Loading...
1990-04-26 -../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SCOPING SESSION APRIL 26TH, 1990 INDEX Sit~ Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. (Roller Coaster) 1. 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. '-- - QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SCOPING SESSION APRIL 26TH, 1990 3 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER CONRAD KUPILLAS JAMES HAGAN MEMBERS ABSENT NICHOLAS CAIMANO TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ROBERTS-Good afternoon ladi~s and gentl~m~n. Welcome to another Que~nsbury Planning Board meeting. This, today, a scoping session, necessitated, I guess, b~cause this Board made a positive declaration as to SEQRA, the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. W~'re here today to try to all make suggestions as to what we think should be in th~ Draft Environmental Impact Stat~ment or th~ Impact Stat~m~nt, so w~ ca.n, hopefully, do it right and do it once. I guess, this doesn't call for any kind of a presentation from the applicant. I guess th~ applicant is more here to listen, her~, today, to sugg~stions as to what should go into the Impact Stat~ment and this is not, in fact, a public h~aring. However, th~re has been enough controversy about the proj~ct so I thought, perhaps, in fairness, w~ would allow one representative from th~ GI~n Lake Association review their suggestions and, perhaps, on~ repres~ntative from the Twicwood ar~a, do the same thing and if that format me~ts with your approval, with the rest of the Board memb~rs, I think w~ can get down to work. Perhaps, let me digr~ss a minut~. Our Planner, John Goralski, has put tog~ther a draft scop ing document that, to me, looks very good and I'd like to comp liment John on the work he did, h~re. I think we can use this as a basis and, I guess, you've gott~n some of thes~ copi~s, Dick, Wayne. Wayne, you got copies of this? MR. GANNETT-Yes, I just got a copy. MR. ROBERTS-Hopefully, this, we can make some changes or additions to this, but I would think this looks like it would be a basis for an agreement, here, today. Then, if there is a r~pres~ntativ~ here from the Glen Lake Association, I' d l~t them speak now, sinc~ Mike O'Connor is chasing a littl~ whit~ golf ball at the Country Club, this aft~rnoon. He has appoint~d SOmeon~ to take his place, apparently. AILEEN KANE, GLEN LAKE ASSOCIATION MRS. KANE-My name is Ail~en Kan~, Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury and I'm speaking for Dr. Horowitz who wasn't able to attend at this time. The Glen Lake Association is very concerned about the noise level of the roller coaster and its ~ffect upon th~ Lake and the peopl~ who live there and we ar~ also concerned about th~ possibility of parking near the Glen Lake Fen. I don't know if this is going to b~ discussed today. MR. ROBERTS-It's alr~ady been discuss~d. MRS. KANE-It's already been discuss~d, well, we want to, again, state that w~ are very concerned about that and welre asking for a review of this parking proposal before a decision is made b~cause w~' r~ worried about runoff from.. That really is our concern. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you. Is ther~ a representative, here, from the Twicwood resid~ntial area? I understood, that I thought Tom McDonough was going to repr~sent them. Well, frankly, I don't expect that w~ would here anything new. I '~ ,-'" CHUCK MCNULTY MR. MCNULTY-In absenc~ of SOm~One else, I'd like to sp~ak for Twicwood. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. MCNULTY-I'm Chuck McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane and I think Our conc~rns are in several areas. One, obviously, is noise and what kind of increas~ in noise we' r~ going to get from this ride. I think there's also a qu~stion on visual pollution because I und~rstand that this ride is supposed to be 90 SOme feet high and, looking quickly at a topographic map, it looks like it could b~ visible from the Twicwood area and, possibly, from th~ other two areas. Parking problems have b~en mentioned and that's certainly a concern, as well as, traffic on Rout~ 9 and the continued encroachment on the w~tlands. .Glen Lake. I think, also, this ride maybe important in terms of precedent. I believ~ the app licant has stat~d before that they f~el that they hav~ to com~ in with a new, bigger and, th~r~for~, probably louder, and more obnoxious rid~ ~very couple, three years. So, this is not going to be the last time that w~'r~ going to b~ going through this. They'll be in a couple, thre~ more y~ars with som~thing bigg~r and louder, yet and there's going to b~ even more uproar then. So, this maybe the time to think about the gen~ral direction and trend and what can be done to control the problems w~ I re citing with this ride, in regards to anything else that might be coming along as well. I think, also, we' re concern~d b~cause of the general, changed natur~ of this park from the time it was first developed, it's come along. It's chang~d from what, originally, was a kidls nurs~ry rhyme park, into an adult th~me park. I think we can see some handwriting on the wall, with Gaslight Village gradually b~ing phased out of Lake G~orge and adult rid~s coming into the Gr~at Escap~, the next step's going to b~ opening up Great Escape until, about, midnight and if that's open in the evenings, that's going to generate ~ven more problems and, again, I think now's the time to address some of th~s~ questions, if not all in this particular impact stat~ment or this particular ride, it maybe time to think, also, about SOme kind of general impact stat~ment that would be work~d up at a more leisurely pace, looking ah~ad to the future d~velopment of the gen~ral area. I think Our big conc~rns are in quality of living the life that w~'ve got in our n~ighborhoods and what additional noise is going to do and what that additional and visual pollution might do to the value of our homes. At the mom~nt we 'v~ got, basically, a quièt, residential area. If we ~nd up with an area that's right n~xt to an amusement park that we hear all the tim~, then the value of our homes can h~lp but go down. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. DICK BAKER, COURTHOUSE ESTATES MR. BAKER-Could I add a third area to this Statem~nt and that IS Courthouse Estat~s? My name is Dick Baker from Courthouse Estat~s and we took the Twicwood letter around, through the fifty or sixty homes in Courthouse Estates. Eighteen peopl~, excuse me, nineteen people signed the letter, both husband and wif~, if they w~re available, whoever was availabl~, and we sent those to you. I believ~ you would have gotten th~m already. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Ninety-two copies. MR. BAKER-Okay, and the rest of the peopl~ were..for taking a clos~r look at this for the five r~asons that were just added and another reason, beyond that, was th~ traffic on 9, without a light at th~ entranc~ of Glen Lake Road, at all. It se~ms that a lot of lights have be~n put in on that road, to and from the Great Escap~, but w~'ve got nothing up abov~ and w~ can't get out of there without going through the motor vehicl~ area th~re, which is not a thorough fare. We have to use that light to get out, okay. It's a blind curve with solid traffic all summer. If you ~xpand this parking, you can add a fifth reason for taking a v~ry close look at this and that's traffic pollution. We agr~e with everything that I s b~~n mentioned so far by the other arèas, but ~veryone in Courthouse Estates, thus far, has unanimous ly endorsed taking a very clos~ look at this. We think W~' r~ headed in the wrong dir~ction with the adult park and the night nois~, also. You know, the nois~ that I s there already, we consider unacc~ptable. Th~re' s no noise ordinance. We've tried to stop this. There's no nois~ ordinance in Queensbury. There's nothing to m~asure noise in Queensbury. Th~y have, from what I und~rstand, around us and we made a complaint to try to measure the nois~. We think it's unaccep tab Ie. We can tap ~ the shows in our backyard, 1. 3 miles up. ..people up, three yèars ago, was it, the celebration show was taped in my 2 '-...-- --./ backyard, you could sing along to the music, alright, and it's a fr~ak thing, or something, wher~, 100 feet in front of the ride, or th~ attraction, you could not h?ar it because of the nois~ from th~ other rides, but you could tap~ ~very song ~n Our backyard, very clearly. I had house painters, by the third day they were there, they ,were singing the whole format. They didn't need a radio! th~y shut down the rad~o and list~n~d to th~ Gr~at Escape and sang. This is 1.3 mil~s up the road. Th~ noise is unacceptable already and it I s going to get worse. W~ want to stop... We've put a lot of mon~y into th~se homes and this is not h~lping. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you. Would it se~m appropriate for us to go through! line by line, through John's Draft Scoping Docum~nt, here, to g~t to the meat of this? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Roberts, if I could just add as was stat~d! we have ninety-two copi~s of the letter that was circulated in Courthous~ Estat~s and Twicwood subdivision. We also have a l~tt~r from Susan Bak~r. I believe they stated all th~ concerns that w~re in the letter. We hav~ a l~tter from Mr. McNulty, who also spoke, and we have a letter from th~ Warren County Planning D~partment which you all r~c~ived! I b~lieve. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think so. MR. GORALSKI-No? Okay. Would you lik~ me to read that? MR. ROBERTS-Maybe you should tell us what th~ County said. Just a second. Wayne? WAYNE JUDGE, ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. MR. JUDGE-My name is Wayn~ Judg~ and sometimes I just hav~ to, I f~el duty bound to make a statement for th~ record. First of all, statements w~re taken, during th~ last meeting, and it was not a public hearing, and you used it as a basis for changing the negative declaration into a positiv~ declaration. For the record, th~ applicant obj~cts to that. The public hearing was closed thr~~ me~tings ago. This was not a public hearing today. W~ object to the acceptanc~ of anything that was said today as part of the r~cord and we obj~ct to the introduction of any l~tters that w~re r~ceiv~d after th~ date of their receipt. The rules should apply ~qua1ly fair to everyone. I f~el duty bound to go on record. MS. CORPUS-I'd like to interject, just one thing. In the SEQRA Reg's, und~r scoping, it does say that, at the discretion of th~ l~ad ag~ncy, oth~r interested agencies and the public may be invited to participate in the scoping proc~ss,..the l~ad agency's methods for obtaining scoping information should reflect th~ compl~xity of the proj~ct, the d~gree of public concern and the significanc~ of the environm~ntal impacts. I think, bas~d on that, the Board do~s have the right to hear, Warren County, I believe, is the interested party, and the public and it would be your d~cision to narrow those issues. MR. JUDGE-We hav~ no objection, if people here, obviously, are sincerely concern~d about the value of their homes, w~ have no objections to their participating in the scoping session and introducing sugg~stions they might have with regard to scoping, but I didn't hear any of that. All I heard was a continuation of th~ public hearing and the idea that the negative declaration was changed to a positive declaration, based on additional evidence, is just, clearly, not true. Th~re was no additional evid~nc~! in the last h~aring, because ther~ was no public hearing. The public hearing had been closed. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I don I t know whether we're on thin ice in that department or not. I'll leav~ that to the powers that be, but I think, for purposes of today, th~re I s no point in operating in a vacuum, h~re. I haven' t h~ard anything that we haven't heard b~fore and wouldn't ~xpect to, as far as that's concerned. MR. HAGAN-Does the 1ett~r from the County shed any new light on th~ subject? MR. GORALSKI-The l~tter from the County brings up the issue of MR. ROBERTS-Is that a very long letter, because mayb~ we should paraphrase it. MR. GORALSKI-W~ll, it's actually rath~r brief. I can read the two paragraphs. Th~ following is a brief summary of these issues, it is necessary to establish a baseline number of current parking provided both on site and in the lot to the w~st of Route 9. From this base point, the impacts of the new attraction can be assessed in relation to added number of vehicles. And in th~ second paragraph, 3 ---/ âdditionâlly, it is necesSâry to âddress the pedestrian safety issues relat~d to uncontrolled and unrestricted pedestrian flow from the parking lot on the w~st side of Route 9, to the attractions on the east side. The pres~nt situation can be observed as confusing, unsafe, unregulated as there are no defin~d crosswalk, crossing patt~rns, or walk cycl~ in th~ traffic light. That's, basically, the two things that th~y bring up ând, if I could just explain a little bit of the Drâft Document thât I gave you. The contents of that docum~nt is based on the minutes of all the meetings, ev~ry l~tter that we' v~ received and ev~ry phone câll w~ 've received. I'm not saying that this is the document that you should use. I think whât this Cân be for you is a base point, a starting point. Sections 1 ând 2 are required by the SEQRA law and, beyond that, I think it I s up to the Board to decide if the issues have been âdequately addr~ssed in the past, but whether they are non-issu~s or whether there is ~ven more informâtion than I have included in this document thât you n~ed. MR. ROBERTS-Again, doesn I t this document seem like a good starting point for us to work with and if Sections 1 and 2 are mândated, l~t's not waste a lot of time on them. MRS. PULVER-I I d just like to say som~thing to. .here. Number one, the applicant hâS not asked for anymore proposed parking. All theylre asking to do to is erect â roller COâster on the camp ground site. They're not asking for anymore parking. That's not an issue. MRS. KANE-The pârking at the end of the Glen Lake Fen, that won't tak~ place? MRS. PULVER-The parking they had previous is the only parking that they hav~. I'm not going to say whether they' r~ parking or th~y' r~ not parking there. I don't know, but they're not asking for anymore parking and, as a visual impact, live b~en ther~, to the site,..very little visual impact from that roller coast~r. MR. CARTIER-With regard to the wetland parking, there was a qu~stion regarding grandfath~ring and I believe the Legal Staff was going to look into that at some point. MS. CORPUS-There was a motion for Dave Hatin to check out th~ location of the actual parking...Building and Codes. MR. CARTIER-I think the best thing we could SâY right is, that IS still an unanswered question, it's a question that's still in the air. MRS. KANE-Okay, that WâS our big concern, that w~ would like it addressed. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls already been addressed. MR. CARTIER-Well, w~ donlt have an answ~r back. MR. ROBERTS-No, we don't hav~ an answer. MR. GORALSKI-Dave Hatin will be providing you with â written determination of whether h~ feels the parking along the east side of Route 9, down by the F~n, is legal pârking, grandfâthered, whatever term you wânt to use, or whether it is not. At that time, if someone wants to appeal the d~cision of the Zoning Administrator, th~ procedur~ to do that would b~ to submit a written appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. ROBERTS-Again, about the parking, I think th~ det~rmination was mad~ that adequate parking for facilities, even without the..that was â problem, but parking is going to be âddressed furth~r in this, I would assume, scoping document. Anybody else hav~ any comm~nts b~fore get into this? Som~body want to start walking us through this. I wond~red whether w~ ev~n need to deâl with S~ction 3, which is proj~ct description and well, perhaps, MS. CORPUS-I just wanted to get Wayne to agree to the familiarity of the procedur~ and, basically, S~ctions 1, 2, and 3, proc~dural, if th~ applicant will be preparing an EIS. MR. JUDGE-I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. MS. CORPUS-I just wanted to go ov~r the fact that Sections 1, 2, and, probably, 3 ar~ fairly procedurâl and, if the applicant agrees to this set up, there should be no discussion. 4 ~ MR. JUDGE-W~ don't hav~ any problem with 1 or 2 or 3. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Then let's go to Section 4. Does somebody here care to read through this. MR. CARTIER-You want me to read through it? Okay. Item 4, Physical Environment, S~tting, and Impact, Mitigation and Analysis, Item A. Land Use and Zoning. An evaluation of the ~xisting zoning should be included, surrounding land, use and potential impact to these land uses as a result of the proposed project should be discussed. MR. JUDGE-On that point, I think, it's particularly important to my client that particular section, that we have Some sort of consensus on what this means. As far as we understand, an amusement ride is a p~rmitted use in an amusement/recreational zon~. That means, as far as I know, that the ride can be erected subject to reasonable conditions placed on the Town, by the Town Planning Board. Is ther~ any dispute about that? MR. CARTIER-I don't know if we can answ~r that, I'm speaking for me, her~. MR. JUDGE-Well, 11m wondering from the Town attorney's. Ilve never had any opinion to the contrary, but my client is very conc~rned about whether or not this is the fact. MS. CORPUS-Okay, I guess, I'm going to start at the beginning. The Board's mission, here is to, basically, if they wish to use John's outline, here, as a basis, is to take what he I s put down as potential issues and narrow those things out. We know noise is d~finitely one. The other's, the Board will have to make th~ decision as to whether there was sufficient discussion, in previous meetings, to question th~se things, to have testing done, or whatever's necessary information, whether thes~ are curr~ntly still issues. If they ar~ not, then the Board may tak~ thes~ particular items out, that they do not wish to be in her~. If this is still an issue, it's left in, if not, th~ Board may take it out. In other words, th~re's be~n some disagreement as to the us~ of th~ zoning. MR. JUDGE-11m sorry, I really can't here you. What did you just say? MS. CORPUS-Basically, I told them they could ~ith~r leave it in, if they thought th~r~ was sufficient r~cord, what~ver, to have it discussed as an issue in the EIS or, if it IS not, then it can be taken out. This is just a proposal by John. This is not something you, nec~ssarily, have to addr~ss. MR. JUDGE-A discussion about whether or not this is really a recreational zon~? MR. CARTIER-I think you're missing something, Mr. Judge. We're reading this differently. What I'm reading here is, it says, surrounding land use and potential impacts to these land uses as a result of the propos~d project should b~ discussed. In other words, in Item 4a., what you're doing is addressing the impact on th~ surrounding land, not necessarily the RC uses, but th~ resid~ntial uses in the surrounding area, what impact is the ride going to hav~ on Twicwood, Courthous~ Estat~s, Glen Lake residential areas and SO on. In other words, an ~valuation of existing zoning, what is there, and what effect is this ride going to have on the surrounding zones, not necessarily the RC zon~. MR. HAGAN-Which is a legitimate concern of this Board. MR. JUDGE-I think that's a legitimate concern. MR. ROBERTS-But I think, in basis, and, p~rhaps, we could agree with your original statement, too, that it is a permitted us~ in the zone. MR. JUDGE-I mean, that's th~ whole purpose of the site plan review, it's impact on the whol~ Town. MR. ROBERTS-But we can, as you said, probably, impose some restrictions or conditions or something. We have to d~t~rmine what's a reasonable use, I guess, but it certainly is a permitt~d use. 5 '''--"'' ---' MR. GORALSKI-If I could, the reason I put that in there is because there are several different uses surrounding the amusement park. Some is simply vacant land. Some are subdivisions and these people that are here. I felt that it would be important just to state, in the environmental impact statement, that these ar~ the this is the s~tting that this amusement park is in and this is why there are pot~ntial impacts, whether they be noise or visual Or traffic, or whatever th~y might be. MR. ROBERTS-B~cause I don't think this poses any big problem. MR. GORALSKI-I think the statement you just made is, probably, what addressed it. MR. CARTIER-I can understand what Mr. Judge is trying to do, here. He's trying to d~fin~, v~ry clearly, what the issues ar~ and what we want to be addr~ssed in the application and I think that's appropriate. I think, in terms of 4a., we ar~ looking for effects of noise in the surrounding area and visual impact, possibly, possibly on a height, possibly, visual impact from the site view from Route 9 with r~gard to parking in the wetland area if that is going to occur. I don't know, I'm just trying to specify things for you, in each one of thes~ areas, that I see need to be address~d before we go through this. MR. JUDGE-The visual, the obvious areas of conc~rn that I thought came out of the hearing was, first of all, the visual impact, which we've made a submission on. MR. ROBERTS-Let me interrupt here, because that's Section D, we haven't got to visual yet. I think most of th~se things are going to be cover~d. MR. JUDGE-They're probably cov~red in oth~r areas. So, w~ have no objection to, as long as it's covered, as long as w~ know what welre talking about. Using that as an example, if the Board found the visual impact study that was submitted to be inad~quat~, I don't think anybody said it was inadequate, but if they found it to be inadequat~ and they want us to do something more, it would b~ better if we kn~w that today, rath~r that come back a month from now and say, oh, w~ f01'got to tell you, we wanted you to shoot a lin~ from Twicwood, from th~ roof of somebody's house, because, if you tell us today, then we could ~ith~r argue with you about it or do it and it'll b~ done by the next time we get her~. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's what we're her~ for. MR. CARTIER-That IS why I brought the visual thing up, at this point, wher~ som~one from Twicwood, I beli~ve, mentioned the fact that th~re is a possibility that th~ roller coaster might be visible from Twicwood. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. CARTIER-That's an area that has to b~ addressed, that's an effect on a surrounding land use. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. HAGAN-I have a suggestion on that subj~ct. If I w~r~ in your shoes, pr~paring for this, I think I would take st~ps, while you're representing, take some st~ps to show what mitigation you can take to correct som~ of the outstanding complaints. MR. JUDGE-I'd like to clarify that point and I'm glad you brought that up becaus~ I called up John Goralski, after the last meeting, it wasn't John, it was Paul, and I said was it something I said, because he said, w~ll, when someone said, what mitigation steps could you take on the sound, I wanted it to be very clear that we're not here to t~ll the Board a lot of stories that arenlt going to come true. Now, if someone said, sOm~one had asked me, could you agree to plant tre~s that would mitigate the sound, at one point, I said no, but what I meant was, we could, sure, I could say w~'ll plant trees, and maybe it would be the easiest thing in th~ world for a lawy~r to do, say, sure, yes, we'll plant a bunch of tr~es that will mitigate the sound, but what I meant to say is no, honestly, w~ could not plant a tree that would be 91 feet tall. We would agree, if the Board wants us, says a reasonable mitigating measure would be to plant trees, well, certainly, we would consid~r planting trees. I didn't mean, in an arrogant way, that we wer~n't going to consider any compromise, certainly, we will consid~r comp romise, but what I meant to say was, that, to me, was not the answer. Th~ answer is very, more t~chnical than I can bear. Basically, it's wh~ther this 6 '---' ---- will add to the ambient noise level. I don't know ~nough about noise to be able to t~ll you whether planting a tree is going to effect either the noise out of this rid~ or the total, overall, ambient noise level. 11m not a scientist. I don't know anything about noise. So, when I said no to that answer, I didn't mean, we I re not going to do whatever you want. What I meant was, I don't think th~ planting trees would have made a difference. If I offended anybody by saying that, I apologize. MR. ROBERTS-I'm sure we werenlt planning on planting two foot trees, but planting on the upper banks, perhaps,.. sound might be diffusing off of those banks, it might absorb some of it, even if they weren't small trees. I think some v~getation, in some kinds of strategic locations... It's not for our expertise to try to determine that. I think it's that kind of thing that, perhaps, you have to tell us in this environmental impact statement, some of the things we I re asking for is what mitigative measures might make sense and maybe none will be needed by the time we actually... the roller coaster in action. So far today, we haven't had any actual decibel levels from a roller coaster, certainly not from this particular one and we've been trying to pret~nd the roller coaster would be something like a subway or something else. I would hope that, perhaps, in this environmental impact statement, we could zero in on some noise from a roller coaster. MR. GORALSKI-I think as you get into this document, you'll address that. MR. ROBERTS-I think so too. We're jumping the gun, because John really has laid this out, pretty well, I think, to cover most of the phases. MR. JUDGE-We have no objection to 4a., as it's written. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Item 4b. Transportation A for Route 9 and Round Pond Road should summ~r peak hours must be provided. discussed, include sources used to distribution rates. description of ~xisting traffic conditions be included. Actual traffic counts during Any increas~ in trip gen~ration must be determine trip generation rates and trip MR. JUDGE-After the second sentence, does the Board find that th~ traffic study that w~ put in is inadequate in respect to the traffic counts, becaus~ there are traffic counts in that study? MR. CARTIER-Are they peak season traffic counts? MR. JUDGE-They were taken on a week~nd in the summ~rtim~. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I believe that's correct and, you know, as I said, if you feel that the information that you have is adequate to ass~ss the traffic situation in the area, then you may want to eliminate this. MR. CARTIER-Don~ last summer? MR. GORALSKI-I b~lieve that's what MR. CARTIER-Were they done last summer? MR. JUDGE-Yes, it was done last summer in connection with the Bavarian Palac~. I have it right her~, if you bear with me. MR. CARTIER-Well, would there be any objection to just including a copy of that in th~ EIS as it.. MR. JUDGE-Alright, why don't we just do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Second paragraph? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Access points on Round Pond Road as well as the intersections on Route 9 and Round Pond should be evaluated and appropriat~ mitigation measures discussed. This could include the road widening, turning lanes, and signal lights at intersections and, now that I think about it, that may also be in there. MR. JUDGE-Thatls in the report, as well. 7 --' MR. CARTIER-Third paragraph, Adequacy of parking facilities must be addressed. The plan of the existing parking facility should be provided~ the total number of ~xisting parking spaces must be discussed in relation to the number of spaces provided. Sources used to determine the required parking for a facility of this ..should be documented. Something that just pops into my head, here, is I don't- DICK MORSE, MORSE ENGINEERING MR. MORSE-Dick Morse, Morse Engineering. By Number 3 in that, John, I guess this is your document, total number of ~xisting parking spac~s must be discussed in relationship to the number of spac~s provided. MR. GORALSKI-Right, well, I heard today, that you're not suggesting that you're going to add any parking spaces. MR. MORSE-No, w~ had made a presentation at the last Board meeting where we had delineated 2,369 parking spac~s that existed. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MORSE-And we had alluded to the fact the 2200 spac~s were used on a peak day and that, therefore, we had... MR. GORALSKI-We, currently~ don't have that information on file. What I would suggest that you simply take that information and include it. Include a plan showing the existing parking spaces and sOme documentation as to why you feel that there is no need for any increased parking spaces, whether it b~ industry standards or books on recreational facilities, something like that. MR. MORSE-I think we wanted..at our last presentation. MR. CARTIER-And I think we agreed that we were going to use 9 by 20, correct, as a.. sp aces? MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MRS. PULVER-My feeling, earli~r, was that, actually, it's in favor of the applicant, if a supermarket were to add a pharmacy to it's daily things, it's not to get new people, it's to keep people in the store longer, so they buy mOre or whatever, or k~ep them coming back because there I s more services and I fe~l that, maybe, with the ride, I tend to agree that it's not to increase the business, if it does, it will only do it 10 percent, but to k~ep the people there longer and ke~p them coming back because there are new rides and what not. I know I have childr~n that would not be going back every year if there wasn't something new and diff~rent~ you know, for them to do and if you only have 2,000 parking spaces, th~n you can only have 2,000 cars and it doesn't matter how many people show up, you can only have 2,000 cars because that's all you can park. MR. CARTIER-The adequacy and safety of pedestrian circulation should be discussed and I think that maybe that would be the... of the discussion of Warren County's concerns. MR. JUDGE-Well, the problem I have with that is, I don' t r~call that coming up in any of the public hearings. I don I t know if anyone put into a lett~r or anything. MR. GORALSKI-It did not. It is in th~ letter that we received from Warren County on April 25th. MR. JUDGE-But, if you recall, we got into a problem with the Bavarian Palace about all sorts of walkways and steps and all this which, to me, added expense to the project, but really did not add anything to the safety of the project. No one who has appear~d on this issue has raised the pedestrian issue. It's so general, pedestrian circulation could actually apply to the whole park. This ride is in th~ back of the park and we Ire talking about circulation across Route 9? MR. CARTIER-That's what I read into this. MR. JUDGE-Okay, then why don't we just say the safety of pedestrian circulation across Route 9. 8 '- --..-/ MR. KUPILLAS-Yes, because it specifically mentions the west side to the east side. MR. ROBERTS-But I wonder if that's fair, how much should we use this particular ride to clean up existing ills? How much can w~ do, there is, p~rhaps, a c~rtain amount we can do, but MR. JUDGE-We can discuss the steps that we take now. We Ive never had a problem with this pedestrian issue. We're not bringing the peop le to a different place b~cause we I re adding a ride to the park. They're in the park. They'd only get to the ride on foot. So, I suppose this issue is, how they g~t across Route 9, which they'd have to cross anyway, to get to the park. MR. CARTIER-I think if you can demonstrate to us, on paper, that peopl~ getting across Route 9 could do so safely, MR. ROBERTS-At least that would be addressing the Countyls concerns. MR. JUDGE-Okay, so then could we add to the adequacy and saf~ty of pedestrian circulation "across Route 9", is that alright? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Before you go on to C., paragraphs 1 and 2 you said were satisfied in the existing traffic study, is that correct? Do you want those to remain in and just add the traffic study or do you want to just MR. CARTIER-I'd say leave them in and have the traffic study in the EIS. MR. JUDGE-We hav~ a traffic study. W~'ll leave it in th~ EIS and we'll submit what we hav~ if you think that it complies with your request. MR. KUPILLAS-And the parking. MR. CARTIER-The parking welve already done. MR. KUPILLAS-That wasnlt submitted..showed us. MR. MORSE-It will be a technical appendix to the EIS. MR. CARTIER-Item C. Noise An analysis of existing versus future levels of noise should be conducted. Impacts should be evaluated and mitigation measur~s proposed, ~specially in regard to nearby residential areas, ie. Twicwood and Glen Lak~ and, I suspect, we should include, also, Courthouse Estates. MR. JUDGE-Now, this relates to the additional ride, that's correct? MR. CARTIER-This says an analysis of existing levels of noise. MR. JUDGE-I'm not an expert on noise, but let's say the ambient noise level of the rid~, when itls in operation, is 75 decibels, if we can show that th~ ambient noise level of the park, after the addition of the ride, will still be 75 decibels, that will not b~ satisfactory to the people who are here because they think the park is too loud, but the impact of th~ additional ride won't add anything to th~ ambient noise level. In other words, the painters will still be abl~ to sing along, but the ride won't be the r~ason for it. We're studying the additional ride, is that it? MR. ROBERTS-Well, we asked, I think we have asked, or discuss~d in the past, we wanted a pre noise levels, pre roller coaster, when the park is in full tilt. MR. JUDGE-Right. MR. ROBERTS-And if what you say is true, they'd all be about the same, it may not satisfy some of th~ residents, but it might satisfy this Board. MR. HAGAN-My concern would be, not only what the final decibels would be, but wher~ they ar~ measured and for what distance that decibel reading holds true. I think that's the concern of th~ locality, not what it is at Story Town, or at the Great Escap~. MR. MORSE-It's my understanding, I mean, we'v~ discuss~d this issue at me~ting. The issue is that w~ I re here today becaus~ we're saying w~' re not what the nois~ when that roller coaster is actually placed into op~ration. ev~ry sure What 9 '- ---- we're here today to do is to prepare a technical study on noise, of the ambient level of the park, prior to the roller coast~r being put into operation, in other words, wh~n the park is in full use. Then we're going to project, the consultant, will project what the noise level of the roller coaster would be... That's why we' re h~re because we don't want to build the roller coaster to find out that we hav~ to mitigate something that we can't mitigate. That's why we're here. So, we are going to do some actual noise level reading, in th~ field, during the high season and th~n w~' re going to either get literature that states the roll~r coaster makes X number of decibels at a certain distance.. take measur~ments off a roller coaster somewhere that is in existence now, that is of similar construction and overlay that on to the.. MR. ROBERTS-My understanding as to basically why we're here and, Jim, your question, a lot of those measurements would be taken and already over by the Courthouse and other areas, not just at the amusement park. to answ~r were taken MR. GANNETT-If I could comm~nt, Mr. Chairman, from an analysis standpoint, I would suggest that any noise study cover the basic area that Mr. Morse has discussed. Ther~ should be three specific areas. Number one is, measures of existing noise levels in the p~ak season when the park is running. I would suggest that those nois~ level measurements be taken at several locations, at any of the neighborhoods where th~re is a concern, and be done on a weight~d average type measur~m~nt. Number two, the determination of noise 1ev~ls of a roller coaster which should be of a model similar to this existing roller coaster. Now, I don't know whether the ~xisting unit is still in operation or whether itls already been disass~mb1ed, but there should be measurements done, again, over time in a statistically analyzed way, of a similar type of roller coaster, in operation, occupi~d, at distances comparable to wh~re the distances to the neighboring properties at this site will be. Now, the one thing that can't be precisely mOdeled is the effect of terrain. That is going to be site sp~cific, but what can b~ determined is the nois~ 1ev~1 at, say, 750 feet away, if 750 feet away is the distance to one of the conc~rned, n~ighboring properties. That would be the second part. The third part should b~ a discussion of what mitigation measures can be done when th~ roller coaster is installed and, tr~e p1antings have been discussed. Ther~ ar~ also other possibilities, such as putting a tunn~l over part of the ro11~r coaster, that has been done, but until we have the base information of what are the existing nois~ 1ev~ls in the neighborhood during the peak season of operation, and what noise is generated by a roller coaster, we really don' t hav~ the information to make an informed decision on the impacts. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we're on the same wavelength here, aren't we? MR. MORSE-Yes, we are and we have retained, for this study, the firm of G~lston & Gelston, out of Syracuse to do noise and air quality studies and they're being brought on board to perform this study. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, if I could just, maybe, suggest some added language. I think most of this addresses Wayne's concerns as far as using noise 1~ve1s of a similar roller coaster in a similar setting. I would just suggest that th~ sentenc~ above that that says, existing noise levels should be determined when the Great Escape is in operation from a location in the Twicwood subdivision, at the Docksider Restaurant, at th~ Whalen property and at Courthouse Estat~s, that gives you specific locations in which to get th~ information. I b~liev~ thos~ are all the concerned areas. MR. CARTIER-Do~s it n~ed to be defined any more precis~ly than that, Courthous~ Estates, from the Courthouse back to Courthouse Estates? MR. GORALSKI - I think that I s up to you. int~rsections or something. You know, if you want to get sp~cific MR. ROBERTS-I be1iev~ their original tests w~re done, what, 100 feet, as I recall, north of Glen Lake Road. MR. MORSE-100 feet north of Glen Lak~ Road. MR. ROBERTS-Perhaps one should be done at the other end of the subdivision. MR. BAKER-Yes, where it's open. MR. MORSE-Well, this was an open area. driveway for th~ Municipal Center. This was in the clearing area of the 10 "--- -..../ MR. ROBERTS-Municipal Center. MR. JUDGE-I know the people object to noise, but I don't think the people understood what we did. We took the ambient noise levels when the park was closed, which is to their b~nefit, you know, that's a worst case sc~nario for the..is to take an ambient noise level when the park is closed. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, well that will just prov~ the base knowledge to go along with this other. MR. MORSE-We are not noise experts. We did a literature research which we so stated in our report that we presented. Perhaps, the noise expert who, unfortunately, is not here today, may have some better ideas on exactly and pr~cise1y where to take these... MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I guess we're making suggestions, let's not tie their hands, if the experts know better. MR. CARTIER-The only other thing I would note is, I know sOme peop 1e hav~ said, some days are wors~ than others, as far as noise is concerned. I understand that because noise travel is temperature and humidity sensitiv~ and I would hope that these noise people will make note of SOme temperatures and humidities...a1so. MR. ROBERTS-I'm wondering, too, about, when we get all of those figures, we still have to consider the site specific location because we think this location will mitigat~ a lot of the noises b~cause..and 11m not sure, maybe the experts, again, can help, in that regard. MR. MORSE-I believe that is part of the charge and scope of their servic~s. They will analyz~ the base data and they can generate some contours based on that. MR. CARTIER-So, we hav~ language down for that C paragraph, now? Do you want to read that back to us? MR. GORALSKI-I believe, if I'm correct, you decided that you were going to have the exp~rts that are doing the study, determine the appropriat~ locations within those areas. MR. ROBERTS-Well, not ignoring our suggestions. MR. CARTIER-But, with the advice of Mr. Gannett, in terms of his thr~e comments, also. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, Wayne, do you feel those are addressed in that discussion? MR. GANNETT-Yes, my concerns were, basically, addressed in your paragraph. The only thing I would like to add is, there should be some kind of a statistically based analysis because of the variability of noise conditions with different times. I think the readings should happen more than once in some kind of a statistically valid way, which the noise consultant can determine what is a statistically valid numb~r of readings because w~ather conditions can vary. MR. MORSE-I understand that. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think it's all been discussed. MR. GANNETT-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So we will, then, the only thing we will add is where it says, ie. Twicwood and Glen Lake, we will add, Courthouse Estates, the Whelan property is, th~n, mentioned in the n~xt sentence and th~n we will add, the study should include notation of t~mperature and humidity when the readings were taken. MR. CARTIER-And, also, I'd just add to the second to last line, when the Great Escape is in full operation, to refer to peak season, or is in operation at peak season. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-We're not limiting the testing areas to those youlv~ noticed, leaving that up to the experts, to some ~xtent. Okay, I think we can go on to visual. 11 --- MR. CARTIER-Item D. Visual Resourc~s The visual impacts of the proj~ct on the surrounding area should be identified. Attention should b~ given to surrounding residenc~s and important ~xisting vistas. Rend~rings showing existing and future vistas from critical vi~w points are recommended. MR. ROBERTS-Again, I think you've given us quite a lot of that information already. Wh~ther or not the lett~r from the residents has any validity, that roller coaster will b~ able to be seen from Twicwood,. . looked into, I guess we didn' t r~ally think that that was much of a factor standing on the site. MR. MORSE-W~ could extend the.. I think two Sections, alr~ady, had been p res~nted that the Board had requested and, in on~ of those S~ctions,...over th~ Round Pond Road area.. and we could extend that, that certainly is on up into th~ Twicwood ar~a. I'm assuming that, by rendering SOme visual presentation as ~vidence, such as a section, not specifically an artists rendering. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MORSE-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-You're going MR. MORSE-Yes. to elaborate, then, on what you'v~ already given us? MR. CARTIER-Item 6 Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts This S~ction should provide an overview of the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to other projects and developments in th~ vicinity. The issu~ of park operations extending beyond the normal 7 p.m. closing time should b~ discussed. MR. JUDGE-Excuse me, could I drop back to that last one, under visual r~sources. We heard somebody say that they had a topographical map showing that the ride will be visible from som~place in Twicwood and I would just say to th~ Board that, if anyone calls and if anybody has studies, of this nature, w~ would like to see them and we'll include them in our report. For examp Ie, sOmeon~ said, at on~ time, that they could see the rid~ from the bridge on the bike path and I went trudging through a foot of snow trying to get there and there wasn't any way in the world that I could see th~ ride from that bridge on the bike path, but if somebody does have something that they could show us, we'll make it a part of the r~port and it should b~ to your benefit. So, if you have it, s~nd it to us. MR. ROBERTS-We donlt have it, but I assume th~ word will get out, th~ residents, here, today, and, perhaps, it will surface. Okay, do we have any problems with this Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts that Peter just read? MR. JUDGE-I don't recall the issue of the park' s op~ning and closing time every being discussed in any of th~ public hearings. Ther~ are issues, here, that may relate to zoning, generally, but nothing to do with the addition of this rid~. Somebody might not like, for exampl~, the park to be open after 7 o'clock, but what does that have to do with this particular ride? MR. BAKER-When you're going from a child's park to an adult park, you're going to go to a later closing time. I would assume. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it hasnlt happened y~t. MR. BAKER-But it's on the way, I think. MRS. PULVER-I think a lot would have to be done, though, to convert that to a park that's going to run until midnight every night. MR. BAKER-Light, however, it's a possibility. MR. JUDGE-We're going to be discussing a lot of things which relate to peop Ie IS complaints about this park, but the complaints about th~ park are not at issue. The only issu~ is, within th~ existing, operational, l~gal limits of operating a park in the Town of Que~nsbury, as we I re doing, what is the impact of this additional ride. Now, you might want to have your l~gislators impose some sort of a curfew on this park, that's a l~gitimate thing for a homeown~r or a taxpayer to bring up at some point, but not with the additional, adding one more ride to a park and I would move to delete that last s~ntence because it did not come up during the public hearings. I don I t recall anybody ever raising an issue with regard to that except to the fear that the park is turning into something that it do~snlt want to, that the p~ople don't want it to turn into and that's not a sit~ plan review issue. 12 -- JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-Mr. Chairman, that was raised in a letter I wrote, which was in the proper time frame. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that may very well be, then, in the files. It does se~m to me that, at some times in our review process, we address things like this to try to make some corrections. I don't see why this would be improper to discuss at this time. I don't know, why is it out order to discuss the closing time, h~re? MRS. PULVER-Karla, we canlt impose an opening and closing schedule on this park, can we? MS. CORPUS - I think that there isn't much mi t igat ion measure that could b~ done to change that. The park closes, now, I guess, at 7 and there wouldn't be any sort of mitigation or any measure. Mr. Judge is right, it hasn't been brought up before. In my legal opinion, it's a very thin ice issue for the Board to g~t into at this time, having not been an issue of the roller coaster. Again, if the whole point of discussing this is to do analysis and possible mitigation measur~s, I do not see where this would come into play. MR. HAGAN-I interpret otherwise. Th~ community's concern about the closing time is, definitely, connected to this addition of this new ride because this propos~s to expand the use of the park mOre for adults than it has previously been used in past years and the neighborhood is concerned that this ride will extend the operating hours of the park and I think this is a good time to bring it up. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think what we're talking about here is, not only noise l~vels, but noise duration and I think that has to be addressed also. I think that's what this gets at. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe that belongs under Item C, under Noise, more than it does under here. Do you still feel it's an unreasonable thing to discuss in the Environmental Impact Statement? MR. JUDGE-I think the issu~ of the hours of the park is way beyond the scop~ of this particular site plan review. I think it's a legitimate concern, but I think it's beyond the scope of the project. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if Counsel tells us we Ire on thin ice, then we better back away from it. MR. CARTIER-I'm not prepar~d to back away from it, in term.s of the comm~nts that I just made. MR. HAGAN-No, me either. MR. CARTIER-I think, if, this park, there is a possibility, because, look, w~'re talking about cumulative and growth inducing impacts here and I think that belongs here. If we're talking about a noise level that occurs for a certain period of time and we're talking about having the park open later, then we are extending the times that that noise level may create a problem and I think that's a legitimate concern. MR. ROBERTS-Of course, there has been no talk about extending the opening tim~ of th~ park. MR. HAGAN-Then what is the applicant worried about? MR. CARTIER-I thought somebody just said that had been brought up in a letter somewhere. MR. ROBERTS-It IS been brought up, but it has not MR. GORALSKI-Th~ reason I included that in this Draft is because ther~ were two letters that bring up the issue of the park staying op~n beyond 7 o'clock. MS. CORPUS- I would recommend that if the Board does decide to address this and have the applicant address it in the impact statement, they sp~cifically limit it to what information they wish to elicit from the applicant, what measures to b~ taken, just a specific description of issues, rather than a general discussion of the park overall, specifically related to the roller cOaster. 13 -- MR. ROBERTS-I suppose we could put limitations on only the roller coasterCTAPE TURNED) MR. GORALSKI-Once again, and this is just my interpretation of the issu~, the letters that we have, as Mr. Hagan has stated, have been concerned with the park changing to an adult theme park and that this is a step in that direction and that the concern is that, when this becomes an adult theme park, that the hours will be lengthened. You know, the simple answer ms.y be ths.t th~ hours will not be lengthened. I'm not sure of that, but the issue has come up becs.use they fe~l that the chs.ract~r of the park is changing s.nd this is a step in that direction. MR. HAGAN-We're not saying, s.t les.st I'm not ss.y, for this Bos.rd, that th~ time hs.s to b~ ests.blished. I'm merely sts.ting, I se~ no hs.rm in following the suggestion here that ss.ys the issue of ps.rk operations extending beyond the normal 7 p.m. closing time should be discussed. It doesn't say ~stablished. So, whs.t harm is there in discussing it? MR. ROBERTS-Do you really hs.ve s. serious probl~m with ths.t? MR. JUDGE-I hs.ve s. problem with discussing issues ths.t are beyond the scope of th~ site pls.n. Itls my duty, s.s s. lawyer, to rs.ise these issues. If it's beyond th~ scope of the site plan, then I hs.ve to raise ths.t issue and I think it's beyond the scope of the plan, of the applics.tion. MR. HAGAN-I think it would b~ an influencing it~m to control the way this Board would vote in s.ccepting the addition to this ride, or not, that's why think it's imports.nt. I think it is part of this scoping session. MR. ROBERTS-I think it's, r~ally, a mitigs.tive mes.sure, I guess. MR. HAGAN-Okay, motion to les.ve a sugg~stion for I should move along, but, if s. motion be needed, I'm making a those words in this scop ing suggestion and that's all this is, discussion, period. MR. ROBERTS-I think you agree with ths.t, Peter? MR. CARTIER-I would. MR. ROBERTS-Carol? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. ROBERTS-What do you ss.y, Bud? MR. KUPILLAS-Yes, if it's left in like this, to be discussed. MR. ROBERTS-I agree. MR. JUDGE-We're discussing the ride, not the park? MR. ROBERTS-Well, s.pparently, thatls all we're able to discuss, s.t the moment, yes. MR. JUDGE-Oks.y. MR. CARTIER-Item 7 Irreversible s.nd Irretrievable commitment of Resources This section should identify s.ny human or ns.turs.l resources that will be consumed, converted, or made unavails.ble for futur~ use s.s s. result of this project. MR. JUDGE-We hs.ve no objection to that. MR. ROBERTS-So, there's no big problem with ths.t, whatever it means? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Item 8 Uns.voidable Adv~rse Environmental Impacts This section should id~ntify those s.dverse environments.l impacts associs.ted with this project that cs.nnot be avoided, d~spite s.ny proposed mitigation m~s.sur~s. MR. JUDGE-We have no probl~m with ths.t. 14 -..-/ MR. ROBERTS-That I s the end of Mr. Goralski's scoping document. Do Board memb~rs have any oth~r things that we think John has forgotten? I'm assuming we could g~ through the State's recommended scoping checklist, but w~ probably could d1sregard a good share of those things because they I re not app licable or w~ I ve alr~ady address~d them. I think John's document, h~r~, does a pretty good job. How does the applicant feel about it? MR. MORSE-We'r~ in agreement with John's scoping checklist and I think that you'll find that, basically, paraphras~s the State's. MR. GORALSKI-Right, it's, basically, the same thing that the State uses. matter of fact, a lot of the category titles are exactly what the State As a uses. MR. ROBERTS-Most of us seem comfortable with this? I did not accept a couple of hands. Maybe, we still have a little time, did you still, care to have something to say? DOROTHY CHARLEBOIS MRS. CHARLEBOIS-My name is Dorothy Charlebois and we live on the east side of Glen Lake and when you were talking about having the testing done for the sound, I don't think Docksidei' is a really good spot for us, because sound do~s carry across the water quite a bit and we may even be louder on the east side of the Lake, ~ven though w~'re farther away than the Docksider. That's just what I hav~ to say. MR. ROBERTS-On the east end of Glen Lak~. MRS. CHARLEBOIS-Yes, ov~r on Mannis Road. MR. ROBERTS-That's sounds like a long ways away. MRS. CHARLEBOIS-It isn't, it does carry across the wat~r. MR. ROBERTS-Well, w~ had a limited locations, p~rhaps, that would be of some interest. MR. HAGAN-I'd also like to mention, it sounds like Ilve been attacking the applicant in my thinking and I haven' t be~n. Ilm trying to w~igh both sides and I' d lik~ to bring to the community I s attention that 75 decibels is consid~rably l~ss than th~ averag~ motor boat that runs back and forth on Glen Lake. So, when th~ app licant talks about 75 decibels, he's not exceeding the noises you I re already putting up with. I live on Lake George, so I 'm sp~aking with authority on th~ sounds of boats. Eighty-five decibels is the accepted level established by th~ Lake Georg~ Park Commission. I just bring that out, that 75 decibels really isn't too bad. So, if the community gets too d~manding, they'll have to remember what noises they're already putting up with, even if the Great Escape didn't exist. MR. ROBERTS-John, you had a comment? JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-My name is John Whalen. I'd lik~ to suggest that when the sound study is done, they record the number of times, per hour, that the sounds are made so that we can have an id~a wheth~r w~'re getting more sound per hour, not just say, lik~, it's 60 d~cibels, the maximum, but I'd like to know, is it 60 decibels ev~ry 15 seconds, every 30 minutes, things of that nature. So that we can see how frequ~ntly we'r~ hearing a disturbing sound. MR. HAGAN-What do you do about the boats? Again, 85 decibels is acceptable and if that boat runs all day, it's l~gal. MR. WHELAN- On Lake George, it's 85 d~cibels at a 100 foot distanc~, and that's very loud, I admit, but the property I hav~, it's very close to the proposed roll~r coaster, it's reasonably far from Gl~n Lak~ and I don't here th~ motor boats. MR. CARTIER-I think you've got a good point. I think what we're talking about is not a nois~ study that represents a snap shot. MR. ROBERTS-I think you've already made referenc~ to this, Peter. MR. MORSE-Wayne' s discussion, as to physical analysis, I think, was th~ thrust of that. 15 ------ -../ MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think that's been pretty well agreed upon. MR. CARTIER-In other words, what youlre looking for, I think, is a series of snap shots. MR. WHALEN-Yes, well, I'd like to know how often do you hear this, what is the frequency that you hear the sounds. Is it every 10 seconds, is it once ~very 15 minutes, or like a motor boat may com~ and go, but it may not be back all day. The other thing I'd like to ask is that the sound of screaming be picked up, not just the sound of an empty roller coaster. That's all I have to say. MR. ROBERTS-Does Staff think we've done what we're supposed to do, her~? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would just lik~ to recap, so that when we produce an actual scoping document, Sections 1, 2, and 3 will remain as is. Section 4a. will remain as is. MR. HAGAN-Well, the adequacy and saf~ty of pedestrian circulation "across Route 9", that's suppos~d to be added. MR. GORALSKI-That's B. MR. HAGAN-Oh, I'm sorry. MR. GORALSKI-B, we will add "Pedestrian Circulation Across Route 9 Should B~ Discussed". C. We will add Courthouse Estates to the areas that should b~ discussed. We will also add that time, temperatur~, and humidity should be stated for ~ach reading. MR. KUPILLAS-And the word peak. MR. ROBERTS-Or full. MR. GORALSKI-Under, when the Great Escape is in "peak" operation, okay and then D, under visual resources, we're going to add that profiles be provided, including the Twicwood subdivision, is that correct? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay and then everything else remains as is? MR. MORSE-In 6, the last sentence, the issue of ride operations extending beyond th~ normal 7 p.m. closing time should be discussed, is what we agreed to. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-We're leaving it as is. MR. MORSE-For park operation, we said we would agree to the issue of "ride" operation. MR. ROBERTS-Alright, okay. I guess w~ did. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, just to clarify that, are you sp~aking the issu~ of this roller coaster? MR. JUDGE-This ride. MR. GORALSKI-Operating beyond 7 o'clock, is that? MR. ROBERTS-I guess we felt that's all we could do, according to Counsel. MR. GORALSKI-Is that right? MR. HAGAN-No, I'd say that it should be left just the way it reads. MR. ROBERTS-Well, our Counsel is telling us that we're on thin ice dealing with anything but the roller coaster in this regard, Jim. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but the roller coaster is going to become part of th~ park. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. HAGAN-You're making me very susp icious. Is what you're doing and I'm trying 16 '-'" to avoid creating that atmosphere. We're talking about a new ride. That new rid~ is going to become part of the park and the issue of park operations ext~nding beyond the normal 7 p.m. closing time should be discussed, period. If you wer~ going to put the ride in there and eliminate the rest of the park, I would agr~e with Couns~1. MS. CORPUS-If the Board believes that this is, the park, overall, is som~thing that would be reviewable under Section Site Plan Review, certainly, the Board has the right to bring up the total issue, that's up to you. I don't want to say that you can't. Again, comes within the purview of a regular site plan review. MR. CARTIER-I don't think we're setting precedent, here. I think we've done that when somebody' s COme in for things like, for examp le, int~rior al terations, we had a coup le the other night, where we made sOm~ changes in the overall area, w~ made changes in handicapped parking and we mad~ changes in parking in general and we...change the traffic patterns, and so on. So, I don't think, consider it plowing n~w ground, here, I think we've done that before, in the past. MR. ROBERTS-I would agree with that. MR. BAKER-The issues in all 92 letters, also, that we addressed to you, nobody has said that yet, that the closing time of the park changing, going from child to adult park with additions like this, is, in all 94 of thos~ letters. One of the issues we addressed, primarily, we think they're going to try to, eventually, expand it to a night operation and that scares the hell out of us. MR. ROBERTS-It se~ms to com~ down to a legal interpr~tation. MR. HAGAN-Carol, how do you feel, do you agree with my statement? MRS. PULVER-I don't know, what does the applicant think? MR. HAGAN-No, the applicant doesnlt agree. MRS. PULVER-No, does he want to stay op~n? Does he s~e, in the future, where he wants to stay open past 7 o'clock. MR. ROBERTS-They don't want to commit th~mselves. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Roberts, let me try to clarify, once again. Th~ Section is, Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts, specifically, for this roller coaster, wh~n I was writing this, I was considering all of these letters and I think maybe a way to address this would be, is the addition of this roller coaster, or a ride, like a large roller coaster, going to have any growth inducing impacts. For example, will this type of addition cause the park to be open later or will this addition chang~ the character of th~ park so that it will b~ op~n lat~r, something like that. MR. over what that vote ROBERTS-Are we talking cumulative impacts, this is one ride which puts us the top, here. Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts is a legitimate article, do the State's suggest? Do they suggest that, do th~y? Then I would think we could justify leaving it in and having it discussed. Maybe w~ bett~r the Board on this single issue. MOTION IN REGARDS TO THE SCOPING PROCESS SECTION 6 "cmroLATlVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS" REMAIN AS WRITTEN TO INCLUDE THE LAST SENTENCE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, READING AS FOLLOWS: "THE ISSUE OF PARK OPERATIONS EXTENDING BEYOND THE NORMAL 7 P.M. CLOSING TDŒ SHOULD BE DISCUSSED", Introduced by Jam~s Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mrs. Pulv~r ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. ROBERTS-Do~s the applicant have any oth~r comments on this? Other than that particular issue, I guess, are we in some agreement h~re, that this should get our job done? 17 -.../ MR. JUDGE-No, we don't have any other comments. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, then this just calls for a formal vote, perhaps w~ better vote this in. MS. CORPUS-Could we, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, make a formal vote on the acceptance of the proposed scoping document. MR. ROBERTS-As amended. MS. CORPUS-As amended. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have a motion to that effect? MOTION TO ACCEPT, AS AMENDED, THE DRAFT SCQPING OOCDHENT ESTABLISHED ON APRIL 26, 1990, Introduced by Peter Cartier, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts 18