1990-03-27
'-
Site Plan No. 77-89
Sit~ Plan No. 13-90
Site Plan No. 14-90
Site Plan No. 30-89
Subdivision No. 14-1989
Final Stag~
Subdivision No. 22-1989
Final Stage
Site Plan No. 81-89
P~tition for a P3-90
Chang~ of Zone
Sit~ Plan No. 19-90
Site Plan No. 20-90
QUEENSBURY PLARHIHG BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27TH, 1990
INDEX
Scott McLaughlin
Attractions Lands Inc.
(Gravel Extraction)
Attractions Land, Inc.
(Roll~r Coaster)
Dr. Shimon and MaIka Shalit
Partridgß Run
Owner: Scrimshaw V~ntur~s
Shultz Subdivision
Owner: Arz~lia H. Shultz
Adirondack Industrial Park
~'
1.
2.
12.
28.
29.
32.
Adirondack Industrial 34.
32.
Margar~t and Theodore Hans 37.
E & T OlConnor Construction 46.
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.
"--
--/
QUEENSBURY PLARHING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 27TH, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTSs CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
PETER CARTIER
CONRAD KUPILLAS
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
MEMBERS ABSENT
JAMES HAGAN
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-JOHN FERGUSON
ASSISTANT PLAHHER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
Fðbruary 5ths 1990: Pag~ 7s bottom of thð pagð, Mr. Carti~r's last commðnts last
linðs first words constitution sIb construction
STAND AS AMENDED
F~bruary 20ths 1990:
STAND AS AMENDED
F~bruary 20ths 1990 (Sp~cial Mðeting): Pagð 4s top 1in~, last words isn't sIb
is
STAND AS AMENDED
Fðbruary 27ths 1990:
MR. CAIMANO-I havð a commðnt rðgarding pagð 8 s regarding the motion to approvð
sitð p Ian no. 12-90 Mark Darius. I had call~d th~ Planning Department r~garding
this motion and had talked to Lðð whos subsequently talkðd to Pat Collard who
camð back and talked to me regarding thð motion in as much as someon~ th~re was
sðlling a vehicle. It was detðrmined that in our motion Wð did not talk about
not s~lling a vehiclðs but Wð did talks in thð motions about the fact that thðre
arð ðight spaces on thð southwest cornðr that are going to b~ approved for parking
of overnight cars that are in repair or awaiting repair. Currently, and for thð
past wððk, therð are vðhiclðS in that spot that hav~ nothing to do with automotiv~
rðpair. Th~re is a trailðr thðres for ~xample. SOs I guess I'm rðquðsting that
you talk to Mrs. Collard and hav~ them call him again. This is dðfinite1y in
the motion.
MR. BAKER-Cðrtainly.
STAND AS AMENDED
OLD BUSINESS:
MR. ROBERTS-Anothðr hold over from last week whðn w~ werð a littl~ bit shorthanded.
We need to vote s tonight s on Sit~ Plan 77-89 Scott McLaughlin IS opðration down
on Dix Avenu~. Wð asked him to mark on the plat plan a 50 foot setback or green
arða on Dix Av~nuðs which he has donð and I b~lieve our tim~ limit is still such
that Wð n~ðd to vote on that in ordðr to make this official.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you hav~ an ag~nda from last wðek?
MR. BAKER-Yes I do.
I
--./
MR. CAIMANO-Is th~r~ anything in your not~s?
MR. BAKER-Th~ not~s just call~d for buff~r ar~as to b~ shown and th~ location
of trucks and ~quipm~nt to b~ park~d b~ shown.
MOTION TO ACCEPT SITE PLAN NO. 77-89 SCOTT HCLAUGHLINs Introduc~d by Nicholas
Caimano who mov~d for its adoptions s~cond~d by Carol Pulv~r:
To r~mov~ th~ trail~r and to add an offic~ and garag~, 42 f~~t by 7 5 f~~t,
consist~nt with th~ notations from th~ Staff.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 1990s by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
ABSTAINED: Mr. Carti~r
SITE PLAN NO. 13-90 TYPE: UNLISTED RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LARD, INC. OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE (GRAVEL EXTRACTION) ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD FOR CONTINUATION OF
PRIVATE SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION OF 125,000 CUBIC YARDS OVER A 5 YEAR PERIOD.
(WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-12.37, 14, 20 SECTION 4.020 I
WAYNE JUDGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTs DICK MORSEs MORSE ENGINEERING, PRESENT
MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairmans sinc~ w~ hav~ mad~ an issu~ of it last w~~ks should
w~ r~ad into th~ minut~s th~ fact that Aviation Road D~v~lopm~nt Company Sit~
Plan 18-90 and Doug Mab~yls Sit~ Plan 62-89 compli~s with our r~qu~st to b~ h~r~
by 8 olclock?
MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Do w~ hav~ furth~r Staff comm~nts about Attractions Land grav~l
~xtraction proj~ct?
MR. BAKER-Yes w~ do.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Bak~rs Assistant Plann~r (attach~d)
ENGINEER REPORT
Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tt, Town Engin~~r (attach~d)
MR. ROBERTS-If you will r~call, th~ County approv~d this ~v~n prior to th~ scaling
down of th~ proj~ct. DECs I gu~sss has agr~~d with us to be th~ l~ad ag~ncy.
MR. CAIMANO-Ar~ w~ going to r~ad this l~tt~r of March 13th into th~ r~cord...from
DEC?
MR. ROBERTS-You can.
MR. CAIMANO-W~ll, th~ only thing 11m s~~ing h~r~s h~ also sugg~sts all stormwat~r
b~ drain~d to th~ on-sit~ r~t~ntion basins rath~r than b~ dir~cted to th~ w~tlands.
MR. ROBERTS-.. th~ w~t1ands is an ov~rflow of a rath~r 1arg~ storm.
~v~rything has to hav~ an ov~rflow.
I b~li~v~ s
MR. CARTIER-Can I ask just anoth~r qu~stion of th~ ~ngin~~r on your first comm~nts
th~ 15 inch culv~rt. What should it b~ siz~d?
MR. FERGUSON-Th~ ar~a that drains into th~ culv~rt was siz~d bas~d on having som~
ground cov~r in th~r~. W~Id liked to hav~ it siz~d assuming that whol~ ar~a that
drains in th~r~ is bar~s probably push it up clos~r to lik~ 18 to 21.
MR. JUDGE- I know you hav~ a long ~v~ning s so I'll try to b~ bri~f. As p~r our
last m~~tings it was sugg~st~d that w~ m~~t with th~ n~ighbors and th~ ~ff~ct~d
p~opl~ from th~ Gl~n Lak~ Association. W~ m~t twic~. Th~ first m~~ting w~ m~t
at Micha~l O'Connorls offic~ and w~ coll~ct~d all of th~ comments that th~ n~ighbors
and th~ Gl~n Lak~ Association had about th~ pro j~ct and w~ w~nt back and r~vis~d
2
--../
the project and Dick Morse is h~re tonight and he's prepared to address each one
of the requests that th~ neighbors had made. We came back and had a second meeting
and we showed them the plans that w~ were going to submit tonight and we told
them how we would address each one of their obj~ctions. We didn I t satisfy every
single objection that the neighbors had requ~st~d, but we tried to cope with the
major ones and I think we were successful in doing that. I don I t want to tak~
a lot more tim~ because this is more a technical issue than a legal issues but
I just want to address a couple of things on the legal side. First of aIls this
is a p~rmitted use in the area. W~Ire not asking for any kind of special permission
to do something that wasn I t contemplated by the statut~. This is a permitted
use. This is only site plan review. Secondlys th~re were a lot of questions
raised about whether or not this was subject to review by th~ Department of
Environm~ntal Conservation. The statute and r~gulations state that a private
sand and gravel extraction op~ration such as this is exempt from the statute if
the proceeds are being used for grading purposes. Not withstanding that ex~mptions
which seemed totally clear to m~, our engin~er met with the Department of
Environmental Conservation and it was explained to him that this project was
jurisdictional because the project was jurisdictional and when the ~xempt section
was pointed out to them they said they were aware of that s but it was still
jurisdictional and they had check~d with Albany and it was jurisdictional becaus~
it was jurisdictional and this is the stuff that puts lawy~rs children through
college if we wanted to take the time to contest its but we don't want to take
the time to contest it s so we completed an application for a mining permit to
the Department of Environm~ntal Conservations ~v~n thoughs in my professional
opinions one is not required and one would never be asked of a private citizen.
If this is the kind of governm~nt that we Ire coming into in this Countrys I feel
badly about its but we're doing it. We Ire going to comply with the Department
of Environmental Conservation's nonexistent regulation and thatls going to r~quire
that we finish this mining project in thre~ years rather than five years and comply
with all of their requirements for a project thats in my opinions is
nonjurisdictional. We dug a t~st pits as was requ~sted by Mr. OlConnor. B~fore
w~ closed it overs we told Mr. O'Connor that it was op~n and that if he wanted
his ~xp~rts to go over and see how high it was over the apertures it's almost
30 f~ets that's three stories highs that would be as high as our offic~ building
downtowns that I s how high the bottom of this pit is going to be from the water
l~v~ls 30 feet, 3 stories high. We left the test pit op~ns as I said. We d~creased
the grade. We moved th~ setback from 80 feet to 120 feet. We added trees to
the slopes whereas before th~r~ wer~ only crown vech. There I s a question about
wheth~r or not trees will grows itls only a 30 percent grade. I think they will
grow. Dick Morse is here and is prepared to address the other issues. Th~r~
wer~ eight or nine issues that we discussed with the n~ighbors. I think we had
a good meeting. I think the neighbors understood that we were owners of privat~
propertys that we had the right to use that property and sometimes wh~n a neighbor
uses property, he doesnlt always use it the way you want him to use its but in
our system of government that's the way we operate. I think they wer~ very
und~rstanding about that and w~ had two very good meetingss in my opinion. Maybe
they didnlt think so, but I think so.
MR. MORSE-Thank you Wayne. My name is Dick Morse. 11m with Morse Engine~ring
in Queensbury and I think I'll just briefly run through the list of comments s
not to reiterate things that we've already discussed s but Number One s these are
Nickls minutes of the meeting. Number One was incr~as~ th~ buffer. The citiz~ns
wished us to increase it from 80 feet to 150 feet s a compromise was made at 120
f~et. Silt fence and straw built dikes along th~ top of th~ slope has been
install~d as per the request. Suggested thr~e phases of excavation approximately
215 fe~t in l~ngth. We have stated that in the narrative to this. Recommended
pine seedlings. We have shown p ine s~edlings spaced at 20 feet throughout the
disturbed area. The test pit. We dug a test pit. The result has been present~d
to you. No blastings no crushings no screening was proposed. Th~y r~quest~d
~ that and we hav~ stated in the ~rrativ~ that it will not occur. They preferred
us to not bury the stumps on the site. That was an ~conomic hardship on us.
It I S something allowed by the Department of Environmental Conservation and we
are proposing to bury the stumpag~ on the site. B~fore excavation, they requested
that survey stakes be placed at the top of the slop~, the edge of th~ w~tland
and it's a 100 foot buffer and we've agreed to do that. Construct b~rms to dampen
noise. Th~re is a berm that I s been proposed on th~s th~ berm is proposed in
this(r~f~rring to drawing)and it's a natural berm that th~ vegetation would r~main
on and there is an existing berm throughout this ar~a.. W~ are not proposing
to cr~ate a berm, there's a short breach of 100 f~et in there and we I re not
proposing to do anything on that. They requested that w~ control dust by wat~ring
and we haves basicallys stat~d in th~ narrativ~ that we would do that.
MR. CARTIER-It says "surface tr~atment of som~ type" you' r~ not talking about
anything but water typ~?
3
'---
'---"
~'J
MR. MORSE-That is corr~ct. I'd hav~ to pull it outs but I b~li~v~ it stat~d that
it would b~ wat~r, th~ bas~ and th~ ~xcavation ar~a. Th~ el~v~nth it~m was limit
~xcavations Monday through Fridays 8 am to 5 pm. W~ agr~ed, but w~ ar~ proposing
to limit ~xcavation Monday through Saturday. Mr. Wood f~~1s that Saturday is
also a construction day. Th~y r~qu~st~d...th~ bottom ~l~vation at th~ s~dim~ntation
basin in ord~r that th~ fill would b~ r~mov~d from th~. .of th~ basins that has
b~~n don~. Th~ ~quipment should b~ limit~d to front end load~rs, trucks, and
dozers and w~ stat~d in th~ narrativ~ that would b~ accomplished. P~rform
p~rcolation t~st, w~ did and th~ ~vid~nc~ is shown on th~ drawing s I inch in 60
s~conds. D~t~rmine N~w York Stat~ jurisdiction on th~ Environm~ntal Conservation
p~rmits we hav~ don~s Wayn~ has r~spond~d to that and thos~ ar~ th~ ~nd of our
comm~nts that w~re brought forward to us at that me~ting. I would b~ mor~ than
happy to addr~ss any oth~r d~tails from the Board.
MR. JUDGE-Why don't you addr~ss th~ grad~ and th~ diff~renc~ in...
MR. MORSE-As w~ w~r~ discussing last months w~ w~r~ looking at different compromises
to try to come to some s~ttl~m~nt that satisfies our desir~s and also th~ d~sir~s
of th~ Gl~n Lak~ Association. One thing I had thought of was s at that time,
ste~pening th~ pits of the slop~ to pull this base forwards bring it in more on
to a 1 on 2. W~ have r~tain~ds and b~cause of concerns on th~ saf~ty of small
childr~n p laying in th~ areas s etc. that a flatt~r grade was more d~sirous of
th~ Planning Board. We have r~tain~d th~ 30 p~rc~nt grad~ s which is your limit
in Qu~ensbury and w~ have also compromis~d on pulling this bas~ to th~ 120 foot
buffer instead of th~ 80 foot buff~r that was r~quired or initially sp~cifi~d
and your r~gulations only r~quire a 50 foot buffer. So, I think that w~ hav~s
I b~li~ve that was one of the major conc~rns of both the Association and th~ Board
and I think that w~ hav~ compromis~d. W~ hav~ lost about 40,000 cubic yards of
mat~rial in that compromise.
MR. ROBERTS-W~ h~ld th~ public h~aring op~n. Is th~r~ anyon~ in the audi~nc~
who car~s to comment with any n~w it~ms? L~t' s not go over ~v~rything w~ talk~d
about b~for~.
MR. CAIMANO-B~for~ w~ start, can I ask on~ qu~stions fiv~ day work we~k? Is ther~
a r~gulation to limit that to fiv~ days?
MR. DUSEK-Not in our Zoning Ordinance.
MR. CAIMANO-Non~s okay.
MR. CARTIER-I kind of think thatls at your discretion.
MR. CAIMANO-I just wond~r~d if ther~ was anything I could put my hand ons that's
all.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Morse could you..th~ culv~rt siz~ in all of that.
MR. MORSE-I apologiz~. I spoke to Wayn~ Gannett of Rist-Frost this aft~rnoon
and w~ took a look at our computations. Th~ 15 inch culv~rt was sized for th~
crown v~ch slop~ of a, I thinks 35 p~rc~nt p~rm~ability or co~ffici~nt and w~
look~d at that again at a 50 p~rc~nt s which was sugg~st~d for our bar~ slop~
co~ffici~nt. The h~adwaters which is th~ driving forc~ on that 15 inch culv~rts
was proj~ct~d at 1. 7 f~~t. At 2 f~et of h~adwat~r s th~ culv~rt will pass th~
6 cfs that is now proj~ct~d for thats so w~ just hav~ to put ~nough cov~r on th~
pip~ to g~t it. SOs th~ 15 inch will r~spond or w~ could change th~ 15 inch to
a 21 or a 24 or som~thing lik~ thats by putting more dirt on it, it backs it up
furth~r.
MR. CARTIER-Sos as far as you'r~ conc~rn~ds th~ 15 inch culv~rt is satisfactory.
11m just trying to be cl~ar in my own minds h~r~.
MR. MORSE-W~ had proj~ct~d som~thing in th~ n~ighborhood of 4 cfs that would pass
through ands with th~ bar~ slop~ conditions it IS 6 cfs on that 2.3 acr~.
MR. FERGUSON-It sounds about right. IIll doubl~ ch~ck with Wayn~ b~caus~ I didnlt
hav~ an opportunity to talk with him today.
MR. MORSE-I did not g~t back to Wayn~ befor~ this tim~.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Anyon~ in th~ audi~nc~ who car~s to address this n~w information?
4
"---
'--"
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
ROBERT TOMPKINS
MR. TOMPKINS-My name is Rob~rt TQmpkins. I liv~ on Gl~nwQod Road and I did m~et
with Mr. Judg~ twic~ and had a v~ry nic~ m~~ting. Just two corr~ctions s th~ 150
foot buff~r was sugg~st~d by th~m. W~ agr~~d to it and th~ second thing is, on
th~ work on Saturday, w~ ask~d that th~y do that during Jun~, Julys and August
SQ we can sit Qut and us~ our yards withQut th~ mining gQing on right Ov~r th~
hill from us.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minut~, som~thing you us~d, th~y Qff~r~d a 150 foot buffer
and you agre~d to that.
MR. TOMPKINS-Y~s.
MR. CARTIER- In oth~r wQrds s the 120 fOQt numb~r you I r~ h~aring tonight is th~
first tim~?
MR. TOMPKINS-No. Th~ first agre~m~nt s then th~y sugg~s t~d 150 foot buff~r. W~
agr~~d tQ it and th~ Qth~r argum~nts that w~r~ on th~ tabl~. They said th~y had
tQ go back to th~ir cli~nt s I guess and they cam~ back with a s~cond m~~ting on
Thursday and th~y took back th~ 150 foot and said th~y would go 120.
MR. JUDGE-Of cQurs~s w~ w~r~ on a tWQ on on~ slQP~ at 150 feet and w~ w~nt to
a thr~~ on on~ slop~.
MR. TOMPKINS-Th~ s~cQnd CQmm~nt I hav~ is Qn th~ work Qn Saturdays. During th~
warm summ~r monthss part Qf th~ agr~~m~nts I think Mr. Judg~ und~rstoQd that our
position is w~' d lik~ to sit out in our yard without th~ mining op~ration going
on. Th~y could work Saturdays nin~ months a y~ar and giv~ us th~ summ~r and just
hav~ our w~~k~nds off and that's th~ tWQ comm~nts I hav~. Thank you.
MR. JUDGE-The busin~ss about th~ 150 fe~t. I don I t r~call what th~ fact was.
It might v~ry w~ll hav~ b~en that w~ proPQs~d 150 f~~ts but w~ w~r~ talking about
it in th~ cont~xt of a tWQ Qn on~ slop~ which is a v~ry diff~rent slop~ from a
thr~~ Qn Qn~ slQP~' Wh~n w~ w~nt tQ the thr~~ on sIQP~ at th~ 30 p~rc~nt grad~,
w~ lost 40s000 squar~ yards Qf fill and that's why w~ cam~ back with th~ cQmpromis~
Qf 120. It was nQt with th~ int~ntiQn of br~aking Qur word about 150 f~~t. Th~
s~cQnd issu~ about th~ wQrking on Saturdays s I can It P ledg~ that th~y won't work
on Saturdays during th~ summ~r. I find it incr~dible that th~y would find time
during this 12 w~~k s~aSQns tQ fr~~ up P~QP l~ tQ go OV~r and start digging wh~n
th~ park is in s~ssion Qn Saturday during th~ s~aSQns but Mr. Wood felt v~ry
strongly that his crews all work on Saturday and didn' t s~~ any r~ason why they
would hav~ to stop on Saturday.
MRS. PULVER-Didnlt I h~ar yQu say that you tOQk it frQm fiv~ y~ars tQ thr~~ y~ars.
\ MR. JUDGE-Y~s. W~ have nQt agr~~d to limit th~ prQj~ct frQm fiv~ y~ars to thr~~
::::) y~arss but we susp~ct that wh~n DEC issu~s our p~rmit, th~ylre going to limit
us to thr~~ y~ars becaus~ that's the limit that th~y'll giv~ us is thr~~ y~ars,
but thatls not th~ prQPosals h~r~s b~for~ th~ Board, fiv~ y~ars.
MR. ROBERTS-W~lls it do~snlt s~~m that th~y'd b~ dQing a lQt of construction work
wh~n th~ parking lots ar~ full, on th~s~ busy summ~r days.
MR. JUDGE-I would just lik~ to addr~ss th~ parking issu~, if I can b~caus~ I think
:jit's impQrtant fQr ~v~rybQdy tQ und~rstand thats first of aIls w~ have no blacktop
~ in any of th~ parking. S~cQndlys I think it's important to und~rstand that th~r~Is
parking that tak~s place Qn this sit~ 12 w~~ks out of 52 w~~ks in th~ y~ars which
is v~ry diff~r~nt from th~ corn~r Qf Rt. 149 and 9 wher~ th~r~' s blacktop and
th~re I sparking 12 mQnths of th~ y~ar and any salt that thQs~ cars pull up Qn
tQP Qf that blacktQP and drQP on th~ surfac~ go~s right into th~...and right into
Gl~n Lak~s right out of 149 and 9. It all drains down to Gl~n Lak~. Ev~rything
that happ~ns on th~ w~st~rly sid~ of Rout~ 9 or ~v~n on the ~ast~rly sid~ of Rout~
9 only happ~ns for 12 w~eks of th~ y~ar and it I S a porous surfac~. So s th~
~nvironm~ntal impact of any parking arQund this amus~m~nt park is much l~ss drastic
than ~v~rything that's b~~n apprQv~d on th~ cQrn~r of 149 and 9. Not to say it's
p~rf~ct s but c~rtainly s P~QP l~ should und~rstand what th~ impact of that parking
is. Itls minimal.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
5
---
'---"
MR. OlCONNOR-Mr. Chairmans 11m Micha~l O'Connor and 11m sp~aking individually
and on b~half of th~ Gl~n Lak~ Prot~ctiv~ Association. I hav~ four comm~nts with
r~gard to th~ propos~d sand pit and mayb~ I'm going to addr~ss th~m in rev~rs~
of what I first thought I would address th~m. I spokes last time w~ mets with
r~gard to wh~th~r or not a DEC mining p~rmit was r~quir~d. My inquiry of both
Raybrook and Warr~nsburg is that, in this circumstanc~, a mining p~rmit would
b~ r~quir~d.
MR. CARTIER-I hat~ to int~rrupt yous but I'm going to short circuit this. W~
hav~ a not~ in fil~ h~r~ that says that th~ DEC mining p~rmit is totallys ~ntirely
s~parat~ from Town of Qu~~nsbury Planning Board Sit~ Plan approval. So I don't
~v~n think w~ n~~d to discuss DEC approval. That's a totally s~parat~ issu~.
MR. OlCONNOR-The only reason that I sugg~st that w~ consid~r it is that th~ir
tim~ tabl~, at a maximum, is thr~~ y~ars. I would ask this Board to mak~ its
p~rmit a thr~e year permit and not a fiv~ year p~rmit so w~ wouldn I t hav~ a
conflicts particularly with th~ r~clamation programs that are going to b~ requir~d
und~r two diff~r~nt jurisdictions s particularly if this Board is taking th~ l~ad
ag~ncy r~vi~w und~r SEQRA. I think that it should b~ som~what simultan~ous, not
s~parat~ and distinct and that' s th~ only purpos~ that I m~ntion that. The
~x~mption that is claim~d th~r~ is not an ~x~mption which would allow you to tak~
th~ fill and us~ it som~ p lac~ els~ on your sit~. Th~ ~xemption is if you mak~
an ~xcavation and build on that particular sit~. Th~r~' s no propos~d building
on this particular barrow pit sit~. SOs I would asks we did hav~ a coupl~ of
m~~tings s th~y w~r~ v~ry fruitful m~~tings s and w~ cam~ to som~ good agr~~m~nts
as to th~ actual m~rits and th~ actual substanc~ of th~ proposal b~for~ this Board.
Th~ on~ issu~ that w~ did hav~ was wh~th~r or not this would also b~ subj~ct to
DEC jurisdiction and w~ ask~d th~ app licant to submit that on a voluntary basis,
on~ for th~ thr~~ program and s~condly, th~y also r~quir~ that this Board sand
this Board do~s not r~quir~, a r~clamation plan. Th~ oth~r comm~nt of substanc~
that I hav~ as to what has b~~n propos~d is th~ back filling and th~ us~ of stumps
and d~bris that is gath~r~d on th~ sit~ for back filling. I think th~ id~a of
using that g~n~rally is wh~r~ youlll put it into th~ floor of a pit and not wh~r~
you III put it into a grad~d wall wh~r~ you ar~ trying hard to maintain and avoid
~rosion down th~ road. I can I t imagin~ how you' r~ going to put that into th~
sid~ of th~ hill and not hav~ that hills ~v~ntually, ~rod~ away as that mat~rial
disint~grat~s in tim~. Eith~r hav~ th~m put it in th~ floor of th~ pits which
is a possibility, or have th~m tak~ it compl~t~ly off sit~. Th~ oth~r comm~nt
that I hav~ is s I think, of substanc~ and that is, agains you ar~ b~ing ask~d
to look und~r SEQRA and you' v~ got a long form SEQRA r~vi~w to do wi th r~gard
to this particular proj~ct and you ar~ not b~ing ask~d to look at th~ ~ntir~ s~t
of activiti~s. I IV~ got a copy of a portion of th~ Stat~ Environm~ntal Quality
R~vi~w Act which I'll submit to th~ Boards a coupl~ of copi~s of.
MR. CAIMANO-Just to answ~r that s th~ SEQRA r~gulations r~quir~ that w~ look at
it as a whol~. W~ will b~ looking at it as a whol~.
MR. OICONNOR-Th~ portion that 11m talking about that I don't think has b~~n
addr~ss~d ~xc~pt s I thinks in Engin~~ring Comm~nts, was what is going to happ~n
to th~ mat~rial that is r~mov~d. Youlr~ talking about r~moving 83s000 cubic yards
of fill. That is s p~rhaps s a nonr~gulat~d activity, but b~caus~ it I S part of
a regulat~d activity, in obtaining a sit~ plan r~vi~w to g~t th~ right to tak~
that outs you th~n hav~ jurisdiction ov~r looking at where it will b~ d~posit~d.
I had ask~d, as part of our pr~s~ntation to th~ applicant, in particular as to
th~ first part of th~ proj~ct that th~y propos~, putting a good amount of this
fill on th~ w~st sid~ of Rout~ 9s that th~y simply show us that th~y hav~ tak~n
th~ sam~ typ~ of car~ and conc~rn with r~gard to ~rosion control on wh~r~ th~
fill will b~ p lac~d as w~ll as wh~r~ th~ fill will b~ tak~n from. Th~ S~ction
that I hav~ look~d at says that th~ ~ntir~ s~t of activiti~s or st~ps shall b~
consid~r~d th~ action. Consid~ring only a part or s~gm~nt of th~ action is contrary
to th~ int~nt of SEQRA. SOs until you hav~ som~ typ~ of plan which shows you
wh~r~ th~ known quantity of fill is going to go and how it's going to b~ tr~ateds
I think, as ~ith~r it was suggest~d by your Engin~~ring Staff or in hous~ Staffs
you hav~ an incompl~t~ application b~fore you.
MR. ROBERTS-I b~li~v~ our Couns~l has told us that it was appropriat~ for us to
r~vi~w this S~ction. I think that that' s som~thing w~ can tak~ to th~ bank and
as far as what th~ grav~l is going to b~ us~d fors it's going to b~ us~d fors
w~'v~ alr~ady b~~n told.
MR. CAIMANO-I thought so.
6
~
MR. ROBERTS-R~pair and maint~nanc~ of th~ parking lot. It's no big s~cr~t.
MR. DUSEK-Maybe I could clarify what s at l~ast I was thinking of, wh~n I was
sp~aking to th~ Board about s~parate actionss I was consid~ring th~ roll~r coast~rs
I gu~ss it is s first is th~ ~xcavation is two s~parat~ actions that could b~
consid~r~d s~parat~ly. I don't think anybody would hav~ any disput~ of that.
I think what Mr. O'Connor is r~f~rring to is a s~ction in th~ D~partm~nt of
Environm~ntal Cons~rvations rul~s and r~gulations which ar~ applicabl~ to SEQRA
which basically stat~s that th~ ~ntir~ s~t of activiti~s or st~ps will b~ consid~r~d
in th~ action wh~th~r th~ ag~ncy d~cision making r~lat~s to th~ action as a whol~
or only to a part of it. In oth~r words s what Mik~ is saying is that your
r~gulations in th~ cas~ d~a1s only with th~ ~xcavation which is a part of its
but th~ fill's going to b~ us~d on th~ prop~rtys sOs th~r~for~s you ought to find
out wh~r~ that fills going to b~ sur~ that that I s not s in turn, going to caus~
an ~nvironm~ntal probl~m. Nows SEQRAs thoughs also provid~ss which mak~s th~
analysis on your part a littl~ mor~ difficults thats wh~n you'r~ consid~ring only
a part or s~gm~nts if you b~li~v~ that th~ circumstanc~s warrant a s~gm~nt~d r~vi~ws
th~n you must cl~arly stat~ that and r~vi~w that. SOs it's not 100 p~rc~nt cl~ar
that you hav~ to r~vi~w its althoughs in this particular cas~s I would say that
if you donlt r~view it as to wh~r~ th~ fill's goings youlr~ n~v~r going to r~vi~w
it b~caus~ it IS not r~gulat~d in th~ fashion that I know of.
MR. KUPILLAS-Ar~ you r~f~rring to wh~r~ it's going or wh~r~ it I s going to b~
stockpil~d away for futur~ us~?
MR. O'CONNOR-Wh~r~ it's going in th~ first instanc~. As I und~rstand its it's
not going to b~ stockpil~d ~xc~pt as itls us~d. It's not going to b~ s~parat~ly
tak~n out and bank~d. It's going to b~ us~d as bank run grav~l and tak~n dir~ctly
to a sit~ that itls going to b~ us~d. Th~ only thing that I am awar~ ofs at this
points is that th~y ar~ going to rais~ th~ l~v~l of th~ parking lot on th~ w~st
sid~ of Rout~ 9s outsid~ th~ 100 foot buff~r zone of th~ str~am that go~s through
that portion, but th~y ar~ going to substantially rais~ th~ l~v~l of that. Th~y
ar~ going to pav~ part of that and simplys what IIv~ ask~d fors is ~rosion and
drainag~ plan that show that that's not going to ~nd up f~~ding into that str~am
that go~s through th~r~.
MR. CAIMANO-W~lls segm~nting it mak~s no logical s~ns~. It mak~s no s~ns~ to
fill out a compl~t~ full SEQRA form on taking it out ifs in facts w~'r~ not going
to d~t~rmin~ wh~r~ it IS going to b~. It just do~snlt s~~m to mak~ logical s~ns~.
It s~~ms to m~ w~ ought to do it as a whol~s but thatls just my f~~ling.
MR. JUDGE-W~Iv~ don~ a consid~rabl~ amount of r~s~arch on this as w~ll and th~
issu~ has b~~n prop~rly d~t~rmin~d as one of s~gm~ntation. Th~ plans from th~
starts was not to go at th~ application proc~ss for a privat~ sand and grav~l
pit in a pi~c~m~al basis so that W~, would b~ back h~r~ ~v~ry y~ar, ~v~ry tim~
w~ n~ed~d sand and grav~l. Th~ conc~pt of s~gm~ntation would apply if w~ had
a proj~ct involv~d. This was part of our d~bat~ with th~ D~partm~nt of
Envíronm~ntal Cons~rvations if w~ w~r~ ~ngag~d in som~ project ~ls~wh~r~ wh~r~
w~ n~~d~d fill. Th~ fill is b~ing us~d for ordinary maint~nanc~. This is what
w~ disclos~d to th~ Staff wh~n w~ start~d this proj~ct. Th~ purpos~ of using
th~ fill short-t~rm and th~r~ I s no law on this s I m~an ~v~ryon~ I s talking about s
w~ll th~ r~gulations say this or say that. Wh~n I say th~r~ is no laws th~r~
ar~ not a lot of cas~s d~cid~d on this point, so Mik~ can go up and giv~ you his
interpr~tation of what s~gm~ntation is and your Town Attorn~y can and I can and
w~ III probably all be right until som~ law suit is decid~d on this issu~ s but
law suits tak~ tim~s y~arss b~for~ th~y'r~ d~cid~d. The issu~ that you hav~ b~for~
you has b~~n totally disclos~d to the Towns to th~ Staff and to th~ Town Engin~~r.
--........ \In th~ short-term, w~ I re going to us~ th~ fill to fill in th~ low spots for th~
~arking lot so that this amus~m~nt park can b~ th~ host to this Am~ricad~ this
spring. Th~r~Is som~ urg~ncy to it. W~ mad~ compl~t~ disclosur~ of what w~'r~
going to do on th~ short-t~rm of this fill. W~ also mad~ compl~t~ disclosur~
that w~ don't know what w~ I r~ going to do with th~ r~st of th~ fill s in th~
long-t~rms oth~r than us~ it for ordinary maint~nanc~ in th~ park and that m~ans
sanding in wint~r tim~ or what~v~r p~opl~ us~ for ordinary maint~nanc~s filling
up low spotss w~ hav~ porous parking lotss th~ylr~ not blacktopp~d. SOs th~ hol~s
hav~ to be fill~d in, ruts hav~ to b~ fill~d ins that' s th~ purpos~. It's an
~nvironm~ntally n~utral act. During our informal conf~r~nc~ in Mik~ I s offic~ s
th~ sugg~stion was mad~s wouldnlt it b~ nic~ if w~ could grad~ that whol~ parking
lot on the w~st sid~ of th~ Rout~ 9 so that it grad~s back against s away froms
th~ str~am that's going down th~ middl~ and towards th~ R~d Coach Grill. A lot
of things would b~ nic~ s but w~ don I t want to do that. W~ want to l~av~ it th~
sam~ way that's th~r~. W~ donlt
G
----"
want to change it and when you say w~ want you to analyze th~ ~nvironmental impact
of not changing somethings I would like to see somebody do that. We don't propose
to chang~ anything. I donlt know how somebody can analyze the lack of a change.
MR. ROBERTS-Is it true that some of the parking lot is going to be paved?
MR. JUDGE-There is a horseshoe ar~a in the parking lot that is going to be paved
so that thes~ people can driv~ their motorcycles around, y~s.
MR. ROBERTS-How close would that paving be to the stream?
MR. JUDGE-At the closest points
thatls not going to be changed.
the newest paving will be 110
I think it has to be 50 feet.
therels a paved portion th~re now where you enters
That's about 60 or 70 feet. At the closest point,
feet away from the stream. Under the Town codes
MR. CAIMANO-Well, l~t me ask you a question. Nobody is thinking that youlr~ going
to do any nefarious deeds, but doesn't it sound logical to you that we take the
whol~ thing as a whole. Right now, you want to do what you want to do and I see
that completely, but you and I have no way of knowing whatlll be done 2 and a
half to three years down the road by somebody who does something which is contrary
to SEQRA. Wouldn I t it make more sense to fill out our Environmental SEQRA Form
as a wholes knowing full well that something might happen down the road that you
and I have no control over? W~Ire not saying therels any nefarious deeds.
MR. JUDGE-What would be fills I don't know. What would we fill in?
MR. CAIMANO- I haven't a clue s yet s but som~how I hate to leave that loop hol~
open so that someones down th~ roads that you and I don't even know, coulds as
you say how can we predict the futur~? We can'ts but we can ti~ up a loopholes
though.
MR. ROBERTS-I think th~ statement' s alr~ady been mades it I s going to be used for
normal repair and maintenance of the facility.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-And why can It we tak~ that at face value.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. 0 I CONNOR-I don I t necessarily have a suggestion that would probably resolve
its but I'm thinking how about some amount of fill befores and just require that
the applicant show to the Building Staff that it will be positively drained and
it will not create environmental problems. If he I s going to use in excess of
a thousands five thousand cubic yards in any particular project at any particular
time. As I understand it this is not, I've asked for the quantity, I donlt know
the quantity thatls going to be put on the w~st side of the highway.
MR. CAIMANO-I donlt ~ven think th~y know.
MR. JUDGE-I don't know.
MR. OlCONNOR-How large an area are you going to cover and to what depth. I means
we can calculate.. .of it quickly. You Ive ask~d the qu~stion and you just can't
seem to get that answered. My understanding is that they I re going to raise it
maybe thre~ f~et.
MR. JUDGE-Three fe~t? No. Thatls absolutely ridiculous.
'(
MR. 01 CONNOR-Well, this is my question. Tell uSs quantitativelys what youlre
doing and any other time that we've had new parking areas establish~d or ~v~n
any time that we get involved with reconstruction of thems w~'ve be~n required
to show that th~y do not cr~ate a drainag~ problem or that if there is a drainage
probl~m theres it IS being corrected as much as possible and thatls the only thing
I've asked. I don't think you even get into an argum~nt of segmentation here
becauses as I understand its we went through this argument last year when w~ had
the Water Slide application on the table. If they ar~ not filling within a buffer
zone of the wetlands they can fill to their hearts content. SOs this is going
to be the only shot that you folks ar~ going to g~t to look at that. If you deem
it advisables look at it. Onc~ you give th~m permission to take 83,000 yards
8
'---'
'--'
outs as I und~rstand it, th~y can tak~ it ov~r and mak~ a hill out Qf it. I think
you hav~ an QPPQrtunity here to make sur~ that a probl~m is not creat~d and that's
th~ only thing I'v~ asked.
MR. ROBERTS-WQuld it be unreasonable tQ put some limitations on the amQunt Qf
fill. H~.. .has a pr~tty gQQd sized project.. .tQ mak~ sur~ we are not going to
do the stream SQme harm. I don't know what numb~r w~ could us~.
MR. JUDGE-The entire proj~ct has already b~~n review~d by the Building Department
and w~ w~r~ told that another permit was nQt requir~d tQ do what w~ w~re doing.
When w~ talk about p~rmitting, what mQres I mean if I was this persQn who applied
for this garage last w~~k and came up here and told yQU that we went to th~ Building
Departm~nts that we hired a lawyers w~ looked up th~ statute and w~ all cQncluded
that thes~ w~re th~ Qnly permits that w~r~ n~c~ssary, but w~ came her~ tonight
and th~y told us six mQre, yQu may says w~lls the guy did his bests but becaus~
welre talking abQut Attractions Land, somehows I think w~Ire being h~ld to a
different standard. Th~ Building D~partment has a cQmpl~t~ set Qf plans Qf th~
Americade prQj~ct. W~ changed the plans fQr the Americad~ prQject b~cause of
sugg~stions mad~ to us by th~ Building Department. Actually, that macadam was
closer tQ th~ str~am when w~ start~d. W~ chang~d it. We had to put it out to
bid again so that we could satisfy the requir~m~nts Qf the Building Department.
NQw, if s basically, we had tQ t~ll yQu every p lace wher~ that sand was going to
go over the n~xt five y~ars, if itls nQt required by the statutes it might b~
nice, but what kind Qf gQvernment dQ w~ have? It's nQt requireds why shQuld we
dQ it? If you want ev~rybQdy to dQ it s then require ~v~rybody to do it and make
it a part Qf yQur law. DQnlt r~quir~ us tQ dQ it.
MR. ROBERTS-Apparently the.. .Qf the Building D~partm~nt is taking car~ of this
matt~r.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you know anything about it?
MR. BAKER-I know th~ plans were review~d by Dav~ Hatins th~ Dir~ctQr of Buildings
and Codess as well as by Lee YQrk and John Goralski from th~ Planning Department.
MR. ROBERTS-W~ll s I dQn I t f~~l uncQmfortable working with that. W~ can I t do
~verything Qurs~lv~s. W~ hav~ oth~r departm~nts and v~ry capabl~ peopl~ and
appar~ntly they' r~ dQing thdr job. I think w~ are at the PQint of trying to
gQ through Part II of the LQng Environmental FQrm and p~rhaps some of th~s~
qu~stions will com~ up again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 13-90s Introduced by P~ter Carti~r who mov~d for its adoptions
s~conded by NichQlas CaimanQ:
WHEREAS ther~ is pr~sently b~fQre this Planning Board an application for:
CQntinuation and expansion of private sand and gravel extraction of 83,000 cubic
yards over a 5 year period on property known as, or own~d by ATTRACTIONS LAND,
INC. and
WHEREASs this Planning BQard has d~termined that th~ propos~d proj~ct and Planning
BQard action is subj~ct to r~view under th~ State Environm~ntal Quality Review
Act,
NOW s THEREFORE s BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No fed~ral ag~ncy app~ars to be invQlved.
2. The fQllowing ag~nci~s are invQlv~d:
Department of Environm~ntal CQnservatiQn (in t~rms of th~ mining p~rmit)
3. Th~ proPQs~d actiQn cQnsid~red by this Board is unlist~d in th~ D~partment
Qf Environm~ntal Cons~rvation R~gulations implem~nting the State Environm~ntal
Quality R~view Act and the r~gulatiQns of th~ Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environm~ntal Assessm~nt Form has be~n cQmpl~ted by the applicant.
9
"---'
--
5. Having consid~r~d and thQroughly analyz~d th~ re1~vant ar~as of ~nvironm~ntal
concern and having consid~r~d th~ crit~ria for d~t~rmining wh~th~r a proj~ct
has a significant ~nvirQnm~ntal impact as th~ sam~ is s~t forth in S~ctiQn
617.11 Qf th~ Official CQmpilatiQn Qf CQd~ss Rul~s and R~gulatiQns for th~
Stat~ Qf N~w YQrk, this BQard finds that th~ action about to b~ und~rtak~n
by this BQard will hav~ nQ significant ~nvirQnm~nta1 ~ff~ct or at l~ast that
th~ ~ff~cts hav~ b~~n mitigat~d and that t~h Chairman of th~ Planning Board
is h~r~by authoriz~d tQ ~x~cut~ and sign and fil~ as may b~ n~c~ssary a
stat~m~nt of non-significanc~ or a n~gativ~ d~claration that may b~ r~quir~d.
by law.
Duly adQPt~d this 27th day Qf Marchs 1990, by th~ fQllQwing vot~:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Kupillass Mr. CaimanQs Mr. RQb~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
MR. CARTIER-Do yQU know th~ hQurs Qf th~ hours of op~ration, 8 to 5?
MR. JUDGE-8 am to 5 pm, MQnday through Saturday.
MR. CAIMANO-W~ IV~ only had Qn~ s~rious r~qu~st h~r~ this ~v~ning frQm th~ public
and I don I t s~e any reason why w~ shQuld d~ny that r~qu~st and that is r~ducing
th~ hQurs of op~ratiQns to fiv~ dayss on th~ r~cord through Jun~s Julys and Augusts
at l~ast.
MR. CARTIER-Not all y~ar long?
MR. CAIMANO-That's fin~ with m~. Th~y hav~ r~qu~st~d Jun~s July, and August.
MR. CARTIER-May and S~pt~mb~r and Octob~r can b~ nic~ outdQor mQnths tOQ.
MR. CAIMANO-What~v~r.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-90 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (GRAVEL EXTRACTION),
Introduc~d by P~t~r Carti~r whQ mov~d for its adQptiQn, s~cQnded by Nicholas
Caimano:
For continuation of privat~ sand and gravel ~xtraction Qf 83s000 cubic yards ov~r
a 5 y~ar p~riod knQwn as AttractiQns Land Incorporat~d with th~ follQwing
stipulatiQns Qr cQnditiQns: that ~rQsion cQntrQ1 d~vic~s b~ car~ful1y and r~gularly
monitQr~ds particularly t~mpQrary ditch A and that a 15 inch culv~rt b~ us~d as
long as cQnditions can be met that will allow that size culvert to b~ used; that
th~ project b~ carried out as out1in~d by the r~PQrt of Mors~ Engineering dated
January 1 s 1990 and revis~d in March 1990 with the follQwing stipulations: that
it be phased from ~ast to w~st rather than w~st to east for r~asons stat~d in
Mr. Bak~r IS nQtes Qf 3/21; that wat~r s Qnly s b~ us~d for dust cQntrol and that
speed limits by vehicl~s mQving sand and grav~l b~ limit~d to 10 mil~s p~r hour
to cut down Qn dust; that it b~ a bank run operation only and that nQ blastings
crushing or screening devic~s b~ us~d in the operatiQn; that th~ hours of operatiQn
b~ from 8 am to 5 pms lQcal tim~ s Qn a Monday thrQugh Friday bas is; that fenc~s
alQng th~ northern propos~d cl~aring limit gQ around all tr~es in qu~stion to
allow for th~ prot~ctiQn of all th~ tre~s l~ft in th~ buffer ar~a; that silt fence
b~ plac~d betw~~n th~ existing dirt rQad and th~ Gl~n Lake w~tland;
MR. CARTIER-Just let me paus~ h~r~ for a s~cond. Did w~ d~al with th~ questiQn
of 10catiQn of stumpag~?
MR. BAKER-There was som~ discussiQn Qn it. I don't knQw if the Board has com~
tQ a decision Qn wh~r~ you would lik~ th~ stumpag~ buri~d.
MR. MORSE-W~ can put it in th~ flQor of th~ pit.
that all stump b~ buri~d in th~ floor of th~ pit rath~r than in th~ pit wall and
that no activity of an excavation natur~ tak~ place in the 100 foot buff~r zon~
surrounding th~ wetland; that soils to th~ SQuth and ~ast of the acc~ss roads
which ar~ to be disturb~d when th~ discharg~ pipe from th~ s~diment trap is
install~d b~ stabiliz~d and s~~deds imm~diat~lys to pr~v~nt s~dimentation and
~rosiQn probl~ms; that the app lication is in comp lianc~ with Articl~ 5 s S~ction
5.070 8.
10
"--
---'
Duly adopted this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by the following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
MR. CAIMANO-Did you mention 5.070?
MR. CARTIER-Befor~ I do thats I want to look at it again.
MR. ROBERTS-Pag~ 66 of the Ordinance.
MR. CARTIER-That r~fers to Type I and Type II Sit~ Plan R~views.
MR. DUSEK-That languag~s I believes is a carry ov~r from the old Ordinanc~. It
do~s not r~ally refer to Typ~ I s Type II as in SEQRA. Anyway you look at it
throughout th~ Ordinance it do~s not seem to correlat~s so it is my opinion that
you can disregard that and this would apply anytime you issu~ a site plan approval.
MR. CARTIER-Thank yous that makes my life easi~r. Wells it's in compliance with
A. Do I need to read these out loud?
MR. ROBERTS-I suppose they should be written into the record.
MR. DUSEK-For purpos~s of the r~cords it might b~ easier.
MR. CARTIER-Okay s I I m r~ading from th~ Ordinanc~ Section 5. 070 r~quirements for
unlisted sit~ plan revi~w. "A - The us~ complies with all of the requir~m~nts
of this Ordinanc~ s including the dimensional r~gulations of the zoning district
in which it is proposed to be located." It is in comp lianc~. Item B "The us~
will b~ in harmony with the g~neral purpos~ or int~nt of this Ordinanc~s
specifically taking into account th~ locations charact~r, and size of the propos~d
us~ and th~ description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposeds
the natur~ and int~nsity of th~ activities to b~ involved in or conducted in
connection with th~ propos~d use and th~ nature or rate of any increase to th~
burden on supporting public servic~s and facilities which will follow the approval
of the propos~d us~." Itls a p~rmitt~d action in an RC Zon~. "c Th~
~stablishm~nts maintenances or operation of the proposed us~ would not create
public hazards from traffics traffic congestion, or th~ parking of v~hicles and/or
~quipment or to be otherwis~ detrim~ntal to healths safety s or general w~lfar~
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of
the Town."
MR. DUSEK-I think you could summariz~ D if you want to sav~ yourself som~ tim~.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MR. ROBERTS-Well s we I ve really pretty w~ll gon~ over all th~ r~st of it as part
of the SEQRA.
MR. CAIMANO-Thatls right, D has b~en, has it not?
MR. DUSEK-Some of the it~ms. I think some of the itemss her~s you might find
a littl~ different s just to make sur~ that your satisfi~d that your comfortabl~
with th~ stat~ment ther~. I don't think you have to read that entire stat~m~nt
into th~ record. Itls clear from th~ record that you've consid~red it.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I'm looking at E. ..consider~d all the it~ms under E,
so I would also add to the motion that the application is in complianc~ with Articl~
5 Section 5.070 8.
MR. CAIMANO-How about 7.050?
MR. ROBERTS-The public hearing has basically been closed.
MR. OlCONNOR-I hav~ one questions Mr. Chairman, if I might and it's just a matter
of savings maybe, everybody a problem as far as...and thatls a comm~nt that Mr.
Cartier said. I basically have two comments. On~s this is an LC-42 acre zone
and it is a permitt~d use in there. Itls not RC. S~condlys you indicat~d, and
I think Staff indicated that th~r~ would b~ a silt f~nce along the access road
11
-..
-/
bêcausê Qf thê incrêasêd traffic. I don't think that's shown any p lacê on thê
plans that havê bêên submittêd. I would ask talking about thê whol~ aCCêSS of
th~ dirt road as it gOês along thê b~nd and I hopê that it would bê.
MR. CARTIER-Yês s corrêct. Sinc~s in thê Building D~partmênt s wh~n sQmêbody go~s
out to look at that just to Sêê that itls in complianc~s thêY will bê following
stipulations madê in motion. Corr~ct?
MR. BAKER-Corrêct.
MR. CARTIER-Sos that will bê pickêd up on.
MR. CAIMANO-Pet~rs could w~ also stipulatê in h~rê that it CQmp1iês with 7.050
and 7.051 and 7.052 and 7.060 and 7.061 b~caus~ thatls...additional too.
MR. BAKER-I bêliêVê thQsê w~rê cov~rêd wh~n Mr. Cartiêr statêd that thê action
is in compliancê with all zoning.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Thank you.
,¡y/J SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. OWNER: SAME
..;J.,.J- ' AS ABOVE (ROLLER COASTER) ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD TO ERECT A ROLLER COASTER
:J ON THE FORMER CAMPGROUND SITE AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING) TAX
MAP NO. 36-2-7 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION 4.020 I
WAYNE JUDGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT; DICK MORSE, MORSE ENGINEERINGs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from John Goralskis Plannêr (attachêd)
ENGINEER REPORT
Not~s by Wayn~ Gannêtts Town Enginêêr (attach~d)
MR. ROBERTS-Again, Wê w~rê mostly conc~rnêd about thê noisê issu~ at thê last
m~êting. w~ 'Vê all beên giv~n COpiêS of, trying to makê oursêlvês all êxp~rts
on noisê hêr~s by thê Planning Dêpartmênt. I can...thê applicant as w~ll.
MR. CARTIER-Can I ask on~ qu~stion of Engin~êring. In th~ notês from Rist-Frost
dat~d F~bruary 23rd, 1990s thêrê Wêr~ two commênts, the nêW 212 contour should
bê corrêct~d.. . HaVê thos~ bêên addrêss~d by thê applicant that you Wêr~ awarê
of?
MR. FERGUSON-ThêY shQwêd SOmê drywêlls and contouring.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MR. ROBERTS-W~ hav~ a lêtt~r hêr~ frQm th~ Citiz~nls Advisory CQmmitt~ê on Accêss
for thê Handicapp~d. ThêY would 1ik~ you to kêêp in mind an accêssibl~ approach
to for thê disablêd to th~ propos~d roll~r coastêr.
MR. JUDGE-I'd likê to addr~ss th~ handicappêd qu~stion. WêlVê had cQrrêsPQndêncê
and conf~rênc~s with various handicappêd groups both hêrê and in Buffalo rêlating
to aCCêSS to ridês in thê park. Thê currênt r~gulation is sêvêrêly handicapp~d
pêople arê êncouragêd not to rid~ on somê of thês~ ridêss but if thêrêls an issu~
of wh~thêr or not p~Oplê should havê pêrmission to gQ on somê of thêsê ridês s
Wê discuss it with thêm or thêir rêprês~ntativês. Handicappêd pêoplê arê givên
discounts tQ com~ to thê park. W~ I rê cêrtainly not going to admit a handicappêd
pêrson aCCêSS to a ride whêrê thêY could gêt hurt and that's going to b~ thê policy
of thê park.
MR. ROBERTS-Why don't you fill us in on...traffic study and so forth.
MR. MORSE-I would likê to addr~ss th~ noiSê study that was prêparêd by our
organization. My nam~ is Dick Morsês 11m with Morse Enginêêring, QUê~nsbury,
NY and basically at thê rêsponsê of th~ BQard and concêrnêd citizêns in thê
n~ighborhoods Wê did pr~parê a noisê study. Wê mad~ thê assumption that a noisê
lêvêl of 9S dêcib~lss which is ~quivalênt to insidê of a subway train in N~w Yorks
with a similar nois~ to what might b~ Qccurring on thê roll~r coaster. Wê also
êvaluatêd thê êxisting ambi~nt nois~ lêVêl in a nQn-us~ pêriod of th~ park. ThoSê
rêcQrdings Wêrê takên on March 14th from 8: 30 am to 9: 00 am at various 10catiQns
around the park. On
12
the Whalen property line up on th~ hill at th~ closest proximity to the roller
coasters the ambi~nt noise l~v~l was 56 dBa. At the Municipal C~nter on th~ access
road to the parking area adjacent to th~ Municipal Center off of Gl~n Lake Road
or 100 f~et from Glen Lake Road s the ambient nois~ levels wer~ 62 d~cib~ls. W~
then evaluated the deterioration of a 95 decibel noise l~vel at varying distances.
We have provided that information to you on Page 3 of our report and there also
is a graph s that graphically represents that in case th~re I s other p~op l~ who
have concerns at varying other distances. Of the two prop~rti~s that we w~re
conc~rned withs or the two areas of concern that were expressed by local citizenss
Mr. Whal~ns we founds without tree cover, that the noise level would b~ in the
neighborhood of 56 decibels from that 95 decibel source being the roller coasters
the clos~st parts... property and the decibel r~adings we assume that th~re was
a hundred foot tree cov~r there and that hundred feet would reduc~ the dB r~ading
by 5 decib~ls s so w~ came up with a projection of 51 decibels. At Courthouse
Estates s a distance of some 7 s 500 fe~t s the decaying of that noise would be in
the neighborhood of 27 decibels. I think what we w~re trying to show by comparing
thes~ decib~l readings with th~ existing ambi~nt non-functioning of the park decibel
readings was that both of thes~ decibel r~adings wer~ below the projected readings,
th~ projected noise would be b~low that of ambient nois~ levels on a day when
therels no activity at the park and thats ev~n when combining thes~ two readingss
the maximum decibel increase would be thr~e decibels as point~d out to you by
Staff. You don't add 50 and 50 and ge:t one hundred d~cibels. If you added 50
and 50s you would get 53 decib~ls. SOs in conclusions wes basicallys resolved
that th~ installation of the roller coaster at a 50 or 95 dB r~ading would not
increase the noise level at either of these places. Traffic was addressed by
Wayn~.
MR. JUDGE-As to parking?
MR. MORSE-Parking.
MR. ROBERTS-Or traffic.
MR. JUDGE-Wayne Judge. We submitted a study don~ by Stemoffs which is mostly
th~oretical and based on traffic counts that wer~ made in connection with th~
Bavarian Palace. His conclusions with regard to the parkings reallys candidlys
doesn I t add much more to what I said last time. He concluded that there will
be no parking problems but the issue comes down to the purpose of putting this
ride in is to keep people coming back to th~ park. We donlt know wheth~r it will
incr~ase th~ att~ndance at th~ park and itls impossibl~ to scientifically projects
that s if you put another ride in the parks that you will necessarily get more
peopl~. It doesn't follow. If you advertis~ mores you might get more p~opl~s
but it do~sn' t follow that if you anoth~r ride in the parks that you're going
to g~t mor~ p~op Ie s but s when you I re consid~ring the parking problems without
belaboring this point that I bored everybody with last times in consid~ring the
parking problems please consider that this is 12 weeks on a porous surface and
it I S probably the least s environmentally obtrusiv~ kind of parking that you'll
find.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairmans if I may, before we g~t into discussions the Planning
Department has received three letters s new l~tters s on this issu~ which should
b~ read into th~ record.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Read letters. Attention Board M~mbers: As we are unable to att~nd
your March 27ths 1990 meetings we are writing to express our concern over the
Great Escape's propos~d roller coast~r. Our property boarders that of the form~r
Gr~at Escap~ Campground sit~ which would literally put th~ proposed roller coaster
in our back yard. We cannot imagin~ having such a roller coaster installed that
close to our home and w~ feel that a ride of this size should not be plac~d any
wh~re near a privat~ r~sidence. There are many Glen Lake homeown~rs who are already
inconvenienc~d by the noise from the Great Escape and a roller coaster of this
nature would substantially increase that noise level creating an intolerabl~
situation that would eff~ct us, ~very day, all day long, throughout the entire
summ~r. W~ ask that th~ Board consider these facts and take whatever steps
n~cessary to see that this roll~r coaster is not installed. Sincerely yours s
Thomas H. and Catherine S. Alboreto.
To whom it may concern: I work the 3 to 11 shift and cannot make your meeting
this ~vening. I do not feel that the Great Escap~ should install a roller coast~r
of this size any wher~ n~ar private hom~own~rs. As it is s th~ noise from the
Great Escape is heard throughout th~ ar~a. A roll~r coast~r of this size would
13
"-.../
cr~ate nois~ and scr~aming that would b~ impossible to deal with on a daily basis.
I f~el that it will caus~ d~preciation of prop~rty values of th~ adjacent prop~rty
owners and urge you not to approve of its installation. Sincerelys David W. Stevens
To the Qu~ensbury Planning Board: We cannot att~nd Tuesdayl s meetings but wish
to voic~ our objection to th~ new roller coaster th~ Great Escape is proposing
to install. By Mr. Charles Wood and now continuing by the new own~rs, the amus~ment
park has been allowed to expand and ~xpand and now expand again. Taking into
account the hug~ ~xpand~d parking lotss th~ park is becoming a hazard. To r~peat,
we are against the additional roller coaster and trust the Queensbury Planning
Board will use common sense and d~ny the requ~st. Rob~rt T. and Ann~ Morris
And we have a fourth letter to the Queensbury Planning Board from Paul and Ray
Polit of 68 Nelson Road in Courthouse Estates. M~mbers of the Planning Board,
th~ rear of our house faces directly toward Glen Lakes the w~tlandss and the rear
sections of the Great Escape. In the summ~r months s wh~n we have th~ windows
opens and wh~n we are able to be out of doors on our deck, we are often annoyed
by the loud sounds coming across th~ valley from the Great Escape. The noises
range from loud singing and the voice of the master of c~r~monies from the stag~
productions to weird bird calls and jungle sounds. Several times during the last
thr~~ summ~r s we and sev~ral of our n~ighbors have phoned the Great Escape to
ask them to turn down th~ speak~rs in th~se areas so that w~ could relax on our
deck and converse without this unwanted disturbance. We have not solaced ourselves
with the fact thats at least the shows are not continuous, taking place only a
few times ~ach day with some qui~t tim~ for us in betw~en. The proposed roller
coast~r will undoubt~dly be ~xtrem~ly noisy and the riders will be scr~aming th~ir
heads off at ~very turn. This will be a continual occurrence from op~ning till
closing which w~ believe will be a nuisance not only to us s but to others who
occupy homes in the adjacent area. Once this giant is ~rect~d, it will be too
lat~. What will be don~ if th~ noise p~netrates th~ ~ntire vall~y. Will the
Town of Qu~~nsbury tell th~ Great Escape to tak~ it away? Of course not. We
can only ask you as memb~rs of the Planning Board to consider this on~ question-
if someone proposed putting a 91 foot roller coaster within th~ vi~wing and hearing
distanc~ of your backyards would you be in favor of it? We donlt think so.
MR. ROBERTS-Did you r~ad Mr. Whal~n's lett~r?
MR. BAKER-Nos I didn't.
MR. CAIMANO-Is he h~re?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes s would you rath~r read it yours~lf? Th~ public hearing is still
left open.
JOHN WHALEN
MR. WHALEN-My name is John Whalen. I live on Farm to Market Road in th~ Town
of Queensbury. I have a lett~r that lId like to read and itls kind of long, so
please b~ar with me. Read his letter (on file) I've got a table. I don't know
if you p~ople have a copy of it?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we do.
MR. WHALEN-Basically s I've recreated the table that was in the sound ~ngine~ring
report using the line source factor and basically starting at 95 decibels and
120 d~cib~ls s I've gone right down through and dup licated the distances. Now,
my prop~rty lin~s th~ sound level is going to be somewh~r~ betwe~n 77 and 102
d~cibels s w~ll above the ambient level of 56 decibels that was measured. If we
go out furth~rs to 600 f~ets this is 600 feet, R3 Zoning starts. In oth~r wordss
at 600 feet s you' r~ into the R3 Zoning on the south side of Round Pond. L~vels
ther~ would b~ 71 to 96 s very high. If you go out to about 800 feet s this is
where the WR3 Zoning start.s around Round Pond. L~v~ls there should b~ in the
rang~ of 71 to 96 decibels. The interesting thing about Round Pond is that s if
this does become a public park for Queensbury in th~ futur~s it's going to b~
a very noisy place. At 1150 feet s you have the WRlA Zoning around Glen Lake.
Levels there could be in the range of 68 to 93. At 1300 feet, you hav~ Round
Pond its~lf. L~vels there could be 68 to 93. At 1800 f~ets you have the Twicwood
subdivision. Lev~ls ther~ also could b~ 68 to 93. According to my measurem~nts,
Courthouse Estat~s is 3800 f~~t away, not 7500 feet away. L~vels th~re ar~ in
the range from 65 to 90. Examples of nois~ thatls given in th~ articl~s noisys
urban sounds s in the daytim~s ar~ about 80 decibels. Quiet suburban nighttime
is about 35 decib~ls. (Continued reading lett~r) Thank you.
14
'''--'
MR. ROBERTS-Would you car~ to r~spond to som~ of that?
MR. MORSE-My nam~s agains is Dick Mors~ for th~ r~cord. Numb~r on~s Mr. Whal~n,
I believes and I hav~ not seen this reports but stated that h~ was using a lev~l
of 120 decib~ls as one source.
MR. WHALEN-I was using both 95 and 120.
MR. MORSE-Right and your higher source was from th~ inside of a hockey arena.
MR. WHALEN-Yess as an example of screaming since it was negl~cted.
MR. MORSE-And that was an indoor ~xampl~s was that not? I don't know where that
source came from.
MR. ROBERTS-Here's a copy of its right here.
MR. CAIMANO-Y~ss it was indoors.
MR. MORSE-Well, I think w~'re not talking about an indoor situation. W~lre talking
about an outdoor situation wh~re th~ noise doesn' t rev~rb~rat~ as it does or is
encaptur~d in an indoor situation. Secondly s we were talking about a 3 decib~l
d~cay as compared to a 6 decib~l d~cay that we us~d in our report and this was
stated by Mr. Whalen and his assumption was that it mOre closely parrots stream
flow which is from th~ Ashtoe Manual that we provided in our app~ndix, which is
really defining str~am traffic on interstat~ highways wher~ you have one v~hicle
following anoth~rs wh~re you have a constant sOurce of s basically s rolling stock
moving along a very busy highway. This is also why we w~re showing the high levels
that we w~re getting in front of th~ Great Escape and your prop~rty froms basicallys
Interstat~ 87s the Northways that was th~ dir~ction of those high intensity flows.
I do not believe that a roller coaster which has s approximately s maybe 10 cars
on it is a stream of traffic, in other wordss one after the oth~r. It is a unit
that passess mov~s away, and comes back and I think th~ circuit is basically once
around. There I s two loops around it. SOs we did consider th~ point sourc~ and
I do believe that that is a valid assumption. Itls a moving point sources thatls
all and it trav~ls toward yous it goes away from you. Thank you.
MR. ROBERTS-If you recall, Warren County Planning Board did approve this previously.
Is there anyone else in the audience who cares to comment?
CRAIG BRADLEY
MR. BRADLEY-Craig Bradley from th~ Twicwood area. I guess th~ relevant factor
that hasn I t be~n discussed is what is the current decib~l level at Story Town
at this points Great Escape, in th~ summ~rs not the non-activity times but during
the summ~r becaus~ in the Twicwood ar~a w~ consider th~ nois~ lev~l currently
unacc~ptable and so what's the relative increase going to be with th~ new rides
which I thinks b~fore anythingls approveds that should be evaluated.
MR. CAIMANO-Apparentlys itls going to be 3 to 5 decibels from what we could gath~r
and thats apparentlys is also insignificant. Is that significant to you?
MR. BRADLEY-Three to five d~cib~ls higher than what?
MR. CAIMANO-Increase to what you hav~ now.
MR. BRADLEY-Increase? That's been measur~d in the summ~r time?
MR. CAIMANO-Nos whatever you have right now. We w~nt through this the last time
we had this argument. That was my argument in doing this all s as som~one just
said s the roller coaster I s not running. We can't tell you how loud it's going
to be or how qui~t. All I'm answering is your question and your qu~stion is how
loud is it going to b~ compared to what you have now in the summertime. My answer
is that s as far as I can read sit I s going to b~ 3 to 5 d~cibels. I don't know
any more or any less than what I read. I have no idea.
MR. BRADLEY-Youlr~ basing that on 95 d~cibels?
MR. CAIMANO-Ilm basing that on th~ fact that you alr~ady have noise at this
amus~ment park and all we I r~ doing is adding a ride, which s according to th~
scientific datas adds 3 to 5 decibels, that's what I'm basing it on. I think
we should get
15
---,'
down to arguing what Mr. Goralski argues. I donlt think it's significant to argue
with decibels b~caus~ all of us are talking through our hats. What we ought to
be arguing about is, do~s the noise interf~re with your life-style and is this
increase in noise going to interfere with your life-style, regardless of whether
it's 4 decibelss 3 decibels, or 169 decibels.
MR. BRADLEY-I would agree with that.
substantiation of the d~cibel l~vels.
I think you also have to look at the
MR. CAIMANO-How are we going to do that?
MR. BRADLEY-Well s I think it has to be rated in th~ summer time wh~n the rides
are
MR. CAIMANO-What can we dos erect it? D~termine it?
MR. BRADLEY-No, at the current levelss nows in the summertime without this roller
coaster.
MR. CAIMANO-And then put up the roller coaster and det~rmine what the increase
is going to b~, that's our problem, how are we going to do it?
MR. BRADLEY-I think you need a barometer of th~ 95 level s wher~ is that coming
froms that I s coming from a subway which is of no relevanc~ to a roller coast~r
rid~.
MR. CAIMANO-Craig s let I s pr~sume that s right now s in Twicwood s in the high time
of th~ summer with screaming people on th~ current rid~s that itlss 1111 give
you a numb~rs 95s okay?
MR. BRADLEY-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-If we assume that this scientific data that the Planning Department
has put together is correct and you have 3 to 5 or 15 decibel incr~ases is that
significant to you? Regardless of what the numbers are s is that significant to
you?
MR. BRADLEY-I am unequipped to answ~r that question.
MR. CAIMANO-So am I and what I want to know is s before I make my d~cisions is s
what is it going to do to your lif~"'style. We hav~ an amusement park here. If
you peopl~ had come h~re and argu~d your case and said looks there's nothing heres
it's a pastoral settings and now theylre going to put up a roll~r coaster. Nows
we know what w~Ire talking about. We already hav~ an amusement park here. W~'re
only trying to decide wheth~r we should put anoth~r ride in her~ which th~
scientific data t~lls us isn't going to increase th~ noise. Is the sci~ntific
data right? I donlt know? Is the world square? I don't knows but we have to
go with what w~ have. Mr. Whalen has not done anything to dissuade th~ fact that
th~re' s not going to be very much of an increase than what you have alr~ady and
what are w~ supposed to do with that? It is an amusement park. This is not a
pastoral s~tting.
MR. BRADLEY-That's accurate. Okay.
IRWIN FUNK
MR. FUNK-My name is Irwin Funk and I live in Twicwoods too and I live approximately
behind Sutton I s Market which is close to there now s to the amusem~nt park and
I can tell you right now that an incr~ase in noise level is going to be unacceptable
to me becaus~ the noise coming from there now is too much. It is d~finitely too
loud now from the microphones and now we' r~ going to put this additional noise
up. How would you like to hav~ this n~xt to your home because I've been living
there for 15 years and nows all of a sudden, we're going to hav~ this additional
noise? It doesnlt make sense to me. Now why do they hav~ to hav~ this kind of
a ride in th~r~. Th~y' ve got 2 and a half acres. They could put thre~ or four
other types of rid~s on there. Why do th~y have to have this ones because it
can be se~n from the highway. It I s going to be tall s 91 f~et tall s that's s
approximatelys 9 stories. Isnlt its nin~ stories? The Contin~ntal Insurance
Building is 9 stories tall s approximately. This is th~ kind of structure that's
going to be sitting there. Now, 11m going to see it above the trees where I live.
Peop l~ in Glen Lake ar~ going to see it. When I go down the bicycle trail s I'm
going to see this thing sticking up from the sky. Th~ pastoral setting there
is going to be destroyed. You say the pastoral setting, well, it is going to
be d~stroy~d. Think about it.
16
MR. CAIMANO-We did. We went ther~ and w~ looked and, from a vision standpoint-
MR. FUNK-Do you have some drawings of them?
MR. CAIMANO-We stood right there.
MR. FUNK-I'd lik~ to see the drawings.
MR. CAIMANO-W~ have som~ drawings right here, but th~ point was s on~ of our
determinations was, th~ day we went down there s that it couldn' t b~ seen from
other p lac~s. That I s on~ of the r~asons w~ looked at it. We went down there
and looked. W~ went down and stood wher~ it's going to be.
MR. FUNK-If I stand in Glens Fallss I can see the Insuranc~ Building from sev~ral
miles around. youlre going to tell me that I can't see 91 f~et tall if I'm standing
down in Glens Falls.
MR. CAIMANO-Nos but I will tell yous you can't se~ th~ Continental Insuranc~
Building from where you live and itls lIs 12 stories high. It depends on whatls
on your line of vision. Doesnlt it?
MR. FUNK-It do~s.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. FUNK-Thatls my points I donlt want to see it.
MR. PULVER-Would you not object if they s supposing they decide not to put this
roller coaster in and put in five rides?
MR. FUNK-I wouldn I t object to that.
additional noises I wouldnlt object.
If it was something that didn' t hav~ an
MRS. PULVER-Wells what rides don't have noise. I means if they'r~ going to giv~
som~body a thrills they're going to gos wee.
MR. FUNK-They mad~ their d~cibel measurements and they measured from the highway
to the Great Escape. Ther~ are no tr~es between that highway and Gr~at Escap~.
Wh~n that roller coaster gets sitting up 91 fe~t tall s there I s not going to b~
many tr~~s betwe~n my house and that roller coaster either. That noise is going
to come right in mys wOrs~ than it is now.
MR. CARTIER-I think I can handle part of your problem and that is this thing is
down in a d~pr~ssion. We went out and we ~yeballed this thing. It is down in
a depression and I think you have the impressions possibly, that this roller coast~r
is sitting on a vasts wid~s flat expanse of land that I s going to b~ visible from
all around. About the only place youlre going to be able to se~ this roller coaster
from is from the gravel pit off Route 9.
MR. FUNK-In the fall.
MR. CARTIER-In this valley.
MR. FUNK-In the fall.
MR. CARTIER-In the falls okay. I also have a gr~at deal of sympathy for the issu~
that you hav~ addressed and I frankly thinks and I'm going to try to come up with
some kind of as something thatls going to make everybody happy which is an
impossibl~ tasks but I think Wayne Gannetts th~ Engineers has struck an idea.
H~ says since the nois~ level is assumeds which it was, and ther~ does not appear
to b~ documentation on the line of sight distance for sound buffering by tr~e
masses s the Planning Board may want to r~quire the applicant to agree to provide
additional buffering measures after installation of the roller coaster s if noise
becom~s a problem at the adjacent properties. I Ive b~~n looking at this s also,
in terms of, th~ previous app lication. There will be some trees removed from
the extraction of gravel process which is also going to remove some sound buffering.
Nows what I'd like to just toss on the tabl~ as an id~a is, that if this is approv~d
as applied fors that prior to it I S installation and running, some sound levels
be taken during the summer time, when there are crowds th~re. That sound levels
also be taken aft~r the roller coaster is in operations so w~ can, in fact s look
at th~ diff~rences in nois~ levels generated by the roller coast~r.
17
'--'
MR. FUNK-I donlt accept that. Thatls the same argument that you just gav~.
MR. CARTIER-Excuse me, let me finish. If we can com~ up with some agreement that
if th~ roller CQaster generat~s 5 dBls mQre ors 11m just picking a numb~r out
of the air now s then the app licant I s going tQ be required to provide some sound
buff~ring with mQre tr~es. That also, that sQund bufferings also, I hQpes would
decrease th~ sound levels from the other rid~s in th~ park.
MR. FUNK-Well s you're telling me that right nQw, but I've just heard a lett~r
from somebody who's been contacting Great Escape trying to g~t them to cut dQwn
on th~ noise levels Qn the microphones over there now and nothing I s being done
about it. I can expect the same thingls going tQ b~ happening again.
MR. CAIMANO-Let me ask you a questions Mr. Funk, and I guess I'm thinking about
the sam~ way YQU are or Mr. Cartiers all in sympathys trying tQ do something.
DQ you not cQnsider that a microphQne, an amplified microphQnes would be much
mor~ annQyings coming from that parks than the scream of a roll~r cQaster? BefQre
yQU answer that s remember that there already are two rid~s whichs As make nQise
and Bs elicit high screams on that property.
MR. FUNK-I was going to says that's not acceptable now becaus~ of th~ nois~.
youlre going to raise it up 3 or 4 or 5 ors as Mr. Whalen sayss ev~n mQre?
This just isn I t acceptable. That's all I can say. You can argue all yQU want.
It isn't acceptable. It isn't acceptable now and nothing's b~ing don~ about it.
I gu~ss that's all I've gQt to say.
MR. ROBERTS-That park has been ther~ quite a long times before TwicWQQd.
MR. JUDGE-My name is Wayne Judge and I dQn I t want tQ prQlong this, but it's a
littl~ bit lik~ we said the last tim~ that the Zoning Statut~ was set up to
encourage th~ expansion and d~velopment of recr~atiQnal facilities in an RC ZQne.
This is v~ry much lik~ a person building a hQus~ near an airport runway. An airport
is not quiet and yet s if someQne appeared befor~ a Planning Board and said the
l~vel of nQise coming frQm that airpQrt is intQ my house in th~ middle of th~
summertim~ is totally unacceptable and fQr yQu to allQw more p lanes to land in
that airpQrt is doubly unacc~ptabl~. We want som~thing done tQ discQurage airplan~s
at that airport. That's essentially the sam~ argum~nt that's made h~re. You I r~
statute is intended to encourage amusement parks. There is no bett~r plac~, and
I encQurag~ any member of the public to go to th~ park, I challeng~ anybody to
find a better place for a rQll~r coaster in that park than in this hollow. Th~r~
is no better place. This is dQwn in a hollow. It can't be seen from the places
that w~re mentiQned. That was inaccurat~ fact and th~ members of this Board who
have been ther~s they now that thatls inaccurate. If therels gQing to be a roll~r
CQaster in an amusement parks and by definition an amus~ment park has a roller
coast~rs ther~ I s no b~tter place for this roller coaster than the sit~ that has
be~n chosen.
MR. CAIMANO-Let me talk abQut parking for a minute becaus~ 11m still not satisfied
with parking. You're nQt going tQ raises and I'm putting the noise aside, I just
want to talk about parkings YQU' re not gQing to raise the pric~s from what I
understand the last time. Is that correct?
MR. JUDGE-My nam~ is Wayne Judge. I dQnlt know what the pr~c~ng policies of th~
park are for this summers but I can tell yQu it do~s not relate to the number
of rides in th~ park. The price is separate.
MR. CAIMANO-It I S hard for me to b~lieve that anybQdy WQuld spend that kind Qf
money to buy that pi~ce of equipm~nt and nQt intend to increase business.
MR. JUDGE-I am told, and if I w~re as smart as Mr. WOQd I probably would have
as much money as he doess but I am told that yQU hav~ tQ chang~ th~ mix of rid~s
in a park in order to get repeat business.
MR. CAIMANO-But he's not taking anything outs h~'s addings which m~ans that youlr~
going to add
MR. JUDGE-I frankly can tell yous in all hQnestys I donlt und~rstand the economics
of adding a rid~ Qf that magnitude to the parks but ther~ are peopl~ in th~ business
whQ think it's a wise decisiQn.
MR. CAIMANO-Fines but bear with me. Ifs indeeds you ar~ going to add businesss
you ar~ going to add cars s I think that s yes sit's only 12 weeks s but th~re are
18
'-
'--'
timess during that 12 w~ekss wh~n we stretch the limits of that ar~a and how far
are w~ going to stretch th~m. Ther~ are p~op Ie who can't get to th~ir hom~s s
sometimes...
MR. JUDGE-Wells I thinks if you go back to the noise issue that was raised today
and the parkings when the parking lot is fulls there should b~ no more CArs allow~d
in that ar~a. Thatls not a Planning Board issu~s that's an ~nforcement issu~.
MR. CAIMANO-It's not a measure of what IS in the lots thoughs Wayne. Itls a matt~r
of what goes in and out and what the traffic do~s on Route 9. Thatls our concerns
what is the traffic going to do.
MR. ROBERTS-That's an existing situation.
MR. CAIMANO-Ilm saying that therels going to be significantly mor~ traffic caused
by this rides thatls what I'm saying.
MR. ROBERTS-The reports disagree with the documentation that was given us.
MR. CAIMANO-I know.
MR. ROBERTS-It doesn't agree with it.
MR. JUDGE-At Christmas times itls hard to find a parking place in the mAll parking
lot. When itls fill~ds ther~ls no plac~ to park.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. OlCONNOR-Ilm Michael 01 Connor. 11m speakings again, individually and on behalf
of the Glen Lake Protective Association. My question with regard to the proposal
in front of yous is simply what Mr. Caimano has b~en raisings is that w~ seem
to have an ev~r creeping park. I have difficulty with the parking that is there
now. I have, historicallys some affidavits that indicate that what has been termeds
latelys as overflow parkings has no permit and 11m wondering what effect this
increased rid~ will have. There is very littles in the traffic study, with regard
to parking. I thinks simplys it says thats on an av~rages for an amusement parks
you I re talking about 3. 5 p~rsons per car. Th~re I s no indication as to what the
averag~ number of peopl~ that attend this particular park. You have the parking
in front of the premises. You hav~. the parking in the front of th~ premises on
the west side of Route 9. My problem is the parking that seems to be creeping
along the Glen Lake f~ns th~ Area that's down off of Route 9 on th~ west sid~.
If you remember the Waterslide, there was a propos~d 400 slot parking lot for
that particular area. That WAS what brought out all of our opposition to the
waterslide. I thinks historicallys and there's affidavits that the applicant
has filed in connection with other applications s that area has not been used for
parking ~xc~pt one time wh~n they had some r~gional IBM outing up there and they
used the Municipal Center and they had one other r~gional type outings but nows
in the last years you see peopl~ cre~ping down there. My whol~ pitch to Mr. Judge
on behalf of the Association was s give us a stipulation that this is not going
to caus~ a creeping of you' r~ parking and it I S far enough away from us, I think
it's going to be of more concern to the residents of Twicwood and to the r~sidents
of Courthouse Estates th~n it is s actually s to the r~sidents at GI~n Lak~ as far
as th~ nois~ goes, but I canlt s~em to get that stipulation from the applicant.
For this fil~s I wills agains give you anoth~r copy of Section 617.3 of the SEQRA
Law which says that that is part of the actions that is something you must consider.
If you don I t consider it s you aren't fulfilling your duties and obligations of
review under SEQRA. Will the park handle the parking? I think you have to get
to an issue, and I thinks economicallys Is as layman, have the sam~ impression
that Mr. Caimano has, is that you can I t afford to put this size rid~ in without
some intention that you're going to increase some attendance. Itls not a
replacement of rides. Itls a new ride. A complete new area.
MRS. PULVER-Mikes are you saying th~ylr~ parking on(TAPE TURNED)
MR. OICONNOR-They, for a long times parked aboves at road levels to the north
of the Birchee houses there's a little house there with some type of stor~ in
it. Now s th~y appear to b~ parking down in the area which th~y' re going to go
to to g~t the grav~l out. They're parking along the walls that area.
MRS. PULVER-Are you saying inside the park.
MR. CAIMANO-Nos it's outsid~ the park.
19
"--
------
MR. O'CONNOR-It's outside the park.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at this maps this is an overall map of the whol~
park and th~ area that I'm talking about iss this is Route 9, for your orientation.
This is th~ ~xisting grav~l road that goes down into the area from which they're
going to hav~ the barrow pit. When they did they're app lication for a mining
permit s they submitt~d affidavits that said that this was filled sometim~ in the
1980' s. A time period which would indicate that if this was going to be used
for parking, a permit would have to be used. Research of all the Town files show
that no application had ever been made. Th~re was no allegation by th~ applicant
that they had any permit for using it for parking. Nows and I've got probably
160 to, mAybes 200 affidavits from area residents who have gone up and down Route
9 during the course of the summer and theylve seen no parking in there except
for the one or two occasions that lIve mentioned. Nows if you went by th~re last
year, you'd see sOme parking down in here and what I perceives eventuallys is
that you' r~ going to see this creep and what I was simp ly asking the app licant
to do is to give us a stipulation that this is not a parking area. Park wh~r~
you may park over there wher~ they I re talking about th~y I r~ own parking areas,
but that doesn I t se~m to be forth coming. SOs I'd ask th~ Board tos p~rhaps s
consider that as part of the considerations for this particular app lication and
secondly, and again, 1111 stick with my arguments I guesss I'll make one comment.
You can I t compare this to an airport I don I t think because if you are going to
compare it to an airport s you also have to compare it to the happening of the
Concord. We had airports and certain planes were permitteds but th~re came a
time when th~y developed a plane that was not permitted in even the most urban
type airports unless they took specific rout~s and what not. This was a parks
dev~loped many years agos I think it's over 25 y~ars olds it's old now, 30 years
olds but the rid~s that youlre putting in th~re today are different than the rides
that w~r~ th~re 15 y~ars ago and I think that I s what your hearing th~ neighbors
speak. Th~r~ is not a license to simply expand forever and ~v~r. My concern
is simp ly that they stay away from the Glen Lake fen, they stay away from the
wetlands the 100 foot buff~r and I have a concern here that if you k~ep allowing
expansion without consideration of all th~ effects of that expansions particularly
the parking r~quirements s you're going to build your own problem and it's going
to end up ~ff~cting the w~tlands.
MR. CARTIER-My only question is s that parking that you I r~ pointing out, is that
within 100 f~et of th~ wetland? Was that in the buffer area?
MR. O'CONNOR-Th~ buff~rs if you take the 100 foot buffer and streamlined th~ buffer,
the 100 foot buffer crosses onto Route 9 over a portion of it. SOs that you could
not have a band of parking along that whole strip without hurting the...
MR. JUDGE-Wayne Judge. The position that we have consistently tak~n is that this
ride will not add to th~ parkings or create a parking problem in the park and
that the parking that I s there now is adequate to handl~ the parking. Nows if
someone has some evidenc~ to the contrary or can I t believe this s ther~ I s nothing
that I can do to change your mind if you canlt beli~ve it. What 11m saying is
that therels no scientific study that I can perform that I could use to convince
you that what I'm saying is the truth. If you don I t believ~ mes then you don It
believe mes but the people who run the park say that there will be adequate parkings
~xisting parkings to handle this ride and I'm relating what I know to you and
thatls all I can do.
MR. CAIMANO-And my point to yous Pete and Carol, is that Johnls question is w~ll
made. If you and I are going to op~n a busin~ss and we com~ before this Boards
this Board is going to say, how many spaces do you have for your customers and
for your t~nants and for your workers. No such r~gulation exists right now s on
that property. Th~r~for~, all of usp..and thatls the fact that we don't know
what's going to happen and it is the purview of this Board to say, as John has
saids fines for ev~ry thousand peopl~s you hav~ to have X amount of parking ov~r
ther~ and if you don't s then we're not going to approve this any further. W~
could do the sam~ thing for any business.
MRS. PULVER-But I think you have to have some guidelines.
MR. CAIMANO-We can set up the guidelines, thatls what this Board is about.
MRS. PULVER-Nos I m~an...information about existing cars.
MR. CAIMANO-Thatls correct. I agree.
20
--.-'
MRS. PULVER-I'm for limiting th~ pArking down th~r~.
MR. CARTIER-If w~ hav~ pArkings how~v~r it' s call~d, ov~rflow or what~v~r, if
it I S parking within a 100 foot buff~r zon~s th~n I think w~ IV~ ~xc~~d th~ park
limits of th~ ar~a.
MR. JUDGE-W~ can I t park within a Critically Environm~ntal Zon~. Th~ Town has
d~signat~d a Critical Environm~ntal Zon~s within 100 f~~t, 100 f~~t back from
th~ margin of th~ wetland. If Mik~ wants a stipulation that w~ will not hav~
parking in A Critical Environm~ntal Ar~a, you hav~ that stipulation. In oth~r
words, what I'm saying to you is that if my cli~nt p~rmits parking in a Critical
Environm~ntal Zon~ without th~ p~rmission of th~ Towns h~ I s violating th~ law.
Nows if that's th~ stipulation that's r~quir~ds thatls th~ stipulation 11m making.
I agr~~ to that.
MR. ROBERTS-That's r~ally a matt~r of enforc~m~nt anyway.
MR. CAIMANO-Right. W~lls it is aft~rwards.
MR. ROBERTS-W~lls it is now. I m~an that's on the books now without us ~v~n putting
it in th~ motion.
MRS. PULVER-Is that what you want, Mik~?
MR. 0' CONNOR-Y~s s if that is th~ stipulations on b~half of th~ Associations I
thank th~ applicant for it. I acc~pt it. I thinks in th~ past th~ probl~m has
b~~n th~ qu~stion of grandfath~ring. W~r~ th~y grandfath~r~ds notwithstanding
th~ d~signations notwithstanding th~ actual w~tland and what not. I I v~ n~v~r
b~~n abl~ to g~t that stipulation out of th~ applicant. If th~ applicant is
stipulating thats I acc~pt it r~adily and happily.
MR. ROBERTS-Of cours~, the Critical Environm~ntal Ar~a is n~ws too.
MR. 0 I CONNOR-W~ll s it' s n~w und~r th~ local Town d~signation. Th~r~ has always
b~~n a 100 foot buff~r zon~ und~r th~ Stat~ d~signation of a Typ~ I w~tland.
MR. ROBERTS-...p~rmit to do anythings..said you couldn't do it.
MR. 01 CONNOR-You can actually do som~thing. You s~~ that I s part misnom~r of th~
d~signation of Critically Environm~ntal S~nsitiv~ Ar~a. All that do~s is put
a r~d flag up. It do~sn't say that th~y can't com~ h~r~ ands und~r sit~ plan
r~view, or und~r whatevers get permitss but if th~y're saying that they will stay
without the 100 foot buffer zone, I w~lcome it.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells back to th~ noise.
MR. CARTIER-W~ll s this is part of the fact that we are becoming mor~ and mor~
urbaniz~d and noise is going to b~come mor~ and more of an issu~ than it is tonight,
believe it or not. I think w~ have to bite th~ bullet. I think we n~~d to d~al
with it at this point. We I re going to hav~ to deal with it at some point and
because it is such an issue for a large numb~r of people, I think we need, I donlt
hav~ an answer yet. What I'm saying is I don't think w~ can just push it asid~.
I think we have to deal with it in a r~al way.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells you'v~ mad~ a suggestion.
MR. CARTIER-W~lls Mr. Gann~tt has and I think it has merit.
MR. CAIMANO-What's that?
MR. ROBERTS-The possibility of p lanting tr~es to help with the buffering and the
noise that impacts upon..
MR. CAIMANO-The points leaving ourselves a loop hole to close with the approval.
MR. CARTIER-W~lls the point he's making is wheres all of this nois~ study is based
on assumptions s which may b~ p~rfectly valid, but, then agains they may not.
Th~ preroller coaster noise l~vel in th~ summertim~ and the postroller coaster
noise in the summertim~ is what we need to look at and if it ~xceeds a c~rtain
level, and I don'ts I hop~ some sound engineers can giv~ us sOme ideas about thoses
I think that's an appropriAte way to go at this.
21
~
---
MR. CAIMANO-The Qnly questiQn I have with that is s can somebody from Rist-FrQst
tell us that there will be some ways we can mitigate which has gone beyond what
shQuld be allow~d. In other wordss it's one thing tQ say what Peter said. That's
all well and gOQd. Now we CQme dQwn to the summertimes we measure the sQunds
itls not acceptable. NQw what? Are w~ gQing to tear th~ rQller coaster dQwn?
MR. ROBERTS-Well s the charts will already tell you that the tre~s do a c~rtain
amount Qf good.
MR. CARTIER-It can be done with v~g~tative buffering which is the id~al situatiQn
because your vegetative buff~r is thickest in the summertime when the ride is
runnings but there ares I guess to answer your questions yes s there are ways to
mitigate sQund. There are different kinds of tr~es that provide better sQund
barriers than others and SQ Qn. So, it can be dQne.
MR. CAIMANO-I know it can be dones but will it satisfy ~verybody and the answ~r
is no.
MR. CARTIER-No.
MR. JUDGE-I III tell yQu the problem that I have with that prQPosal. This rides
by th~ time it's ~rected, it will prQbably CQst two milliQn dollarss by the time
it's dismantl~ds sand blasteds erècteds and put up again. I don't knQw what we
could do tQ the rides once it IS up again.
MR. CARTIER-It's not the ride. W~ dQn I t do anything tQ the ride. The ride is
up s we do nothing to the ride. W~ deal with the nois~ generated by the rides
in terms of planting v~getative buffer in various places. SOs itls nQt a question
Qfs okays YQU get it ups it makes tQQ much noises tak~ it down. That's not what
we're talking abQut.
MR. ROBERTS-This might nQt work as w~ll as we I d like it toos but at least it I S
a step in the right directiQn.
MR. CARTIER-What 11m looking for is a solutiQn that doesn I t satisfy everybody.
That's the way these things work out. NQt everybody is gQing tQ be satisfi~d s
but I'm just trying tQ find sQme middle grounds here.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MR. CARTIER-Was the long fQrm (SEQRA) filled Qut, I dQnlt hav~ it.
MR. ROBERTS-Y~ss I don't have a IQng form either.
MS. CORPUS-FQr th~ Boardls informatiQns the applicant r~submitted a long fQrm
which, I do believes Planning gave tQ yQu. Wayn~s I'm sorrys did you resubmit
a Long Environmental Ass~ssment Form fQr this or nQt or did yQu stick with the
shQrt?
MR. JUDGE-I can't take credit fQr the envirQnmental fQrm. MQrse Engineering did
it.
MS. CORPUS-It might have been my mistaken presumptiQn that there was a long on~
just voluntarily given by the applicant when they resubmitted. I donlt know.
MR. BAKER-The Planning Department has Qnly rec~ived a shQrt EAFs I b~liev~.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, maybe thatls adequate.
MR. OICONNOR-Part of th~ grading is in yQur Critically Environmental Sensitiv~
Area.
MR. JUDGE-Th~re's no grading.
MR. ROBERTS-I don't think it g~ts that clos~.
hill.
It doesn I t go that far down the
MR. CAIMANO-Ther~'s no grading anyway.
MR. JUDGE-It's 600 feet from the wetland.
wetland.
There's no grading anywh~re near a
22
'-,
,-,,'
MR. DUSEK-That would be the only thing that might trigg~r its that I can se~.
MR. MORSE-The line from the Whalen I s property is 288 and that I s from the end of
the...wetland. Her~'s your wetlands right heres that's 288.
MR. BAKER-It's totally up to the Board's discretions in this case, if they feel..
MR. DUSEK-I'm just taking a quick look at Type I actions that are listed under
SEQRA and I don't find anything here that this would com~ close to. The only
one that was a possibility was if it was in Critical Environmental Area of the
wetlands which it IS not.
MR. JUDGE-No, it's nowhere near it.
MR. DUSEK-I think the Board could treat this by r~vi~wing the short Environmental
Assessment Form and also by considering the environmental issues that have been
raised and making determinations based upon the things that you have befor~ you.
I find that the short form is on file.
MS. CORPUS-Okay. Thanks.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. l4-90s Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for it I S adoptions
seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
MR. CARTIER-(Referring to short form) From a Planning perspectiv~s Mr. Bakers
do you have any problems with what welre talking about doing her~?
MR. BAKER-I think that th~re's a risks and I donlt know what the risk factor iss
to be honest with you, but there is a risk that, if the nois~ levels do turn out
to be unacceptabl~s if the roller coaster is up and runnings that any additional
v~g~tative buffer might not adequately reduce that nois~.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells w~ understand that.
MR. BAKER-That's just a risk I feel the Board needs to b~ aware of.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but I guess we're at a better than nothing situation
here.
MR. BAKER-It looks that way.
MR. ROBERTS-But the facts that we haves that are fileds indicated that we don It
. . . property.
MR. CARTIER-Well s again, th~ numbers are based on some assumptions, and s again,
they may be perfectly valids but I am som~what uncomfortable with them.
MR. CAIMANO-We do expect a noise change.
The question iss is it acceptabl~.
MR. CARTIER-And we're not going to know until it's up. I don I t know s th~ more
I think about it s the more I like it because it mitigat~s sounds we're getting
a handle on mitigating sound from a roller coasters potentially, which is also
going to mitigate other sounds besides the roller coaster. There is the potentials
and I emphasize the word potential heres that we could end up with a roll~r coaster
and less sounds off-site, than we had.
MR. ROBERTS-It I 11 h~lp the aesthetics.
MR. CARTIER- I und~rstand what you're saying when you shake yQur h~ad s but I'm
looking for a potential.
WHEREASs there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: the
erection of a roller coaster on the former campground site at the Grea.t Esca.pe
ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC., Owner and
WHEREASs this Planning Board has determin~d that the propos~d project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environm~ntal Quality Review
Acts
23
',--,
---
NOWs THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No f~deral agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlist~d 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 ar~as of environmental
conc~rn and having consid~red 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 s Rules and Regulations for the
State of New Yorks this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have potentially no significant environmental eff~ct provided
that proposed mitigative measures are undertak~n to deal with the potential
noise l~vel increas~s and that the applicant has further agreed that no parking
will be permitted within the 100 foot buffer zone of the Glen Lake wetlands
area 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 b~ required by law.
Duly adopted this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (ROLLER COASTER) s
Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoptions seconded by
With the understandings that the applicant accept the following stipulation:
That noise studies similar to those conducted by Mr. Morse in his March 14th,
1990 sound generation report be conducted during the summertime at full s high
season prior to placing the roller coaster into operation; that identical noise
studi~s be conduct~d following th~ construction and during the operation of said
roller coaster, the intent of which is to determine the difference in noise being
produced by the roller coaster before and after its erection; with the understanding
that this Planning Board reserve the right to look at those additional studies
and determine the necessity or non-necessity to mitigate any increase in nois~
by providing veg~tative buff~rs or other such measur~s as may be applicable.
MR. MORSE-The statement was made prior to the construction of the roll~r coasters
that we do a noise study. Perhaps that might be rephrased prior to the op~ration
of the roller coaster becaus~ I don't know...construct it this spring.
MR. CARTIER-W~lls what I said was at full high season prior to the
MR. MORSE-The construction. Operation.
MR. CARTIER-Prior to th~ roller coaster being placed into operation.
MR. MORSE-Right. I mean it might be sitting ther~ and we could shut it down and
do our noise study and th~n start it up agains thatls what you're trying to achieves
I believe.
MR. CARTIER-Now, wait a minut~. What I want is a study with and without th~ roll~r
coaster. I think w~ can do a study of the roller coasters we can do a study of
the noise level of the park b~fore the roller coaster is constructed. I understand
what youlre saying.
MR. MORSE-My concern is that he might be starting it in anoth~r month.
MR. ROBERTS-So that it might b~ operable at th~ same time the park op~ns.
24
"---'
-...-/
MR. CARTIER-Okay, if w~ substitute the words l~t me gQ back and do that part.
Where it says priQr tQ the construction Qf the rQller cQaster(s/b) prior to placing
th~ roller coaster intQ operation, that noise study will be cQnducted at full s
high season. I think I got that. This Planning Board reserves the right to look
at the...at that stuff to d~t~rmine what mitigative measures are necessary.
MR. ROBERTS-ShQuldnlt you b~ mQre sp~cific than mitigative m~asures.
MR. CARTIER- I wanted to leave that somewhat QP en fQr us.
us into anything.
I don't want to lQck
MR. JUDGE-Would sQmeone put two milliQn dQllars into a ride if the cQndition of
putting up the ride was such other measures as the BQard may deem appropriate.
I means th~ planting is fine because yQu could somehQw quantify that, but yQu
have this ride put up, yQu have this tremendous inv~stm~nt and you have no idea
what kind of contrQl comes into play.
MR. CARTIER-Well s I would also stipulates as part of my motiQn, then that Qn~
Qf the mitigative measures nQt be that the rQller cQaster be r~mQved. WQuld
that address your cQncerns.
MR. JUDGE-My concern was the kinds Qf measures.
MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're sayings Mr. Judge.
MR. JUDGE-Itls nQt my concern.
MR. CARTIER-Wells I understand it. I don't want to put a whQle lot of limits
on the Planning BQard as to what they can dQ s but I can understand yQur point.
MRS. PULVER-Well s th~y I d like to know hQw much money they're going to have to
spend.
MR. CARTIER-DQnlt knQw.
all a very big if.
It depends Qn the diff~rence in nQis~ level.
This is
MR. JUDGE-W~ll s we I v~ heard a lot of comp laints, tonight, abQut the generally
nQise l~vel Qf the park is unacceptable and that any increases any increase within
it would make it mQre unacceptable. SOs fQr m~, what do I tell my client when
this hearing is Qver. If I say that he gQt apprQvals prQvided that the Planning
BQard can impQse measures that wQuld keep dQwn the noise level s h~' s going tQ
says what do I have?
MR. CARTIER-He has an apprQval in which he cans if has an approval to put a roller
coast~r up s and he can expect that slater Qns he may have tQ do SQme mitigation
to reduce noise levels. Thatls what yQU could tell him. T~ll him, Mr. Judges
that you are just the m~ssenger.
MR. DUSEK-Stated maybe if I could just bring the BQard I s att~ntiQn to a problem
that I see and..the BQard and that is when a site plan approval is made or giv~n
by this BQards the Board is allowed under the law tQ ~ither approves disapprove
or approve with modifications and I beli~ve that s as I read the law s yQu would
requireds in some fashiQns tQ quantify that modification. .leav~ it opens totally
review it at another time. I think I could s~e a potential problem th~re.
MR. CAIMANO-..t~ll him no.
MR. DUSEK-Either no Qr els~ give him sQme kind Qf a quantification Qf what it
is that he'll have tQ com~ up with as tQ decibels are mQre than ar~ acceptabl~.
I think yQu I ve got a certain amount Qf flexibility here s but I dQn' t think you
can just expose the applicant tQ
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. W~ also have the right tQ postpQne a decision on a
motion for 30 days, do we not?
MR. DUSEK-That's cQrrect.
MR. CARTIER-Wells before this mQtion gets a seconds I would lik~ us to consider,
informally fQr a moment s cQnsid~r the possibility of PQstponing a decision on
this for a maximum of 30 days tQ get a chance fQr Planning Staff, PQssibly s tQ
wr~stle with this difference in number and see what we can come up with.
25
~
---
MR. CAIMANO-I think you have to quantify th~ noise situation on~ way or another
and 11m still not satisfied with this parking situation and I just read a little
bit of 7.071 and 11m less satisfied that w~'re on firm ground.
MR. CARTIER-And, frankly, Mr. Judges I think that would make you more satisfied
because that does give you time to work with it. There I s not some vagu~ kind
of thing.
MR. ROBERTS-Are we going to determine what is acceptable. .acceptable increase.
Five or six d~cibels would be acceptable beyond that or we would required some
vegetative screening.
MR. CARTIER-I don't knows something to that effect s but I think what we I re saying
iss giv~ us 30 days to get together with Planning Staff and come up with a number
with the difference in decibel level instead of just pulling it out of the air.
MR. CAIMANO-They already haves though, Peter.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Cartiers If I might address that. The Planning Staff, by no means
has expertise in the area of noise studies. The information that we provided
to the Board to help aid in your review of the noise study Morse Engineering did,
is all the information we can really provide at this point ands according to that
information, the audible rang~ to human hearing of chang~s in noise is between
o and 15 decibels so I think we I re looking at s not only an issue of what is
acceptable to the residents, but how do we determine the ranges the number within
that 0 to 15 decibels range that will constitute an unacceptable increase in nois~.
MR. CARTIER-If I understand what youlre sayings youlre saying to me a human ear
cannot detect the differenc~ in nois~ of 15 d~cibelss is that right?
MR. BAKER-Nos a human ear can. The range that a human ear can detect is between
o and 15 decibels. SOs thatls the range of increase that would really be detectable
to the surrounding neighbors.
MR. CARTIER-Okays but what 11m saying iss thatls why I'm looking for some time
heres not nec~ssarilys 11m not trying to just load this off on the Planning Staffs
but to give us a chance because I think it becomes somewhat significant to us
where we add this 15 d~cibels on this list of noise levels.
MR. BAKER-Okays yess I agree.
MR. CARTIER-Granted the quantity of nois~ is the sam~ in terms of decibel levelss
but I think addings if you I re op~rating, for exampl~s at a 20 decibel level and
you add 15 decib~ls to that s that may not be a problem. However s if you' r~
operating at a 90 decibel level and you add 15 decibels to thats that is a problem.
So s that I s what I'm looking for. I don I t want to comp licate this thing. Do you
know what 11m saying.
MR. CAIMANO-Peters it's not going to work. 1111 tell you why it IS not going to
work because then you open up the whole realm of possibility of where you measures
how you measure s how many times you measure. Somebody has to acc~p tall thos e
scientific paramet~rs and I defy you to find anybody in this rooms with as small
a crowd as this s to come up with some kind of quantitative measures. I think
what we have to do is go back to your statement earlier s that I s the fact that
we have to wr~stle and deal with the fact of noise in this ~nvironment and I think
we should put this thing off for 30 days for that purpose and not for the purpose
of quantifying a number b~cause I don't think we'll ever get to that number and
when w~ do get to that number, that I s going to be argumentative too. It's never
going to end in terms of argum~ntation and I think this Board hass philosophicallys
come up with a proposal. There are people here who don't want anymore noise in
this Town. There are other peop l~ who have businesses that require that th~y
have more noise and I think what we have to do is come up with that answer, not
whether Mr. Judge I s client gets five mor~ d~cibels or three more decibels or no
mor~ decibels.
MR. CARTIER-Don I t anybody misunderstand me. 11m not suggesting we leave this
up to the neighbors or we leave this up to the Great Escap~. W~'r~ on the hook
for this. I don't fully understand that.
MR. DUSEK-Is there a possibility of considering mitigation measures that you could
just includes period.
26
"--'
'--'
MR. CAIMANO-Such as.
MR. DUSEK-I don I t know. I'm just bring this as a suggestion to you. You could
make a part of your motion and say these are going to b~ dones whether they are
any help or not s but they will be done and if they turn out to be unn~cessary s
well they turn out to be unnecessary. I don't know if Mr. Judge would be willing
to agree to that, but I think what was mentioned earlier was treess for examples
perhaps th~ Board may wish to consider that as an option and just go ahead and
make it part of the motion.
MR. CARTIER- I think that I s what we were talking about. We were talking about
vegetative buffers s the question is s we don't know how much. One of the things
we Ire going to have account for is to tie thiss agains back to the first application
that was before us tonight is that some trees are going to be moved and when I
look at that roller coaster sites I see sound funneling right out of the ~nd of
that toward Route 9 and behind the County Center.
MR. ROBERTS-Courthouse Estates.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Some of those trees are going to be removed in th~ process
of extracting grav~l.
MR. CAIMANO-It's going to b~ under the crest of the hill and that sound wave is
going to hit and go up.
MR. CARTIER-In the times lId like to postpone a decision for 30 days.
MR. ROBERTS-Well s I guess 30 days would be the first meeting of next month.
MR. CARTIER-Yess that's a good time.
MR. CAIMANO-Let I S make a suggestion. My suggestion is that it is neith~r fair
to the resid~nts or to the applicant, at this stag~ of th~ game. Why don' t w~
schedule a separate meeting and handle this subj~ct alone.
MR. CARTIER-Thatls fine with mes as long as it's not tacked on to the end of a
regular meeting.
MR. CAIMANO-Nos 11m suggesting that som~time in the next two weeks or so we sit
down and discuss it.
MR. CARTIER-With the und~rstanding that somehow the Board gets togeth~rs formallys
with Planning and Legal Staff to address the issues.
MR. CAIMANO-Informally or formally, it doesn't make any difference to me.
MR. CARTIER-I guess I would like to withdraw my original motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (ROLLER COASTER) s
Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoptions s~cond~d by Nicholas
Caimano:
Until such time as Staff and the Board members can get together and make some
determinations and this will be publicly noticed with the clear und~rstanding
the direction is that we'll be able to giv~ the applicant answer to sound and
to the parking.
Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, just to clarify thingss we are looking at a special m~eting
of the Planning Board, in approximately two weeks, to handle this?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. BAKER-I think a two week time p~riod would probably be ideal just to make
sure that we can get this prop~rly advertis~d.
27
"---
,-,,'
MR. ROBERTS-11m not sur~ w~ n~~d to k~~p th~ public h~aring open.
MR. CAIMANO-I was going to says th~r~Is not a public h~aring...so th~ only thing
is.
MR. ROBERTS-W~'r~ just m~~ting to mak~ a d~cision.
MR. CAIMANO-W~lls you have to follow the..laws and that r~quir~s sp~cial m~~tings
two or thr~~ days notic~s c~rtainly fiv~ days.
MR. BAKER-I just want~d to clarify that. Two w~~ks is fin~.
MR. CARTIER-W~ don'ts at this points have to tak~ car~ of this public t~stimony.
MR. CAIMANO-I think th~ public hearing is clos~d. Th~ SEQRA part is don~, so
th~ only thing we'r~ r~ally doing is m~~ting to discuss th~ d~cision.
MR. CARTIER-I would ask Planning Staff, th~ns to mak~ arrang~m~nts to g~t th~
Board m~mb~rs tog~th~r for a m~~ting prior to that.
MR. BAKER-C~rtainly.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-89 TYPE: UNLISTED REVISION/MODIFICATION HC-1A SFR-1A DR.
SHIMON AND MALKA SHALIT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH OF WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL
CENTER OPPOSITE MONTCALM SOUTH RESTAURANT, DOWN AS LAKE GEORGE PLAZA APPLICANT
WISHES TO OBTAIN APROVAL OF CREATION OF SECOND STAIRWAY TO LOWER LEVEL, MOVING
LOCATION OF 6 PARKING SPOTS; CIlAHGE IN EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES AND LIGHTING PLAN,
CIlAHGE IN CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL FOR WALKWAY CANOPY. (WARREN COUNTY PLARHING -
MARCH 1990) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-27.2, 26, 27.20 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION 4.020
MICHAEL OlCONNORs REPRESENTING APPLICANTSs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from John Goralskis Plann~r (attach~d)
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairmans for th~ purpos~ of your r~cords 11m Micha~l OlConnor
from th~ law firm of Littl~ and O'Connor. With m~ is Jam~s Hunt from C.T. Male
Associat~s and MaIka Shalit, on~ of th~ own~rs of th~ proj~ct. W~Ir~ h~r~ answ~r
any qu~stions that th~ Board has. Mayb~ this will b~ a bri~f pr~s~ntation.
MR. ROBERTS-I hav~ no probl~ms with th~ir application.
~ith~r and agr~~d with th~ applicant that th~y ar~ minor.
I gu~ss Staff do~sn' t
MR. 0 I CONNOR-Basically s this is an att~mpt just to k~~p ~v~rybody inform~d as
to som~ chang~s that b~cam~ appar~nt or sugg~st~d during construction and rath~r
than having us do som~thing diff~r~nt than what was submitt~d befor~s w~ formaliz~d
th~ chang~s and outlin~d th~m in that l~tt~r to you.
MR. ROBERTS-Is this going to r~quir~ SEQRA action?
MR. DUSEK-Is this th~ on~ with th~ parking spac~s?
MS. CORPUS-Rights this is th~ on~.
MR. DUSEK-What ar~ th~y doing with th~m.
MR. CARTIER-Moving six parking spotss changing int~rior light fixtur~s and lighting
plans and changing construction material for walkway canopy.
MR. DUSEK-Th~ oth~r on~s ar~ not a probl~m. Th~y would qualify as a Typ~ II
~x~mption. Th~ only thing I 1m conc~rn~d about is th~ parking spac~s. I don It
know, how much ar~ you moving th~m? Ar~ you ~liminating th~m? What ar~ you doing
with th~ parking?
MR. OlCONNOR-W~Ir~ still complying with th~ r~quir~d numb~r of parking spots.
W~' r~ still comp lying with th~ all th~ oth~r mixtur~s that you hav~. W~ simp ly
hav~ tak~n som~ that w~r~ on th~ upp~r l~v~l in th~ U of th~ building and mov~d
th~m to th~ back of th~ sit~.
MR. DUSEK-W~r~ th~r~ any parking spac~s in th~ back of th~ sit~ b~for~?
MR. OlCONNOR-Y~s.
28
'-'
'-'
MR. DUSEK-Ohs so you just add~d th~m on to what was alr~ady th~r~?
MR. OlCONNOR-Y~s.
MR. DUSEK-I think th~ whol~ thing would qualify as a Typ~ II s th~n. That would
b~ my opinions but th~ Boards of cours~s can mak~ th~ir own d~cision.
MR. ROBERTS-A Typ~ II which m~ans?
MR. DUSEK-No SEQRA.
MR. ROBERTS-No SEQRA.
MR. CARTIER-Any d~bat~s or discussions.
MR. ROBERTS-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-89 DR. SHIMON AND MALKA SHALIT s Introduc~d
by Nicholas Caimano who mov~d for its adoptions s~cond~d by Carol Pulv~r:
Applicant wish~s to obtain approval of cr~ation of s~cond stairway to low~r l~v~ls
moving location of 6 parking spots; chang~ in ~xt~rior light fixtur~s and lighting
plan, chang~ in construction material for walkway canopy.
Duly adopt~d this 27th day of Marchs 1990, by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION OF APPROVAL
FROM JANUARY 16, 1990 SFR-lA PARTRIDGE RUN OWNER: SCRIMSHAW VENTURES, INC.
POTTER ROAD , APPROX. 320 FT. SOUTH OF AVIATION ROAD, BEFORE BEND TO SUBDIVIDE
9.39 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF APPROX. 1 ACRE EACH. TAX MAP NO. 90-2-2.4
LOT SIZE: 9.39 ACRES
KEITH MANZs C.T. MALEs REPRESENTING APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from John Goralskis Plann~r (attach~d)
ENGINEER REPORT
L~tt~r from Rist-Frost (attach~d)
MR. MANZ-K~ith Manz from C.T. Mal~. Basicallys what happ~n~d was w~ submitt~d
th~ pr~viously approv~d plans to th~ H~alth D~partm~nt and th~y would not approv~
it bas~d on th~ subsurfac~ fill syst~m shown on th~ plan and aft~r discussion
with D~partm~nt of H~alth as w~ll as Mr. Goralski from th~ Planning Staff and
Wayn~ Gann~tt of Rist-Frost s pr~tty muchs th~ summary stat~m~nt in Rist-Frost I s
l~tt~r was that D~partm~nt of H~alth would approv~ a conv~ntional s~ptic syst~m
on ~ach of th~ 8 lots and I b~liev~ Mr. Goralskils m~mo r~f~rring to that l~tt~r
also r~pr~s~nts his f~~lings in that sam~ direction. It I S a situation wh~r~ you
hav~ only 8 lots and it do~sn I t mak~ s~ns~ to go with subsurfac~ fill syst~ms
b~caus~ you' d hav~ to cl~ar ~v~ry lot and fill th~ms and l~t it sit six to nin~
months in ord~r to g~t approval with th~ subsurfac~ fill system. The r~gulations
may chang~ in D~c~mb~r of this year, but approval was r~comm~nd~d by Rist-Frost
b~caus~ of th~ numb~r of lots in this particular situation. SOs unl~ss th~re' s
any sp~cific qu~stions on what took plac~ in th~ discussions with DOH or th~ Towns
it s~~ms to m~ it would b~ mor~ or l~ss of a proc~dural thing in ord~r to gain
approval.
29
'-"
--'
MR. ROBERTS-Rist-Frost hass in fact, agreed that it can be done this way. I don't
know if w~ hav~ to go any farther than that s do we? I think you're right, that
there is some chance of that regulation changing in the futur~ and maybe this
will b~ clarified because we have been prone to requir~ these kinds of systems
where the perc rate was too quick and that's not such a bad idea I guess s but
it apparently could run into some stumbling blocks. Is this something you can
live withs Peter.
MR. CARTIER-What we Ire saying iss w~ approved this based on the fact that theylre
going to put in fill systems and th~y're sayings no you donlt have to put in fill
systems.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. CARTlER-I don I t have a problem with it. It's an 8 lot subdivision. I think
I'd have a problem with it in a much larger subdivision. So, we I re going to be
hearing of this again at some points 11m sures in the futur~.
MR. ROBERTS-This is not a public hearing. L~tls make a motion.
MR. DUSEK-You have to do SEQRA at this point becaus~ of th~ fill systems that
are being used and there I s nothing I can find in the Type II action that would
qualify it. Itls my recommendation that it IS always safe to do the SEQRA.
MR. CAIMANO-The short form?
MR. DUSEK-I think if the applicant has previously filed one with his old
applications if he is willing to indicat~ that there is nothing that has changed
on the sites you could use the old form and then just redo the SEQRA answers.
Go down through and make sure they they should still be the same.
MR. MANZ-Yes, the old form would be valids ev~n with this change.
change the short form at all based on this change.
It wouldn't
(END OF FIRST DISK)
30
"--'
--'
MR. CARTIER-Quick questiQn. I guess this is a prQcedural questiQn. This just
happened on the previous application, too. When w~ get theses what I consider
relatively minor changess the applicant resubmits what seems lik~ to me an
incredible amount of documentatiQn and I guess my question iss is it nec~ssary.
I don't need an answer nQw. It's just a questiQn that I want to tQSS Qut for
us tQ think about. There seems to be an incredible amount of paperwork being
generated for what is a relatively minQr change. It maybe sQm~thing you want
to think about in the future.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 14-1989s Introduced by Peter Cartier who mQved fQr its adoptions
secQnded by NichQlas CaimanQ:
WHEREAS s there is presently before the Planning BQard an app licatiQn fQr: a
modificatiQn Qf approval from January 16, 1990 for the subdivision of 9.39 acres
into 8 single family lots of approx. 1 acre each owned by Scrimshaw Ventures,
Inc. and known as PARTRIDGE RON and
WHEREASs this Planning Board has determin~d that the proposed prQject and Planning
BQard actiQn is subject to review under the State EnvirQnmental Quality Review
Acts
NOW, THEREFORE s BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be invQlved.
2. Th~ following agencies are involved:
The Department of H~alth
3. The proposed actiQn cQnsidered by this Board is unlisted in th~ Departm~nt
Qf EnvirQnmental Conservation Regulations implementing the Stat~ Environm~ntal
Quality Review Act and the regulatiQns Qf the TQwn Qf Que~nsbury.
4. An Environmental Ass~ssm~nt Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having cQnsidered and thorQughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
conc~rn and having considered the criteria fQr determining wheth~r a prQject
has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in S~ction
617.11 of the Official CQmpilatiQn Qf CQd~s s Rul~s and RegulatiQns for the
State Qf New YQrks this BQard finds that the actiQn abQut to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant envirQnmental effect and th~ Chairman
of the Planning BQard is hereby authQrized to execute and sign and file as
may be necessary a statement Qf non-significance or a negative declaration
that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 27th day Qf March, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
MR. CAIMANO-What you really need is an amendment, nQW, to the approval Qf January
16th, right?
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION
16th, 1990 FOR PARTRIDGE RONs IntrQduced by Peter
adoptions seconded by NichQlas CaimanQ:
APPROVAL GIVEN ON JANUARY
Cartier who mQved for its
That amendment being tQ accept trench syst~ms in lieu of fill syst~ms for the
Partridge Run Subdivision.
Duly adopt~d this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. CaimanQs Mr. RQberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
31
'--'
-..-/
MR. CAIMANO-We just made an am~ndment. To tell you the truths what we really
should do now is reapprove motion no. 14-1989 as amf'¡nd~d because all we just did
is approve an amendment.
MR. CARTIER-How would I word that?
MR. CAIMANO-You asked us for an amendment.
MR. CARTIER-To approve an am~ndm~nts too.
MR. CAIMANO-Thatls right. Now we need tos in all candors we need to reapprove
14-1989.
MOTION TO REAPPROVE SUBDIVISION 14-1989 PARTRIDGE RDRs Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Peter Cartier:
To subdivide 9.39 acres into 8 single family lots of approx. 1 acre each as amended.
Duly adopted this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA SHULTZ SUBDIVISION
OWNER: ARZELIA H. SHULTZ NORTHERLY SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, 1,000 FT. SOUTH OF HICKS
ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. PLAN TO RETAIN EXISTING RESIDENCE PARCEL AND TO
CONVEY TWO BUILDING LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 55-1-8 LOT SIZE: 9.5 ACRES
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Bakers Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-I think this was just down to a formality for us. No public hearing.
It was address~d at Preliminarys as was SEQRA, I hope.
MR. BAKER-The SEQRA was done at Preliminary.
MR. CAIMANO-At preliminary.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1989 FINAL STAGE SHULTZ SUBDIVISION,
Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoptions seconded by Richard Roberts:
For a 3 lot subdivision. Plan to retain existing residence parcel and to convey
two building lots.
Duly adopted this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
SITE PLAN NO. 81-89 TYPE: UNLISTED REVISION OF APPROVAL FROM DEC. 19, 1989
LI-3A ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE QUEENSBORY AVENUE, LOT
56, HEAR ORKIN PEST CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT/INDUSTRIAL
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3.60 ACRES OF WARREN/WASHINGTON COUNTY IDA LAND. (WARREN
COUNTY PLARHING) TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 3.60 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N
THOMAS NACEs AGENT FOR APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. Yorks Senior Planner (Attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engin~er (attached)
32
',-"
---
MR. ROBERTS-Th~ County approv~d without comm~nt and I b~li~v~ W~ don I t n~~d to
mix th~ two of th~s~. This, it s~~ms to m~s stands on its own without mixing
it up with th~ r~zoning. Was this adv~rtis~d as a public h~aring?
MR. BAKER-Y~ss it was.
MR. ROBERTS-Y~ss it was.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ROBERTS-P~rhapss first, I ought to ask th~ applicant if h~ car~s to comm~nt.
MR. NACE-No, I donlt car~ to comm~nt, unl~ss you hav~ qu~stions.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MR. ROBERTS-Do~s anybody hav~ any quarr~l with th~s~ r~vu~ons. Th~y I r~ going
to b~ coming in off of an acc~ss roads wh~th~r itls a public road or wh~th~r itls
not.
MR. CARTIER-Do I und~rstand that this modification is not conting~nt upon a chang~
in zon~? This can stand alon~? Do~s th~ granting or non granting of a chang~
of zon~ ~ff~ct this application?
MR. NACE-No. For th~ r~cords my nam~ is Tom Nac~s r~pr~s~nting Adirondack
Industrial. The chang~ of this particular lot is not s in any way, conting~nt
upon a subdivision or th~ r~zoning. It h~lps if th~ r~zoning is approv~d and
subdivision approv~d, th~n it h~lps int~rnaliz~ all th~ circulations but w~ would
ask it r~gard...
MR. CARTIER-W~ hav~ a short forms do w~ not?
MRS. PULVER-Y~s.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 81-89s Introduc~d by Nicholas Caimano who mov~d for its adoptions
s~cond~d by P~t~r Carti~r:
WHEREAS, th~r~ is pr~s~ntly b~for~ this Planning Board an application for: revision
of approval for construction of a 25,000 sq. ft. light/industrial warehouse facility
on 3.60 acres of Warren/Washington County IDA land and
WHEREASs this Planning Board has d~t~rmin~d that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Acts
NOW, THEREFORE s 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 Que~nsbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by th~ applicant.
5. Having consider~d and thoroughly analyzed th~ r~l~vant ar~as of ~nvironm~ntal
concern and having consid~red th~ criteria for d~t~rmining wheth~r a proj~ct
has a significant environm~ntal impact as th~ sam~ is set forth in S~ction
617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Codes s Rul~s and R~gulations for th~
Stat~ of New Yorks this Board finds that th~ action about to b~ und~rtak~n
by this Board will have no significant environm~ntal ~ffect and th~ Chairman
of th~ Planning Board is h~r~by authoriz~d to ex~cut~ and sign and file as
may be necessary a stat~ment of non-significanc~ or a n~gative declaration
that may b~ requir~d by law.
33
',,--
--'
Duly adopt~d this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by the following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
MOTION TO REVISE APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 19th, 1989 FOR SITE PLAN NO. 81-89 ADIRONDACK
INDUSTRIAL PARKs Introduc~d by Nicholas Caimano who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d
by P~t~r Cartier:
For construction of a 25,000 square foot light/industrial warehous~ facility on
3.60 acres of Warr~n/Washington County IDA land commonly known as th~ Adirondack
Industrial Park as follows: To ~liminat~ th~ road cuts on Que~nsbury Av~nu~.
To go to a common road between lots 56 and 57.
Duly adopt~d this 27th day of Marchs 1990s by th~ following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
HEW BUSINESS:
PETITION FOR A CIlAHGE OF ZONE P3-90 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTY INVOLVED: WARREN/WASHINGTON CO. INDUSTRIAL PARK
QUEENSBURY AVENUE, SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD CURRENT ZONING:
LI-1A TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 TOTAL ACREAGE: 19± ACRES
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
- LOTS 56 THROUGH 60
LI - 3A PROPOSED ZONING:
THOMAS NACEs AGENT FOR APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from Le~ A. Yorks Senior Plann~r (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I question the need for th~ r~zoning. w~ have alr~ady discuss~d
as part of your working with th~s~ p~ople about doing ~xactly what your plans
shows th~y'r~ coming in with a loop road thems~lv~s. Why can It that still b~
don~ to utilize the back acr~ag~ that does not have to b~ l~ft for stormwat~r
manag~m~nt? As you knows th~ylre using th~ back ~nd for som~ of those lots as
part of our stormwater manag~m~nt and 11m not sure thats thos~ v~ry longs d~ep
lots, that all of them are usabl~. I don't really think they ar~. I don't know
why you can't do thiss since you own the fiv~ lots with your own privat~ road,
just the way youlre doing it. All welr~ r~comm~nding, in facts with an overall
plans why do~s it hav~ to be a r~zoning.
MR. NACE-Stated originally s a misconception on th~ own~rs part. H~ thought it
was on~ acre zon~. He was going to d~v~lop the entir~ parc~l withs as you prop~rly
indicat~s with an int~rnal roads and thens in the futur~, if h~ want~d tos h~
thought h~ could subdivid~ somewhere down the road and sell off th~ lots. Wh~n
it was pointed out to him that it really is thr~~ acr~s, and b~caus~ of that s
r~ally th~ proper way to go about it is to r~zone first s and th~n d~v~lop it s
subdivid~ it. He's going to dev~lop it all hims~lfs at this stag~s but wh~n h~
s~lls it off he may not want to s~ll off all fiv~ lots. H~ may not b~ abl~ to
sell off all fiv~ lots or all of on~ lots with two diff~r~nt buildings on it.
Som~wh~r~ down th~ road, h~ may want to s~ll off on~ of th~ lots to a t~nant of
th~ boat launch s but if h~ I s got a lot th~r~ with two tenants sit comp licat~s
th~ matt~r. SOs r~ally, th~ prop~rs from a good planning proc~dur~ standpoints
th~ prop~r way to do it is to go ahead and subdivid~ it. That allows us to put
in roads to Town standards and make sure that th~ roads s from a Town standpoint,
thos~ roads th~n will b~ maintain~d. You wonlt hav~ to worry about a commercial
cli~nt back here or a commercial t~nant in th~ Town of Que~nsbury that's going
to complain b~cause these roads w~re not kept up and r~ally it's a proper road
inst~ad of a Town road. It just makes mor~ s~ns~ to subdivide it.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated w~ll s th~ Town would f~~l a lot bett~r if it didn I t hav~ to
own th~ road s . . . th~ Town standpoint and I think w~ would lose som~ control ov~r
the density at that point if itls cut up and th~ way it is now, w~ com~ in with
additional buildings out in back there, w~ would tak~ a pr~tty hard look.
34
'--
,-.../
MR. NACE-Ask~ds WQuld it help if I shQW yQu what we hav~ prQPQs~d fQr a subdivision?
I'v~ got a pr~liminary(map) I think you can s~~ from that. What w~'r~ talking
about iss h~re ar~ th~ existing apprQved buildingss we Ire talking abQut an
additional 5 lots. Th~ av~rage siz~ of th~ IQts is still going to b~ about th~
same as most of the oth~r lQts in th~ industrial park. I apQIQgize I don't hav~
a larg~ scal~ map Qf the ov~rall parks but th~r~' s a small on~ and, as you can
s~es th~ lots in qu~stiQn ar~s by fars th~ bigg~st lQtss with the exception of
Qnes th~ bigg~st lQts in th~ ~ntire park. Most of th~ lQts are right around 2
acres.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d th~r~Is a...r~ason for that b~caus~s it s~~ms tQ m~s you're
going to b~ cr~ating SQm~ lQts that are really not v~ry d~v~lQpable back th~re.
MR. NACE-Stat~d w~' r~ going tQ get Qff the track a 1ittl~ bit s but the Qriginal
reason for that was, th~ airpQrt s when th~ airpQrt was d~v~lop~d and the park
was develop~d in conjunction with th~ airports th~y thought thats Qr....they thought
that th~y w~r~ gQing to put a taxi way back her~s across the back of thes~ lots
and provid~ comm~rcial industrial spac~ where sQmebQdy CQuld com~ in by plan~
and taxi right up to th~ dQorst~p and th~ way the park has dev~lop~ds it has nQt
tak~n that turn and, in facts I think they found it, sQm~thing abQut putting a
taxi way here WQuld nQt be allowab l~ by the FAA standards. So s I think that I s
the primary reasQn that th~s~ lQts w~r~ left.. As yQu can s~~, up Qn th~ upp~r
~nd of th~ parks th~y did nQt do that ands in facts the whQle r~mainder of th~
park ar~ small~r lots.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I r~aliz~ that it's gQt some bumps and constraints ands of
cours~s municipal s~w~r and wat~r helps s but it dQ~sn I t h~lp with the stormwat~r
manag~m~nt .
MR. NACE-Stated w~ll, what we I r~ proposing with th~ stormwat~r manag~m~nt is to
bring th~ swal~s dQwn th~ sid~ of th~ rQads here, put in a clQs~d syst~m which
will bring ~verything acrQss th~ back and d~v~lop an ov~rall det~ntion slat~ back
on th~ back ~nd Qf this lot.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d 10Qks lik~ YQulve got a building th~re.
MR. NACE-Stat~d nQs th~se ar~n't buildings. Th~se ar~ just s~tback lines.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated ok.
MR. NACE-Stat~d thos~ are th~ zQning s~tback lines shown. SOs what we Ire building
is Qn this lQt wQuld b~ w~ll up tQ th~ frQnt Qfthis lQt.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ll, mayb~ 11m ov~rr~acting.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d nos b~caus~ I was on~ of th~ Qnes who push~d...wh~n th~y r~zQned
to dQ this s it I s going to b~ 3 acr~s b~caus~ Qf the locations on sites it was
the high water tabl~ and th~... soils. I'm willing tQ lQQk at it agains but I
think L~~ is right. I think we Qught tQ s what' s b~ing requested h~r~ s is s in
~ff~cts spot zQning.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d it kind of smacks Qf SPQt zQning tQ m~.
MR. NACE-Stat~d well s let m~ addr~ss that. That was my first thQught too and
I did approach Ray Wat~rhQuse when I gQt started on this and said my client h~r~
wants tQ rezon~ thes~ fiv~ lQts s do~s the industrial d~v~IQpment ag~ncy hav~ any
d~sir~ to r~zQn~ all Qf the Qu~ensbury side Qf th~ park and th~ answ~r came backs
un~quivocallys no. Th~y had nQ inter~st..what SQ ~ver.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, th~y had nQ int~r~st in that or th~y didn I t want to dQ that?
Th~r~Is a diff~r~nce. Do yQU und~rstand what 11m saying?
MR. NACE-Stat~d yes. Th~y had no int~rest in having th~ r~st of th~ lQts r~zon~d
tQ on~ acr~. Th~y had no res~rvatiQns abQut these lots being r~zon~ds but, at
the sam~ tok~ns th~y had no purpos~ in having th~ Qther lots r~zon~d.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~lls I guess that cr~at~s a probl~m for m~ then b~cause thats
in facts do~s becom~ spot zoning. Youlr~ gQing to hav~ this on~ acre zon~
surrounded by thr~~ acr~s. What would it take to g~t th~ IDA to r~zon~? Any
id~a?
MR. NACE-Stat~d nos I hav~ no idea.
35
"--
,--,,'
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d wells let's put it this way, itls going to b~ a singl~ own~rship
and r~zoning individual ownerships s properly s that' s rath~r hard to do and not
hav~ it call~d spot zoning.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d I just don't want to sugg~st that s I don't want to s~~ us
cr~ating another QEDC type situation and I'm not sugg~sting that Mr. Nace is doing
thats but I think we'v~ got to kind of tip toe h~r~. I gu~ss, informallys for
m~, I hav~ a problem with doing it on one pi~c~ of property b~cause it still fe~ls
lik~ spot zoning, to m~. 11m willing to b~ talked out of it, I guess. My druth~rs
would b~ that th~ whole thing be looked at from a on~ acr~ zone b~caus~ th~n w~
could d~al with traffic issues b~caus~s if you incr~as~ d~nsitys I assum~ th~re's
going to be incr~ased traffic and so ons but I can b~ talked into on~ acre here.
MR. NACE-Stat~d w~lls in this particular instanc~s if you look at just these lotss
th~r~ would not b~ any increase. All th~ zoning do~s is allow us to subdivid~
ands in th~ futur~, to b~ abl~ to sell of individual lots. It'll still b~ d~v~loped
th~ sam~ way. Th~ density.. . rezoning for on~ acre is th~ same as thr~e acr~.
I can put as many square f~et of building on on~ of those lots, wh~th~r it IS thr~e
acre or on~ acre. It mak~s no difference.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d you can hav~ multiply buildings on that one.
MR. NACE-Stat~d that's corr~ct.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess w~ und~rstood that. W~ r~cogniz~d that som~ of thos~
lots w~r~ going to have additional buildings.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~ll s I think we were trying to giv~ ours~lv~s room to d~al
with th~ incr~as~d runoff because of the decr~as~d b~rms with building and parking.
MR. NACE-Stat~d wells th~ runoff, in fact, you I 11 have b~tt~r control over that
now th~n you I 11 hav~ at subdivision r~vi~w b~caus~ your review th~re is mor~
stringent and has som~ guidelin~s writt~n and r~gulations that are not th~r~ in
th~ sit~ plan regulations in your zoning.
MR. CARTIER-Stated w~ll, 11m wondering if this I 11 start a snowball kind of d~al
lik~ that zone we did up ons that last r~zoning w~ did. All of a sudd~n w~ III
S~~ som~body want to com~ in here at one acr~ d~nsity attach~d to this.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d most of th~ other lots are smallers how~v~r.
MR. NACE-Stat~d y~s. Most of th~ oth~r lots ar~ alr~ady d~v~loped and are small~r
lots.
MR. CARTIER-Stated welre looking ats ~ss~ntially
MR. NACE-Stat~d for 56 through 60s so welr~ looking at those lots right ther~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d th~ lot to the north is already built ons isnlt it.
MR. NACE-Stat~d 54s I b~li~ves is built on. Fifty fives I think that I s still
own~d by IDA. 11m sur~ thatls still own~d by IDA and, again, I asked Ray Wat~rhous~
sp~cifically what about the vacant lots that ar~ in th~r~ now and they had no
int~r~st in having those rezoned.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d in other words, when you did th~ r~zonings a whol~ lot of this
prop~rty had alr~ady b~~n subdivided in on~ acr~s correct.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d corr~ct.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d sOs w~'r~ just looking at, kind ofs th~ r~mnants.
MR. NACE-Stated thatls corr~ct.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d unsubdivid~d remnants. Well, I gu~ss I don I t hav~ a probl~m
with that. I thinks as Mr. Roberts has point~d outs w~'r~ going to hav~ to look
long and hard at runoff b~for~ we do s~~ th~s~ at subdivision.
MR. NACE-Stat~d y~ss as I say, I think th~ subdivision r~gulations will give you
bett~r t~~th to deal with that.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d if the l~gal d~partment thinks we can get away with it and
not b~ accus~d of spot zoning.
36
''"'---
'---"
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d this is only a recomm~ndation to th~ Town Board. Th~y will
ultimat~ly hav~ the final say on whether it would b~ approved.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~ hav~ a SEQRA application.
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d th~ Town Board d~als with th~ SEQRA.
MOTION FOR A PETITION FOR A CIlAHGE OF ZONE P3-90 TAX MAP NO. 5-2-20
INDUSTRIAL RECOMMENDING THAT THE TOWN BOARD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER CIlAHGING
FROM THE CURRENT LI - 3 ACRE TO PROPOSED ZONING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-l ACRE s
by Carol Pulv~r who moved for its adoptions s~conded by Nicholas Caimano:
ADIRONDACK
THE ZONING
Introduc~d
Enclos~d is that portion of th~ minut~s that p~rtain to P3-90.
Duly adopted this 27th day of Marchs 1990, by the following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
SITE PLAN NO. 19-90 TYPE II WR-1A MARGARET AND THEODORE IlAHS OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE GUHH LANE, CLEVERDALE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 FT. BY 40 FT. U-SHAPED
ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 FT. 6 IN. BY
35 FT. OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE; REMOVAL OF AN 8 FT. BY 30 FT. SECTION OF EXISTING
DOCK (WARREN COUNTY PLARHING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: LESS TIIAH 1 ACRE
SECTION 4.020
WALTER REHM; JOHN MASON s AGENT FOR APPLICANTS s PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from John Goralski, Planner (attach~d)
MR. ROBERTS-Th~ County approv~d without comm~nt. W~ do have sOm~ l~tters in th~
fil~s from th~ neighbors. Do w~ n~ed to read all of th~s~ l~tt~rs?
MR. BAKER-Th~y ar~ n~w l~tt~rs that w~r~ submitt~d with this new application.
MRS. PULVER-They are new?
MR. BAKER-They are new l~tt~rs.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay. I gu~ss w~ b~tt~r r~ad th~m. Would you lik~ to do that?
MR. BAKER-C~rtainly.
MR. REHM-Mr. Roberts, I donlt think that ther~ is anyone heres in th~ rooms at
the mom~nts that would mak~ any comm~nts in opposition to th~ application and,
as far as th~ applicant is conc~rneds w~ would be happy to waiv~ th~ r~ading of
th~ l~tt~rs and just make them a part of th~ r~cords if th~ Board wish~s to do
thats just to sav~ tim~.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, th~ last tim~ around w~ had a gr~at d~al of opposition to it s
but I suspect thes~ ar~ th~ same p~opl~.
MRS. PULVER-Th~y ar~.
MR. ROBERTS-I guess th~y' r~ ~ntitl~d to be h~ard in oppositions I would think.
MR. BAKER-R~ad lett~rs. L~tt~r
dat~d March 27, 1990 (on fil~)
dated March 24s 1990 (on fil~)
dat~d March 26s 1990 (on fil~)
from Nancy Kittredg~-G~is~rs to Planning Boards
Lett~r from Sally Kittredg~ Gifford, to Plann~rs,
L~tt~r from Richard Kittr~dg~s to Planning Boards
MR. CARTIER-Excuse m~, I think this last l~tt~rs is this from Richard Kittr~dge?
MR. BAKER-Y~ss it is.
MR. CARTIER-Is ~ssentially th~ sam~ as the oth~rs. I don't s~~ anything differ~nt.
I donlt even know if you hav~ to read it.
37
"--',
--
MR. ROBERTS-Okay. w~ don I t hav~ any ~ngin~~ring comm~nts on this.
it ov~r to th~ applicant.
I wi 11 turn
MR. REHM-My nam~ is Walt~r R~hm. I r~pr~s~nt Mr. and Mrs. Hans in conn~ction
with this application. I know that you' r~ quite familiar with this sinc~ it was
pr~sented to yous I thinks at th~ January m~~ting. Sinc~ th~ January m~~ting,
th~ application has r~c~iv~d approval and p~rmits from th~ D~partm~nt of
Environmental Cons~rvation and from the Lak~ G~orge Park Commission. It was also
pr~sent~d, th~ oth~r nights to th~ County Planning Boards and it was unanimously
approv~d by th~ County Planning Board, ors approval was r~comm~nd~d by th~ County
Planning Board. There is no jurisdiction as far as the Adirondack Park Ag~ncy
is conc~rn~d s as I'm sure you I r~ awar~of. Th~r~ ar~ two diff~rences in this
application as opposed to th~ application that you r~vi~w~d b~fore. You will
recall that th~ basis for th~ d~nia1 of that application was Number On~, that
ther~ was th~ possibility of th~ interferenc~ in navigation with th~ oth~r dock
that was on th~ prop~rty. I beli~v~ we hav~ all~viat~d that problem by agr~~ing
to r~mov~ th~ 30 f~~t of that dock that was at an angl~ to the shor~lin~ s which
is a substantial proj~ct, I might add. It's an 8 ft. by 30 ft. s~ction of crib
dock which is going to b~ r~mov~d. The remaind~r of that dock will not be used
for boatss which shou1ds I thinks all~viat~ th~ issue ¢f navigational interf~r~nc~.
Th~r~ is a substantial s~paration b~tw~~n the dock that is propos~d and th~
Kittredge dock to the north and I think mayb~s at this tim~, 1111 giv~ th~ Board
som~ mat~rials. What you have is a compilation of a number of thingss copies
of the p~rmits that I had m~ntioned earlier and corr~spondenc~ r~lating to thos~
p~rmits; copi~s of correspondenc~ with th~ Adirondack Park Ag~ncy s but the first
it~m in this folder which I just gav~ you is som~what of a panoramic vi~w of th~
ar~a from th~ Kittr~dg~' s front front porch and if you look at th~ s~cond pag~ s
the pag~ b~yond th~ photographs you I II s~~ that th~r~ is a map that was pr~par~d
and on th~ lot to th~ rights which is lab~l~d existing houses thatls the Kittr~dg~s
Giffords and G~is~r lot. Th~re ar~ six arrows and thos~ six arrows ar~ th~ g~neral
vi~ws that w~r~ taken for this composit~ photograph ands if you can turn back
to th~ photographs what you s~~ is the view of th~ Lake and, particularly, th~
property to th~ l~ft is th~ vi~w that someone from th~ Kittr~dg~ I s front porch
would hav~ of th~ Hans prop~rty. Nows you'll se~ that th~r~ are twos I b~li~v~s
H~mlock tr~~s and to th~ left of thos~ two H~m10ck tr~~ss out in th~ Lake in th~
boats at th~, I gu~ss it would bes northw~st~r1y corn~r of th~ docks is Jim Mason
with a r~d or orang~ coats h~ld up in th~ air, as high as h~ can hold its on the
~nd of a shovel.
MR. CARTIER-Wher~ is that in th~ photo?
MR. REHM-You can It s~e it.
MR. CAIMANO-L~t me ask you a qu~stion, though.
s~cond maps we had six arrows.
Going back to Point B on your
MR. REHM-Y~s.
MR. CAIMANO-If you w~r~ to tak~ one of thos~ two arrows on th~ l~fts which arrow
would you says would b~ pointing to the last photograph on th~ l~ft?
MR. REHM-I would says g~n~rally, the on~ on the l~ft would r~pres~nt this particular
photo.
MR. CAIMANO-Furthest l~ft would repr~s~nt this?
MR. REHM-Yes. On~ of th~ reasons you can't s~~ Jim Mason out on th~ Lake is b~caus~
th~ land at th~ Lakeshor~ on the further left hand side of th~ Kittr~dg~ property
is about 7 f~~t abov~ the l~vel of th~ Lake. This pictur~ is taken from an area
on that lot thatls about 3 f~~t abov~ the area of th~ Lake. SOs it IS an uphill
shot from wh~r~ the picture' s tak~n. Now, John Mason took the picture at about
5 ft. 6 in. above th~ Lak~, but th~ point of th~ matt~r iss you can't s~~ it.
You III se~ that w~Ive tried to show you two things with arrows on th~ l~ft showing
th~ height of the propos~d boathous~ and an arrow on th~ bottom showing th~ Lak~
~xt~nsion of the propos~d boathous~ to try to give you some id~a of what th~
visibility would b~, buts and I'll ask you to bear with m~ with this, if you will
op~n this thing up and look up at th~ light, and you can s~~ on th~ back of min~,
th~r~ is a red mark. If you look up at th~ light, you can s~e s approximat~ly s
wh~r~ that boathous~ would b~ located in relation to th~ Kittr~dg~ lot and you
can also s~~ that it is compl~t~ly scr~en~d by th~ ev~rgr~~ns that ar~ th~r~ now.
Ther~ is also a good bit of d~ciduous brush that' s th~r~s that will grow in th~
spring and th~ summ~r and we think that th~ boathouses will b~ practically.~.from
that lot.
38
'-'
--'
MR. CAIMANO-This is c~rtainly w~ll done s but th~re ar~ two things s esp~cially.
Number Ones in looking at a panoramic or still photoss it is v~ry similar to someon~
on t~l~vision or in th~ movi~s taking you for a rid~ with a movi~ camera in th~
front S~At of the car or a boat or a plane. It makes you a lot sicker than if
you had b~en th~re in p~rson b~caus~ you'r~ not g~tting a panoramic. We'r~ not
g~tting a panoramic. Number Two s these ar~ black and whit~ photographs and not
only black and whit~ photographss but th~y'r~ v~ry dark in color. SO,our point
of vision is going to b~ v~rys very limit~d.
MR. REHM-I can giv~ you color photographs s th~ originals that thes~ w~r~ tak~n
from. Those ar~ just, r~ally s photographs that I gave you. These ar~ a littl~
b~tt~r. Th~ylr~ still som~what l~ss than Dick D~an would have done, but th~ylr~
pr~tty good paramet~rs.
MR. CAIMANO-While w~Ire looking at this things may I ask how high that roof is?
MR. REHM-Th~ roof of boathous~ is about 12 f~~t abov~ th~ wat~rs I b~li~ves which
would make it about 5 fe~t abov~ th~ highest point on that corn~r of th~ Kittr~dge
lot.
MR. CARTIER-Thatls 7 fe~t abov~ Lak~ l~v~l?
MR. REHM-Above th~ wat~rs above th~ Lak~ l~v~l. On that corners itls 7 f~et abov~
th~ Lak~ l~v~l and their lot slop~s back to th~ir hous~ in that ar~a.
MR. ROBERTS-Now that youlr~ going to t~ar up a major portion of th~ existing docks
is ther~ any r~ason why th~ n~w dock couldn't b~ mov~d a littl~ bit to th~ souths
c~nter it in th~ lot a littl~ bit bett~r?
MR. REHM-W~ll, you s~~ the numb~rs that are in circl~s, thos~ ar~ th~ depths.
The wat~r g~ts quit~ shallow over in this area. This particular dock was n~ver
worth much for boating purpos~s, anyway. Itls v~ry shallow and Mr. Hans r~ally
does not want to move th~ dock any further this way for that r~ason and, also s
in t~rms of, his lot is pr~tty well cent~r~ds giv~n th~ location of th~ hous~
and so on. What we did dos and which I think was don~ at th~ out s~t. Inst~ad
of ori~nting this dock th~ way the ordinanc~ allows you to do its kind of parall~l
with a line, it's ori~nt~d th~ other way and, it was mov~d and th~r~ was
considerabl~ n~gotiation betw~en John Mason and Mr. Hans and myself as to how
w~ could do this s thr~~ additional f~et away from the lot lin~. I don I t think
thats wh~r~v~r you mov~ it, I don't think that itls going to impact n~gativ~ly
or positiv~ly th~ vi~w from th~ Kittr~dg~ hous~ b~cause I don I t think th~y can
s~~ it.
MR. ROBERTS-I might asks why th~ ne~d for a doubl~ siz~ docks th~rels...two boats
inside. If you put a boat on eith~r side and two boats inside and that adds up
to four plus the mooring off of it. Allowing for thre~ boats plus th~ mooring
is kind of a maximum that most lots of this siz~ ought to b~ happy with.
MR. REHM-Wells I canlt sp~ak to the numb~r of boats and mayb~ John can...but what
I can say iss once I got involv~d in thiss I looked very closely at th~ Ordinanc~
to s~~ if this conform~d to th~ standards of the Ordinance and it does app~ar
to. I don't think th~r~'s any qu~stion about its in t~rms of size and in terms
of th~ ori~ntation on th~ lots the locations h~ight. I think, as I r~ad th~ laws
that th~ Hans are entitl~d to this dock.
MR. CARTIER-Wells wait a minut~. Itls mor~ than just a matt~r of, it m~~ts th~
numb~rs of th~ Ordinanc~. W~ also have to look at in t~rms of master p Ian and
do~s it make s~ns~ becauses if all that matter was, all it's got to do is match
th~ numb~rs of th~ Ordinances this Board would not have to b~ here, that would
be Building D~partm~nt s point. The reason you have a Planning Board is to mak~
judgem~nt calls.
MR. REHM-With all du~ r~sp~ct s you don't want to d~bate this and I don I t want
to d~bat~ this s but I b~liev~ that one of the major functions of th~ Planning
Board is to administ~r the Zoning Ordinanc~.
MR. CARTIER-Absolutely.
MR. REHM-And th~ Zoning Ordinanc~ provid~s standards and I think that my cli~nts
hav~ m~t those standards. If th~re is ~vid~nc~ of an adverse ~nvironm~ntal impacts
if ther~' s ~vid~nce of som~ s substantial evid~nc~, of som~ degradation of the
~nvironm~nt, fin~s but I think that th~ standards ar~ put into th~ Ordinance as
a guide to th~ citiz~ns of this Town and also as a guide for the Planning Board.
39
'----'
----'
MR. CARTIER-W~ll, we alsQ have tQ r~cQgnize that th~ veg~tation in th~s~ back
may, in facts blQck th~ vi~w of th~ bQathous~. Itls probably less p~rman~nt than
th~ boathQus~ is. Things happ~n tQ vegetatiQn. It g~ts hit by light~ning. It
g~ts cl~ared out for on~ r~ason Qr anQth~r. SOs in facts th~r~ still could be
a blQckag~ of th~ vi~w. I dQn' t want tQ b~at this tQ d~ath. L~t me giv~ yQU
my point of vi~w, h~re. I 1m v~ry inclined tQ go along with what Mr. Goralski
is sugg~sting as a sQlution to this. That do~sn't mak~ Mr. Hans happy. It do~snlt
mak~ th~ Kittr~dg~Is v~ry happy. I dQnlt think the Kittr~dg~'s want to s~~ any
thing at alls but ther~ has to b~ a degr~e of compromis~ h~r~s particularly with
the ph~nQmenal amQunt Qf expansiQn of dQcks that I s gQing on Qn the Lake. The
fact that p~ople are ~ntitled to them by law do~sn't nec~ssarily m~an it's all
preplanning.
MR. REHM-Ohs I agr~~ with thats compl~tely.
MR. CARTIER-So, I gu~ss I could go along with thiss provid~d th~ chang~s r~comm~nd~d
by Mr. GQralski are incorporated.
MR. CAIMANO-The oth~r thing here iss isnlt this 36 by 40 or 28.6 by 35, are those
th~ dim~nsiQns b~caus~ if th~y ares th~y exc~ed th~ 700 squar~ f~~t.
MR. CARTIER-W~ll s the squar~ footag~ s that 700 dQ~sn' t include th~ wat~r spac~.
That's tQtal walking Area.
MR. CAIMANO-W~lls if you includ~ total walking areas it ~xc~eds by a lot.
MR. CARTIER-It dQ~s?
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s.
MR. MASON-Can I addr~ss that? Th~ 700 square fe~t is th~ dock ar~a, not th~
boathQus~ ar~a. The dQck ar~a is 700 squar~ fe~t.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. CARTIER-SQs thatls a max~d out dQck. This is a r~qu~st for a dock with maximum
numbers?
MR. MASON-They all ar~.
MR. CARTIER-NQs theylre nQt all.
MR. MASON-In facts th~ Qn~ n~xt dQQr tQ it is verys v~ry clQs~ to the 700s it's
probably 660. Almost ~v~ry U-shap~d dock that is built go~s at a IQw ofs probably
620 to a high Qf 700 squar~ f~~t. Th~ Ordinance was writt~n for that sp~cific
U-shap~d dock.
MR. BAKER-Excuse m~s Mr. Masons can yQU just stat~ your nam~ fQr the r~cord?
MR. MASON-My nam~ is John Mason.
MR. ROBERTS-Itls b~~n a whil~ sinc~ w~ apprQved a dQubl~ dock.
MR. CARTIER-Y~s.
MR. MASON-This id~ntical boathous~ has be~n apprQv~d At sit~ plan r~vi~w by this
sam~ Boards prQbably 3 Qr 4 times. Th~ last Qn~, I thinks might v~ry w~ll hav~
been Mr. and Mrs. RQbert Wall which was on the w~st sid~ of Ass~mbly Point on
a parc~l that I think was substantially less than this.
MR. CARTIER-You ar~ nQt suggestings Mr. MasQns tQ us s that becaus~ w~ approved
this sam~ siz~ somewhere ~ls~ that w~ shQuld approve this one, ar~ you? W~ I r~
talking about b~ing sit~ sp~cific.
MRS. PULVER-Was there any oPPQsitiQn to it?
MR. MASON-To the previQus applicatiQn?
MRS. PULVER-W~lls yes, I mean they just brQught it in and it was approv~d.
MR. MASON-I donlt knows but I dQnlt know that that r~ally mak~s that much
diff~r~nc~.
40
"---"
---
MRS. PULVER-I think it does.
I think you hav~ to consid~r your neighbors.
MR. ROBERTS-W~renlts som~ of thos~ dockss th~y were r~building docks too. Carrying
~xisting on~s out and rebuilding them. I think that w~ I r~ trying to look at
cumulativ~ ~ff~cts on the Lake for th~ sak~ of th~ Lake and allowing somebody
to hav~ 5 boats on this lot s~~ms unn~cessary to me.
MR. REHM-Wells if you had a singl~ boathouse, that would only r~duce it by on~.
MR. ROBERTS-Tru~.
MR. CARTIER-Thatls a 25 p~rc~nt reduction.
MR. REHM-Franklys the Lak~ Georg~ Park Commission is chargeds by law, to look
at and administers in concurr~nc~ with this Boards docking on the Lake and this
was revi~wed, in d~tail, by the Park Commission and approv~d.
MR. CARTIER-Well s the imp lication of that stat~ment is that s th~y did it s so we
should approve it and that both~rs me.
MR. REHM-No, th~ implication in that stat~ment iss th~y look~d at it and th~y
studi~d it clos~ly and th~y mad~ what w~ consid~red to be a reasonable decision
in conformance with the law and I think your record should show that this complies
comp let~ly with the Town of Qu~~nsbury R~gulations and I think the Board (TAPE
TURNED)
MR. CARTIER-Wells nonethel~sss lId consid~r it an approvement on this application
if that wer~ in fact s . . . if th~ ~ntir~ oth~r dock w~r~ remov~d and if this w~r~
center~d on th~ lot owned by th~ Hans. 11m just sp~ak for myself. That I s what
lId lik~ to se~ with this thing.
MR. ROBERTS-I gu~sss for m~, if he left that on~ little.. .platform or som~thing
th~res it probably wasnlt going to b~ much good for docking boats. It
wouldn't..r~duc~ th~ siz~ of the dock down to a singl~ slip.
MR. CARTIER-Interior slip.
MR. ROBERTS-Y~s. I guess everybody would rath~r k~~p th~ir boats, probablys insid~
und~r cover.
MR. REHM-I b~liev~ the Hans hav~ two boats. In facts it's th~ir d~sir~ to k~~p
th~m insid~. I don't think they have any intentions ands as I recalls th~r~ ar~
r~gulations in the Town of Queensbury with r~sp~ct to th~ rental of dock spac~.
They have no int~ntion of doing that. Th~y just want to have th~ir boats insid~.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DICK MEAD
MR. MEAD-11m Dick Mead. I am a thre~ quarter of a mile n~ighbor from th~ Hans
and I gu~sss...friend of Tedls mor~ than anything els~. He has a b~autifuls old
plastic boat that h~s Gary has an old plastic boat, thatls v~ry similar to mines
my boat and to leav~ it outsid~s it hurts it. T~d's dads has his own boat, which
is a.. .boat which I always lik~ to hav~ inside toos but if they do hav~ th~ two
boats th~re. .outside his varnish is just ~xpos~d to th~ ~l~m~nts. It's tough
on it, and I think the intention is to protect that, I think it's a 1957 Cscal~.
MR. ROBERTS-Okays thanks. Anybody els~? Som~ logic behind th~ siz~ of boat hous~s,
I thoughts or total numb~r of boats.
MR. CAIMANO-Pet~rs would you go for it if he does the removal?
MR. CARTIER-What r~moval ofs th~ entir~ removal?
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s.
MR. CARTIER-Of that little dock and l~av~ th~ oth~r on~ wh~re th~ oth~r on~ is?
MR. CAlMANO-Y~ss and c~nt~r it.
41
'----
--'
MR. CARTIER-And center it. I can live with that. I thought I'd said that. I
can liv~ with the entir~ remeval of that south~rn mest dock and th~n c~nt~ring
th~ deck on the Hans prop~rty lin~ b~caus~ that allews the Hans to b~ar som~ ef
th~ brunt ef th~ sight vi~w.
MR. REHM-I think b~cause of the sherelin~s it mak~s the docks much mor~ visibl~
from the p~epl~ en th~ eth~r side.
MR. CAIMANO-Which sid~?
MR. REHM-On th~ l~ft sid~. I think it prebably has
of the visibility ef the deck frem th~ twe neighbers.
th~ Kittr~dgels situatien at all and I think itls, is
the Fogg lets I think it makes it much more visibl~ from
a negativ~ impact
I den I t think it
it Dr. Feggs well
th~ Fogg lot.
in t~rms
impreves
any way,
MR. CARTIER-Wher~ is the Fegg let?
MR. REHM-The Fogg let is to th~ south. The Kittr~dge is to th~ nerth but s th~
way that shereline iss if you loek at thats if yeu mev~ that deck further te th~
south, yeu're impacting th~ Fegg lot, infinit~ly mor~s than yeu're improving th~
Kittredg~ lot.
MR. CARTIER-Can yeu peint eut te me wher~ the Fogg resid~nce is?
MR. REHM-Nos I can Its but 11m sure that Jehn can.
MR. MASON-Ne, ther~ is no resid~nc~. Itls a commen lot. Itls a vacant let.
MR. CARTIER-Over her~?
MR. MASON-Itls a vacants this is all vacant.
MRS. PULVER-And this is aneth~r dock laying here s and aneth~r dock laying h~re.
MR. REHM-Ceuld I just say en~ mer~ thing. This littl~ stub of a deck that th~y
prepos~ te leave is a pretty goed barrier te pretect the swimm~rs in this area
from activity en the let to the seuth. I den't think it has any impacts at all,
on anybedy. w~ would stipulat~ that it weuld not b~ us~d fer the decking ef any
beats.
MRS. PULVER-Y~s, but if yeu cent~r your main deck dewn...betw~en that littl~ stub.
MR. REHM-Yeu Ive got a preblem with cent~ring th~ main dock becaus~ of th~ depth
of th~ water. Thats as far as Mr. and Mrs. Hans are cencerneds is not something
that th~y can do.
MR. CAIMANO-C~nter the dock?
MR. REHM-C~nt~r th~ deck.
MR. CAIMANO-Have yeu shewn this paneramic view te th~ Kittredg~ I s? Hav~ th~y
s~en this?
MR. REHM-Nes not that w~ knew of, I mean, th~y se~ it when~v~r th~ylr~ at th~ir
prep~rty.
MR. CAIMANO-Nos this particular layout.
MR. REHM-Ne.
MR. CARTIER-Was that eld deck ever used te deck a beat, Mr. Rehm?
MR. REHM-Again, lId have to d~fer to John.
MR. MASON-The Woster I s park~d a very s very small outboard boat in that slip.
Th~ probl~m is th~ wat~r depths it IS v~ry shallow. You could not park an inboard
in th~r~. Thatls why this whel~ thing began. Itls a slip that's not usabl~.
MR. CARTIER-I don't, and Mr. Geralski says, and maybe, Mr. Baker, yeu can help
m~ out wi th this s says h~ wants to c~n ter it on th~ let. De you know where s
~xactly, he I s ref~rring to? De~s h~ go all th~ way back to this lot line sway
dewns is he talk abeut putting this dock out this way?
42
'---- '
"-'"
MR. ROBERTS-If th~ water depth is shallQw that may nQt b~ practical.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm just trying to s~e hQW much this is gQing to g~t mQv~ds
h~r~. Therels apprQximat~ly 60 f~~t Qf shQr~lin~ on eith~r sides so welr~ talking
abQut moving this s becaus~ this is 30. We I re talking abQut cent~ring it right
her~. Right?
MR. BAKER-Y~s.
MR. CARTIER-SQs th~ dQck is nQw c~ntered here. Mr. Rehm, dQ you se~ what welr~
talking abQut here? I don I t see that as a significant changes that much Qf a
change. This is what Mr. GQralski's talking about dQing. YQU m~ans there's a
significant difference in the water d~pth between this PQint and this PQint?
MR. MASON-Nos I can answer that. It dQes get shallow~r as you mQve furth~r SQuth
her~. As tQ whether itls significant enQugh to prevent him frQm using thats nos
but 1111 thrQw out Qne Qther points h~r~. The furth~r yQU mQve that dQck SQuth,
th~ further you bring this SQuths the more you're bringing it intQ vi~w.
MR. CAIMANO-TQ who?
MR. MASON-To anyQne, ~ven to th~ Kittredge family. YQU hav~ a mound, right her~,
right in front Qf this prQperty s that I s 7 feet off the lin~. This ar~a right
h~re is a gOQd mounds right ther~, and th~ dock sits behind that mQund. That's
why wh~n yQU lQQk at that panQramic vi~ws right here, herels what ends up happening
at this mQund right h~re.
MR. CAIMANO-I would assum~ that th~ Kittr~dge I s because th~y also like to 10Qk
Qut at th~ Lak~ are facing that way.
MR. MASON-That's CQrrect.
MR. CAIMANO-If I put this dock ov~r her~, facing this ways I find it very difficult
to b~liev~ that itls gQing tQ be mQr~ than th~...
MR. MASON-Believe m~, yQu will see the dQck mor~ from ther~.
MR. CAIMANO-From her~?
MR. MASON-Believe m~. I wQuld urge you tQ gQ tQ the sít~. I can tell you. I
will alsQ tell yQU this s that with sQmeQn~ out in the bQat, w~ could not ~v~n
se~ that CQat in the air at the outward extensiQn Qf th~ bQathous~. Had I put
a CQat her~s you may very well have b~~n abl~ tQ s~e it because you hav~ a mound
right in front of it.
MR. CARTIER-Okays well fQr my Qwn ~ducatiQn, thens I gu~ss, lId lik~ to go back
and lQQk at th~ site b~fore I make any d~cisiQns on this thing.
MR. CAIMANO-M~ tQO.
MR. CARTIER-Franklys I did nQt gQ back Qut the secQnd time this cam~ in becaus~
I didnlt s~~ it as a significant chang~ that r~quired anQth~r lQQks but I'd like
to gQ out and take a IQQk at this again befQre I decide.
MRS. PULVER-I agre~.
MR. ROBERTS-Is th~re anybQdy els~, besid~s m~, that thinks that th~y shouldn't
b~ ~ntitl~d tQ such a large dQck?
MR. CARTIER-Ohs I agree with YQu. I'd still lik~ tQ gQ Qut an take a look. Y~ss
I hav~ a prQbl~m with a dock that's maxed Qut.
MR. CAIMANO-How about if w~ ask the app licant if h~ I d lik~ to tabl~ this thing
so that w~ can tak~ on~ mQr~ lQQk at it from JQhn Goralski's point of view.
MR. MASON-Could I addr~ss one issu~ be£Qr~ we get into that. We Ive h~ard the
t~rm "max~d out" h~re s~v~ral times. I want to point Qut tQ you thats what youlre
10Qking at, in front Qf yous is not maxed Qut. According to your Ordinanc~, any
lot in ~xc~ss of 100 fe~t, 101 feet, is allQw~d two docks.
MR. CARTIER-Wells maxed Qut in terms of
43
"--'
--<
MR. MASON-I want to finish. I r~ally want to g~t this point on the r~cord b~caus~
the last time I was her~, I h~ard a lot of things that w~r~ stat~d that just wer~n't
tru~, including a water lin~ that was too clos~ to this dock and I want to mak~
this point v~ry clear. This proposal is not maxing outs according to your
Ordinanc~. Itls no wh~r~ near maxed out. It's about halfs as your Ordinance
allows.
MR. CARTIER-Max~d out in t~rms of the particular dock.
more than 700 square fe~ts is that corr~ct?
No single dock can b~
MR. MASON-This parcel is entitled to two docks, is that correct?
MR. CARTIER-W~Ir~ both right. W~'re just saying th~ same thing from two differ~nt
ways. I understand your point. This pi~ce of property is entitl~d to mor~ than
on~ docks how~ver, th~ dock that' s ther~ is the maximum sizes singl~ dock that
can b~ builts correct?
MR. MASON-Thatls correct.
MR. CARTIER-What welre doing iss w~'r~ both saying w~'re rights John.
MR. REHM-What John's saying is you can have 1400 f~et of docks legally s on this
lot and this is half of that.
MR. ROBERTS-It I S hard for m~ to b~lieve that that I s not innovative measuring on
that lot.
MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, wasnlt th~r~ a qu~stion on how the lot was b~ing
measur~d?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. MASON-It do~sn I t mak~ any diff~rence wh~ther it's innovative or not b~caus~
it says it I S s I think, 159 f~~t or som~thing lik~ that, but th~ Ordinanc~ says
that at 101 feets you can have two docks.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. MASON-Sos it's not that innovativ~ and, as a matter of fact s th~ measur~r
is h~r~.
MR. CARTIER-Wells do~s th~ applicant agree to tabl~ this?
MR. REHM-What we could dos in the spirit of compromis~, John tells uSs without
insurmountabl~ water depth problems, that th~ dock could be moved from 23 fe~t
to 30 fe~t and that still would provid~ good buff~ring as far as the Kittredg~
lot is concern~d and woulds approximat~lys center th~ dock in th~ c~nt~r of th~
Hans dock. The Planning comment on this just is not fair. This is not a straight
shor~line. So, by putting this dock 60 f~~t from this line, it do~s not c~nter
it at all.
MR. CAIMANO-W~ll, two things..for a qu~stion of and on~ is Mr. Masonls conc~rn
about th~ wat~r d~p th s which we don't knows and numb~r two is talking about
c~nt~ring from Mr. Goralski. I, for on~, would lik~ to go back out and tak~ a
look at that lot. The Town Planner has brought up a s ignificant conc~rn and s
rath~r than says and find a way to say no or yess letls cl~ar it up onc~ and for
all. Itls a simpl~ as that. So, youlr~ talking about 30 days or less.
MR. MASON-I think weld ask you to mak~ a d~cision tonight.
MR. CARTIER-Wells und~rstand something, w~ don't have too. You don't hav~ to
agre~ to tabling, but we do have th~ right to tak~ 30 days to decid~.
MR. MASON-You asked me if w~ would cons~nt and I'm just asking you to mak~ a
d~cision. We asked to hav~ it tabl~d last times and you deni~d that and if w~
had had an opportunity to hav~ this tabled last tim~, w~ would hav~ had an
opportunity to m~~t with th~ Planning D~partment to r~vise the plan and that was
a very r~asonable r~quest and I'v~ n~ver s~en a Board deny it and thatls why w~lr~
asking for a d~cision tonight.
MR. CAIMANO-Of course s you also did have a chanc~ to go to th~ Planning Board
wh~ther it was approved, d~nied, or tabled or whatev~r.
44
"--
--'
MR. MASON-I understand that, but that was a pr~tty tough acts I thought.
MR. ROBERTS-W~ are going to be meeting, I guess, in two we~ks. Probably see the
sit~ prior to that time and make our d~termination at a special m~~ting.
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s.
MR. ROBERTS-W~ do have 30 days to make a decision and it seems to b~ th~ f~~ling
of th~ Board. I'd also like to look at our Ordinanc~ a little bit more and find
out if there isn't som~ way w~ can say no to double docks. 11m not in the mood
to vot~ for anything that will allow five mor~ boats on that size lot.
MR. MEAD-Another point s th~re I s nobody h~r~.
foot docks and accommodate six boats.
He could actually build two 700
MR. ROBERTS-I think our Ordinanc~ ne~ds to be changed.
MR. CAIMANO-It appears that way.
MR. ROBERTS-If thatls true, Nicks th~n I gu~ss it is.
go back and look at th~ Ordinance.
I think w~' r~ going to
MR. CARTIER-K~~p in mind, in th~ Ordinanc~s that the Planning Board is also in
power to look at issues that go beyond just th~ numberss or dock siz~ and so on
and I ref~r you, sp~cifically, to Article 5.070 and 7.050.
MR. ROBERTS-Y~s s I'd like an int~rpr~tation from th~ Legal D~partm~nt as to what
our rights and so forth ar~ as to this kind of d~t~rmination.
MR. CARTIER-Do we n~~d a motion to hold this off for 30 days Or not?
MR. ROBERTS-W~'v~ got a right to wait.
MR. CARTIER-W~ donlt n~~d a motion.
MR. ROBERTS-What do you thinks Karla?
MS. CORPUS-I gu~ss I just want to clarify what it is youlre proposing.
MR. CARTIER-W~ ar~ proposing to not d~cid~ tonight. We have 30 days to make a
decision.
MS. CORPUS-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-Do we n~ed a motion to that ~ffect or not? In other words s on~ of
the options we have is no action.
MS. CORPUS-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-We donlt have to make a motion to take no action.
MS. CORPUS-Right. You'r~ right. You don It.
MR. CAIMANO-But we don't want to not do som~thing s we just want to put it off.
MS. CORPUS-Right. I donlt know if you wish to clarify it for the applicant on
when you would mak~ that decision.
MR. CARTIER-W~ll, we are t~ntativ~ly setting up a m~~ting within 2 weeks on anoth~r
issue and weIll d~al with it at that tim~, correct?
MR. BAKER-Are you r~f~rring to the special m~~ting of the Board or th~ m~eting
with Planning Department?
MR. ROBERTS-Th~ sp~cial m~eting of the Board.
MR. BAKER-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ROBERTS-We will make a d~cision, I gu~sss at a future dat~.
45
"--
--.../
MR. CARTIER-Not to cut you off Stus but w~ may talk about that with th~ m~eting
with th~ Planning Staff.
MR. BAKER-Right. I r~alize that.
MR. REHM-Would it be possible for th~ Hans or John Mason or som~body to be present
at th~ tim~ that you have the insp~ction?
MR. CAIMANO-I gu~ss, I don't know when w~Ire going to do it y~t.
MR. REHM-W~ll s I mean you' r~ going to want to know where the lot lines ar~ and
all that.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells...th~re just y~sterday and it's not too hard to figure it out.
I just want to satisfy myself as to depth to wat~r, I guess.
MR. CAIMANO-I donlt mind th~m going up ther~.
MR. MASON-Would you do it individuallys or as a group?
MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, w~' r~ not supposed to do it as a group. That constitut~s a
quorum and we can get into trouble trying to do that.
MR. REHM-W~ll, w~ wonlt obj~ct to that.
MR. CAIMANO-Why don't you do this. Rather than l~ave th~m hanging in mid air,
why donlt we discuss this aft~r th~ me~ting tonight and you get back to Mr. R~hm,
t~ll him what welr~ going to do and what are d~cisionls going to be.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, when w~'re going to go up and look?
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s.
MR. CARTIER-Sixty seconds or less, when ar~ w~ going up and look?
MR. CARTIER-N~xt w~~k?
MR. CAIMANO-Okays Monday.
MR. CARTIER-Next Monday afternoon at what time?
MR. CAIMANO-Meet her~ at 3 pm.
MRS. PULVER-3 pm.
MR. ROBERTS-Is that alright for yous John?
MR. MASON-I donlt know. I donlt have a schedule h~r~, but it'll be alright.
MR. CAIMANO-M~et here at th~ Planning Office at 3 olclock.
MR. ROBERTS-Okays and we d~cid~d that w~ didn't n~ed a motion for that?
MS. CORPUS-Correct.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-90 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA E & T O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTION OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 114 MEADOWBROOK ROAD FOR A 20 FT. BY 30 FT. ADDITION TO THE REAR
OF THE OFFICE TO ACCOMMODATE RECORDS, COMPUTERS, AND COPY MACHINE PLUS OFFICE
SPACE FOR ESTIMATORS WHO CURRENTLY SHARE AN OFFICE. TAX MAP NO. 59-2-5 LOT SIZE:
0.85 ACRES SECTION 9.010
LEON STEVES, VAN DUSEN AND STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Bakers Assistant Plann~r (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayn~ Gannetts Town Engine~r (attach~d)
MR. ROBERTS-Th~ County approved without comm~nt. Th~ Citiz~n's Advisory Committe~
on Access for th~ Handicapp~d was also.. Do you hav~ anything you' d lik~ to add
to thiss L~on?
46
-....
--'
MR. STEVES-Not r~ally. My nam~ is Leon Stevess for the record and I b~liev~ the
application b~fore you probably is list~d, as Stu has point~d out, incorr~ctly
at 19 and a half by 29 and a half when itls really 20 by 30. The plan, its~lfs
would not b~ ~ff~cted by that minor change.
MR. CARTIER-This was granted a varianc~ ev~n though it's an ~xpansion of a single
family r~sid~ntial, is that right?
MR. BAKER-Y~s. Us~ and Area Variances.
MR. CARTIER-Use and Ar~a Varianc~s?
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-What did the Use call for? Do you know what it called for?
MR. BAKER-Expansion of a nonconforming uses I b~li~v~, calls for anoth~r revi~w.
MR. STEVES-I donlt beli~ve you'll find it vagu~ at all. In facts th~ applicant
has been ther~, in this location, since b~for~ zoning. The contracting business
has ~xist~d in this location since, I beli~v~s 1958. The Zoning in the Town of
Que~nsbury took place in 1967.
MR. ROBERTS-Y~ss it has be~n th~r~ quit~ a whil~.
MR. BAKER-We have receiv~d a lett~r from a n~ighbor in support of th~ application.
MR. CARTIER-In support of the application?
MR. BAKER-In support of it. I can r~ad it into the record, if the Board would
lik~.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Are they on th~ north sid~ or south or w~st?
MR. BAKER-Th~y donlt state.
MR. STEVES-What's th~ir nam~s?
MR. BAKER-The CI~v~lands.
MR. STEVES-It do~sn't say.
MR. BAKER-The letter states Dear Sirs: W~ have lived in the n~ighborhood of
O'Connor Construction for the past 18 years. Th~y have b~~n very good neighbors.
Th~ owners and their employ~~s have b~~n respectful in their operations. We would
have no obj~ctions to any additions Or improv~ments th~y plan to mak~. W~ ar~
sure th~ir addition/improv~ment would be w~lcome to our neighborhood. V~ry truly
yourss Mr. and Mrs. Micha~l D. Clev~land.
MR. ROBERTS-Th~ only person that could be bothered by this would b~ th~ on~ to
th~ north.
MR. STEVES-That's Priscilla Roof.
Th~ CI~v~lands must be over to th~ south.
MR. CAIMANO-W~lls any ways if they'r~ happy with it and th~y k~~p it in good shape.
MR. ROBERTS-I gu~ss w~ ne~d to go through th~ small SEQRA r~view.
MR. CAIMANO-We do?
MR. ROBERTS-I think so.
MS. CORPUS-Y~s. It's an unlisted action und~r SEQRA.
MRS. PULVER-Th~ short form was in th~r~.
47
'-'
-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 20-90s Introduc~d by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption,
s~conded by Carol Pulver:
MR. ROBERTS-Is Stuls suggestion something that makes s~nse to you, that stormwater?
MR. STEVES-I wish the OlConnor's were here tonight to addr~ss that. I donlt s~~
that as a problem. I think that's a good sugg~stions personally.
WHEREAS s th~r~ is pr~sently befor~ this Planning Board an app lication for: a
20 by 30 addition to the rear of the office to accommodate records, cOØ1puters,
and copy machine plus office space for Estimators who currently share an office
for the E & T CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and
WHEREASs this Planning Board has d~termin~d that th~ propos~d project and Planning
Board action is subj~ct to review und~r th~ State Environm~ntal Quality R~view
Acts
NOWs THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to b~ involv~d.
2. Th~ following agencies ar~ involved:
Non~
3. The propos~d action consider~d by this Board is unlist~d in th~ Departm~nt
of Environmental Conservation Regulations implem~nting th~ Stat~ Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of th~ Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environm~ntal Assessment Form has b~~n filled out by th~ applicant.
5. Having consider~d and thoroughly analyz~d the r~l~vant areas of environmental
concern and having consid~r~d th~ crit~ria for det~rmining wheth~r a proj~ct
has a significant environm~ntal impact as th~ sam~ is set forth in S~ction
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes s Rul~s and R~gulations for th~
State of New Yorks this Board finds that the action about to b~ und~rtaken
by this Board will hav~ no significant ~nvironmental ~ff~ct and the Chairman
of the Planning Board is h~reby authorized to ~xecut~ and sign and file as
may b~ nec~ssary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration
that may b~ required by law.
Duly adopted this 27th, day of March, 1990s by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mr. Kupillas
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-90 E & T O·CORHOR CONSTRUCTION, Introduc~d
by Peter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
For a 20 by 30 foot addition to the rear offic~ at 114 M~adowbrook Road with th~
following stipulations: That runoff from th~ north~rn half of th~ new roof ar~a
b~ dir~cted to the north by gutt~rs and a down spout and that th~ application
is in conformance with Articl~ 5 S~ction 5.070 A through E; that both the
handicapp~d parking spot be suppli~d and handicapp~d access to th~ offic~ b~
provid~d.
Duly adopt~d this 27th day of Marchs 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mr. Kupillas
48
'-"
--'
MRS. PULVER-...if it's a construction company or what...?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I was wondering the same thing?
MR. CARTIER-Wells it may not always b~ a construction company.
MR. ROBERTS-Th~y might b~ abl~ to hir~ somebody who handicapped to work th~r~.
MRS. PULVER-Won't this require allotting the spac~ which h~Is got th~r~.
MR. STEVES-..th~ spaces but what about the acc~ss though?
MR. CARTlER-W~l1, if you're going to provide parking for a handicapp~d p~rson,
youlr~ going to let them into the building.
MR. ROBERTS-I donlt know if w~'r~ locked into that. We'r~ going to r~quir~ thats
I guesss we thinks maybe it's not mandatory.
MR. CAIMANO-Whatls that?
MR. ROBERTS-Providing handicapped acc~ss.
MR. STEVES-I understand. We're running into the sam~ problem down at Christ Church.
W~Ir~ spending a lot of mon~y to put in a handicapped acc~ss. You wond~rs in
a busin~ss such as this.
MR. ROBERTS-This is going to be whats a ground floor apartm~nt.
MR. STEVES-Canlt w~ just mak~ a bigg~r door or som~thing?
MR. CARTIER-I gu~sss I don't knows but r~cogniz~, you know, this applicant has
gotten two variances in an SFR zon~.
MR. STEVES-Why donlt you vot~ on it any way.
On motion m~~ting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDs
Richard Roberts, Chairman
49
'-'
-..-I.
LOCATION MAPS
March 27, 1990 Planning Board Meeting
OLD BUSINESS:
*See Below
Sit~ Plan No. 13-90 Attractions Lands Inc. (Grav~l Extraction)
(Staff Not~s Attach~d)
Sit~ Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Lands Inc. (Roll~r Coast~r)
(Staff Not~s Attach~d)
Sit~ Plan No. 30-89 Dr. Shimon and MaIka Shalit (Staff Notes Attach~d)
Subdivision No. 14-1989 Final Stag~ Partridg~ Run (Staff Not~s Attach~d)
Subdivision No. 22-1989 Final Stag~ Shultz Subdivision (Staff Not~s Attach~d)
* Sit~ Plan No. 77-89 Scott McLaughlin (S~~ attach~d map)
~ "\\
(' ~
~
~
f)
-,
v..
f\
't
~
~
~
~ \)
- \t
~ \)
....
~ t'I
~
~
)
}
~
....
r,
(\
...
~.
\
~
,
"
f\
~
'~
"
~,
t
l.\
...
~
~
1
...
"
;
~:.
'\
\,
\
~
t\
~
...,
.,
"""
\
~
r"\.
~
~
~
"
"
~
f\J
~
~
()¡
....
'"
('"~\
(~'\
,
........
V-¡
en
~
-a
S;
=-
::1:11
:s
5Ë
-
=
..
-J
....J
\
c:>ó
......
'>..
1 -'"
N
~
~
....
---
......
~
""--1z
G"...y
--ë-j(
",
~ /""
o~,
'~-
" ~
....,._, ~-
...,....,¿:.
'....,.:J"' 0 _
/
1;:1
~
:1
"tI
~
7(~
'...../ '\.
\
- - - -. ----
~
'"
~
t)
~I
'-CO:
f'
.,
/', ì\
" ..
:)
\'
.',
/.
\ ,:
\\
".
....
,.,
¡i',;;
'. '~
4\ (J........ ~
~ l_~
..... '.;,)' '" C' -,'
-" .7\ '-\ ... ~ .....
,} r..... ":::..:'1:'1 ' ~
'< /". \,/~, ~
\) ",,,,tt.~ / ~ ¡
\J!'~ L 10',/
r ,.,'~) ~
, \, ~ '.
t"
~
'~;::...", /' ..-. "-1
¡
I
I
I
I
~
\,\
f'1
~
f',
.....
~ "'"
, 1'1
, 1'\ ....
'- IV
...~ \, \'ì
), "
G; v' \"
I,' !
).. .,.
.... 'I
p ~!
I', ~
:t
v'
~'
U'
t.!
~
'..
~
'.......
-c.;;:::,..
. (=--,
'.
. ~::~-..;
-'....
'.,
".
~
"
'\
':
,/
\
: tr---'---
: ---
¡ ---.
1- --; ,-----
; !
, I
I'
I
¡ t=--,_
'~
è\
~.
\\
11\
L__
,',
\'1
'..
'.
-. ~.
"
.,
\
~~.:
,
f..
I~l' -
i
"._,...l ~
II r
I :
I
"
-
\~'
\1',
I
( !
I
j
I ¡
",,-,'
"
\ .)
,'" .r.).
":J" ~~I
, ,\
" li¡'
,': (\
r"l· ,
/}
/',
" /
r0- ì'.......
~ I /'¡ '¡
c ,
~0 i "
If"
/
~"
(;-'
J
I
f
\
.; \
? -' ¡ ,
" .
. - -- -.....;r,....
r ~,
'.... ¡
W.!!. l' 5'.!!._
... «; ~"'/-:. .~ " 1..' .::
10- f!. "ï~
I I, j .
. ,.... :
",c-
-..-
....;::"---1:..
',: . (""'
":'.. "'~(:"
(
I
ì
,
\
-:-'. \'
, .. ""to_, .."")
. -\."':::"
~:"'... . ';"'.
, '"
, ,
"
'"
-'
/;'
r,
t7
'....
('\,
~
~
(1
>..
"
t..
í'"
\-~
. '\ 't~,
¡ ~
I ~
) \t; :
u' .
¡ "
I
~ " ':; ".
- - '~i'(...
....\ C'\ '\;,.
('^.Iclu..J !
<-;). -\ ~ \' " ,..'-
l' /' - ,- .
t
.. . ~...'. '. ...--
/ ..:).~- '"
\,
.. ",.-.J
~
... ,
~
\.\
....
c."
~
LOCATION MAPS
March 27, 1990 Planning Board Meeting
-....../
OLD BUSINESS: (cont'd)
Sit~ Plan No. 81-89 Adirondack Industrial Park (Staff Not~s Attach~d)
~'"t6
HEW BUSINESS:
P~tition for a Change of Zone P3-90 Adirondack Industrial (Staff Not~s Attach~d)
~''T6
Sit~ Plan No. 19-90 Margaret and Th~odor~ Hans (Staff Not~s Attached)
~ÆJU ì
~ tr:'
,,'-
8
j.fiK~ ~€o('€
yoU4
'--'
LOCATION MAPS
March 27, 1990 Planning Board Meeting
'-""
HEW BUSINESS: (cQnt'd)
Site Plan No. 20-90 E & T OlConnor Construction
-
(Staff Notes Attached)
,..~
~
.
~
~
'~
·
"
-
C,,,-,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
F I L E-' ( 0 P Y
PI......¡.. Departmeat
~._.-
-NOTB TO FILB-
MrI. Lee A. York, SeaiOl' PlaDDer
Mr. J olm S. Goralski, PlaDDer
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Auiatant Planner
Date:
M"'1"'t'h ? J I J QQO
By:
Stuart G. Baker
An. V.n.c.
u.. V..wace
- Sip VariaDce
== lat.,...tatica
~ Sbtc:ll.
X Site PIa Røiew-
- Petitica for a cu.e of z..e
- Freü_at.. WetJuü Permit
Prelim""',
-
Fbaa1
Other:
ApplicatiaD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 13-90
Applicmat'. Name:
Attractions Land. Inc. (Grav~l F.ytrJ:lt'tion)
MeetiDg Date:
March 27. 1990
...................................................................................."......
I have reviewed the revised gravel removal plan submitted by the
applicant on March 14, 1990, and I have the following comments.
A) Area of Excavation
The project has been reduced in size from 125,000 cubic yards to
83s000 cubic yards of material to be removed.
B) Stormwater Management
Since this project' is proposed to extend over a 5 year period,
maintenance of the proposed erosion control devices should be
carefully monitored by the applicant. The siltat ion fence proposed
for the south side of "Temporary Ditch A" should especially be
monitored closely during the initial excavation on the eastern-most
side of the area 0 f excavation for sediment accumulation, and should
be cleaned out as often as necessary for proper erosion control.
C ) Dus t
The narrative submitted by Morse Engineering describes plans which
would appear to mitigate any potential dust problems on the interior
roads of the project area.
Page 1 of 3
~
'--'
--..;
D) Noise
The wooded buffer area to the north of the excava tion area has been
increased from 80 to 120 ft. This increase should reduce the amount
of noise that will affect the adjacent homes when compared to the
orginally proposed buffer area. (It should be noted that Section
7.052 of the Zoning Ordinance only requires a 50 ft. buffer zone
around the area of excavation.)
The types of machinery to be used at the excavation site and the
proposed hours of operation have been addressed in the new impact
statement submitted. No blasting, crushing or screening devices will
be used in the extraction operation.
Adverse impacts from noise appear to have been mitigated by the new
proposal.
E) Protection of Glen Lake Wetlands
The full extent of the DEC wetlands flagging is now shown on the site
plan submitted. A 100 ft. buffer area between the area of excavation
and the wetlands edge is provided.
The existing dirt access road is not shown on the amended site plan,
but according to the orginal survey map submitteds this road is
within the 100 ft. buffer area.
According to Section (5)(2)(g) of the Town of Queensbury Freshwater
Wetlands Protection Law:
"No permit under this law shall be required for:
(g) Ordinary maintenance and repairs of existing structures or
improved areas which does not involve expansion or substantial
restorations reconstructions rehabilitation or modifications
including but not limited to bridges, roads, highways, railroad
bedss bulkheadss dockss plierss pilings, or paved streets"
It would appear that the existing access roads within the buffer area
do not need wetland permits from the Town.
Proper maintenance of the sediment traps as proposed in the narrative
submitted by the applicant, should mitigate any potential
sedimentation impacts on the wetlands.
Soils to the south and east of the access road which are to be
disturbed when the discharge pipe from the sediment trap is installed
should be stabilized and seeded immediately to prevent sedimentation
and erosion problems.
Page 2 of 3
'--'
--
F) Traffic Impact
New information submitted by the applicant in the narrative indicates
that interior access roads on the east side of Rte. 9 will be used to
minimize crossings of Rte. 9. This should effectively mitigate any
potential traffic impacts.
G) Reclamation and Erosion Control
To minimize erosion and to mitigate the potential adverse visual
impact of this projects the Board should consider requesting that the
excavation be done in a east to west manner. (The current proposal
calls for 3 phases, west to east.) In this way, the port ion of the
project closest to the wetlands could be reclaimed as the next phase
of excavation is under way. Such gradual reclamation would also
significant ly minimize the visual impact of the project, and would
allow for careful maintenance of the hay bale dikes adjacent to the
wetlands buffer.
The siltation fence along the northern proposed clearing limit should
go around all the trees, rather than through the section which abuts
south. This would allow for more thorough protection of all trees to
be left as a buffer area.
Any approval by this Board should be carefully worded so as to be
enforceable by the Zoning Administrator.
SGB/pw
Page 3 of 3
~
'lIST -FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOx 831
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-.14e
518.793·.1.1
, ~,
.,,---,
..~~ ~',~M RF."IEWNO..I~!:lL
-./
March 23s 1990
RFA #89-5000.013
tfll~ Jtopy
'i~il.W~' f
1~
, P~AR ~t1æo ..
.ANNIN~ONI~-'
:"II:D"ATUJ:N·
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee Yorks Sr. Planner
Re: Attractions Land, Inc. (Gravel Extraction)
Site Plan 13-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
cOlllllents:
1. The 15- culvert within the temporary ditch "A" should be sized to
carry the maximum flow that would be expected within the ditch for
the bare soil condition.
2. As previously mentioned, a silt fence should be placed between the
existing dirt road and Glen Lake due to the increased traffic, to
prevent sediment from entering the lake. In addition, proper
erosion control must be maintained at all locations on Attraction
Lands property where the excavated, stockpiled material is placed.
The maintenance plan should specifically provide for these items.
Very truly yours s ..
~ST ASS9£'1ATES, P.C.
~~et, .E.
Manag~-Project Engineer
WG/CIIM
cc: TOMn Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY-t.ACONIA, NH
._-~-. _.~--
,
Ii
-
'----'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-/
PI~nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, SeDior PI&lU1er
Mr. J OM S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: March 26, 1990
By: John Goralski
Area V.......
U. VuiaDce
- Sip VuiaDce
== IDteapetatiOD
Other.:
SubcImåam Sketcb. _ PrelimiDary,
::L: Site PIaD Reriew -
PetitioD for a CJumøe of z.e
- Freshwater WetJaøda Permit
FiDal
Applicatiaa Number:
Sit~ Plan R~vipw Nn lú-90
Applicant'. Name:
AttT'a,..t; nn~ T.Rntt J Tnt"" - Rnl1 At- rnaat'.:.r
MeetiDø Date:
Marc-h 27 r 1990
............................................................................................
There were two major issues which concerned the Board at the previous meeting.
One is noise. I have reviewed the report submitted by the applicant with the
aid of "Industrial Noise And Hearing Conservation" by Julian B. Olishifski and Earl
R. Harford. (The pertinent sections were included in your packets.) The ambient
noise levels may be misleading because they were taken when the park is closed.
Howevers I do agree with assumptions and conclusions concerning the increase in
noise. Even if an ambient noise level of 90 dB (heavy city street traffic) were
used and a noise level of 100 dB (an elevated train overhead) were used for the
Roller Coaster the resultant increase would be 3 to 4 dB. Since the threshold of
acute hearing is 0 dB and the threshold of average hearing is 15 dB, it is my
opinion that the increase of 3 to 4 dB is insignificant.
We have also inc luded a sect ion on "Annoyance" in your packets. In reality
this is the question. How is the noise perceived. The determination of whether
one noise is more annoying than another is completely subjective in nature.
The second concern is parking. As additional rides are added to the park, it
is reasonable to assume that there will be increased attendance. Since there is no
parking requirement listed in the Zoning Ordinance it is left to the Planning Board
to determine if sufficient parking is provided. Obviously the available parking
area is not unlimited. The Boárd may want to know how many parking spaces are
currently available. Perhaps by comparing this number to the number of rides or
the square footage of the park, exclusive of parking, the Board could establish a
benchmark to work from. The Board could require a number of spaces per ride or per
IsOOO sq. ft. of park area.
JG/pw
--------- ~-
~
FWT·FROST ASSOCIATES, P,C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 831
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .7e3-"141
518.713-"1"1
'~
. SIΠPUll RMEW.J\ f\D
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Attractions Land, Inc. (Roller Coaster)
Site Plan 14-90
Dear Mrs. York:
'--'
March 23, 1990
RFA #89-5000.014
FlLI: COpy
--...
;{~~~~l
. ANæIVft'"
':,'I:n" D,.ye.ttF
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
coments:
1. An engineering report on sound generation of the proposed roller
coaster was provided. The report relies on the assumption that the
noise level expected is equal to that of the inside of a New York
subway. Based on this assumption it appears to indicate no noise
problem at the Whalen property.
Since the noise level is assumed, and there does not appear to be
documentation on the line of sight distance for sound buffering by
tree masses, the Planning Board may want to require the applicant
to agree to provide additional buffering measures after installation
of the roller coaster, if noise becomes a problem at the adjacent
properties.
Very truly yours,
~T ASSO
~~ett, P.E.
Managing Project Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH
..
~
--------
Aa
~,
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
---
PI.ftft~1 Dep8l"tment
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. Yark. Selúar Plamaer
Mr.JobS.G~,Aumer
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Auiatant PlaDDer
Date:
By:
March 26. 1990
John Goralski
Ara V....
- u. V.naace
- Sip VariaDc:e
== IDt--.-~tiaIa
~ Sketdl. _ J'I>aII.........,..
-X Site PlaIa a.... -
- Petitiala far a CJIuøe of Zœe
- Freü.at.. Wet1aDd8 Pwmit
-
FtDa1
Other:
AppUcatiala Namber:
Site Plan Review No. 30-89
AppUQDt'. Name:
Dr. Shimon and Malka Shalit
MeetiDg Date:
March 27. 1990
......................................................................................1111..
The proposed changes to the approved site plan are outlined in Michael
O'Connor's letter dated February 28s 1990. I do not feel that the proposed changes
have a significant impact on the project. It is my recommendation that the revised
plan be approved.
JG/pw
.
I
4
. '
--~ <.--;-
<;
~
AIST·FAOST AS8ÇCIATES. P,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
.w..~. .~
\{[~~1![~
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 30 - ~ c¡
--'
POST OFFICE BOX 831
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12101
FAX 51. .'93-.1",
51. .113-.1.1
t.ANNING a ZONIN',
"'...A,.,.,N"
March 16, 1990
RFA #89-5000.030
filE COpy
Town of Queensbury Office Bunding
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Dr. Shimon and Malka Shalit
Site Plan 30-89
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have no engineering
comments regarding the modification to the approved site plan.
Very truly yours,
WG/CIIM
cc: Town Planning'Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH
,.
4 ......-.~,.~ '
--- _.~
.
-
---
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
'--"
PI.ftft~ Department
-NOTB TO FILB-
.,
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior PlaImer
Mr. J ohD S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
March 26. 1990
John Goralski
Area V..u.ce
u. VariaDce
- Sip Varluce
== IDt_.-'Vtatka
.-:L ~ Sketc:b. _ Prelimillary, -L. Ftaal
Site PIaa Rerie. -
- PetitiGD for a CbaDøe of Zœe
- FI"eIIb.at.. WetIuda Permit
Other:
ApplicatiaD Number:
Subdivision No. 14-1989
Applicaat'. Name.
Partrid¡e Run
MeetiDg Date:
March 27. 1990
....................t..................................................................1"..
The applicant was unable to meet the requirements of the previous approval
because the Dept. of Health would not approve the plan as it was presented. Please
refer to Rist-Frost's letter for an explanation of our discussions with D.O.H.
JG/pw
fO
.--.. < .
~
AIST·FAOST ASSXIATES. P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
'--
, FILE COPY
! ¡þfiwi -, Parfri ~!fM
.~ FEB 281990~ SUBDMSI0I1fl
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 831
GLENS FAIJ.S. N'f
1"
518· 7I3-<tM1
·LANNING a ZONIN(;
"II"A~
February 27, 1990
RFA '89-5000-89-514
Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: Partridge Run Subdivision
No. 14-1989
Dear Mr. Roberts
As requested by the Planning Department, I have reviewed the attached
letters dated February 13, 1990 from Brian S. Fear, P.E. of NYSDOH and
February 16, 1990 from Keith Manz, P.E. of C.T. Male. As you may
recall, this subdivision proposed to use a fill system for rapidly
permeable soils, since the percolation rates varied from 16 seconds to
26 seconds.
I discussed this matter with Mr. Fear last Friday and found that there
had been some uncertainty regarding the design details of that system,
which have since been cleared up. Mr. Fear stated that the system
. would be approvab1e as designed. However, since it is a fill system,
as defined by NYSDOH, the developer must place the fill and have it
stabilized for at least six months and then conduct percolation tests
in the stabilized fill. The Health Department could not approve the
system until these tests have been done in the stabilized fill.
For this subdivision, Mr. Fear stated that either system would be
acceptable to the,Hea1th Department provided that the fill be placed
and stabilized before final approval for the fill alternate. Rist-
Frost has been recommending fill systems where the percolation rates
are less than one minute, which is in agreement with the 1988 NYSDEC
Wastewater Standards which governs commercial and institutional
facil ities of more than 1,000 gpd. On the other hand, the current
Health Department regulations do not require fill systems for
percolation rates less than one minute. The new regulations may
require fill systems but no date has been set for the new regulation
to be issued.
The conventional trench system will be approved for Partridge Run by
the Health Department under the current regulations. Nevertheless,
current NYSDEC and pending NYSDOH state regulations are recognizing
that a percolation rate of less than one minute is not ideal for proper
treatment of septic waste and protection of groundwater.
. GLEN8 FAIJ.S. N'f. LJiCONIA. NH
(
~
"-"
Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Page 2
"-'"
February 27, 1990
RFA '89-5000-89-514
From a general policy standpoint, it may be useful to review the three
categories of approval for septic systems in the Town of Queensbury:
SYSTEM APPROVING AUTHORITY
Commercial systems NYSDEC issues SPDES
larger than 1000 permit.
gallons/day.
Commercial systems Town of Queensbury
smaller than 1000
gallons/day and
subdivisions of four
lots or less, or
subdivisions with
lot sizes greater
than five acres.
Subdivision of NYS Dept. of Health
five or more
lots
STANDARDS
Fill system required
for rapidly permeable
soils per 1988 DEC
regulations.
Site Plans - Town
sanitary sewage
disposal ordinance.
Subdivis.ions - NYSDOH
regulations
(Town may require fill
systems for rapidly
permeable soils.)
NYSDOH Regulations -
(Fill systems not
required for rapidly
permeable soils.)
If you would like to'discuss this matter further, we would be pleased
to meet with the Town, the Health Department and any applicants.
Very truly yours,
WG/ma i
Attachments
~.
;
- -,.
_.-
~
.
-
-.-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
"-"""
PlJlnn¡ng Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: March 12. 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area VariaDce
U. VariaDce
- Sip V8riaDce
- IDtespetaticm
~ SubcItri8iGu _ Sketch, _ PreUmiDary, .......!. FIDal
Site PIma Rerie"
=: Petiticm f.... a ChaDøe of Zaae
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Other:
AppUcaticm Number:
Subdivision No. 22-1989
AppUc:aDt'. Name:
Arzelia H. Schultz
MeetiDg Date:
March 27, 1990
............................................................................................
Two changes have been made in the Subdivision Plat since the Board granted Preliminary
Approval:
1. Proposed utility service lines have been added,
2. A note has been added addressing the clearing of trees for driveway access.
It appears that all Planning concerns relative to this project have been addressed.
5GB/sed
"
~
Ale ·FROST ASSOCIATES. PC,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
.......... .
,J~ÆaW~ 1
.. \~ fnAR 1 ~ 1990 ~jJ
SUBDIVISION NO.;; a.. ,q 'Jq
--
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 SAY STREET '.ANNING . ZONIN' ,
GLENS FALLS ".06111'""'"
NY 12101
FAX 518 · 793-41. r j L E ( 0 ? "¡:
518 .793-4141
March 16, 1990
RFA #89-5000.522
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Shultz Subdivision, Final Stage 22-1989
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have no engineering
cOlll1lents.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASS P.C.
~.tt, P.L
Mana~"Project Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
* GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONlA, NH
,
Aa
..
-
'--'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
---
pw_nni"1 Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goral.ki, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
March 2.6, 1990
Area Variaace
u. VuiaDc:e
- Sip VariaDce
== lDterpretatiaa
Adirondack Industrial Park
Revision of approval from 12./19/89.
SubdiftIioa: Sketc:b. _ PreUmÏDal'f, _ FiDal
-1L Site Plan Rnte. -
Petitiaa for a ChaDae of Zaae
- Freùwater Wet1aDù Permit
By:
~ Other: Revision of Site Plan, lot 56
AppJicatiaD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 81-89
AppJicaat'. Name:
Adirondack Industrial Park
MeetiDg Date:
March 2.7. 1990
............................................................................................
This Site Plan request is for the relocation of a warehouse of 2.5,000 square feet
to be constructed on 3.6 acres in an Industrial Park. The revision is to a previous Site
Plan which was approved on December 19, 1989.
The application on its face is an improvement since it would allow for fewer accesses
on to Queensbury Avenue. The Adirondack Industrial Park also has a Petition for Rezoning
before the Board which, if approved, would allow for an increase in density to allow the
back portions of the lots to be developed. It appears that the relocation of the building
on lot 56 is part of the overall scheme to provide access to the interior of this Subdivision.
In reviewing the Petition and the Site Plan, I called Ray Waterhouse, Director of
the Wan-en Washington IDA. Mr. Waterhouse explained to me that when Adirondack
Industrial Park, Inc. purchased the '5 lots from the IDA, he was shown a plan with an interior
roadway, and apprised of the intent to develop the back of the lots.
This would indicate that the developer had anticipated a rezoning request at the
time of purchase.
When the first three Site Plans were submitted, staff commented on the need for
an overall development plan to be submitted. The Board agreed with this request.
If the developer had a predetermined scheme of development, he should have initially
provided the Board with plans stating his intent. The Board is now limited as to
modifications which can occur to allow better services and transportation routing. The
Board may want to consider an alternative for limited access, should the Petition for
Rezoning be approved, and if there are no environmental limitations. The Board may
want to require that all lots in the Subdivision be accessed from the interior road. This
would limit the road cuts on Queensbury Avenue. Internalization of Subdivisions is a goal
of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Any interior roadway should also be extended to
the adjacent properties as well.
LA Y /sed
..
~
AlST·FAOST ASSOCIATES. P,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 138
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 121101
FAX 518 .793-4141
518 .793-4141
......- .
~~![~
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. ~ / - ¥Cf ~
--
"~NINQ . ZONIN'-.
"..a"TU'....
March 16, 1990
RFA #89-5000.081
FILE COpy
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Adirondack Industrial Park Lot #56
Site Plan 81-89
Dear Ms. York:
~
We h~~e reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
COlllllents:
1. The stormwater management pl an and other cOlllllents in our 1 etter
dated December 15, 1989s have been satisfactorily addressed.
2. We have no engineering cOlllllents regarding the revision submitted to
the site plan.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSO ATES, P.C.
~.tt. P.L
Manag~"P~oject Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
CD OLENS FALLS. NY·LACONlA, NH
..
p
~,
-
"--'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
---
Fit E
(Opy
PlAnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: March 23, 1990
By: Lee A. York
Area VariaDce
Use Variance
-SigDVariance
:= Interpretation
SubdiYisiOD: _ Sketch, _ PreUmiDary,
Site Plan Rmew
-X Petition far a Change of ZoDe
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
FiDal
Other:
AppUcation Number:
Petition P3-90
AppUcant'. Name:
Adirondack Industrial
Meeting Date:
March 27, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Light Industrial 3
acres to Light Industrial 1 Acre. The reason stated is that the lots are
narrow and deep. A rezoning would allow the developer to put in an interior
road and access the back portion of the lots which would then be developed.
I spoke with Ray Waterhouses the Director of the Warren Washington
I.D.A. s about the rezoning request. The Warren Washington Industrial Park
covenants do not prohibit, and are not in conflict with, this request.
The Warren Washington Industrial Park has sewer and water services. The
reasons for the 3 acre zoning were the st reams on the property and the
proximity to the wet areas. The depth to the high water table is 0-18 inches
(low suitability for development) and the percolation rate is .06-6 inches per
hour (low suitability for development). These were also major factors in
designating this ~rea 3 acres.
The fact that the Industrial Park is on water and sewer services would be
a consideration for increasing the density on this property, since the
limitations on the land would be overcome.
Page 1 of 2
f·
~
"-..
.-'
My suggestion to the Board would be that the applicant discuss the
rezoning with Mr. Waterhouse and potentially come back with a request to
rezone the entire Wa~ren Washington IDA lands. It is not logical to pick out
5 lots in the industrial park to be one acre while the rest remain 3 acres.
The same factors apply to all the property in the park. The lots are all
between \. 5 acres and 3 acres. The zoning prior to 1988 was LI-IA. The
zoning in 1988 was based primarily on the carrying capacity of the land, but
municipal services are available which would allow for an increase in density.
Further, most of the lots in the industrial park are already developed at a I
acre density.
LAY/pw
t
'~
':~1!fjIIìiii71à
~,
-
",---,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
--
Plann'¡." Departmeat
-NOTB TO FILB-
Mrs. Lee A. Yark, SeDior PlaDner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
March 26. 1990
By:
John Goralski
Area V.-iaDc:e
u. VariaDc:e
== Sip VariaDce
_ Jat_..6tatioD
~ Sketcb. _ PreUmiDarf,
X Site PIaD Reriew -
== PetitioD far a ChaDøe of Zaae
Fre.b.at.. Wet1aDda Permit
FiDal
Other:
ApplicatioD Namber:
Site Plan Review No. 19-90
Applicant'. Name:
Mar2aret and Theodore Hans
MeetiDg Date:
March 27. 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant wishes to construct a 361 x 40' U-shaped dock with a 28'6" x 35'
open sided boathouse. The Planning Board should make every effort to minimize the
aesthetic impact of continued shoreline development. In an effort to achieve this
goal, I recommend locating the proposed dock in the center of the lot. This would
leave approximately 601 of shoreline on either side of the proposed dock. I also
recommend that the entire existing dock b.e removed. At a very minimum the dock
should be cut down to the water level. These two small changes will minimize the
possibility of the shoreline appearing overcrowded by providing for maximum
separation between docks.
JG/pw
..
~
·
.
-
'-'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
--
Plaftfti"l Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. Yark, SeIder PlaDDer
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Auistant Planner
Date:
March 12, 1990
By:
Stuart G. Baker
Area V......
u. VU'iaDce
- Sip VU'iaDce
== IDte¡A'etatiœa
SubdhiIiœI Sketch. _ Pftli_fttwy,
::x:: Site PIaa Reriew -
Petitioa 1m- a CbaDøe of Zœe
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Other:
AppUcatiœa Number:
Site Plan Review No. 20-90
Applic:aøt'. Name:
E & T O'Connor Construction
MeetiDg Date:
March 21, 1990
.........................................................................................t~.
The applicant is proposing construction of a 30 ft. by 20 ft. addition to
the existing office on Meadowbrook Road. The dimensions listed on the
application and site plan submitted are incorrect.
Use and area variances for this addit ion were approved by the Zoning
Board of Appeals on February 28, 1990. The use variance approval was amended
by the ZBA on March 21, 1990 to allow for corrected dimensions of the
expansion. The original area variance approval for the side setbacks remains
unchanged.
The proposed addition does not appear to adversely affect any of the
Development Criteria listed in Section jr,071 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Aesthetic impacts should by minimal due to the location of the addition and
the wooded areas on adjacent lots.
The Board may wish to have the runoff from the northern half of the new
roof area directed to the north by gutters and a downspout. This would
decrease the flow of water across the blacktops and potentially decrease the
amount of oil and other contaminants that are flushed westerly toward the
wetland area.
SB/pw
..
~
AIIT.FROST ASSOCIATes. P,C,
CONSUL TlNO ENGiNeERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 lAY STREET
GLENS FALI.S
NY 12801
FAX 518 . 783-414e
518.7\13-4141
,....... f I ..
'(~~I!~J
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. ~ D ... q 0
'.....
'.ANNING . ZONIN',
~..4",",f""
March 16s 1990
RFA #89-5000.020
riLE (Gt~
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: E. & T. O'Connor Construction
Site Pl an 20-90
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
coments:
1. A designated handicapped parking space should be provided.
Very truly yours,
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
@ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH
"
~
,.;