Loading...
1991-08-13 SP "- 'I -/ CJJEEIISIIJRY PLANNING BOARD tEETING SPECIAL tEETING AUGUST 13TH. 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land. Inc. (Roller Coaster) A combined public hearing on said site plan review application and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 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. Î ,- -,' CJJEEIISIIJRY PLAIIIIIIG BOARD IEETING SPECIAL IEETIIIG AUGUST 13TH. 1991 7:00 P.M. JÐ8ERS PRESEIIT PETER CARTIER. CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY TI MOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTIN tEMBERS ABSEIIT NICHOLAS CAIMANO DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST FROST. REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH TOWN PLANNIIIG DEPARTtENT-REPRESENTED BY JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MIfllTES July 11th. 1991: Page 13. two thirds of the way down. Bartlett speaking. not with certainty of course. and we understand this. Mr. Hagan spoke. then the next paragraph quotes Mr. Hagan. and it sib Mr. Bartl ett Jl)TION TO APPROVE MIfllTES OF JULY 11TH. 1991 AS CORRECTED. Duly adopted this 13th day of August. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano OLD IIJSIIIESS: SITE PLAN REVIEW 110. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LAND. INC. OIlIER: SAlE AS ABOVE (ROLLER COASTER) ROOTE 9. LAKE GEORGE ROAD TO ERECT A 91 n. HIGH ROLLER COASTER ON THE FORJER CMPGROOND SITE AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. (IIARREII coom PLANNING) TAX IMP 110. 36-2-7 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION 179-21 A COMBIIIED PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION AID DRAn EllVIROIUEIITAL I"ACT STATEtEIIT (DEIS) ifILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 13. 1991. MR. CARTIER-Just so we're on the same wavelength. here. if I can use that term. I want to spell out the purpose of why we're here tonight. We're here to conduct a public hearing on the State Environmental Quality Review Act and along with that a public hearing on the site plan application. So we are going to collect comments from you this evening. The public comment period on the environmental portion will remain open until August 23rd. You will have until August 23rd to submit any further written comments with regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. after which the Planning Board will provide the applicant with a list of items he is to further address in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. and right now. tentatively. we will probably be meeting on August 27th. The public hearing for the Site Plan will remain open until the final disposition of this appl ication and I have no idea when that will occur. There will, be no votes taken tonight. I want the public to understand that we are not voting on anything this evening. We are simply taking the comments from the public. and we will give the applicant time at the end of the meeting to respond to any comments that were made. should he so desire. If you wish to speak. I would ask you to raise your hand so I can identify you. Come to the microphone. State your name and address. If you are representing someone or a group of people. you will please indicate that also. If you have letters that you've submitted and you prefer to read those into the record. please feel free to indicate that. We'd be delighted to have you read your letters into the record. The applicant has asked to make a brief opening statement. I'll open a public hearing at this point. PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED DICK BARTLETT 1 -' MR. BARTLETT-Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Board. Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm Dick Bartlett. appearing on behalf of the Great Escape. in connection with the application for the approval of a roller coaster. I simply wanted. at the outset. to say that following the July 11th hearing on the approval of the completeness of the DEIS. it was suggested by some that it would be appropriate to have an information meeting for people interested in the application and we did just that on August 1st. We held a meeting and representatives of the neighbor of the residents of the neighborhood and the businesses in the neighborhood were invited to attend. We had our sound person there and our traffic person there to answer questions and I just wanted the Planning Board to know that we had followed that suggestion and held that meeting. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. At this time. what I'd like to do is get the letters' that have been addressed to the Board read into the record. Mr. Goralski has kindly offered to read those. MR. GORALSKI-The first letter is from John Whalen. to Peter Cartier. dated August 9. 1991. "Dear Mr. Cartier: I am a resident of the Town of Queensbury and own 40 acres of land adjacent to the Great Escape. and only 288 feet from the proposed roller coaster site. I attended last year's Planning Board hearings. and objected to the noise levels this roller coaster would generate on my property (see my letters dated 2/26/90. 3/27/90. and 4/10190). The Queensbury Planning Dept. acknowledged my concerns in their Draft Scoping Document of 4/23/90. by John S. Goralski. planner. On page 3 of the above document under C. Noise: "Impacts to the Whalen property must be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures outlined." I have examined the June 1991 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and find that sound studies were not done on my property adjacent to the proposed roller coaster site. nor were any mitigation measures proposed as requested in the Draft Scoping Document. This omission was also noted in the July 11. 1991 letter by Thomas M. Yarmowich of Rist-Frost to the Queensbury Planning Board. On page 1 of the above letter: "IV.c. Noise: Impacts to the Whalen property and appropriate mitigation measures attendant thereto (if applicable)." It is probable that these requested noise studies were not done by the applicant because it was known that the results would be unacceptably high on my property. Noise levels of approximately 78 decibels are predicted on my property 288 feet from the proposed roller coaster. This number was calculated from the applicant's measured roller coaster decibel levels at 50 feet. and using a line source factor of 3 decibels loss per doubling of the distance. Since the DEIS did not address noise levels on adjacent properties. its statement that the operation of the roller coaster would have no adverse noise effect is simply not true. The noise study section of the DEIS must be considered incomplete until these studies are completed and made available and adequate mitigation measures proposed. In 1 ike fashion the DEIS also did not address the visual impact the proposed roller coaster would have on adjacent properties. Therefore. the visual section of the DEIS must also be considered incomplete until these studies are reported. The 4/23/90 Draft Scoping Document requested a study of the impact the proposed project would have on the future development potential of adjacent land. Page 3 D. Construction: "Discuss potential for future development on adjacent lands as a result of this project." Page 3 IV. A. Land Use and Zoning: "Surrounding land use and potential impacts to these land uses as a result of the proposed project should be discussed." This subject was not discussed in the DEIS. This omission was noted in the 7/11/91 letter of Rist-Frost to the Queensbury Planning Board. Page 1 - Scoping Document III. D. Construction: "Potential for future development on adjacent lands." This issue needs to be addressed in the DEIS. Obviously. a high noise level on my land. from morning until evening. all summer long. would destroy the versatility of my property for quiet recreationlcommercial or residential uses and drastically reduce its value. The 4/23/90 Draft Scoping Document raised the question of the park remaining open at night (page 3. paragraph IV.): "The issue of the park operations extending beyond the normal 7 p.m. closing time should be discussed." I feel the DEIS coverage of this issue is inadequate since no guarantees or time frames on maintaining the existing park hours of 9 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. were made to the Town. I believe the DEIS should legally guarantee to the Town of Queensbury that the proposed roller coaster would not be lighted at night or operated at night for a minimum period of 25 years. I believe that on a project of this magnitude. the Planning Board should, have an independent review done on the DEIS to assess the accuracy of the data. assumptions. and conclusions presented on the key issues. "What if" and "worst case" scenarios would also be useful to the Planning Board in such a review. Sincerely. John Whalen" MR. HAGAN-Did he say 78 decibels? 2 -' MR. GORALSKI-Yes. This is another letter from Mr. Whalen. to Peter Cartier. dated August 12. 1991. "Dear Mr. Cartier: I am a resident of Queensbury and own 40 acres of land adjacent to the Great Escape. I would like to go on record at the August 13. 1991 Planning Board public hearing as objecting to the proposed roller coaster. One of the main reasons for the Site Plan Review as 1 isted on page 63 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is to determine the "effect on the surrounding properties." The proposed roller coaster would be located only 288 feet from my property line. In the average subdivision. this distance would be like having a roller coaster two houses away from you. The DEIS sound study of comparable roller coasters indicates that the proposed roller coaster would be extremely noisy with sound levels of 85 decibels at 50 feet. which would calculate to approximately 100 decibels at the source. Obviously. at a distance of 288 feet. the roller coaster would create a high level of almost continuous noise on my property which would destroy its development potential for residential or quiet recreation/commercial uses. and drastically reduce its value. I am also concerned that in the future. The Great Escape will decide to operate the roller coaster at night. and install a 100-foot high by 800-foot long outdoor lighting system along the length of the ride. This would result in both nuisance noise levels and objectionable lighting far into the night. My land is zoned RC-15 in the area opposite the Great Escape. and WR-IA to the east. The Great Escape roller coaster site is zoned RC-15. There is nothing in the Queensbury RC-15 Ordinance that encourages or sanctions noise. nor anything that permits anyone to create a nuisance on their neighbors property. Single family homes are a permitted use in RC-15 zones. and it further states in the RC-15 Zoning Ordinance on page 47. under purpose: "Residential uses are considered compatible with RC zones." Other uses permitted with Type II Site Plan Review include motels. public meeting areas. multifamily dwellings. golf course. clubs. tavern. campground. livery stable. ski area. planned unit development. restaurant. and amusement center. Since noise from the roller coaster would render my RC-15 zoned property unsuitable for both permitted residential use. and for most of the other above RC-15 permitted uses. it becomes obvious that the roller coaster. as proposed. is incompatible with the RC-15 Zoning Ordinance. A roller coaster this large and noisy belongs in Coney Island not in Queensbury. Sincerely. John Whalen" MR. CARTIER-Mr. Whalen. would it be fair to say that those two letters supersede the letter of July 22nd that you read in at that meeting? JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. can we waive the reading of the original letter? Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-I have a couple of more. This is addressed to Mrs. Lee York. from Guido Passarelli. dated July 5. 1991 "Dear Mrs. York: This letter is in regard to the proposed roller coaster addition to The Great Escape. I consider myself to be a progressive person and understand the nature of business and growth. I. however. am deeply concerned about the new roller coaster proposed to be built at the Great Escape. directly adjacent to and bordering 82 acres that I currently own on Round Pond Road. I purchased this beautiful piece of property and have invested in excess of a million dollars with a vision of future development of mini estates of exquisite residential homes. Buyers of these homes will demand the right to quiet enjoyment of their property. I am sure that the Town Planning Board will understand my staunch objection to this project for the following reasons. 1. Increased traffic on Round Pond Road will be inevitable as a result of curious onlookers wanting to see this huge monstrosity up close. Increased traffic on this road is sure to create problems. I believe this issue has been discussed with Mr. Wood before regarding the Bavarian Palace at which time he said that he would at his expense change the road. To date it is still very dangerous to make a left turn onto Route 9. 2. The visual impact to the area is sure to be an eye sore. I personally see nothing appealing about the tangled wood of a massive roller coaster. especially overlooking a peaceful residential neighborhood. 3. In my opinion. noise from the park. at this time. is barely acceptable. I share this opinion with residents from Court House Estates. Glen Lake. and Twicwood Area. The addition of a roaring. screaming Roller Coaster is bound to increase the level of obnoxious noise that we must already tolerate as a result of the theme park. The measurement of ambient noise did not take into account my property which would be most affected by the roller coaster. Therefore any mitigation measures have not been identified! 4. The scoping document also states on page 3 that the EIS "should provide an overview of potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. with respect to other projects and development in the vicinity". Nowhere in the EIS does it identify what development could take place on my property with regard to zoning and how any future development will be affected or limited by the roller coaster placement. I do not believe that the EIS submitted is complete as it does not address the issues identified in the scoping document. 3 ',--" -' 5. Currently the park closes for the day at 6:00 P.M. Should the park decide to extend its operating hours into the evening. the issue of added noise becomes an even greater concern to residents. The park does presently have a loop roller coaster clearly visible on Route 9. I understand that the Roller Coaster is being proposed as a new attraction to increase attendance to the park. The additional anticipated business to be only 40 cars per day. or 16.000 total new patrons per 100 day season. With a total seasonal attendance of 500.000.. for the capital investment into this project. I wonder if there is a need or actual benefit? Respectfully. Guido Passarelli" There is a map attached. and. is this the letter you just handed me? MR. CARTIER-Howard Krantz. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you want. I can read it. This is a letter. Mr. Krantz is Mr. Passarelli's attorney. MR. CARTIER-Is Mr. Krantz here? MR. GORALSKI-No. This letter says that he will not be able to attend. and I can. the last statement is. "A detailed statement of my clients objections will be submitted on or before August 23rd. 1991. The proposed development is the wrong project in the wrong location and will be vigorously opposed." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. That's all that you have. MR. GORALSKI-That's all the letters I have. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-We have not provided our review for the technical merit and adequacy of all the data at this time. We will give the Planning Board our comments separately. MR. CARTIER-Well. understand we are doing a site plan public hearing also and I assume you have comments? MR. YARMOWICH-These are being held concurrent? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. We do have engineering comments regarding the site plan. MR. CARTIER-And I would ask that you use the microphone. please. EIIGINEER REPORT MR. YARMOWICH-Regarding the Site Plan No. 14-90. We have reviewed the referenced project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Stormwater Management calculations should be provided and should include the design of the two drywells provided at the east end of the roadway. 2. The proposed 212 contour as shown does not properly account for the existing 212 contour." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We will take comments from the floor now. Please understand that you are addressing the Board. You are not addressing the applicant. If you wish to speak for a second time. I would request that you wait until everyone has had a first opportunity to speak. I assume we'll still be going at 9 o'clock. at which point we'll take about a 10 minute break and during that break. out in the foyer on the table is a copy of the DEIS and the Site Plan map. if any of you would care to look at that. It will be out there all evening. Okay. Any questions? Anyone who cares to address the Board. please come forward and identify yourself and your address. GEORGE ROOP MR. ROOP-My name is George Roop. I represent the Board of Directors of the Glens Falls County Club. the close neighbor of the Great Escape. and we are unanimously opposed to this project. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. and thank you for your brevity. Would anyone else care to address the Board? DICK BAKER MR. BAKER-My name is Dick Baker. I'm a resident of Courthouse Estates and I want to address the quality of life in Queensbury. The noise levels of the existing park were addressed by Mr. Whalen in the letter there. They are barely tolerable to not tolerable at all at this point. I can tape the shows and the people talking on the rides in my back yard. The people have been up from the Great Escape to verify this awhile back. a couple of years ago. I'm very concerned about the noise. but more about the quality of life. If the noise persists beyond the 6 o'clock closing date. at any time in the future. it will become not tolerable. The only thing tolerable about the noise today is it stops at 6 o'clock. If it went on into the evening or got louder at any time. it just would be unbearble. People bought 4 "---' '-' homes throughout the Courthouse Estates to retire and live their lives out in the Town of Queensbury. and they paid some high prices for those homes, but forget the price. Lets talk about the quality of life. To plan to stay there the rest of your life and then have something like this imposed on you. that would destroy the quality of life. is just not acceptable. At the bottom of your letterhead it says. "Home of natural beauty...A good pl ace to 1 ive". Don't change it. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else, please. DAVID MENTOR MR. MENTOR-I reside at the corner of Route 9 and Round Pond Road. border on the north and east by the Park. The Great Escape, and I've lived there for about four and a half years and my wife lived there. We operate the..Motel. which is right there and we, too, are concerned about the qual ity of 1 ife in Queensbury. and when we moved into that location. we had a lot of decisions to make. We knew that living at that location would be a hardship for us. We live very close to the road. We have three little children. We do have noise from the park. and it's a difficulty, but it's a decision we've made. The park has been there for a long. long time and I would consider it a great injustice to prevent this park from putting this roller coaster in. based on residential areas that were developed in the surrounding areas long after that park was in. I would see that as denying the opportunity to run the business to the owners of that business, which makes the question a broader one of whether this Town desires that business to be there in the first place, and I'd say. yes. I think it's a wonderful business. I have a family motel and we. too.. . keep business a family business, and people come up and they want time away with their children to enjoy a wholesome vacation at a theme park 1 ike the Great Escape and it's wonderful. I think the Town would be losing a tremendous asset if we turned around and told the the park that we didn't want a ride. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else. please? JOHN BROWN MR. BROWN-Good evening. I'm John Brown. I am the President of the Glen Lake Protective Association and I'm also representing myself in this matter. My concerns are parking. especially in the wetland area. and that of other people on the lake, we're concerned about the cars. We're also concerned about the drainage from these parking lots. even the existing ones across the road. We think there should be filter systems in there to prevent further pollution of the lake. The traffic problems right now are considerable. considering Route 9, especially when you go out on the Glen Lake Road. I think you ought to look into a parking light. red light. up there. Noise traveling from the rides. some people are not concerned too much about it, but we are. on the lake. because it does travel down the lake. It echoes down through. Even during the middle of the night, you can hear the animals screeching and stuff like that. We also are concerned about limiting the hours at night. If it was to stay open. it would be just like the big ball field down there lit up and we don't need that. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else. please? JOE DESANTIS MR. DESANTIS-Hi. I'm Joe DeSantis representing the Queensbury Business Association. The Queensbury Business Association fully supports this project. Number One. it's an approved use within the zone and also. from the tremendous economic impact that it has, we urge the Planning Board to approve this project as soon as possible. Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. BOB TYRER MR. TYRER-My name is Bob Tyrer. I'm a resident of Glen Lake. I am probably on the most closest area to the Great Escape. I'm on the extreme west end of Glen Lake and for five and a half years. I have never heard any noise, any problem, or any concern as far as the Great Escape. on Glen Lake and I think if anybody does have this to say. I think there are more axes to grind other than the noise. because there is no noise coming from the Great Escape onto Glen Lake. and especially because they do close between 6 and 6:30. The average person. with all the boating going on in Glen Lake. can not hear anything coming off the Gre~t Escape. and that's my... I'm for the project 100 percent. Thank you. DEAN BECKOS MR. BECKOS-Hello. My name is Dean Beckos. I have resided in Queensbury since 1963. On two points. since approximately 1986 there was the Master Plan. From a planning aspect, the Town of Queensbury was greatly looked at many, many hours by many dedicated people and when all was said and done. the great escape remained an approved use for a recreational facil ity. On the point of an economic development, it is vital that balance between residential interest as well as business interest in the Town of Queensbury. The Great Escape provides a great deal of employment to the area. Most importantly, it provides a great deal of youth employment to the area, which at this point in time. is a very important aspect. 5 '--.;' as well as the marketing dollars. The tourism industry in the Town of Queensbury. as well as the County of Warren. if not the State of New York. is probably the largest industry. There must be a balance between the residential and business interests...the tax base. the sale tax dollars and the property tax dollars will dry, the County and the Town budgets will dry up and this Town must grow or this Town will die. It's vital that any approved use has the ability to operate the way it sees fit..any business has the opportunity to grow the way it sees fit so it can continue to contribute to the society in this area. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. RICHARD BIRCH MR. BIRCH-My name is Richard Birch and I live in the Northwest Village, and I'm the guy who wrote the letter that was in the paper today, but I have a letter here from the President of the American Coaster Enthusiasts. and I'd 1 ike to read it. "Dear Mr. Cartier: As president of the American Coaster Enthusiasts. I'm writing to support the preservation of the Crystal Beach Comet Roller Coaster. ACE is the world's largest amusement park enthusiasts organization with more than 4 and a half thousand members in 49 states, 17 countries. and on 5 continents around the world. More than 75 amusement park related corporations are members. including some of the largest, best known names in the outdoor amusement industry. They have joined ACE to support our goals of preservation, appreciation. and enjoyment of the roller coaster as the most thrilling amusement park ride every invented. The Crystal Beach Comet Roller Coaster is one of the most famous and well liked roller coasters in North America. While it has operated. Crystal Beach has thrilled millions of people over the years. Although ACE itself does not rate roller coasters. the Comet was among the personal Top 10 favorites of many members. It is truly a historic. world class roller coaster. The American Roller Coaster enthusiasts has supported the preservation of historic roller coasters around the world. Local, State. and Federal agencies have recognized the importance of the preservation of these rides from the Coney Island Cyclone. to the Leap the Dips in Altuna. to the Giant Dipper in San Diego. The Coney Island Cyclone and the San Diego Giant Dipper are now national monuments. The Altuna Leap the Dips is on the Pennsylvania 1 ist of historic places and is currently seeking recognition as a national monument. Moving roller coasters to a new site is a procedure which is supported by the amusement industry and. ..Since the mid 1980's. San Antonio's Locket was moved to Noble's Amusement Resort in Pennsylvania where it was saved and rebuilt as the Phoenix. The Skyliner was moved from Canandaigua's Rose Land Park and rebuilt at Lake Montark in Pennsylvania. Boston's Giant Coaster was moved from Perragon to Wild World Amusement Park in Maryland." MR. CARTIER-Mr. Birch. I don't mean to suggest that I'm going to cut you off. but can we stick with the comment. MR. BIRCH-Okay. I have a copy of the letter for you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. BIRCH-"I have not seen any Environmental Impact Study conducted for Great Escape, however. I am somewhat familiar with the original concerns raised at San Diego and Dorney Park and I know that environmental studies to address those concerns correctly allayed original fears. I regret that I am unable to be present for your hearing on August 13th. but on behalf of our members. I would like you and other members of the Planning Board to know that the Crystal Beach Comet is certainly worthy of saving for current and future generations of Americans to enjoy. The American Coaster Enthusiasts strongly supports the request of Great Escape Amusement Park to be granted permission to install the Crystal Beach Comet on its grounds. Signed, Ray Euberoth. President. American Coaster Enthusiasts" MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. JACK CUSHING MR. CUSHING-Good evening. My name is Jack Cushing and I'm a resident of Queensbury living at 8 Orchard Drive which is adjacent to Twicwood. I am representing the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce. We are a thousand member organization. and I am also on their Executive Committee. I'm also speaking on behalf of myself. personally. and I also fully endorse the statement of the Queensbury Business Association of which I am a member of the Board of Directors. The Chamber would like to make official the following statement. and this is from their Executive Committee. "It is the consensus of the Executive Committee of the Chamber, that if the roller coaster meets the criteria of the Town Zoning. Planning, and Government Regulations and the Great Escape gets permits to build, from a sound economic and business point of view. if by the improvement of tourism and our tax base. as business people. we of the Chamber would certainly support this project." Personally. I live adjacent to Twicwood and even though I can hear some noise from the Great Escape. it does not bother me in the sl ightest. I love to hear happy people. We just don't have enough of this in this sordid world of ours today. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MICHAEL O'CONNOR 6 '--.;' MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor, a member of the Law Firm of Little and O'Connor, and I, with Mark Schachner. on behalf of the Glen Lake Protective Association have reviewed the DEIS that has been submitted from. perhaps. a technical point of view. The Glen Lake Protective Association does not, at this point. out right oppose the installation of the Coaster. We understand that the Coaster is an amusement ride. It's supposed to be constructed within an area that is planned and zoned for Recreational/Commercial activities. Our concerns with the Coaster are as it is proposed in the present DEIS. Like the Queensbury Businessman's Association. I'm on that Board. I was there when that motion was adopted and like the Chamber of Commerce. we're saying that if it is shown and demonstrated not to have a negative impact. then, fine, have it installed, but we have some problems and we have some concerns with the proposal as it's been submitted. We believe that the DEIS. as submitted, is inadequate. It does not address, in hard facts, the possible impacts of the roller coaster and is. in part. based upon improper assumptions and premises. We. and I've broken down the issues. if you will. that we believe are most sensitive to and of greatest concern to the Glen Lake Association as follows: Parking. The Traffic Consultant estimates that the new roller coaster will increase the patronage of the park by less than two percent of the existing trip making which is estimated to be only 20 vehicles per hour and accounts for less than the normal hourly fluctuation of traffic at the park. The amount of additional parking required would be 40 spaces, which includes five space for employees. The additional parking, the Consultant says. can be accommodated with the existing parking areas without the additional lot development. The EIS goes in great length to discuss the concept of ride cycling to justify the critical assumption which the Consultant has made that addition of this new ride will not increase the number of patrons in any meaningful manner. This assumption seems highly suspect to us and if it is incorrect. then obviously the entire parking analysis is render invalid. The two percent increase in traffic predicted by the Traffic Consultants is inconsistent with the ten percent cited by a representative of the applicant at the April 10th. 1990 meeting of the Queensbury Board. At that time. which is part of this Board's minutes, the applicant represented. we consulted with industry representatives. and they said that when the super ride is introduced to a park. the maximum additional attendance that we could expect is somewhere in an area of 10 percent. The applicant's position based on the study Mr. Morse made that the present parking. on the most crowded day. can accommodate another 10 percent. There seems to be no reconcil i ati on between that 10 percent which was given in April of 1990 and the present two percent which was given in the June of 1991 DEIS. Eight percent. we believe. is a substantial differential and must be considered. We believe that the Board should require a showing of the capacity to accommodate an additional 10 percent of attendance. as suggested in April of 1990. The critical question. here. and I'll get to the point. at least on this issue. is parking within the 100 foot buffer zone of the designated Class I Wetland which adjoins part of the amusement park and which is zoned LC-42. The applicant makes light of our criticisms. saying it is only an occasionally used for overflow parking for public safety reasons and that even not considering those spaces, it has spaces elsewhere on this land that it could actually accommodate the parking that will be required if it's prohibited from using the areas that are in the buffer zone of the wetland. If we get to that issue and the applicant were will ing to stipulate that it would not park within the buffer zone. much of our complaint. much of our concern with the proposal would be addressed. and would be answered. but I'd have to remind this Board. in a historical sense, of some things that we've seen happen. You will recall the application from the mining excavation permit. which was to take place on the north end of the property and the eventual permit that was issued with much safeguard and safeguards put in by this Board as to filtration. sedimentation. and whatnot. It's of record that after the permi~ was issued. sand and gravel was removed and used. in part, to fill the level part of the parking lot on the west side of Route 9. There were members of the Association that called that to the attention of David Hatin. He acknowledge that it existed and that he had spoke to the applicant about it and that the appl icant indicated that it would take no more sand until he had decided whether they would fully and formally comply with conditions of that permit. Further. along the same line, I refer the Board to the approval that this Board gave the Bavarian Palace, and as it's recited in the DEIS that is before you. There I am told that there were requirements that the applicant widen the northern lane of Round Pond Road so that there would be a turning lane to the left and a turning lane to the right. to the north or to the south....that the turning lane itself is E classification. I think it's incorporated in their DEIS. There's actually a graph that shows it. If you take a ride up there this evening or tomorrow, you will find that the Bavarian Palace is in operation. and no widening of that road way has ever taken place. MR. CARTIER-Has that been brought to the attention of Mr. Hatin. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not sure. I will address that. Mr. Cartier. I'm not asking this Board for enforcements. I understand the distinction. but the point I'm making is that there's a lot of approximates. There's a lot of maybes. There's a lot of no plans now. through this DEIS. I think it would well serve this Board. those who have concerns about the environmental impact of this application and the applicant, if we can define everything as much as possible so that later on. there aren't questions of interpretation and there aren't questions of enforcement by those who are charged with the obligation of enforcement. Further. and I'll still make the same point. I'm informed that the approval of the Bavarian Palace project indicated that parking there would not be used for operation of the park. It would be used for operation of the Bavarian Palace. Now we hear. from the applicant. in the DEIS. that there's employee parking, there. of 200 cars. The plans that were submitted show 112. I don't know how we go from 112 to 200. and the DEIS has pointed out that that parking is available to support the operation of the amusement park. I think that would be contrary to that original approval that was given by this Board. Some of you that hadn't been members of this Board when that approval was given. I leave it for this Board to determine whether or not there is anything in those instances that need to be addressed 7 -' by others on this Board. More importantly and, again. I'll make the same point. so that there are no misunderstandings in the future. I think the Board needs to, very careful, I'm looking at what is proposed. so that if there are any restrictions put upon the applicant. they can be readily enforced at a later date. Secondly. I indicated that the appl icant makes 1 ight of our comments and concerns of parking within the area of the 100 foot buffer zone of a wetland, saying that it has more than adequate parking elsewhere on this property. If that is the case. lets end the controversy and simply have the applicant agree not to park within the 100 foot buffer zone or have the Board condition it's approval upon no parking within the 100 foot buffer zone. As to the adequacy of other parking, the applicant is not willing to stipulate not to utilize the 100 foot buffer zone. I believe the Board needs to take a harder look. Nowhere within the DEIS does the appl icant give an actual statistical history of number of patrons that attend the amusement park. On Page 6. the applicant speaks of sales tax generated by approximately 500,000 annual users of thè amusement park. However. the appl icant never speaks of peak attendance and that's how we've designed things. as far as I'm aware of. per our regulations within the Town of Queensbury. I've never witnessed an application that was allowed to go forward if the design was not sufficient to meet the worst case scenario. What was the peak attendance during the year 19911 What was the peak attendance during the year 1990? Without that information. this Board cannot address the adequacy of the parking. .We are looking at the Aviation Mall and saying that over the course of a year. an equal number of shoppers attend the mall each day. notwithstanding the crowds that attend during Christmas Season. In addition to looking at the peak attendance. you must also formulate or determine what the average number of persons are that arrive with each car. We've had nothing within the DEIS that gives us a basis for making that determination or gives us. .making that determination. The DEIS is silent as to this critical issue. Once you determine the peak attendance, the number of peopl e that arrive on an average per car. you can begin to analyze the data set forth as to the number of parking spots. In April of 1990, the applicant gave a detailed summary of 2267 spots. not including any of the parking at the Bavarian Palace and indicating that. of that number. 150 were parking near the wetland. It is noted that the mapping that was submitted at that time was admitted to have been produced from the Tahitian Tempest Water Slide. It was not a historical document of the applicant. Likewise, if you look at the examples in the mapping that was presented by the appl icant as the parking now. you will see that many of the parking spots. .what are actual roadways in existence. They are not parking spots. per set that they are 1 ined out. particularly when you get near the...The Glen Lake Protective Association objects to any use of parking within the buffer zone of the wetland and any parking within the LC-42 acre zone. The DEIS is really silent as to actual zoning of the claimed parking lot along the Glen Lake Fen. Again. I think that's an inadequacy of the DEIS. There is a zoning map that's part of the exhibit, but it is not imposed upon the actual parking. If you take a look at the actual zoning of that particular area. a good portion of the whole frontage along the wetland is LC-42 acres. I have a large map. which I gave you a reduced portion of it. upon which I have had VanDusen and Steves. a local surveying outfit, superimpose the LC-42 acre zone. The LC-42 acre zone. you will see. is outlined in heavy blue. That runs along the entire frontage of the wetland. It has. since the zones have been adopted... MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a quick question. here. Does that LC-42 acre line run along the designated edge of the wetland or is it beyond the designated edge of the wetland? MR. O'CONNOR-I can't answer that question. Mr. Cartier. I do have a map that shows the wetland line. but I have not superimposed it to...I cannot actually tell you that. This is a line that has been historic. as far as the zoning of that particular parcel. It started as LC-I0 acre and then was changed to LC-42 acre. The background of the map that you see is a map that was done for the sewer district some time ago. I believe that if you actually went and measured this map as it's shown here. a good portion of a couple of areas has been filled in. Down in there. it's been some time since the fill has been put in place. but if you go in by canoe. or if you go in by water. you'll see where it is not natural topography and you will see where there's some fill. particularly where you get over to the point where there's a point over in here. That area there has been pretty much filled in. So when you tal k about distances from the zoning 1 ine. I think it would be critical to superimpose this upon the plan that has been submitted, and I don't bel ieve that that has been done within the EIS. The applicant's will speak of grandfathering if he addresses this particular issue. and it's an issue we are prepared at any time to address. if the Board desires. I have in excess of 100. and I wrote this, maybe 152. and I see my notes from 1989 go back to that, 162 affidavits by Queensbury residents who have been famil i ar wi th thi s property over a number of years. Most of these were acknowl edged in April of læ9 on various dates. . There maybe a couple that are dated before April or after. All these people speak as to grandfathering. that there was no parking in that lower area, down by the wetland. prior to these projects coming about. I will submit those. This is a full copy of them. I've kept the originals. I'll submit these to Mr. Goralski. MR. MARTIN-So what you're saying is. the parking in the wetlands is not preexisting? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The area in question was originally zoned C3. as I believe that in 1967 you started zoning in the Town of Queensbury, but even under that zone. a Special Use Permit was required for an amusement center. Thereafter, it was zoned LC-1O acre and is now zoned LC-43. I refer the Board to Figure 19 and note that we have researched the records of the Town of Queensbury and we have found no Special Permits ever having been issued for parking in that area or use of that area for amusement park purposes. We note that the applicant has filed an affidavit indicating that the area in question was filled in in 1978. Again. from 1978 forward, we find no record of any permit for use of that property 8 '-",' as a parking lot or as part of the amusement park. We call the Board's attention to Figure 19. again, on the DEIS. which shows the parking in question and shows a driveway for entrance onto New York State Route 9. The entrance way, likewise, was granted apparently, without a permit, as the New York State Department of Transportation has no record of ever issuing a Highway or Curve Permit for that driveway. I submit to you a letter dated March 6. 1989 from the Department of Transportation indicating that they have no record of that permit. They do list the permits that have been issue...to The Great Escape. I don't think there's any question that even if the parking was created in 1978, the parking down in the buffer zone of the wetland. if same was created without proper permits, no grandfathering rights ensue for the same. You have to begin something under our Zoning Ordinances in a proper manner before you become grandfathered. even if there's a change of zoning afterwards. A partial omission on this issue is in the application by the applicant for a Use Variance and the application was for a parking lot for an amusement center located on adjoining RC-15 lands that was filed in February of 1989. At that time. the applicant indicated that the site was located adjacent to his Great Escape and accesses through the Great Escape. The site can only be feasibly used in conjunction with the amusement park. The appl icant further indicated that if the appl icant is not allowed to use the proposed site for parking, that it will not be able to receive any financial return from the LC-42 acre portion of its property. That application. on its face. indicates that in 1989. the applicant was not using the areas we now have in question for parking. That appl ication for that Use Variance was later withdrawn by the applicant. I apologize for the use of the term. applicant...owner, whatever the corporation was at that particular time. not at the present time. I have a copy of that application. I also have a copy that has an affidavit by an employee of the appl icant who was a former owner of the present site indicating that the fill took place in 1978, all of which I think speaks directly to the question of grandfathering or any claim of grandfathering for that parking. The summary on the point of parking. the submitted DEIS is incomplete, in that it does not provide information as to peak parking requirements. It is inaccurate in that it assumes uses of parking areas for parking for the amusement park is or should be prohibited. The next point we touch upon is traffic. The Traffic Consultant bases the study on impact on the same erroneous increase in patronage that he utilized in analyzing the parking of the applicant. He. again. is talking about two percent. as opposed to what the applicant quoted in April of 1990 would be a worst case scenario of 10 percent. The Traffic Consultant of the applicant states that even assuming that all new patrons were to entrance through and exit the park within the peak hours. the Levels of Service at any of the intersections within the study area would not be affected by any noticeable or significant extent. Several safety measures are proposed to facil itate pedestrian crossing on Route 9. Again. the two percent increase predicted by the Traffic Consultant is inconsistent with the 10 percent cited by the applicant at the April 10, 1990 meet of the Queensbury Planning Board. Utilizing the 10 percent increase..result in 100 vehicles per hour. Using the same calculations as made by the present consultant the Route 9/Round Pond intersection is teetering on the brink of unacceptable Level of Service. That issue needs to be clarified and that intersection. as it was analyzed and as the figures that were generated... improvements in the 1989 study. The classification that we're given. here. we're assuming the construction of the extra turning lane from the northerly lane...A further inadequacy of the DEIS is that the entrance way shown on Figure 19 to Route 9 has never been analyzed. It's not mentioned in any manner. Is that an entrance way that parking patronage or people are supposed to use? It's not blocked off. It doesn't show anything within the plans. It certainly is a very poor intersection. given the tree growth and whatnot. that blocks the people coming south along Route 9, and also considering the limited landing area. if you will. that you can exit onto Route 9 from that..There is nothing in the DEIS as to that parking entrance way. The impacts addressed within the DEIS are vehicle only. and not directed at pedestrians, which are just as important. There is reference made. proposed safety measures will be implemented. Those recommendations should be shown on a site plan. Again. I'll reiterate my earlier comments. I think we should have everything in black and white so that there's no question of interpretation if this thing is going to go forward. It is also curious that the traffic study is based on (Tape Turned) busiest day of the season for the park. but I do not believe. it to be the busiest day of the season for Route 9 traffic. It is submitted that it peaks from July 4th to Labor Day, not the day that the park opens up. I believe that the park has the busiest traffic..The highway traffic certainly is busier in the summer. the full summer. than it is on Memorial Day weekend. It is also known that data was not collected after 4 pm. Pedestrian traffic should be considered to allow for better safety, and as quoted from the DEIS. and part of this is my comments and part of it is comments from Mark Schachner. "Patrons were weaving in and out and through turning traffic." It is submitted that this was not just because of failed traffic signals. If you drive by the site when the site is exiting, you'll find out that there's crowds of people there coming out of the site all at one time. That's also a problem that we have with analyzing the actual traffic that's done. I believe that the park loads on a gradual basis, but come closing time. it ends on much more pronounced basis. and that is not built into the DEIS. It's assumed to be gradual in and gradual out. and I don't think it's really fair or characteristic of this particular use. They talk about pedestrian sidewalks and bridges should be provided on the east side of Route 9. We would suggest it on the east side. as well as what has been suggested on the west side of Route 9, and the DEIS doesn't mention. but I believe that there will be a stream crossing permit that will be necessary. There may even be a wetland permit that's necessary for the construction of such a bridge across that stream which is a Class A stream on that side of Route 9. MR. HAGAN-Mike, could I interrupt you for a minute because I'm confused. You stated that the traffic count was taken on Memorial Day weekend? MR. O'CONNOR-In the Executive Summary in the beginning they talk about Memorial Day. 9 _/ MR. HAGAN-Well. it says here. taken Saturday July 23rd and Sunday July 24th. between 11 am and 4 pm. and on the 24th. between 10 am and 2 pm. So. I don't find Memorial Day mentioned, here. MR. CARTIER-I think that..you're both correct. because there were..two different traffic studies. There was a previous traffic study. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a 1988 traffic study. and I maybe picking up, but the Executive Summary talks about Memorial Day. MR. HAGAN-Well, that's when this was taken. July 23rd, 1988. on a Saturday, and July 24th. 1988. on a Sunday. MR. O'CONNOR-I maybe corrected, Mr. Hagan. That is not a portion of the report that I actually prepared. I do know that they are correct as to times. and they do not show. in any of those traffic studies. what happens when the park exits at 6:00 or 6:30. Erosion control is another point that we touch upon. as far as our review, and it is noted that the DEIS is silent in its. .conditions that were imposed upon the applicant when the campground was approved in 1982. Part of the campground area was located in an LC-1O zone which, essentially. became an LC-42 acre zone. The campground is a permitted use within the zoning classification, but an amusement park is, again, not a permitted use. Again. the construction plans of the applicant are silent as to where the zoning line classification passes through that portion of the land owning to the applicant. The zoning classification should be shown as part of the DEIS and should be avoided for actual construction of the project and avoided for support access. There's mention in the DEIS about providing access for emergency vehicles and whatnot. I think they should be restricted and also. likewise. not go through the LC-42 acre zone..a permitted use. The approval for the campground provided that the tongue area of the northwest area of the project. near the wetland be restricted for tent sites only. It would be a very limited use..The actual application shows, for that campground. that all roads woul d be 100 feet from the wetl and and that a.. berm was to be constructed. 20 feet wide and 2 feet high and 320 feet long covered with vegetation, and there was to be a 50 foot buffer zone between the campground and the surrounding properties li ke that of Whalen and that of Passarelli. I don't know if those have been incorporated into this new proposed use for that same parcel. We think that they should be..that's incorporated with this particular use. The Glen Lake Protective Association's very concerned about runoff from the actual construction site and from other portions of land to the applicant. I have a question as to, when was the construction done that was shown on the photographs that are attached as exhibits to the DEIS? The DEIS speaks of erosion control that will be put in place, but none of those erosion controls are evident in the photographs that are attached as part of that DEIS. Photograph 13 shows approximately 10 feet of sand fill. If I understood correctly where we are. this is an area that was used as campground and now has been cleared in anticipation of the installation of the Coaster. Where is the erosion control that we're speaking of. and w~y is it not there? We also do not believe the DEIS considers the runoff or potential runoff from the terminal building. That's a 20 by 50 foot building. It's not a small building. The DEIS admits potential for erosion and sedimentation. . . adverse environmental impacts which will be caused by the action, but cannot be mitigated. I don't understand why they say that in the DEIS. That's on Page ii. in t~e very beginning. I ask what effect this will have on wetland and why won't that be mitigated. if it has any potential effect on the wetland. You're talking about rapid absorption into sandy soil may prevent stormwater runoff during most of the year. I also ask the Board to consider spring drainage on frozen ground that m~ drain by sheet flow. You're talking about a good sized area. relatively flat. I see nothing in the proposal. at least that I understand. as to drainage from that in the spring time. In fact. the area would be flushed with whatever rains we get. which will eventually go to the wetlands. I ask where that sheet drainage will be directed? I don't know of any quantitative data. and I think this was mentioned by Rist-Frost. regarding amount of potential runoff which was presented as is normally presented. MR. HAGAN-Mike. again. I have to interrupt you. You are saying, in fact. topography and slopes are going to be changed at the site of the roller coaster? MR. O'CONNOR-That's my understanding. It did not exist. MR. HAGAN-Do you have data to prove where it is now versus what you think it's going to be? MR. O'CONNOR-The only thing I know is that it's going to be 212. I'm not sure, Rist-Frost has raised an issue that the 212 doesn't seem to coincide with another grading in there. As for the flat area where the roller coaster is to sit.. MR. HAGAN-The only reason I'm questioning it. they're making statements. here, you're making statements which don't agree. They have given backup. I'm asking for whatever backup you have developed for your statements. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm presuming that this is not built yet. I'm presuming it was a campground. I'm presuming that the topographical features have not been greatly changed and that's submitted at the time that the campground was permitted. I'm just telling you where we're coming from, and that was part of our question, is when did the construction. maybe part of that construction has already occurred. I don't 10 _/ know if it has. Whether it did and anticipation wasn't done. or the anticipation of the water slide or not. that's something the applicant is going to have to address. The other thing that I'd ask you to look at. seriously, is the parking on the west side of New York State Route 9, and we believe that is a tremendous environmental problem. No filtration is provided. and those parking lots drain directly to a Class A stream that feeds into the Glen Lake Fen. Even with the paving of the parking lot on the north side of the stream within the last few years, no provision was made for sheet water drainage. A portion of that parking lot. to the west I believe. actually floods in the spring and completely cleanses itself by drainage..Argument can be made that this Board has set a precedent along that line, that on other applications within the Town. the Board has asked applicants to address environmental areas of concern outside of construction limits. if the construction limits is. in part. going to support the use and activities that go on on those other portions of the applicant's property. and I think that's the case, here. This is a recycling. this is a revitalization of the amusement park. It's a continuation of use of those parking areas. Now would be an ideal time to address those parking areas and perhaps do something in the way of filtration. In fact, I bel ieve this Board has on record a letter from the appl icant concerning another project wherein he di scouraged the use of an exi sting parking lot, even though no construction was contemplated in that parking lot. The DEIS should not be silent on existing drainage that directly drains into the stream that feeds into the Glen Lake Fen. Noise, the DEIS states that the roller coaster will have no adverse impacts on either residents or noise sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the park and that under typical meteorological aerial conditions, noise from the roller coaster will not be heard at any of the receptor locations. I'll make this brief. because I plan on summarizing some of these and submitting it. I think that you've got to look at the worst case scenario, and the DEIS itself gives you the example that noise travels differently when there are different conditions. if nothing else. The readings that were given were substantially different, depending upon where the wind was for that particular reason. MR. HAGAN-We already questioned our engineer on that issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Monitoring sites for the microphones from the noise level were located. appear to be farther from the Great Escape than Sound Receptors One and Two in residences closes to the park. so. certainly. farther than the closest property line which is the closest potential sound receptor. Additional sites should. .be monitored. We're talking about a site on Birdsall Road which is 600 feet, supposedly. from the installation of the coaster. We're talking about a site that is 860 feet from the coaster on Round Pond Road. but the properties of Passarell i and Whalen are much closer than that, and the Glen Lake Association has a concern for that because of the domino effect. If these people are put in a position where they can't develop for single family residential and they have to put in recreational cOOlllercial uses because that's a permitted zone, that's the only way they're going to get a reasonable return, that moves this 28 acres closer to Glen Lake. The earl ier speaker from Glen Lake on the north end of the property which is right below the hill said he doesn't hear anything presently. but if you move that another 40. you move it over to the edge of Birdsall Road. we're going to have. perhaps. some problems, and those problems should be considered. Basically. any study that I've seen and we tal ked about noise or noise ordinances I see. talk about what's generated at your property line. People that adjoin you. typically. are allowed the freedom of development on their own site. even if it's for the same use or the same type use. They can't come across your property, and I don't think that really is addressed in the DEIS that's before the Board. Decibels are not the sole measure of the subjective nature of sound. All sounds aren't equivalent. Children playing are 47 to 50; dogs barking. 48 to 52; leaves rustling. 54 to 57. Those sounds, although close in decibels. aren't the equivalent. and I think you may be talking about something here that might be much more noticeable because of the shrieking part. It is suggested that there be a restoration of the berm in front of the Bavarian Palace and vegetation on berm surrounding the restroom or the building that is used as a restroom. maintenance of negative barri er on hi 11 adjacent to roll er coaster and no further development that woul d remove any portion of the hill, and we question even whether or not that hill that they talked about as being a buffer is fully owned by the Great Escape. The re-vegetation of the gravel extraction or removal or removal of gravel on the north end of the property and 1 imitation on the removal of vegetation. Remember when we got into the gravel pit people complained because of noise that they didn't hear before the trees were gone. If that continues. it's going to get worse. There should be some insurances and some provisions with any approval that that's not going to happen. and let that be used as a natural buffer. There is a big, long study on the attached. I think, April 1990 minutes that say that you can use trees and vegetation as buffer if it is thick. if it is substantial. It won't do any good to plant a row of trees 10 feet high, when you've got natural buffer there that should be preserved. they should be..thick. MR. HAGAN-Mike. I don't want to sound like I'm taking sides, here. but you make a statements that bring questions to my mind. I'm not creating them. You are. You mentioned the noise, and one of the complaints was that at one site. the decibel reading was 78. The highest reading was 85. I'm asking, compared to the decibels allowed by folks on Glen Lake. how will this be detrimental? I'm not trying to create a..I'm asking you to view to us both sides of the story. that's all. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. It depends upon what type of boat you're speaking of. We. now, are getting into some problem areas with boats on Glen Lake. MR. HAGAN-Well, the accepted level. if I understand it. this year. for boats. is 90 decibels. Next year it's supposed to be reduced to 85. What I'm asking is. how will this compare to that noise? That's all? Will this out drone the boats that you already have to put up with? 11 --,' MR. O'CONNOR-My answer. that I'm aware of. at this point, is that there's no restriction on noise on boats on Glen Lake. You're speaking of Lake George. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And we. I have received a letter from the Town, today. that the Town Attorney has finally finished his research and he has invited the Association to make a presentation to him and to members of the Town Board as to what we would like along that line and along the other lines. Hopefully, we will come to a point where we don't inherit everybody elses problems on that issue or other issues that are similar. That's the best answer I can give you at this point. The 78. I think, is a projection. Mr. Hagan,..Mr. Whalen, but it's not within the DEIS. and I leave it to all the neighbors that are in the immediate area to actually, I don't hear it where I live. I'm on the south side of Gl en Lake. I'm probably about a mile from the west shore of Gl en Lake and I don't actually hear the noise, so I've got to defer to others that have personal experience on it. Okay. The visual impacts, we would address them as such. Basically. my comments on that,..comments, is that in the Master Plan in the Town of Queensbury, there are set rules, one of those is maintenance of the vistas that are available from Route 9 to the east. We believe that this coaster. where it sits, if I can properly place it, is right within the lines of those vistas which the master plan says should be preserved, and I ask the Board how that is going to be mitigated..if it is going to be mitigated. Further, there is very 1 ittle discussion of lighting. If you go by the park, now. you will see that the Screamin' Demon is well lit, as perhaps. an advertisement. Is this going to be lit, as well, at night, as a drawing card to the park? They talked about, in the DEIS, limited lighting for security. and we would like to put some limitations on that, have this Board put some lighting limitations on that, that they not be..certain feet off the ground, that they be focused in a manner that they would reflect upon the surface and not spotlight upon the ride itself as a drawing card for the ride. The DEIS talks of consolidation of visual intrusion and it's my understanding, this I didn't write. I will read to you. That means that the amusement park is already..planning concept. That is what consolidation of visual intrusions mean. Before the heavily wooded fill was removed for construction of the Bavarian Palace. none of the Great Escape was visible from Round Pond. Now. the Palace, the red and white picnic pavilion and the bright yellow restrooms are obviously visible. There is no reason for the Great Escape to be visible from Round Pond Road. Visibility study shows that it will be visible from Round Pond Road. MR. CARTIER-You refer to the roller coaster. You said the Great Escape. You meant the roller coaster. MR. O'CONNOR-The roller coaster. Round Pond is not already of a commercial nature,..tourist attraction li ke Route 9. It shoul d not become so. I think that was part of the.. Thi s Board went through the Bavarian Palace..The view of the roller coaster from Round Pond Road is not only..of cars full of screaming persons which will be distracting to motorists at such close range. Round Pond is a narrow and winding road with no room for distractions. Although the DEIS claims that the roller coaster will not be visible from Glen Lake, the lake is not shown as a proposed location for a test area, and the lake is a great flat surface and I have to believe that if actual tests were made, it may very well be visible from the lower part of the lake. The fact that tourists are not present for 40 weeks of the year does not mitigate the impact of the roller coaster. the visibility of people who live in that particular community. I suggest re-vegetation areas between Round Pond Road and the Great Escape structure. agreement to maintain existing vegetation and berm around the site of the roller coaster. Lighting shall not be permitted 15 feet above ground level. even for security purposes to minimize visual impact at night. Said lighting at ground level shall be for the purpose of lighting the ground and not spotlight..portions of the road. Hours of operation. another point. The present operation of the applicant is tolerated to some degree during its present hours of operation. It's been there for 34 years. I think there are some limitations. Even the smallest airport. today, would be permitted to land the Concord, or some plane of that nature. This present application, although it's framed in terms of being..continuation of the existing operation. must by the Board be looked upon as being a means of supporting the existing operation without which. if the applicant is correct, the existing operation would not survive. The support of it is. in effect, the expansion of it, because it allows the operation to continue in the future. With that in mind, the Board must be cognizant of the fact that if this operation were to suddenly switch hours and operate on a regular basis in the evening. the same would be much more objectionable to those in the immediate vicinity. In fact. without additional care for pedestrian traffic on Route 9. there would be a great deal of exposure and danger for pedestrian traffic. The number of times that the park has operated on an evening basis should be quantified and future operations of the park should not be allowed as a condition of this approval to be expanded beyond those number of times on an annual basis. ...report controls before the problems arise, as opposed to waiting until the problems become a crises. At a recent public information meeting which Mr. Bartlett's referred to. the Sound Engineer indicated that even the existing operation of the amusement park could be toned down significantly if there were an expenditure of funds. We would suggest that hours of operation be fixed, as they presently are, and that the door for change be left open only if the applicant. at that time. can demonstrate that the noise of the even existing operation will not be projected beyond the property line. We respectfully reserve the right to follow the above comments by written comment within the appropriate period and thank you for your time. MR. CARTIER-Are we going to get copies of that. Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-You'll get copies. 12 ~' MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Sir? JAMES WELLER MR. WELLER-My name is Jim Weller and I'd 1 ike to ask a question, after Mr. O'Connor's presentation. and reserve my time until later when I can make a public comment. May I ask the Board a question about the presentation? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. WELLER-Was Michael O'Connor representing himself as a resident, as a memberlspokesman of the Glen Lake Association. or as counsel for the Glen Lake Association? MR. CARTIER-Lets get an answer right now. Mr. O'Connor. can you answer that? I assume he was representing the Association, and that's why I gave him a time limit. MR. O'CONNOR-I am speaking as an individual, as a member of the Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Association and as counsel for the Glen Lake Protective Association. MYRIAH SMITH MRS. SMITH-My name is Myriah Smith, and I live on Mannus Road in Glen Lake. and you can see with this kind of thing that what is going to evolve will be a compromise that you will probably allow something of what they are asking with conditions and what I would like to call your attention to is that these conditions would be enforcement. and my own experience with the Town of Queensbury is that they are a dismal record of enforcement. I own the property where the Town of Queensbury allowed my neighbor to dig a hug hole, in violation of about four pages of the Queensbury Ordinances. For almost three years, now, I have been trying to get them to enforce their Ordinances. I cannot. MR. CARTIER-Ma'am. I appreciate those concerns. I am very aware of those concerns, but I'm going to ask you, if you're going to use that. please relate it to what is exactly before the Board. MRS. SMITH-I am. and what I am asking you is that, do you do any follow up. When you put out these conditions and these things never happen, do you do any follow up? Do you have any way of approaching the Town of Queensbury? MR. CARTIER-Does this Board. you mean? MRS. SMITH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I think usually what happens, when things like that are brought to our attention, we direct, or suggest to the person, first of all, let me answer your question, no. I think the way that we operate is that, this Board is not an enforcement Board. What we try to do is direct people to the enforcement portion of the Town Government. I appreciate your frustration, and I'm not sure this Board is the place to get your frustrations taken care of, in terms of enforcement. MRS. SMITH-Yes. excuse me. who is the enforcement? MR. CARTIER-Well, you could go to the Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Crayford, or Dave Hatin, either one of them. MRS. SMITH-All right. MR. MARTIN-That's the Building and Codes Department. MRS. SMITH-Three years later, I've been through that. It doesn't work. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I would suggest is keep trying. MR. HAGAN-Or wait until November 11th. ROBERT CANTERBURY MR. CANTERBURY-My name is Robert Canterbury. I am a resident of Glen Lake, in fact. directly behind the Great Escape. I've been in the area a long time. In fact. we purchased property at the Lake around the time when StoryTown became a real ity in this area. We are not opposed to the Great Escape, and want to make that plain, but there are some things that cause us great concern. I am concerned. especially, about the water quality on Glen Lake. Just recently. and within the last few years. we have noticed a lot of sediment in the water and growth of weeds and so on. which made it very difficult for us, even so far as swimming is concerned, at times..try and get some debris out of the Lake. Now. I call your attention to the fact that many of the occupants of Glen Lake have to get their water out of the Lake and they have to provide their own sewers. of course. and we are more or less in a position where 13 we have to accept whatever the situation is concerning our own water supply and, actually, the environment of the Lake and the things that we enjoy. While I appreciate the business proposition and the benefit of making a lot of money and drawing a lot of people, there's a question in my mind as to how far this can go. Last year we had to deal with the possibility of a water slide and now there's a possibility of this great big roller coaster. To tell you the truth. as I hear the estimates of just a slight difference it will make. I question this. actually. very greatly. They already have one roller coaster. and now they want another one. That will make two roller coasters. and this, of course. larger, but our concern. my concern. and the concern of many of the residents of Glen Lake is the quality of the water and the environment there. How sad it would be to just foster the explosion of more activity in the business area and yet destroy the quality of an entire lake with all its inhabitants there and all the cottages that are there. It doesn't seem fair to me that this is the case. So I oppose it on the basis of the impurities that are apparently getting into the lake and the resulting things that we have seen in just the last few years. and then there's another thing that I would like to mention and that is the fact that, at certain times. it's almost an impossibility to get out the Glen Lake Road. To make a right hand turn, sometimes you can make it, but to make a left hand turn and go down toward Glens Falls. sometimes. is almost an impossibility and the traffic is tremendously heavy there. If this becomes a reality. and there's certainly going to have to be some changes made in order to safeguard the very 1 ives of individuals that are there because the traffic is really horrendous at times and these are the two things that effect us. There's already been mentioned about the other things. but I think as a resident of the Lake, the Board ought to know just how some of us feel. I'm right directly behind StoryTown on Canterbury Drive and this. of course. sometimes I can hear some of the things that go on down there. which doesn't effect us greatly. I'm not complaining about that. but as they come nearer to the Lake. as they move up toward the Glen Lake Proper and they have some other things coming. who knows what the outcome is going to be then and so we're concerned about the quality of the Lake. I should think maybe it's better to put something else in and settle for the one roller coaster. We're opposed to it. MARILYN STARK MRS. STARK-My name is Marilyn Stark and I'm the owner of the Mohican Motel located on Route 9 in Lake George and I would like to reiterate some of the things Mr. Beckos said and Mr. DeSantis said earlier. Regarding tourism, tourism is a major force in the economic health and stability in Warren County. The need for diversity. drawing the visitor to the area. has never been more important for continued growth and also to help keep down the taxes. It is a fact that many established theme parks have been forced out of business for a variety of reasons. The Great Escape must be allowed to continue to remain competitive by upgrading and bringing in new attractions. The economic impacts of the Great Escape goes well beyond the sales tax revenues collected from the entry fees and retail sales. The seasonal employment, alone, represents more opportunities to our youth and senior citizens. The proposed new ride. the roller coaster, will not only compliment the existing rides and activities. it will create a new enthusiasm and excitement for the visitor to come to the park and to the Lake George region. Additionally. the Lake George Great Escape Fun Park is a marketing arm for Lake George and Warren County by providing the vi sibil ity for the region and for every business in it. Since the County Tourism budget has been..and the existence of the "I Love New York" Campaign. it would seem to me that everyone 1 iving in this community should help support Mr. Wood's efforts for his continued investment to the.. Wi thout an opportuni ty to grow. we do become dormant. dull. and dead. the three D's. a dead economy. Many years ago. Mr. Wood developed StoryTown. Very few homes were in existence around the fun park then. Why were homes and neighborhoods developed around the fun park if they felt it would be too noisy? Perhaps they should have located elsewhere. As you all know. the park operates seasonally. Memorial Day to Labor Day. encompassing a grand total of three and a half months. During that time. the economic impact of Mr. Wood's business to Warren County is enormous. The spin off business to motels. restaurants,.. industry and much more is directly related to the Great Escape Fun Park. It is a fact that businesses that reinvest in their properties have continued to thrive. In closing. I urge you to lend a deaf ear to the opposition to Mr. Wood's project and vote in favor of this ride. Thank you for your time. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. SUSAN BAKER MRS. BAKER-My name is Susan Baker. I live on Northwood Drive in Courthouse. The Great Escape is not static. It used to be StoryTown, and there's a very large difference between a pumpkin being drawn by some sort of pony, and a roller coaster. Really quick. something nobody has mentioned. we can hear the Bavarian Palace and Ocktober Fest with our windows closed. because it is cold. and the Ompah Band and the vibrations, everything closed up. When you call. there's no noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. If there was. the Warren County Sheriff's Department informed me, it doesn't matter. you can't measure it anyway. You can't call the Park because nobody answers the phone. So. the season can get bigger and longer and it can encroach, and if you can't get away from it with your windows closed. it's a little bit difficult. and Mr. Wood has been very kind. He had engineers come up because they could not believe it. They thought we had gone to the Park and written down the songs. The traveling noise is very noisy. especially over a swamp. Thank you. ERNEST HOROWITZ 14 '--' DR. HOROWITZ-My name is Dr. Ernest Horowitz. I live on Glen Lake, on the west side, Birdsall Road side. I stand against the roller coaster in its present form. I will not reiterate all of what Mike O'Connor said. I'll just mention the issues of drainage. parking. traffic, especially traffic for me. as an individual. and others near me. Making a left turn onto Route 9, as you've been told many times tonight. one must be very bold from both Glen Lake Road and from Round Pond Road. The issue of a history of noncompliance, with the spirit of grievance made with this bOdy, I am a veteran of other battles between the applicant and these groups. I know that the issue of noncompliance exists today. as Mrs. Smith mentioned to you before. once these issues get past this body. they become somebody else's problem. they become enforcement, they become ours. There is no enforcement in Queensbury. as we know it. Lastly. there is an issue of juxtaposition. Where is this roller coaster going to be. juxtaposed to the nearest or potentially nearest private residence? People have mentioned the magnificence of other roller coasters around the State. Well. then, lets look at other roller coasters around the State and see how far, what is the distance between those roller coasters and the nearest residential neighborhood? Moreover. those neighborhoods. are they equivalent to Queensbury? People have mentioned Coney Island Beach, Rockaw~ Beach, Rye Playland. What is around those? I've seen what's around those. There's hardly anything. There are baseball fields, maybe movie houses, slums. Is there a neighborhood like Queensbury? Thank you. DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny. a resident of the Town of Queensbury and a member of the Queensbury Business Association. I'd like to go on record as being in favor of this project. I believe the economic impact of such a project on the area, in light of the declining economy, with the State and Federal cutbacks of the local municipalities will be a tremendous value. The increased sales tax generates the..the advertising dollars, the benefit to all lodging facilities around Warren County and all restaurants around Warren County, just to name a few. Warren County depends upon tourism for a good part of its economic base. I, for one, being in the tourism business, I've had the opportunity to deal with many tourists that visit the Park year in and year out, and all I hear are positive comments on how well the Park is run. The quality of life in Queensbury or Warren County is great. I believe it will continue to be great only if we balance our development and let such projects as this continue to change and grow and to live and not to die. which is a major source of our economic base. If we stop these projects, we become just a..or retirement community. We will see taxes rise and I believe our quality of life will decline with it. The land is zoned for such use. It has been part of the Queensbury family for a long time. Many projects have grown around it. and there is still vacant land left to be developed. This land was bought with the knowledge of this Park's existence, and at this time. nor at any other time. do I feel the Park should be penalized for this. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else, please? LORRIE GRAVES MS. GRAVES-My name is Lorrie Graves and I'm a tax payer. a resident of Glen Lake and the Secretary of the Glen Lake Protective Association. and I'm opposed to the proposed roller coaster ride as it has been presented unless certain stipulations and enforcements are made. As a member of the Glen Lake Protective Association and resident. it is my duty to protect and preserve Glen Lake and the area around it that will effect the Lake. I have had the opportunity to see the presented Environmental Impact Study and feel that several areas need to be addressed further. Fi rst and most importantly is the noise. From my residence. a variety of noises can be heard, from the lions roar, the elephants, the show in Ghost Town. the people screaming, to even the sound of the roller coaster ride at the front of the Park. While none of these present noises are intolerable, I do feel a 91 foot roller coaster erected on the planned site would more than greatly add to the already existing noises. When occasionally the park is open past 6 o'clock into evening hours. the already present noises are disruptive to the serenity of the area. Though not a present issue, I would hope that a time limitation woul d be put on the park hours, so that regular park hours woul d not and coul d not be extended past 6 o'clock because of the serious noise problem this would create, whether there is or is not a new roller coaster ride added. Secondly, I will speak about traffic. Assuming such a new ride would increase the attendance two to ten percent, most people paying $13 to $16 for a ticket are going to arrive around opening time and stay pretty close to closing. There are two traffic lights to allow their patrons trying to enter traffic onto Route 9, but what about the Glen Lake Road and Round Pond Road? During opening and closing times of the park, you can sometimes sit there waiting 10 to 15 minutes trying to get onto Route 9. What is this going to be like with this added two to ten percent increase? Some time something must be done to solve this problem. I also think the wetland areas should be addressed. Water Quality is a very important issue to Glen Lake and any drainage or runoff from anyplace into Glen Lake effects water quality. The Great Escape is a large area and from that area comes a lot of drainage. What. if anything, does the Great Escape do for filtration. A restaurant established on Glen Lake planned renovations, in no way changing the size and/or area of the parking lot, but the Planning Board says he must now put in filtration for runoff in his parking lot and from the Glen Lake Road. This is good, but shouldn't the Great Escape be made to do the same thing? You never know what problems parked vehicles may have or what they may be leaking onto the parking area. This all runs into the Glen Lake Fen. Water Quality is very important. Water pollution is not that easy to clean up. It is an area of concern that is long overdue at being addressed. The Environmental Impact Study had pictures of the balloon 15 test done from several locations. There were two pictures taken from the bike path...Glen Lake and show no balloons. I say these were taken too close to the mountains or hills. Stand too close to a house and look at the roof and what do you see, not much. Move further away and what do you see. the whole roof, the chimney, the peak. the overall picture. The shots taken on the Glen Lake side are too close. I would like to see the balloon tests done again with pictures taken from further down the Lake. a more overall picture. It is unfortunate that Great Escape's issues most always involve residents of Glen Lake, but we have this big beautiful piece of natural beauty to protect. and to sit back and do nothing to save nature would be catastrophic. We do what we have to do to protect our investment in future. just as any other concerned citizen would or should do. Thank you. TOM RHODES MR. RHODES-Hello. My name is Tom Rhodes. I'm a resident of Ballston Lake. I'm a frequent patron of the Great Escape. I'm in support of the roller coaster. I was going to excerpt a couple of letters that I wrote to the Board, but the lady who owns the Mohican Motel hit most of my points as well as I could have, about the importance of a business such as the Great Escape to a municipal ity 1 ike Queensbury, in regards to real estate tax, sales tax. and employment, and I would also like to point out. on the issue of noise, somebody that spoke mentioned parks such as Coney Island and such. whether the neighborhoods are like Queensbury and the answer to that is, yes. there are a number of parks that are in residential neighborhoods that are like Queensbury. One of them is Kanobie Lake Park in Salem, New Hampshire, with a neighborhood very, very similar to Queensbury. They have a wood track roller coaster similar to the Great Escape's proposed coaster and there's Riverside Park in Agawam, Mass.. immediately borders a residential neighborhood. and Knobles Amusement Resort in Pennsylvania, south of Scranton. actually incorporates a neighborhood very similar to Glen Lake, right within the park. and the noise of the roller coaster does not reach those residents. A wood track coaster is an entirely different type of ride. The sound does not project into the distance. In fact, all those parks that I named from outside the park on the property line, you cannot hear the coaster and so I would support the Great Escape's application. I'd like to give you a couple of copies of that letter. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. HAGAN-Sir, will you say where live, please. MR. RHODES-Yes. Ballston Lake. CAL POWERS MR. POWERS-Mr. Chairman. my name is Cal Powers. a year round member of Glen Lake. Several years ago. we were asked to increase our real estate taxes. At first we were upset. then we realized we were buying a product. That product was clean water. serene. quiet times. psychological effects at the end of the day, quiet time, primarily. Obviously. the Great Escape is attempting to rob us of this feature. Understanding what's been read here. tonight. not knowing before we came, but apparently this is a fact, certainly not accusing anyone of anything. Two years ago this spring. if we're talking about Mrs. Smith who said, how do we. after the fact. take care of business. Coming up Route 9. by the Great Escape. garbage truck pull ing out of the west side parking lot of the Great Escape. exits Route 9 on the east side. prior to the Trading Post. full of garbage bags. I pulled in off the pull off area. waited for the truck to come back, did not see it come back. probably should have stayed. I would be criticized tonight for not staying and probably finding out the real answer. Looked down there, there was a pile of garbage bags. probably a storage area. hopefully not a dumping area. Don't know what it was. Set my mind to thinking. are we taking care of the water of Glen Lake? Gentlemen. Lady. if you bought a stereo, please enjoy it to the max, but if it offends your neighbor, that's not a fair situation. The same goes for the plight of the Great Escape. Thank you. LINDA CLARK WHITTY MRS. CLARK WHITTY-I am a home owner on Ash Drive. Glen Lake. I am also representing my parents. Ann and Robert Clark. who are also owners on Ash Drive. Glen Lake. I have lived on Glen Lake for 20 some odd years. and I have heard. for those 20 some odd years, the activities of the Great Escape. I hear the train whistle. I hear the Ghost Town activities and I know hear the new roller coaster. So. it is a fact that. yes. the noise is heard. I am very nervous about another roller coaster going in with even more noise. Most importantly. I think we need to focus on the water issue and the fear that we all have about the water and this parking. I'd just 1 ike to support everyone who has been here who has opposed this project and would also like to submit this letter to Mr. Cartier. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else. please. BRENT NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Brent Nichols. I 1 ive on Canterbury Drive next to the Great Escape. This seems to me that it's an issue between the homeowners that bought property there and intend to live a quiet life in Queensbury, the same as ourselves. and big business that's got the money and has business going and tourists and all that sort of thing. The main thing the tourists did for us. I think is to raise 16 -----,' our taxes and..organizations to take care of that. Our taxes have gone up. Our prices go up. Every time the tourists come to town. our grocery bills go up. We thrive on tourists. and so does the Great Escape. I think there's a limit. as far as the noise and the traffic. I think before this Board approves such a thing. I think they should take care of the situation on Route 9. The same as that Million Dollar Mall up here. They didn't bother with traffic. That'll work out. Steve Borgos said that'll take care of itself. It's taken care of itself, but it's costing a lot to do it right now. I think this should be done here. before that's acceptable. It seems to me that they ought to see what they're going to do about traffic and let them take care of that first. before it happens. because it does not take care of itself. It only gets...Another thing I'd like to know, I haven't heard anything. I've heard about keeping the roller coaster open at night. Has there been any time set on when they could close? Because we live right by there and I'd like to find out and I'd like to have it as soon as possible. I haven't heard anyone say one particular time. That's all I have to say on this. GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-Mr. Cartier. my name is George Stark and I've been a resident of Queensbury for 27 years. I decided. after talking to a lot of people. that one of the main concerns was noise. from the potentially new roller coaster. so what I did was get the Town of Queensbury sound on the meter. borrowed it from Mr. Borgos. and went out and did a little study. I went to the present roller coaster on the west side of Route 9 and parked my car this afternoon. and took a decibel reading. Most of the time it's less than 80 db's. When a car went by, a particularly big car or truck or something, the decibel reading would go over 80. which means that noise is effected more by the vehicle traffic than by that roller coaster that's present. I went down to the entrance to the campground. what used to be the campgrounds. on Round Pond Road. Took readings there also. Most of the time they were less than 70 db's. except for when a car went by, then they were between 80 and 85. There was no trucks that went by this afternoon. I went down on the bike path. on the west side of Glen Lake. Most of the time down there. the readings were between 50 and 60. Boats woul d increase it anywhere from 60 to 80 and these noises were still not objectionable. when boats went by. even. I went up on Greenwood Lane and Twicwood, this afternoon, and took a reading. got between 60 and 70. When I started my own car. the noise went up to 75. The point I guess I'm trying to make is I don't think a new roller coaster is going to increase the noise that much, db wise. in these areas that I've taken readings from. and on that basis. I'm going to support the Roller Coaster. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Sir? DR. PRENDERVILLE DR. PRENDERVILLE-I'm Dr. Prenderville. I have a camp on Glen Lake and I've been there since 1902 and I've been going there since I was a little boy, and I've been rowing and canoeing up in the swamp since I was a little boy. and water pollution problems started on Glen Lake when they started filling in. before the State went into all its laws about wetlands, and there used to be two inlets coming in there. There used to be a lot more current (Tape Turned) I'm not blaming it all on the Great Escape. but when you get to the noise problem, and the gentleman very kindly took some studies. but have you ever listened to a radio on one side of the Lake? You can hear it on the other side of the Lake. clearly. It's an entirely different situation than going out in the woods and measuring the sound on a roller coaster. going over the hill and measuring it from the other hill. I lived over the hill from the Casino for years and the noise that I heard was the kids swearing and carrying on in my driveway, but I didn't hear much of the music. but the people across the Lake couldn't sleep. They couldn't do anything because the sound blasted throughout the 1 iving room. This is the concern that we have. and there should be some decent studies done and certainly, if there are no sound laws in the Town of Queensbury, it's high time we had some, because they are a problem. All you have to do is live next door to a rock and roll place to find out what kind of a problem they are. but I got notice about this meeting at 7 o'clock tonight. I drove up here from Albany, and I even got a speeding ticket on the way up. So. I don't know what happened earlier. The thing is. I think the objection that people have is the continual expansion without all of the proper..and I think that if this thing is going to be allowed, it should be allowed on the basis that it's not going to be a noise problem and it's not going to cause other problems on the Lake. and if it's not going to be allowed. then it should be.. Thank you very much. BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-My name is Brian Granger. I'm a resident of Queensbury. If you drive by the Great Escape this past summer and last year and look at the number of cars in the parking lot..the numbers are down. Even if the roller coaster proposed a 10 percent increase in business. I think it's less than what two years ago was. So. I can't see anymore traffic problems than what there were in the past. If you count the "No Vacancy" signs in the motel rooms, as you go up the Bolton Road, you see a decrease. That's evident. When you grow. you prosper. When you.. then you rot. In the Lake George Guide, the Waterslide World. in their ad, "Come see us this year. Look how we've expanded." If the Great Escape cannot expand anymore than it's just going to die. We have to let someone expand. The Park was there long before the residences was. The residents have grown around the Great Escape. I understand that there are noise concerns. I don't believe that there will be that much increased noise. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. 11 -----" DON SYRA MR. SYRA-My name is Don Syra. Courthouse Estates. I have lived in both Twicwood and Courthouse Estates over the past 25 years. In 1966. when I came to build a home in Twicwood, the amusement was called StoryTown, which was very quiet and very well run and very clean. In the 12 years I lived in Twicwood, it expanded considerably along with the noise. and what I call visual pollution. rides being put out close to the road with unattractive signs. Recently. in the past eight years. I moved to Courthouse Estates. In Courthouse Estates. you could hear quite a bit of the noise that goes on. The band that plays, the circus, people on the rides. I'm not saying that the Great Escape should dry up and blow away. but what I'm saying is that if we want another Million Dollar Half Mile problem, maybe you should just go ahead and approve this. not making plans for the future. What I would like to see you do is to worry about the noise and the traffic. the pollution. both audio, visual. and water. and make plans for what's going to happen down the road if this Park does stay open at night. If it does expand beyond one roll er coaster into more rides. The peopl e in the Town of Queensbury deserve to be heard. Businesses derive their livelihood. in part, from the Great Escape, but I have a feeling that if somebody pulled the plug on Lake George. it wouldn't make much difference whether the Great Escape was there or not. Thank you. PAUL ROBILLARD MR. ROBILLARD-My name is Paul Robillard and I live up in the south end of Glen Lake. just off Birdsall Road, and I've only been living there a few years, but since Mr. Wood. or the Great Escape has incorporated more and more. over the years. the problem is a big issue. When the camping area was there. at night. young people would like to have a good time and I thought, at the time, that it was closer than it actually was. I couldn't believe how far sound carried at night, and I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think this thing should be 1 imited to. say. 6 o'clock. when the park closes at normal hours. because it's unbelievable how far sound will carry at night. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CASEY BLACKBIRD MS. BLACKBIRD-My name is Casey Blackbird. I'm from the Twicwood area. and I guess I'd just like to say that Mr. Wood has been a very good neighbor in the past and we've had a few tiffs about things, but I was hoping that maybe we could compromise on this. This roller coaster seems to be a big problem with a lot of issues. Maybe they could grow in different ways. maybe not so large and not so objectionable to the people around him. and since he's always been a good neighbor in the past, and the Great Escape is a wonderful place to bring your children, and it is good for the area. Maybe it could just grow in a way that's acceptable to all the people. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. SUSAN HALM MRS. HALM-Hi. My name is Susan Halm. I live on Jay Road in Glen Lake. Mr. Birch spoke earlier and referred to his article that we saw in today's paper about the..There was another article that talked about a 14 year old boy that was killed in a ferris wheel at a park also owned by this corporation. and in the past few weeks we have heard about a child. a little boy that was hurt on one of the rides here. I think before they talk about putting in a 19 foot roller coaster, they should address their safety and employee education programs that they have in place. now. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else who would care to speak for the first time? MR. WELLER-Thank you. My name is Jim Weller. I live in the Town of Queensbury. I live at the other end of Glen Lake. I was born, brought up. been there all my life as a year round resident. I'd like to speak, first. to my impression of the water quality on Glen Lake. Forty years ago, Glen Lake was a community of a few summer cottages. There were no problems with water quality. Today. Glen Lake is made up of densely populated, year round homes. The deterioration in the quality of the water on Glen Lake no doubt is the result of this development of homes around the Lake and not solely the result of the development at the other end of the Lake and the Great Escape. It's my understanding that the situation is being seriously and studied and looked at and that Tom has been conducting studies as to what the quality really is and what needs to be done to improve the quality of Glen Lake. I. in my own impression. don't believe that the roller coaster at the Great Escape is going to have any significant contribution to deteriorating or further deteriorating the quality of Glen Lake. Secondly, on the noise, I don't see the noise as being objectionable to me. I understand that I live on a recreational area. I sit fairly high on a hill on the far end of the Lake. I listen to the airplanes that are on the fl ight path. other planes that land on the Lake in the summer time. Some nights I wish I weren't hearing them. but I understand that it's a recreational lake. that's a recreational activity. It's a permitted activity and we live with it. It's part of our economy. It's part of our base. I listen to the boats. and there are many people that live around the Lake, speeding up and down the Lake. and I can hear them. mostly through the day. but many times into the evening. The Lake has become quieter in the last few years. but it is still noisy because of the boats that are on there. I don't see the significant increase in the noise is going to be developed in this community. in this area, by the addition of a roller coaster. I'll speak to the traffic. Traffic is business. We need traffic. 18 -----" If we don't have any traffic, we don't have any business in this community. We need business in this community. If we've got a traffic problem. I submit to you, lets solve the traffic problem. I was thinking this afternoon. if we have problems with overcrowded schools. we don't try to limit the number of students that come into the school, we build more schools. more classrooms. If we've got a traffic problem. lets build some more roads and some more intersections and some more parking lots and solve the traffic problem. We need traffic because it represents business, and I'll speak to business. There's a lot of emphasis in this community to create an educational opportunity, an educational base in business opportunities, an economic base. so that our children can st~ here. as they grow up and enjoy the same type of life that we had here in this community. I'd like to be able to see my children live in a place where they can get a job and a place where there's a good economic base. My son recently who recently graduated from college and he was able to find a job here in the Town of Queensbury and live in the Town of Queensbury. I think there's been a lot of efforts. here, to be able to provide those kinds of opportunities and we need business growth, business vitality. and new business in here in the Town of Queensbury so that we can 1 ive here and have a good economic base and a good tax structure. I'm in favor of the revitalization of the activities and the rides at the Great Escape. I think this it's essential for our area and I strongly support it. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Is there anyone else who'd care to speak for the second time? Ok~. If not, does the Board have any questions of anyone who has spoken so far? Okay. There being none at the moment. would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. BARTLETT-Members of the Board, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Dick Bartlett. I'm here with my partner. Wayne Judge,..Mr. Beckos. Holly Elmer, from LA Associates. all representing the applicant. This is not a debate, tonight. and I don't intend to make it one. We're here to elicit public comment on the proposal. and not necessarily to hear from me or the appl icant. but I do think it important to try to put this in context. The DEIS has been found by this Board to be complete. This was based on the recommendation of the professional staff and the question was completeness..as a Draft EIS. ..questions can be raised about it as they have been tonight. but it was determined to be complete. as a.. MR. HAGAN-Tonight is only for the purpose of a public hearing. MR. BARTLETT-Correct. Tonight we have heard a variety of opinions, a variety of representations, both for and against the project, happily, it's your task to sort them out and not mine. but I do want to say that it's important to understand what the significance of this new ride is for the economic viabil ity of the Great Escape. The largest attendance recorded at the Great Escape to date was in 1987. When we talk about two percent increase attributable, hopefully. hopefully attributable to this new ride, we're talking on the present base. So, it's good to keep in mind, when we think about impact on parking and on traffic, that the peak year was 1987. for the Great Escape, and so when we talk about increases, we're talking about increases on the current base. Now. the point was made by Mike that someone had said that there was a 10 percent increase hoped for on the ride. I don't know who that optimist was, and I'm not s~ing the statement wasn't made. but I have to tell you. there was no representation that this was arrived at based on any study of any kind whatever. We had a study made. by our expert. who looked at increases in attendance for which he extrapolated his traffic estimates based on comparable new rides at other amusement parks. and two percent is the figure he came to and the figure he defends. and no one. I repeat. has suggested that that figure is invalid, except that Mike has said somebody mentioned 10 percent at some time. He never suggested that any study had produced anticipated 10 percent increase by reason of this ride. Mrs. Pulver and gentlemen, we have to keep in mind economic real ity of running an amusement park. It is not static. We have to have new attractions to maintain a attendance, let alone hopefully show some increase, and that's why. from time to time, new concepts are introduce. Now, I have to tell you, so far as the roller coaster is concerned, Charlie Wood is on an emotional roller coaster. as regard to that ride, because he fell in love with it as you've heard hundreds of people have, it was determined to keep the Comet going by bringing it here to Queensbury. You've heard the enthusiasts. I'm not one of them. I don't plan to ride it. on the other hand, I get dizzy above the third floor. Lots of my friends are really enthusiastic about the roller coaster, including one 83 year old, by the way, who says he wants to be on as soon as it opens, but..sort of a hint, here, that maybe not nice people are going to be attracted to this Park because of this new attraction. I..at our first hearing. well. what kind of people are going to come. The fact of the matter is, they're very nice people and it can be said about the Great Escape, without question. it remains and will remain to be essentially a family attraction and it will bring the kind of people that you want to come here as tourists and will continue to support, not only the Great Escape, but the economy of our area. So, the two percent increase we hope to get from this attraction is not the justification for this investment alone, is to maintain the attendance that we have. and that is an economic reality of a business. We talked about traffic, and our expert has made a submission to the Board and he anticipates very 1 ittle increase in traffic or in parking. Let me address traffic for a moment. I think I heard Michael O'Connor say that we welshed on our obl igation to provide a turning lane on Round Pond Road. Not true. We did not have a commitment to put a turning lane on Round Pond Road. We had a commitment to take it up with the County. We did. It's a County road. We don't own it. We can't build a turning lane there. It was turned down by them. There's been the talk of other traffic controls that mayor may not be needed on Route 9. There's been talk, recently, about whether we need four lanes on Route 9 for the whole busy portion from either 149 down to the Northw~ Exit or even all the way to Aviation Road. Whatever is needed. DOT is studying Route 9 and will have to come up with determinations and handle the traffic that's there. Traffic is all not caused by the Great Escape by any means. 19 ---./ In fact, it's fair to s~ the most serious traffic problem we have now is the 149 south to Exit 20, but be that as it may. we should hope. ladies and gentlemen, for the economic viability of this area, that we continue to have a lot of traffic on Route 9. The question is how to have it manageable. how to give people access, and that's a problem that the County and DOT will have to address. It is not the applicant's obligation to provide an increase of lanes or the other traffic controls that were..The two traffic controls that are there are to control exit and egress from the parking lots serving Great Escape. Those were put there by the applicant and conceited to be our responsibility. Let me..other cOlllfent about parking. The representative of the Glen Lake Protective Association cannot get away from tal king about parking near the wetland. Now, whether parking has gone on there for one year or twenty years, whether it's grandfathered or whatever, I submit is irrelevant to this application. The parking that is there now is overflow, on occasional. It is on permeable soil, 18 feet above the level of the wetland. There is no evidence, whatever, of any contamination from that to the wetland. In fact, I'll make a broader statement. There's no evidence. that I'm aware of, I believe this Board's aware of, or the Glen Lake Protection Agency's aware of, that the Great Escape itself contributes in any way to the pollution of Glen Lake. There is no evidence of it. Now, I live on Lake George, and I'm as concerned as anyone in this room about pollution. I know where it comes from on Lake George. It comes largely from non functioning private septic systems and that's where it comes from on most lakes. I'm not s~ing I know that's where it comes from on Glen Lake, but what I do know is, that there is no evidence that the operation of the Great Escape contributes, in any significant w~, to the pollution of Glen Lake. In fact, the very function of the wetland which lies between the Great Escape and Glen Lake is a cleansing. filtering process which all of us know is the way in which the wetland in the Town works. I just have to sum up in this w~, to suggest that anything new in this community will have no impact is, of course. silly. There are alw~s some trade offs, but what our studies show and what we believe they conclusively demonstrate is that the noise increase is not significant, that the traffic impact will not be significant. that parking is adequate now, and that this new ride will not adversely impact the community in a way that should concern this Board or the citizens of the Town of Queensbury. Its positive effects have been outlined here by a number of speakers and they're evident of ours. Tourism is the economic life blood of our community, and we need to keep it healthy. We need to keep the Great Escape healthy. That's the purpose of adding this ride. I want to close on this note. This ride is proposed in a location on the Great Escape property that is designed to diminish it's impact from the point of view of visibility and sound. We invite you to go over and take a look at the site. It's got a high hill behind it. It is in the least visible portion of the park. Now, maybe Mr. Wood should have put this thing right in the middle of the park, right in the middle of the attractions where they are. increased its visibility and I suggest to you increased the sound impact as well. Mr. Cartier. we might even have avoided a site plan review if we'd have stayed right in the middle of the Park, who knows, but the fact is, the proposed site is designed to minimize its impact, to minimize its adverse effect on the community. I submit that when you look at the trade offs between the economi c improvement thi s wi 11 bri ng to the Park and to the community, as against the minimal adverse effect it will have on the residents in the area, I suggest it should be approved. MR. HAGAN-Dick, would you care to comment, put some qualms to rest, about the hours of operation? (END OF FIRST DISK) 20 MR. BARTLETT-I know it's been brought up. It's been brought up by the spokesman of the Glen Lake Protective Association..just in connection with this. I can just tell you that for 38 years, the admissions has closed at 6:00 pm, the Park closes at 6:30 pm. There are no plans whatsoever, Jim. to change that. Now. have in mind, and we're not being cute with you, that the Bavarian House has events. has dinner dances there and other functions in the evening. Occasionally there are parties. large parties. I remember, specifically. the auctioning off of the Dusenburgs to the Hyde Collection where the party went on substantially later, but there are no plans whatever for the extension of the hours of the park. It would involve enormous changes in lighting and other..the current operation of the Park is designed for daytime use by families. and there are no plans for changing that. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. BARTLETT-Mr. Wood would like to make a couple of comments. CHARLES WOOD MR. WOOD-If the Board would be good enough to excuse me for a moment. I'd just like to turn around and say, I'm Charlie Wood, the young. white haired man that built the Great Escape. Thank you. Thirty Eight years ago. I saw a faded sign on Route 9 by Stain and Chambers that said property was for sale. It had been there for so long, it was so faded you couldn't hardly read the sign. I went to him and I asked if I could buy the land and they said, you're crazy, and I said. I have a dream, I have an idea. I want to build a theme park, and I started on that dream and, 38 years later, I still have a dream to make it one of the outstanding parks in the Country. We have a wonderful reputation and it's just something that we need. We can buy so called flat rides and put them in and they're filler rides that take care of long lines. They will not pull traffic. You have to have a sensational ride, like the flume was our first, the Steamin' Demon, the Raging River, and we need a coaster. I have a coaster, but there are parks that have seven coasters. I'd 1 i ke everybody to know, just because you have one coaster, that don't satisfy the people for the next 10 or 20 years. Parks are constantly. Kenny Wood just put in their eighth coaster and where we're all down. they are up 12 percent because they put in a new super coaster. This is not a super coaster, but the famous coaster, and I just want to say. I try to be a friend to the people in this area. I'm going to stay in this area as long as the Lord will permit me, and I want to work with any of the groups. We spent over $6200 this year for in-ground speakers that just keep the sound level of our overall sound system to a minimum. We're working with a sound group in Saratoga that does all the work at SPAC and we're going to find the answer to cutting down the sound as many leave the Great Escape from our shows or from the circus because we want to be a friend. We're not here to aggravate people. We need people. We need friends. If you're aggravated, you're not going to send your friends to us and that's worse than not having a coaster. So all I'm saying. thank you for your time. I want to be a friend. We'll work with these groups and we'll work to do anything that will make it happen for this area. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. What's the Board's pleasure? Does the Board have any questions or comments? Would you care to make any further comments? MR. CUSHING-I'll make this very fast and short and I wasn't going to say anything else, even though I could speak all evening on economic development and business concerns, but I felt that a comment was made on one of the very last people that spoke here and it hit my hot button and it may be controversial. but you're allowed to comment and I would appreciate it if you would allow me two minutes on rebuttal, and a comment was made that a young man died out on Fantasy Island on a ferris wheel. I felt that that comment was out of place. irrelevant and had no meaning at this meeting. When somebody dies on the Northway, do we close the Northway? When somebody dies in an airplane accident, do we close the airport? When somebody dies because of a boating accident on Lake George or Glen Lake, do we call it off limits? When the Scott Paper Company or International Paper Company or James River, local concerns or internationally known, all over the world have a death in one of the plants, do we malign the management of the local plant because of that death, of course we don't. These people are honorable people and I'm sure that the health management of Great Escape grieved for this young man, as I do and as we all do in this room, and I would hope that this Board would take a statement 1 ike that and dismiss it out of hand. Thank you. MRS. WHITTY-Linda Whitty from Glen Lake again. It seems to me that Mr. Wood just contradicted himself. They suggested that it would be a two percent increase. He just made comment to the effect that the roller coaster in other parks made a 12 percent increase in attendance. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Is there anyone else? DAVID KENNY-David Kenny, Town of Queensbury. I guess you people have a tough job. You have to listen to all comments, pros and cons. I have one comment. I really can't distinguish whether the people that are against this park as it exists tOday or against this ride. I hear a lot about noise. noise impact, traffic. that's all existing, you know, that's there and I really can't tell whether they're looking at the ride or looking at the park the way it exists and they're aggravated and they're complaining about that. If that's the case, they have no business being here. They're talking about a new ride in the park and I, for one, sitting there, can't tell whether they're complaining about the existing park the way it is. I think that's the way I interpret it. I think you people have to disseminate that amongst yourselves. 21 MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-The one point that I make, and the only point that I'll try to, is that a good deal of the concern of the Glen Lake Protective Association is that this is the first showing of any official application that has gotten before any Board. to the point where the Board is considering the substantive merits of an application, that had, on paper. parking that they wanted a blessing of that was within a buffer zone of a wetland and that's 90 percent of why the Glen Lake Association is here. I think if the applicant wants to work with us, we've talked about this being the best..This is the first time that that has been put on paper, and we do not want this Board or any other Board in the Town of Queensbury to give it's blessing because we think it will come back and haunt us later in other applications that came before you. That's the only point I make, except for one question. As I understand it, your consultants haven't done their technical review of the DEIS. When do you expect that to be complete? MR. YARMOWICH-We will offer that information to the Board by the close of the comment period. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Will that be available for review? MR. YARMOWICH-That's the Board's information to do with as they please, and the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. MR. O'CONNOR-Obviously, appl icants, some people, don't have the same resources. We are relying, as taxpayers in the Town, on the Consultants that the Town has retained for this. We would like. if possible, the opportunity to include our comments on their comments, within the 10 day period. MR. HAGAN-I think you already know that. Every night that he presents to this Board his comments, it becomes public information on that desk. You should be aware of that more than anyone. MR. O'CONNOR-I am aware of that. but I am also aware, Mr. Hagan, that what we're talking about is not another scheduled meeting. What we're talking about is the statutory 10 day period for written comment, following the closure of the public hearing for SEQRA Review of the DEIS. MR. YARMOWICH- These comments and the comments that are provided as the result of technical review will be the basis for a Final Environmental Impact Statement which will be made available. In usual format, it includes a summary of all comments with specific responses, okay. This is not, by any means. the last chance someone has to review this information, and that's the typical procedure. Whether or not this Board is going to change that for this, is entirely up to them. If you want to cOOlllent on our comments, that will be between the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Statement of Findings, which is another part of the process. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I will final ize my cOOlllents on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and I will do that before the 23rd. If I had the opportunity to review your comments before that, I would approve response to that. MR. YARMOWICH-The summary of all cOOlllents will not be available by the close of that period, because if your comments come in at the last day, as will mine, they won't be available for everybody else. So, therefore. you can't handle it that way. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anyone else? Well. I would certainly thank you for all coming and taking the time to address this Board. You've given us an incredible amount of information to deal with, but I assure you, we will look through, carefully, all of these issues. We are not taking this application lightly. Does the Board have any questions or comments? I got a call from Dave Hatin. He's got some questions... MR. YARMOWICH-Pete, do you know if Mr. Hatin's concerns relate to some of the engineering conditions? MR. CARTIER-Yes. they do. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, could I ask you if you will be closing any of these publ ic hearings and if so, which ones? MR. YARMOWICH-You must close the public hearing for the DEIS. MS. CORPUS-Unless the Board feels that not everyone has had a chance to speak. MR. CARTIER-I will close the public hearing on the DEIS, with the understanding that the public comment period will remain open until the 26th. 22 MS. CORPUS-As far as the Site Plan, then? MR. CARTIER-The Site Plan public hearing will remain open. MS. CORPUS-Okay. Would the Board request that that be re-noticed for the EIS? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Ok~. Can we formally schedule that, now, for the 27th? John, do you think you can get all your ducks in a row by the 27th, so we can sit down with the applicant and talk about what conditions has to be addressed. If you cannot, tell me so. MR. GORALSKI-They're reviewing the Final Impact Statement, correct? MR. CARTIER-They are, yes. MR. YARMOWICH-For you, and you can change it in any way fit. MR. CARTIER-Okay. My point is, I want to get together with some of the applicants and say, here's what you must address in the EIS. MR. YARMOWICH-Maria m~ not have had an opportunity to give you a transcript of this public hearing at that time. It's doubtful that this 120 or 30 pages is going to be available, correct enough for us to use. MR. CARTIER-All right. You don't think the 27th is going to be acceptable. MR. HAGAN-The 27th is two week from tonight. MR. GORALSKI-You see, what we have to do, between now and then. is we have to go through all the correspondence that have been received and all the comments that were made today, and all the comments that you will receive between now and the 23rd. I don't know if that can be done in four days. MR. CARTIER-Fine. No problem. We'll kiss the 27th good-bye. Quick question for you, what's our next time limit that we need to be concerned with, here? MR. YARMOWICH-The applicant is in control of that, being as they're preparing it. MS. CORPUS-No. I read over the SEQRA Regulations, and the Final EIS must be prepared and filed. whether the applicant prepares it or the Board directs them to prepare it, 45 days after the close of this hearing, or within 60 days of the filing of the Draft EIS, whichever is later, and I calculated that, and it's 45 d~s after the close of this hearing, which would be 9/27, September 27th. If the applicants feel. or the Consultants for the Town feel, or the Board feels that extra time is needed, that time can be extended. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-A lot of it has to do with the applicant's preparation of the FEIS for you to use, and you may need additional time to get further input from them. I would recommend that you take the time that you need to prepare a document which, after comment on the FEIS, you can do a Statement of Findings without having to go back and adjust things significantly. MR. CARTIER-The Board should ignore the 27th..There will be no meeting on the 27th. MR. HAGAN-Are we going to establish one? MS. CORPUS-Whenever. HOLLY ELMER MRS. ELMER-What we generally do for an FEIS is organize all of the written cOOlllents and the public hearing comments into categorize. The big four here is traffic. noise, parking, and wetlands. They'll be itemized by category. You'll see all the people that have those things to s~, listed by items. The response will be Comment A, with such and such on parking, will have response, Comment B, response, all in parking. You'll see wetland comments. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does the Board have anything else? MR. YARMOWICH-As a mechanism to move things along. and without the requirement for this Board to meet. if the Board is comfortable with using a designated representative to identify comments, in their organization, with the applicant and the consultants, that can be done to make things ready so that they can get to work. 23 ~' MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that Tom and I and at least one member of the Board sit down with the applicant's consultant and make sure we have an accurate list of all the corrrnents that should be addressed. MR. YARMOWICH-Certain comments are not substantiative for preparation of the FEIS. and we can help them with that and we'd like your help. too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Certainly. Do you need a motion on that? MS. CORPUS-That's up to the Board. MR. HAGAN-When are you going to have that day, because if Peter's going to represent us. I know I've got comments and he's got comments. but I want to make sure he's aware of them. MR. YARMOWICH-This is only to address the public hearing and public comments. Your own comments can be brought to the attention of the applicant. MR. HAGAN-I'm talking about those comments that I wrote down. MR. CARTIER-What we can do. very simply is. I'm going to be the one. The day of the meeting, as far as I'm concerned. you can show up and. MR. GORALSKI-Well. you can't have more than two because then it's a public meeting. I mean. you can have a meeting. MR. HAGAN-No. I'm just asking when you. MR. GORALSKI-We don't know yet. but what I would do is write up your list and give them to Peter or to myself or to Tom. MR. CARTIER-Weil. lets understand what's going on. here. What John and Tom are talking about doing for us is what I was going to do in the meeting of the 27th. and I'm certainly going to take them up on that offer. MR. MARTIN-I don't think we..written comment. If you guys want our comments and we have some to make. get them over or call them or something, but make them available. There's no reason for us to all get together and make..project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. I think we'll leave it to you guys to come up with a date. and I can be there. MR. YARMOWICH-The date and time is flexible. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-Is it my understanding correct, that you left the public hearing open for Site Plan Review? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. JUDGE-What remains to be done? MR. CARTIER-Well. at some point, we're going to go back to vote on this issue. I assume. MR. MARTIN-We have to wrap up the environmental aspect of the project. is my understanding. You can't approve site plan with your environmental impact undetermined. MR. JUDGE-So now the Final we're going to have a Final DEIS which would be probably more than 45 days and then we'll schedule a continuation of this meeting for Site Plan Review. at which time there'll be a vote. Is that it? MR. CARTIER-Possibly. yes, right. That's the best case scenario. MR. JUDGE-So we're looking at, maybe, October? MS. CORPUS-Well, Wayne. you can't make a vote until the Findings Statement is done, anyway, you can't take a vote. MR. YARMOWICH-If there are significant impacts identified in the FEIS, and you have to do a Statement of Findings. Each of those processes has a specific review period and has a waiting period. but they can't do the Site Plan until all that's done. They can hold a public hearing at their option. ".. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody from the Board have anything else? Staff, anything else? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd appreciate you having me on the mailing list of whatever meetings you are going to consider aspects of this that are open for public hearing. MR. YARMOWICH-Just so you won't feel you'll miss anything. this is not intended to be an open meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not talking about where you categorize the comments of the DEIS. MR. MARTIN-You just want a specific notice to you of any public meetings. MS. CORPUS-Right. The only problem with that, there may be a problem with doing it for one person and then having to do it for several others that aren't required in the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-I don't see what harm there is in being notified of public meetings, if he asked to be notified. MS. CORPUS-All I know is that the same issue has come up with Town Board meetings, with certain individuals who have been requested to be noticed of Board meetings. MRS. PULVER-I will call you. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have any questions? I think we can adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Peter Cartier, Chairman 25