escape. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MS. CLARK-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Stein. I live on 86 Ash Drive, and again, I’m going to try to keep it, obviously, quick. So I wrote a statement that I’m going to try to read through here, because I did make some notes. So just bear with me. I spoke at the last time that The Great Escape requested approval for a new ride. If you recall, that was December 20, 2007, regarding Wiggles and other attractions. At that meeting, I was concerned about noise. Again, my concern is noise, in addition to my property value. This past summer/fall season has been very distressing. The noise level at the Park has increased significantly since the installation of their new sound system in late 2007, and the Wiggles ride and Theater in 2008. All summer and into this Fall, I have heard either music or announcements originating from the Wiggles and/or Great Escape sound system. During the December 2007 Board meeting regarding the Wiggles, Don McCoy stated that it’s not intended to be a loud show. He also mentioned that he did not anticipate having any ambient noise beyond the immediate location of the actual show, and after the meeting, he gave me his phone number to call if there were any problems. I contacted Mr. McCoy on various occasions, the first being June 20, 2008, made him aware of the noise problems. Initially he was skeptical of my, or I also did try to call after hours, some evenings it was very loud, could not get through. They 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) make it very difficult to get through to any human being after five o’clock or five thirty, somewhere around there. Initially he was skeptical of my claims, and he asked that I make notes of times and sounds being heard, which I did. Mr. McCoy later acknowledged the source of the noise was the sound system and Wiggles and said he would work on resolving the matter. It has not been fixed. Just to save time, I’ve noted the dates that I either heard, you know, some sort of noise from Wiggles or their sound system speakers, etc. I’ll just go through the dates. 6/26/08, they’re all ’08. 6/27, 7/2, 7/8, 7/11, 7/13, 7/16, 7/17, 7/18, 7/22, 7/25, 8/1, 8/2, 8/5, 8/16, 8/17, 8/22, 8/23, 8/24, 9/13, 9/14, 9/20. I did note two days that it was quiet during that time period, 7/27 and 9/21. Please note that there are days that unaccounted for. I do work. I have a job. I work full-time. So obviously you have to take that into consideration. The noise is an extreme nuisance and it’s disturbing my peace. I have had to go inside on a number of occasions because it is too loud. Our neighborhood pre-dates Story Town and Great Escape, pre-dates their sound system and pre-dates Wiggles. I am concerned that the increase in noise is going to have an impact on my property value if it hasn’t already. Any new attractions will only add to the noise volume and an increase in number of speakers and noise in the Park. I want the current noise problem fixed before the Board allows anymore attractions. I do not see or understand a need for the intense volume of the speakers. Once the ride is approved, we have no recourse. If I can hear, you know, the Wiggles and all these other sounds from my house, it’s too loud, and I ask that the Board allow me to briefly respond, if necessary, to any additional comments that the applicant makes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any particular time of day that’s better or worse? MS. STEIN-They were different times. I have some times. If you need times, I’ve got times. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was just curious, is there any kind of pattern? MS. STEIN-When the Wiggles is on, I think one of the shows is 1:40, 12:00, I’m not sure exactly. I’ve got them noted, but there are times, yes, it’s not the same time necessarily every single day. The volume is louder some days than others. Could hear it various times, all, whatever days I said were different times. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. STEIN-I mean, and consistent. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening MANDY DIEFFENBACH MRS. DIEFFENBACH-Good evening. My name is Mandy Dieffenbach. I live on Ash Drive, also, and rather than repeat a lot of what Ms. Stein said, not to waste time, I echo a lot of what she did have to say. Our properties are in a similar location, and I have experienced the same noise level. I have talked extensively with John from the last meeting. I talked with him afterwards. He had assured us that if there was a noise issue that we would need to call him freely, which we did, as Lorraine has said. We’ve had many conversations, and I appreciate it, but nothing considerably has changed. There is still a lot of noise level. Wiggles is still an issue. I don’t see it changing. I know Don had talked about maybe addressing the issue of a new sound system if that was something that needed to be done, but I don’t know if anything’s been addressed. I’m a little frustrated that another ride is coming into the Park at this point, and the issue of Wiggles isn’t addressed. I know the Town may not actually be aware of it because I thought it was going to be resolved with the Park, with the residents, rather than the Park being involved, or I mean, rather than the Town being involved, but it seems that it’s not an issue. It hasn’t happened. My concern at this point is I would not recommend that a new ride be approved by the Town until this issue is resolved with the sound. I’m concerned that this one won’t be resolved, a new ride will come into place, and we’re going to have the same issues that we can’t get resolved. I’m a property owner. I am concerned. I understand they bring in a lot of resources into the Town. I appreciate that. I think Great Escape is wonderful, but not when it jeopardizes property values and the residents that live here. I want to work with them, but I’m not getting any results at this point as to where the sound level is going to be for Wiggles, and when Wiggles finally does end, what other ride is going to replace Wiggles, because Wiggles is like the Barney, is like the other things that’s going to eventually fade out and I’m concerned about that. As far as the sound studies go, I actually was present when one of the sound studies was done, and I can honestly say that the sound levels that I heard, it was completely different to 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) the levels that you normally hear every day. It’s being said that it’s a biased, people come in from outside, but who actually pays for the sound check? I believe it is The Great Escape. I believe they are aware when the sound person is coming. They have the ability to raise and lower, whether that happens, I don’t know, but having been present at the time of the noise level check, there was no noise. It was like, what happened, did they close for the day? And then a day later, the noise was back up to what it normally was. Why can’t they come in, unannounced, when The Great Escape doesn’t know that they’re going to be there, by an unbiased person? They do pay for it, so they are going to know when it’s going to be there. I don’t know if the Town Board is interested in investing in something like that to make it completely unbiased, or another body. I don’t know. I do appreciate, Don, in communicating with you, I really do, but I really am frustrated that we can’t go any further with it, and hopefully the Town will be involved and take that into consideration with this other ride. The other issue I had was, and I don’t know if this is something that, if The Great Escape does present other rides, is it possible that they could even consider doing videos to actually show you the ride, realistically, what it looks like, how it operates, if they have one running in another Park, so you can actually visualize it for yourself and the people that are here today, and also maybe a sound with it so that you can realistically look at it. Because to me, looking at these, I can’t realistically look at that and say, I can visualize that, I can see what it would sound like. My three minutes up? I really wish that Wiggles would be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. DIEFFENBACH-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening. KEN DIEFFENBACH MR. DIEFFENBACH-Hi. Ken Dieffenbach. Mandy’s my wife. 84 Ash Drive. I really don’t want to get into what she just explained. Everything she said is 100% accurate. So I really don’t want to go into the noise level again. The one thing I do want to mention, though, is my nephew constantly comes over to my house. He can hear it clear as day from my yard, dancing to the Wiggles. On one occasion I took him to the Park so he could go see the Wiggles, and I literally saw one of The Great Escape staff members cover their ears prior to announcing the Wiggles coming on stage. So if that’s not obvious enough that the sound level is too high, that their own staff are knowing what’s coming and covering their ears, something is wrong. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. Clearly we have some frustrated folks on Glen Lake. I also live in that neighborhood. So I hear this sound often, and most days it is a nuisance and it’s a problem that should be addressed before we even move forward. So I’d like to see that. I hear what they say, but I want to address this ride specifically. I have quite a few concerns. First is that the application doesn’t seem to be complete. There are items here that aren’t resolved, and I’m also concerned that, you know, how much noise will be added cumulatively. There’s stories about adding winter shows and extending to record numbers of days and we’re just very concerned about the overall infringement on our neighborhoods. Two issues about this ride. One is visual impact and one is sound impact. I’ve done some research myself on these. In most parks they’re called Superman ride. They have several of them. You can go on You Tube and see them, find information. Up lighting at the top, and there’s a quote that I pulled out from one of the patrons of another park, and I’m quoting here. At night, the ride is illuminated by various colored lights that change and can be seen for miles. So I’m concerned, you draw the picture and you show up lighting that stops at the top, but does it really stop at the top, and are we really going to see that? I don’t see any of their studies that actually show what that’s going to look like. I don’t see any numbers. We just have to go by what they’re saying. It doesn’t seem complete. Are there going to be lights at the top? We don’t know yet. We need to know that before we can move on. Is there going to be a sign at the top? We don’t know yet. Is that sign going to be lighted? We don’t know yet. How bright is that going to be? And then there are also issues with the noise studies. Now if you go and look at that, it is a fairly noisy ride. It’s blasted by air. You can hear the whoosh. You can hear the air, and again just sort of quoting from some, they talk about the whoosh and the whirls and the stuff that’s going on. Obviously there are screams. I didn’t see any db studies on this ride. How loud is the ride? How loud are 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) those screams at the top? Do we have any idea? What is going to be the cumulative effect? What are the sounds of the brakes? So I really think that you shouldn’t approve this until we get some adequate information about that up lighting, about the other lights that are going to be up there, about some of the sound studies, and if there’s a sign up there, is it going to be on top and is it then going to be over the 200 foot limit? And it’s just curious that why don’t they know if the sign’s going to be up there yet? It seems like you should know that. So I hope that you’ll leave the public hearing open, because it seems like there are other issues, even if it’s a matter of coming back to look at signs and lighting so we can have the adequate input for that and get this information. So I’d ask you actually to table this until we get all the information that we need. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, just to give you an idea, the 2008 sound studies were done on thth July 25 and July 26. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-So it’s about in the middle of their season, and they were done at Courthouse, Glen Lake, Twicwood and The Great Escape, west of The Great Escape. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments? MR. LEMERY-Well, first of all, the President of The Glen Lake Association’s comments with regard to the height of the ride, the ride is within the zone and is permitted. So it’s a Site Plan issue not a SEQRA issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LEMERY-Number Two, the sound studies were done. The company has complied with the sound studies, and those sound studies are part of the Impact Statement also. That is not to say that these kinds of things that the folks talked about need to be looked at, mitigated, and nobody should have to live with a bunch of noise that is unreasonable. I think Don, I know has said he has taken every single phone call. He’s going to speak to that, but as far as tabling this for more information, there isn’t anymore information that we can provide you. There may be a request for a sign. If there is a request for a sign, we will come back. If the sign is in compliance with the Ordinance, then that’s the end of it. If the sign doesn’t comply and we want to put a sign at the top of the ride, if any sign is up there, it would simply be a sign either a Great Escape sign or a Sasquatch sign, but it hasn’t been designed. Nothing’s been done with regard to it, and we’d have to come back and seek that approval, and if there was a sign, and if it was, that would require a variance by the Zoning Board, and that sign would not be visible by anybody at Glen Lake. Because it would not be any higher than the 192 feet that we’re talking about, but it’s a theme park. It’s open in the summer. It’s been a theme park since 1954. The only way it can survive is to bring these kind of attractions in, bring new attractions in, pull old attractions out. It pre-dates certainly the Twicwood neighborhood, the Courthouse Estates neighborhood. I can’t speak to all the properties on Ash Drive, whether it pre- dates that. I think that Don needs to address the Wiggles issue and we need to fix that, but I don’t think that’s a reason for, you know, it’s not going to be fixed until next summer. So as far as holding this application up, I think the question is, you know, what you can do about it, what he can sit down with the neighbors and try to work out some sort of a plan that makes sense, but we’re going to ask you not to hold this approval up on that basis. MR. MC COY-Thank you. At last year’s meeting I did reach out to the members of The Glen Lake Association. I gave them my business card with my direct line, so that they could reach me, with the intent of trying to take a proactive or active role in resolving some of the complaints. I was relatively new here. I was not privy but was aware that those issues were existing, and I do want to say and recognize that the members of Glen Lake have reached out to me and left messages and they have been nothing but cordiale and professional in their demeanor with me. My intent was never to convey, in early conversations, a disregard or a doubt. It was to solicit the specifics of what they were hearing, so that I could find out where they were and solve those problems. With regard to Wiggles World early on, shortly after it was built, we did have some sound issues. The speakers were up high, and the entertainment department has turned them up so that people inside the costumed characters could hear their call and know when to come out from behind the stage. I purchased the system and put speakers down behind the stage with the intent of mitigating or reducing that noise. So we did do that. I also hired a 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) sound tech to work the entire season. I always have somebody on duty at all times to manage the sound system so we don’t have issues or have problems. So that was something else I did to attempt to be a good neighbor and respond to those issues. I want them to know, and I think I did call back most every time and/or left messages that I had called back, but I did follow up on every single call with the technology department to have them double check or make sure that we don’t have issues. I did research and asked professionals in the sound industry what could I do or help me identify problems, and they did. They went through the Park and, with me, to try to identify locations where speakers might be pointed in the wrong direction or aimed in the wrong direction. The challenge that I have, in absence of being able to identify a particular, specific problem, is I can’t fix it. It depends on environmental factors, how loud the crowd is that day, how many people may be in the Park. I don’t know, clouds, clear environment, winds. I can’t just fix every time that there’s an issue. There isn’t necessarily something for me to fix, but we do try and operate our sound system in a way that’s comfortable, and usually the guests inside the Park are the ones that give us that feedback if it’s not right. It is technology. We have the ability to set those levels, and we try to do our best to maintain those. So I know that they hear it. I even drove over, and I took my Director of Operations over there to see if I could identify it, too, and we only went over once, but I wasn’t able to discern or hear anything specific. So I have tried to be responsive. I cannot, and I’ve, identify any one thing in that Park that can cause the problem, other than the early one, you know, with the Wiggles stage early, but I continue to do the best I can to make sure that anything within my scope of control I take care of. MR. SEGULJIC-When did you change those speakers? MR. MC COY-The show opened up in May. So I would say probably late June. MR. SEGULJIC-Late June. Okay. MR. MC COY-Mid to late June. MR. TRAVER-When they’re talking about dancing to the music in their yard from Wiggles World, does that help you identify where the source of the sound could come from? MR. MC COY-Well, I go to the Wiggles World. If they say they can specifically hear the Wiggles, I go to that Wiggles World. Most of the speakers at the entrance of Wiggles World are just small speakers that are pointed down into the area. So I go to the stage. Sometimes the employee using the mic, you know, sometimes the performers can project louder than others, but we try to do our best to be consistent. Did that answer? MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m not sure. It sounds as though, they did mention some announcers. You had indicated that you had adjusted your speaker system, which sounds like that may have helped with that issue, but what I heard, and I’d be interested in hearing the other Board members, mainly was music. People were talking about being able to dance to music. That sounds like, and I don’t dance, but to be able to dance to music, you’ve got to be able to identify, you know, that some kind of a tune, and it sounds as though it was identifiable, certainly within the Park. Is there anything, and you mentioned a sound tech, and so on, but is there anything with regards to, since you received these complaints, that you can tell us as far as specifically adjusting the sound level of the music? MR. MC COY-I’m sorry, could you repeat the last sentence? MR. TRAVER-Yes. You were complimented by some of the folks who spoke in the public hearing that you were open to taking calls from them, and when I was listening to some of their comments, it sounded as though there were two major areas. One was the PA system, it sounded like, announcements, and you’ve mentioned that you’ve installed some additional speakers to help reduce the need for having to call actors out on stage and so on, but what I heard fairly consistently, perhaps even more consistently, was the music coming from, it sounded like, this particular event. So my question to you is, having taken these calls, have you done anything, or is there anything that you can do specifically with regards to the volume of the music coming from the attraction? MR. MC COY-There is, and I appreciate you repeating that for me. We have the ability, within the system, to re-record any kind of verbal announcement to make sure that it’s consistent. So when they hear the voices or those kind of things, I can re-record all of them, and record them at lower levels. The system has numerous areas, and we try and channel music that compliment the theme of that area, whether it be country music in the 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) western area or, you know, classic music in the International Village. Knowing or hearing the music, we have the ability, by zone, to pull down the volumes, and bring those down to, you know, to whatever level we feel appropriate, and we try to do that. Sometimes, quite honestly, if it’s a slow day and there’s only one or two thousand people in the Park, there’s not as much ambient noise, guest noise, and it will sound a little bit louder, and we do try and bring those things down, and those levels are established. So, you know, I’d be happy to re-look at any of those levels and try and further bring those down. My goal is just, the sound and the music is an important piece of our entertainment package, and by no means am I trying to overdo it. I just need to maintain a level that our guests can hear and are comfortable, and those are something that I’ll continue to look at and re-record or bring down as necessary. It’s just, to your point, when I know the kind of music or the specifics I can get to it, and they’ve been very helpful. Some of them have told me where and what they’ve heard, and then I can do that. Other ones have been like a live DJ or something like that, where it’s actually talking out loud. Sometimes we’ll have a radio remote where somebody will be doing a promotion at the Park, and sometimes they can get loud, but I try not, those are isolated, and I try to manage the system as a whole, but I’m certainly willing to continue to work with The Glen Lake Association to manage that, with them. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I guess there’s a couple of decisions that need to be made. I think that one of the first items that we need to address is whether or not we feel comfortable that the project is within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement that was previously approved. Any questions, comments from members on that? MRS. BRUNO-Chris, I’m sorry. I do have a question prior to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. BRUNO-One of the pictures that you provided to us did show the colored lights on the inside, and one of the public mentioned that that was seen, I guess, on You Tube or something. Will you be intending to put those in? You don’t show them on that drawing, and you haven’t mentioned them. So I was just wondering if that was a consideration because of the nearness of the neighborhoods. MR. LEMERY-The lighting plan is in there. They’re the only four up lights. They aren’t in there. MR. MC COY-We intend to be compliant with what we’ve submitted, if that helps. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I just didn’t know if this was all, you know, you’re saying it’s already built, and you’re taking it apart. I don’t know how, the structural, you know, how tied in the lights are structurally. MR. MC COY-Yes. Right. No, I’m referencing the ride structure itself, the mechanical components and the tower structure. Those lights are not going to be transferred to our property. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC COY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I saw nodding heads when I asked Board members if they were comfortable that the scope of the project was within the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I didn’t hear anything that said it wasn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m comfortable with it. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any conditions? MRS. BRUNO-Do you have any decibel ratings on this particular ride? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. KREBS-There was another question Don was asking about noise level or decibel level on this particular ride. Is there music? MR. LEMERY-No, there’s no music. MRS. BRUNO-Even the air compression and that type of thing. MR. LEMERY-Yes. One of the things we have to be very careful of is not open up the Findings. As always, I mean, so we are consistent in our approach that we have to do the sound study, and we have to live by the sound study on an annual basis. However, Don is willing to meet with the Glen Lake folks, and I just said to him, you need to get in the car and go over there, if somebody can hear something, go over there, maybe bring them back over, try to figure out what’s going on at the Wiggles so that that nuisance is abated. That’s a reasonable issue, and is that a fair statement, you’re willing to do that and try to? Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I understand that. That certainly is reasonable, I think at this point, but what I’m asking is, on this particular ride, I don’t want this to get installed and then have increased discomfort of the neighbors, because certainly we’re not going to go in and have you remove this ride nor would I think that you would agree to that. MR. LEMERY-Yes. This is an air compression ride. The air compressors are in the building. The people will scream on the ride. People scream on the Steamin Demon. They scream on the Boomerang. MR. TRAVER-To put it in another perspective, perhaps, could you comment on, because you’re essentially replacing the ride and bringing this ride in. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. TRAVER-What would you expect the sound impact of that to be? Would this generate more noise than what was there this past season, less, roughly the same? Do you have any sense of that at all? MR. LEMERY-No. We don’t expect it to generate anymore noise than was generated out of The Rainbow. I mean, if you remember The Rainbow, the tires would squeak and it would go up and down, but if it does, you know, we had a terrible problem, this even pre-dates, Don, with that Bobsled, and we spent, I think, and I say we, I was involved with the Park at that time, and John Collins, we spent, season after season trying to mitigate that ride, including finally putting apoxy on the outside and changing the wheels and all of those kinds of things. The theme park is committed to being a good neighbor and to work with everybody to mitigate these things. We finally got that ride straightened out. The same thing would happen here. If this thing becomes a problem for anybody, he knows he’s got to come back in here for other approvals and he knows he’s got to make these things right. So, is that a fair statement that you’ll deal with this thing if it occurs? MR. MC COY-Sure, and I think the ride description, as I understand it, I don’t want to make any promises that I can’t back up, but the ride experience or the ride description is it’s a smooth moving ride. It’s air and it moves quickly and slides up and down these columns. Unlike a roller coaster that has a heavy metal chain dog that bangs, all the way up a lift, click, click, click, you’ve heard those noises, this ride won’t have any of that. It is an air compressors that are inside the building and are inside these towers and the ride moves up and down quickly on pillows of air. So, while I can’t necessarily speak to the decibels of that ride, the ride motion itself would indicate to me that it’s certainly no more than The Rainbow, other than the screams. There will guests on there hopefully screaming. So it shouldn’t be anymore significant than any of the coasters up there. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just, the Wiggles sounds, that’s pretty easy to control, I would think. That’s just a volume issue. What I have struggle with, is there any way, any wording we can put in this motion that, you know, the obvious thing that the Park will work with the neighbors to address any noise issues, but there’s nothing to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they have standards and they’ve got to meet the standards. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but the problem with standards is when do they do the tests on that? They did it at 10:38 in the morning, at five in the afternoon, did they match it up with when the Wiggles was playing, which the concern, and the Park (lost word) sound was done in the summertime also. The other way I look at it is, I assume you guys will be back. I mean, I’m not talking about tonight. I’m talking about you’re going to have another ride going in, I guess, with the same concerns from the public, and we’ve got to do something about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s what they were just saying, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. LEMERY-We recognize that. We recognize we have to deal with it. MR. HUNSINGER-And I remember well the issues with the Bobsled. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ve got the Comet back there. The Comet is not exactly quiet. MR. SIPP-I agree with this problem with the noise. I think that we’ve got to come to some agreement here. I don’t know how you’re going to measure these screams. I am also concerned about this Page Four, and I want to get some clarification. The applicant would like two logo signs on the top of the tower to remain lit at all times during the operating season. MR. LEMERY-We’ve withdrawn that. MR. SIPP-You’ve withdrawn that completely? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. SIPP-Okay, but I think there’s got to be a little more put into this sound. John Collins and I used to have a lot of go arounds on that Alpine ski Bobsled run, and when you got down to the right tires, he claimed it wasn’t safe, and therefore they went back to the hard tires, which went back to the noise again. What you’ve done since then, I don’t know, but I’m pretty far back in Courthouse Estates and I can still hear your, and when the wind conditions are right, I can still hear your loudspeaker. MR. LEMERY-When the wind is right, you can hear certain things take place from many places in the Town, when the wind is coming from a certain area. On the golf course I’ve heard certain things on certain windy days, if the wind is coming that way. I’m also able to hear the calliope from the steamboat on Lake George on the Country Club golf course, and I’ve also heard the cannons from the Ft. William Henry from down there. So air quality and those kinds of things do have an effect. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s part of living here, and it changes with the environment. MR. LEMERY-But we need to be mindful of what the neighbors said about the Wiggles, and that’s got to be addressed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think you can fix that. MR. TRAVER-And I think when you’re looking at lists of dates that are multiple times per week, those are not outliers. That pretty much eliminates the weather, at least in those particular neighborhoods. So that’s something that should be manageable. The weather you can’t manage that much. MR. MC COY-Sure. Absolutely. I will address the Wiggles area. It’s controllable, and we’ll bring it down. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone like to put forth a resolution? They still need to finalize, yes, there’s outstanding issues with engineering comments. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a few outstanding issues, and I don’t know if it’s really an issue for us, but the FAA. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t have any control over it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They have to comply, by law, and whatever the FAA says. If they say put a light up there, you’ve got to put it up there. MR. LEMERY-We will meet the engineer’s concern, Mr. Chairman, as a condition of the approval, and I think we’ve pretty much got that response done now, but you haven’t seen it. Just like the last application, we’ll comply with the engineer’s conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re pretty minor. MR. SEGULJIC-Now with regards to lighting, that’s going to be only on during operating hours. MR. LEMERY-Hours of operation, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, do we want to say that the applicant has agreed to work with the neighbors to address the noise issues that have been addressed during the public hearing? So it’s on the record? MR. LEMERY-We’re fine with that. MR. OBORNE-If I may add, sir. If and when you get approval for this, could you please submit clean, up to date drawings? MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the noise issues, what would you want to say, the applicant will work with the public with the noise issues? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the applicant has agreed to work with the neighbors of Ash Drive to address noise issues raised during the public hearing. Because we’re really taking your word. I mean, I believe you will follow up, but we’re taking your word. MR. LEMERY-Well, we’ll be back here at some point. So we have to do what’s suggested. MR. SIPP-Is there a need to rush into this tonight? Is there a need to push this forward tonight? MR. LEMERY-We have a need, Mr. Sipp, if we’re going to get this thing ready for the 2009 season. MR. SIPP-Yes. I can see that, but you have things underway now, it’s being taken down at this time? MR. LEMERY-Some of the parts are arriving this week. MR. SIPP-All right. They’re already being shipped, so what’s the difference? You’ve got a storehouse up there of another ride, in the gravel pit. MR. LEMERY-Well, we don’t see any reason to delay it, just for reason to delay it. If you have anymore questions that you want to address to us, we’re here. We have our whole team here to address them. I don’t know what it is we haven’t answered, but if there’s something that requires another answer, we’ll answer it. MR. SEGULJIC-What information would you like to see? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what new information do we need? MR. SIPP-Well, you can’t get a sound, because there probably never was one in New Orleans ever taken, a decibel reading on the ride itself. If this decibel reading shoots this up to 70 or something, which is probably unlikely, but even in the 60’s, where you are now at 45 to 50 is comfortable. MR. LEMERY-Well, we won’t know that until next Spring when this is tested and at that point, if it does, we have to fix it. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. SIPP-How are you? MR. LEMERY-Well, because we have to, we can’t come back here next July and our sound study is over our threshold or we can’t get another attraction approved without getting back below our threshold without a supplement to the EIS. So we’re very mindful that we’ve got to fix whatever it is that is going to cause us to exceed our sound approvals. There’s nothing we can do now until we get the ride here and get it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I was just looking at something that might solve this problem. Being an alternate and not having been on the Board that long, but there is a good neighbor policy which is on 179-5-180, which if you would agree to this part of the zoning, requires you to just keep some records and show that you’ve been responsive as a good neighbor. I’m assuming that you’d be willing to do that. It’s in the Zoning Ordinance anyway. I think that would give us some teeth into the situation we’re looking at. It already exists in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MC COY-I’d be more than happy to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Okay, because then you can put in there, Tom, that it, you know, zoning 179-5-180. MR. SEGULJIC-But it doesn’t address noise in there, I don’t believe. MRS. BRUNO-Right. It doesn’t address specifically the noise. You have to make that clear. MR. HUNSINGER-It addresses communication. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’d ask them to do a good neighbor policy? MR. KREBS-It says the applicant must agree in writing to correspond on a long term informal basis with local recognized organizations and other concerned individuals regarding any problems that may have with current business practices impacts on the neighborhood, okay, which is exactly what I’ve heard. All responses should be written within 30 days of receiving the initial letter and be in the form the owner/operator/manager, and/or representative of the parent company. A file of all letters received and written to be maintained by the correspondent for the convenience, or be available to the public upon request. MRS. BRUNO-That’s just communication, which they’ve already been doing. It’s not actually stating. It’s kind of the difference between may and should. MR. KREBS-But the EIS already very specifically states, and if you read the document and you know what our Town Attorney has said to us before, we can’t create new law. MRS. BRUNO-Right, so it’s not even worth putting this forward, then, because they’re already doing that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t think we need to. I think the applicant is aware that this is an issue, and I’m sure that it’s going to be in their best interest to record efforts that they’ve done. I’m sure they’ll be happy to present us with that information when they’re next before us, here’s what we’ve tried to do and we know that we’re going to get that from members of the neighborhood. So I’m sure that you’re going to try to prepare and show efforts that you’ve made. MR. MC COY-Yes. We’d be happy to keep track of the issues and the remediation taken. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just wondering how to word it. So applicant has agreed to work with the public regarding noise issues raised during public hearing, and in particular maintain records of noises and actions taken to address them. Okay. What are we going to do about Number Five of the motion, since this already has an EIS done? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUNSINGER-That we’ve considered SEQRA and that we’ve determined that there’s no additional impact. I’m looking for the resolution. Yes, I see why you’re asking the question, because the resolution really doesn’t address the specifics of your. I think we just state that. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve considered SEQRA and there’s no additional information? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I will motion to approve Site Plan No. 41-2008 for The Great Escape Theme Park, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Five, we have considered SEQRA and have determined that there’s no additional impacts. We’ll approve this with the following conditions, that the engineering comments be addressed, and that the applicant has agreed to work with the public regarding noise issues raised during the public hearing and in particular responding to complaints and outlining the mitigation taken to respond to the complaints. MR. LEMERY-Also the lighting waiver, so we can meet the safety issue with the light. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think that required a waiver specifically. MR. LEMERY-We didn’t think so, either, but I. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we’re approving what’s proposed. MR. LEMERY-Okay. All right. Fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, you’re shaking your head. Do you think it requires recognition as a waiver? MR. OBORNE-It specifically says in the Code that light needs to be directed to the ground. It’s not ambiguous. It specifically says light must be directed to the ground. It is not to be above 90 degrees on a horizontal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If it is to be installed that way, you need to ask for a waiver. Further, the lighting plan as submitted is ambiguous in itself, as I wrote in my notes. There is one that states it’s in a square and there’s another one that states it’s in a standard hexagon. I would like clarification on that. John has asked for a waiver. If you grant that waiver, you grant that waiver. That’s fine, but there needs to be clarification as to the attitude or the positioning of the lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I would also like to suggest that we make a point that such a waiver is for safety purposes, so that we’re not setting a precedent for architectural or other. MR. HUNSINGER-Point well taken. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, could you clarify for us, is it the hexagon or the rectangle? MR. LEMERY-Yes. We’ll conform the site plan to match the lighting drawing. It’s as is provided in the drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, make sure it’s clarified. That’s fine. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So what are we going to say about lighting, for safety reasons? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The lighting plan is approved as presented, including up lighting for safety reasons. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2008 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of amusement park attraction called Sasquatch. The ride has two (2) 192 feet high steel towers. New attractions /rides at the Park require Planning Board review and approval 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/21/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has determined there are no significant impacts; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2008 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Five, the Board has considered SEQRA and has determined there are no additional impacts. We approve the motion with the following conditions: a.That engineering comments be addressed. b.For safety reasons, the lighting plan as presented is approved. c.That the applicant has agreed to work with the public regarding noise issues raised during the public hearing. In particular the applicant shall record complaints and note noise mitigation’s actions taken in response to those complaints. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LEMERY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Keep us posted. Is there any other business before the Board? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/21/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Next Tuesday at 7 o’clock. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2008, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 56