Loading...
1993-03-16 c: { ) '''-"'' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16. 1993 INDEX ~ , Site Plan No. 10-93 The Great Escape 1. Subdivision No. 11-1991 Sunset Hill Farm 37. Subdivision No. 5-87 MAP AMENDMENT Cedar Court 38. Site Plan No. 5-92 Brian Granger 42. Subdivision No. 7-1993 SKETCH PLAN Cindy Jarvis 47. Subdivision No. 3-1993 SKETCH PLAN National Realty & Development 54. Corporation THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ ,.,'" .... "- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT KATHLEEN ROWE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-93 TYPE: UNLISTED RC-15 THE GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: STORYTOWN USA. INC. LOCATION: RT. 9 AND ROUND POND RD.. (SOUTHEAST AREA OF GREAT ESCAPE FUN PARK) PROPOSAL IS FOR TWO ADDITIONAL AMUSEMENT PARK ATTRACTIONS - NOAH'S SPRAYGROUND AND THE RAFT RIDE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 1.85 ACRES SECTION 119D(3)(b) JOHN LEMERY. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-93, The Great Escape. Meeting Date: March 16, 1993 "proiect Description: The applicant proposes to construct a children's water fun park called Noah's Sprayground and a pre-manufactured ride called the Raft Ride. The project site is located in the southeast area of the amusement center. The site is the location of an existing swimming pool, tennis courts (2), a small office building. a vacant campground and paved access drives. The project area is approximately 1.85 acres in size and the entire contiguous land area owned by the sponsor is approximately 270 acres. The Sprayground will occupy the site of the tennis courts; the existing pool will be incorporated into the Sprayground; the office building will serve as a bathhouse and filter building. The Raft Ride will be located on land formally used as a campground. It will be adjacent to the Sprayground. A wetland (GF-15) is located on the property owned by the sponsor but is approximately 1.000 feet from the project site. Access to the project area will be via the main gate; there will be no separate entrance to these two rides. Proiect Analysis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; This is not an issue. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; This is not an issue. The new attraction will not impact vehicular traffic access. 3. The location. arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an issue. The new attractions are just a minor part of the overall theme park and should not have a significant impact on parking or require additional parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. Pedestrian access to the - 1 - '- ~ attractions will be via the main entrance; there will be no separate access to these attractions. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The applicant submitted a stormwater management plan. This plan was reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates and found to be acceptable. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The project will use existing water supplies and should not impact sewage disposal, an existing on site septic system will be utilized. A backwash system will be utilized to reduce the level of chlorine to acceptable levels and then discharge the water into a leaching system. Water for the raft ride will be recirculated. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The applicant is proposing a variety of plantings around the new attractions. It appears that the landscaping is for aesthetic purposes; the project area. with the exception of the bathhouse, will not be visible from outside the park. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; There is access to the project area via service roads. Emergency vehicles could use these roads to gain access to the project area. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendation: The Planning Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-There' s a letter from Rist-Frost, which reads as follows: "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project data and discussed the project with the applicant's technical agent (LA Group). Supplemental information was provided to us by the LA Group at our request (copy attached). The additional data was also reviewed and we have the following engineering comments regarding the project: 1. The grading/erosion control, layout. utility sewage disposal, drainage and stormwater management plans are acceptable. 2. The proposed 8 foot drywell depth should be indicated on the construction plans." The project was before the Warren County Planning Board. No Action was taken. A majority vote could not be achieved. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have someone here from the applicant? MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Board, my name is John Lemery, representing The Great Escape, Story town USA, Inc., and with me tonight, Jeff Anthony of the LA Group, who will speak to the application. and Mr. and Mrs. Wages, Tom and Bobbie Wagès, who are the President and Executive Vice President, respectively, of Story town USA, Inc., the operators of The Great Escape. It might be helpful, by way of background information, to have you understand the transaction that involved the acquisition of The Great Escape by Charles Wood. In 1989, Story town USA, Inc. sold it's assets, or certain of its assets. making up The Great Escape and another amusement park in Buffalo, New York, to the company called IBC Corporation, and IBC Corporation is a public company, and in addition to these two amusement parks, and a couple of others, owned the Ice Capades and the Harlem Globetrotters, and a couple of other entertainment facilities, and it acquired The Great Escape with the idea that they would assemble some sort of large conglomerate entertainment company, and move forward with plans and some interesting concepts for the development of The Great Escape. IBC wasn't able to achieve those plans, and in 1991 filed for bankruptcy. During the time that IBC owned the Park, Bobbie and Tom Wages operated the Park as employees of IBC Corporation. When it became apparent to Charlie Wood, the former owner of the Parks. that the Parks were undergoing a severe capital constraint, and that working capital wasn't being provided to The Great Escape, he became concerned about it, because he operated The Great Escape. started the Park in 1954. and was very concerned that one of the area's principal recreation activities was going to suffer - 2 - "- "~ irreparable damages. He started to negotiate to try to reacquire The Great Escape in July of 1992, and his principal concern was that if he didn't acquire the Parks, The Great Escape was likely to go to auction. It was likely to be put in a situation where it wouldn't have working capital to survive the winter. and there was a serious concern as to whether or not IBC would be around long enough to start it up in the Spring of 1993. In November, the bankruptcy judge signed an order authorizing the sale to Charles Wood. and that transaction was concluded in December of 1992. In the spring of 1992, under the auspices of IBC Corporation, The Great Escape applied to the Zoning Administrator's Office for a building permit to construct a pool, which you now have before you as Noah's Sprayground. Noah's Sprayground is basically a series of wading pools 18 inches deep. and we'll more fully describe the attraction a little later. The zone, the entire zone for Story town is in an RC-15 zone, and if you look at the Zoning Ordinance, it's not so easy to decipher, and it can be understood why the Zoning Administrator might have taken the position that she did. She determined that the pool was an accessory use to an attraction. which is what it was zoned for, and issued a permit to construct wha~ we know as Noah's Sprayground. So, IBC went ahead and built the Sprayground. An appeal was taken to the Zoning Board of Appeals by some neighbors. including Mr. and Mrs. Gary Koncikowski who own Waterslide World. The Zoning Board of Appeals, after looking at the project. decided that it required Site Plan Review. and sent it back to this Board for Site Plan Review. even though it had operated all of last summer and it does have its Department of Health permits. operating permits, to operate. It's our position that nobody's at fault. here. The Zoning Administrator made what she thought was a reasonable decision. The Park owners. in furtherance of that decision. went ahead and built this attraction. The Zoning Board of Appeals. in furtherance of its powers. determined that the Zoning Administrator had made a mistake, and sent it back. In the material that we supplied to the Zoning Department. we treated this as though it weren't there. and went back. and Jeff Anthony can speak on this better than I. all of the information we supplied. including the site plan. was provided to you as though there were no attraction there. If the Sprayground had been approved in the ordinary course. we would be before you tonight with one proposal. and that is to build a ride. another attraction. next to the Noah's Sprayground. This ride is known as a wet/dry ride. In effect, it's a ride that goes through a series of tubes. There is water. There is 8.000 gallons of water involved. It's totally recirculated. A person is not required. a person or child is not required to have a bathing suit. So it's not the kind of ride that there's a splash down, or one gets wet. You ride in a tube or a raft. you come out at the bottom, and you exit without getting wet. You basically ride out on a series of, as you can see there, it's a slide. and a raised area that provides the rail for the sled, and you don't get wet. The entire attraction has been designed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Jeff will describe to you how it's completely prepared for disabled persons. These rides are not two rides of the same type. They're independent. They are not, there is no intent here to suggest to you that this is some sort of theme park within a theme park. One is a wading pool for children. Another is simply another attraction that is proposed to be put in. in order to try to keep attendance at the Park at some reasonable levels. Tom Wages will speak to you about the fact that in these kinds of Parks, particularly at this time. you have to build another attraction every year. We provided you with a Long Form Environmental Impact Statement, with respect to these Parks, to these attractions. There is no traffic impact to either of these rides. There is no parking impact to either of these attractions. Our position is, and our Consultant's position is, that these are nothing more than two attractions which people come to, they don't come to Story town USA specifically to go and splash in the wading pool or to go on this ride. There's no way to try to ascertain whether or not it has a traffic or a parking impact, unless it was possible to send people out at the front of the facility and say, - 3 - -- ~ are you here to see the splash down, or are you here to ride the wet/dry ride. It's impossible. Unlike the roller coaster, which may be before this Board at some time in the future, and which is now the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it's the position of the applicant. here, that these two rides have no effect whatsoever. They're just additional attractions to the Park. For example, when Charlie Wood was in, and those of you who are familiar with the Park probably remember the little cars that you ride in that are gasoline powered, and are located near the entrance to The Great Escape. When Charlie, and Tom and Bobbie were in Dallas, Charlie determined that those cars were old. They needed to be replaced, and he ordered. I think, 15 new cars with a 1950' s motor. electric cars. thereby replacing the mechanical, rather the gasoline powered car. In addition, a ride or two has been removed from the Park since Mr. Wood reacquired, and another couple of rides are coming in, such as, I'll use as an example. an old merry-go round gotten taken out, and a new merry-go round got taken back in. The reason is that the Park has to be able to provide these kinds of attractions to meet it's obj ecti ves of providing entertainment to the families. I want to provide you with some statistics about what has happened to The Great Escape since Mr. Wood sold it. In 1989, attendance at The Great Escape was down 5.6 percent. In 1990, it was down an additional 4.8 percent. In 1991, it was down an addition 6.5 percent. These are cumulati ve over last year's numbers. In 1992, there was an increase of 6 percent over the year before. So, it's pretty clear that The Great Escape has not maintained its population. and one of the reasons is because it was purchased by a Company that didn't pay attention to it and let it get into a situation where new rides were not being proposed, new rides were not being added. old rides were not being removed. We tried to keep this application. and I'd ask you to keep it in context of which it is offered. We understand that there is a roller coaster plan before the Board. and so there is no misunderstanding, the roller coaster plan got side tracked and stopped when the IBC Corporation basically ran out of money. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was completed. There are probably a stack of comments. a book two or three inches thick on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Those comments are now just starting to be reviewed. because Mr. Wood has just asked his consultants to take a look at responding to the comments in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. If this Board approves this application, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be amended to provide for what effect in the overall area, if any, these two rides might have. There's another issue which people may bring to your attention or want you to give consideration to, which we don't think is germane. and that is that some people will say, well. this area used to be dedicated to an overnight campground. This hasn't been a campground since 1984. This land was acquired by The Great Escape in the early 70's. So. in effect, Charlie tried out something that he thought would work, and decided it did not work. and so the land has been held pending this kind of an attraction here. There was a plan at some point for this so called Tempest Water Park, which never got realized. It's off the table. It's not a subj ect for, at least our discussion, and not something we'll put in front of you, not something that's planned. There are no other plans that any of us here representing the applicant can tell you about tonight, other than what's before you, and the fact that there is the roller coaster sitting out there, and mayor may not be presented to this Board, depending on whether or not it can be put together in a fashion that meets the issues that we understand concern the residents of Glen Lake and other areas, and we understand them, and we will deal with them, and we will deal with them in a way that we hope will be fair and appropriate, and I've received some correspondence from Mike O'Connor. I spoke to him today, and said, I don't think this is the time to raise these issues, but they are legitimate issues concerning the wetlands and all of those other things that we will certainly address. This attraction is 1,000 feet from the wetlands, so it is nowhere near the Glen Lake Wetland. The drainage has all been provided for. It's been - 4 - "',-- --,' approved by, I understand it's been approved, and that you have a letter in the file from Rist-Frost, your Consulting Engineers. We were asked by the County Planning Board if we could provide some sort of five year plan for the buildout of The Great Escape. We submit to you, and we're not trying to be contrary or suggest that we're holding something back, it's not possible. It's simply not possible to provide any kind of long range plan of what's going to happen to the amusements within the area known as The Great Escape. Charlie goes to a show with Bobbie and Tom. They look at a ride. They think that maybe that ride will be attractive, and it's something they need, and they think about putting it in. There's a long lead time on it before you can put a ride in, and it's a year to year thing, and some years people look at some rides and think that they'll work. other years people look at other rides. So, it's really not possible to buildout some, and give you some sort of plan. If there was some plan to develop the rest of this Park thematically, we would put it in front of you. and certainly say, here's the thing for the rest of The Great Escape, here's what we'd like to do. We don't have one. It isn't there. We believe that each of these little attractions stand on their own, and they don't rely on each other, and we'd like to say to you that, in our opinion it's not a water ride, although some people will suggest that maybe that's the case. These two attractions are not thematically linked. One is a ride, and one is a wading pool for little kids, and their parents. As someone said, the parents can sit down for a change. and the little kids wade in the pool. With that, I'll entertain any questions, but before that. I would ask Jeff if he would describe the detail. MR. BREWER-I just would ask one question. children only. or for adults also? Is the slide for MR. LEMERY-The slide over the new? It's for adults also. MRS. PULVER-Just out of curiosity, John. you mentioned Story town USA twice. Is it The Great Escape or Story town USA? MR. LEMERY-Well. Story town USA is a Corporation that operates The Great Escape. The Great Escape is the Theme Park. MRS. PULVER-Okay. JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Good evening. My name is Jeff Anthony. I'm a principle with the LA Group in Saratoga Springs. and we've been retained by The Great Escape to provide the engineering services for this project. The project site is in the south corner of The Great Escape property. I think if we start with this map over here, and this map basically shows the entire developed portions of The Great Escape lands on the east side of Route 9. The parking lots for The Great Escape mostly occur on the other side, and this is the entrance area right over here. All of the other rides and amusements are in here. The Bavarian Palace is over in this location on Round Pond Road. and the project site is this rough colored area which is indicated on the map in the southeast corner of the property. It's about a 1.8 piece of land of the overall total, in the neighborhood of 250 to 270 acres of land. The part of the site that's being developed here is the location of the previously redeveloped RV campground. which no longer operates. Existing conditions on the project site have remnants of the previous campground use. like sanitary lines. RV hook ups for utilities. gravel roadways and some paved driveways, and other such things that they had when they operated the RV campground. This part of the site had, as part of the RV development, a building. which was used as the office or camp store. The swimming pool existed, and it was there when they had the RV campgrounds. and in the location where this Noah's Sprayground is located were two tennis courts. and this driveway existed as the main entrance into the campground. and there was a little kiosk facility right here. - 5 - which was used as like a gatehouse. or check in booth type thing. The previous conditions of the project site, as operated as for RV uses in this area. really had no stormwater management. All water that landed on the site just sheet flowed off of any of the impervious surfaces and percolated into the ground, not a bad idea here, because the site is extremely sandy, and you generate very li ttle stormwater runoff due to the rapid percolation. The new project that was proposed on the Noah's Sprayground half of this project. and we know it was actually built last year, apparently consists of a children's water amusement. little 18 inch deep pools. An arch type facility here. which the children can get into and slide out of into one of the pools. They can go onto the upper deck and go through a couple of tubes and land in a splash down pool. The other pools have amusements in them, or I call them water sculptures. They're either little animals or sculptures that water splashes down. I have a photograph, here, of the Noah's Sprayground as constructed. and as operated last year, and the Board can look at that if they'd like to get an idea of what this facili ty looks like. I should state that the use of Noah's Sprayground is primarily dedicated to children. While adults are not restricted from going in with their kids, for safety reasons, there are no amusements in this part of the Park which adults can actively use as a means to get wet. These tubes are not designed for adults to go through. They look a lot like these tubes for the proposed other ride, but they're obviously smaller in character. and less structurally made for handling heavier weights. The Noah's Sprayground tone of the project is very well monitored and controlled by The Great Escape's Staff. There are lifeguards in it. There is first aid available. and there are attendants who monitor the ride and monitor children's activities while they're on this facility. Like I said yesterday at the County Planning Board. this is the best place in the Park. to me, because after running around the darn place for four or five hours and getting all hot on a summer day. I like to grab a soda or a beer and sit there and watch my kids swimming in the pool. It's probably the best ride I've ever gone on there. Anyway, this is built and this is there. Some concepts about engineering for that part of the project. The new proposal has a posi ti ve stormwater management plan for it. What was constructed is some deck drains around the back side of this pool which has a pipe which connects them and moves stormwater to a location right about here, and it discharges into the drywell. recharge basin. What exists today is also a series of hidden drain inlets on the deck in this area, and they connect to a pipe which runs out, and daylights on a hillside over here, and runs off on the hillside. That pipe, or the runoff from that pipe, which is rare if ever, would interfere with the construction of this ride. As part of the engineering plans, we have taken and cut that pipe off, diverted it and put it into another detention basin, and put it back into the ground. Essentially, all the stormwater runoff from this project now is recharged back into the ground. Water falling onto pools is contained as part of the Pool Water Management Program. In the building here there's filter room. Water is recirculated and it is chlorinated and it is all managed as part of the water system for the pools. What was built here for pool water discharge and backwash is a chlorine, I call it dissipation chamber, over here. When the backwash water is discharged into this pool. it's allowed to sit for a few days. Chlorine evaporates into the air, and when it reaches an acceptable level of virtually low or no chlorine, the water is then discharged into a drywell. Similarly, what exists over on this side of the facility is an existing septic disposal system, and it is adequately sized to accommodate the fixture count in this facility. All these calculations were given to Rist-Frost. They requested them. We documented these, the water and sewage operational characteristics of the project. and they've written off on them and approved them as acceptable. This project also had to be reviewed by Health Department last year and it currently carries operating permits from the Health Department for these systems. The building was rehabed as part of this project. It was converted from an office building. camper store. into a bathhouse. and there is - 6 - "- changing rooms. and basically that's all there is. and a couple of showers, and in the basement or lower level, there was constructed the recirculation of chlorination systems for the pool. The new project or the additional ride which is being proposed is what we call a raft ride. Simply speaking. this is a picture of a completed installation similar to this one. but not identical, in that this raft ride has boat flumes coming down the left side of the boat return area or unit, and the one that we're proposing has a slide coming down either side of the raft return unit. It's a very minor deviation, but for purposes of pictorially seeing or visualizing what this facility would be. that's about it right there. I can pass this around, if you'd like to look at it closer. The raft ride is a non water contact facility. That means that people don't have to change into their swim suit to use it. It carries a whole different set of implications for Health Department review. We're not concerned about water contact and chlorination of this building for health reasons. and it most likely does not require the degree of permitting from the Health Department as do swimming pools. The system is totally contained. for the raft ride, in terms of water. There are 8,000 gallons of water that are used to say drive the rafts. The water is contained in a sump right over here, and there is a pump at the bottom of the sump which recirculates the water to the top of the ride, and the water kind of flows through the tubes and it flushes the rafts right down through the tubes. The water's only inches deep, so that it's like the rafts are riding on just a slick wet surface on either side of the tube. The beginning area, or the loading area for the ride is located right here. It's about nine feet above grade. The remainder of the ride, as you can see in the photograph that I gave you. kind of traverses down a natural hillside. This is the hillside here which goes right down hill. and the ride kind of hovers right down the hillside. The ride is supported by steel columns, and the columns have arms on them that hold the two units up in the air. roughly 10 to 15 feet above grade, all the way down the hillside. When you get to the bottom of the ride, there's the. I guess I would call it splash down area or unloading area. There's two long channels at the end of each one of the rides. and it's an area which allows the raft to slow down and the raft will actually come to a slow stop before you can get out. The bottom area's is contained with a curb, and all water is pitched to drain to the grates. which splash water is returned to the sump. and there's no spillage of water into the environment or onto the ground. The hillside will be graded smooth so that it looks nice. It will be planted with Crown Vetch. The facility will be landscaped with some trees and shrubs and other materials. There'll be a sitting area at the end. for adults waiting for kids or for anybody wanting to take a rest while they're watching a ride. Access to the ride is very difficult to design, with today's ADA requirements, American Disabilities Act. We essentially have to get people nine feet above grade here, to the loading platforms. and at the point over here. we're even lower. So what we've proposed is a ramp, a wood ramp. which is designed to be handicap accessible. It's a ramp. it's a series of ramps. flat sections. ramps. flat sections, and it can be wheelchair accessible if need be. or a person with other minor disabilities could get up it very easily. Like I said, it's constructed out of wood. and it meets all ADA requirements. Similarly. when someone gets to the bottom of the ride. we have to make provisions to return, so we have an on grade walk which starts at the bottom here and traverses up the hillside, goes under the ride, and comes back to the point at the beginning where you were waiting to load. Now the ramp is a very interesting unit, too. because it not only provides access to the beginning of the ride, but it also provides stacking or waiting for people, and it's been designed in a manner where it actually interacts with the ride. overlooks the ride. and provides a little bit of interest for people while they're waiting in line so they can look at people coming out of the tubes, splashing down or loading or whatever else. Another walk was provided to return from the bottom at this location. up to the point at the beginning. but that's a steeper ramp. and that ramp does not meet ADA - 7 - requirements, but it is not accessibly. and can be used by anyone who. it does not require stairs. So it's not that steep. This facility right here is the existing bathhouse, rest-room. existing rest-room, which was left over as part of the RV campground pro j ect. It's being allowed to remain. and it's just there. Stormwater management for this part of the project is also being looked at and proposed in a positive manner. Most water that lands on the ride or on the surface will drift to the ground and percolate into the ground. Soils are, again, very sandy. We have made provisions in the lower areas, since there's a little bit more pavement, to pick up all stormwater water in positive systems of recharge basins. and those, again, have been reviewed and approved by your engineer. The project plans that were submitted also have stormwater management controls and devices for during construction and after. Those were reviewed by your engineers, and again, the backwash systems is similar to the one designed for the Noah's Sprayground, and it meets engineer requirements as required by the Town Engineer. A water pipe for the system, there's an existing water line in the Park in about this location. We're merely tapping it to provide water to the sump, and we very seldom add water, once it's initially been charged with the 8,000 gallons to begin its operations. I guess that's about it. That's the proposal before you. I think. one thing I was asked yesterday. what's the diameter of these tubes, 56 inches, 54 inches. So they are sufficiently wide. A question was asked yesterday at the Warren County Planning Board, could anybody get stuck in these tubes? They're so wide, and you're in a little raft, and there's water flushing you through it. Even if you fell out of it, you'd get wet. but you'd get out of the ride. There's no way of a person getting stuck in this facility, and it's not really a safety hazard in any way. I guess that's it. Again, attendants at this facility, there will be attendants at the top and there will be attendants at the bottom for loading and unloading, and that's basically the proposal for this project. If you have any questions. I'd be glad to answer them. MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll go right down the Board. Ed, do you want to start? MR. LAPOINT-None. I think you've covered it all. MR. ANTHONY-Lighting. no permanent lighting, but there will be a securi ty 1 ighting, as is through the rest of the Park, in case somebody needs to access at night for a problem. MRS. TARANA-I have one question about the handicapped area. I assume you mean. by handicapped, you mean people in wheelchairs? MR. ANTHONY-No. MRS. TARANA-No wheelchairs? MR. ANTHONY-No, the handicapped people don't necessarily apply that they're wheelchair ridden. MRS. TARANA-Well, lets assume there are wheelchairs, because my question is about that. If they come up that ramp to the left. they go down through the ride, how do they get the wheelchair? MR. ANTHONY-It's a real problem. I mean, ADA compliance is very difficul ty. Ideally speaking, if somebody was handicapped and really wanted to use this, there would have to be attendants from the Park helping. You'd have to allow the person to get to the top. To use the ride, someone would have to take the wheelchair back down and you'd have to move people aside, take the wheelchair all the way back down. and give it to them, to load them back on. Family and friends could help. Park attendants may be asked to help, but it is a very difficult problem in a wheelchair. The ADA Compliance Act does not necessarily limit people in wheelchairs, limit it's application to wheelchairs. It really appl ies to - 8 - '- -- anybody, a person with a limp, a person who's older. a person who's walking with a cane. a person who's walking with a walk. somebody who's just recently been injured and maybe has a cast on or something else like that. So the ADA Compliance Act is making provisions for all these people to have equal access to facilities as a normal, healthy person, and so the ramp system is designed to make it easy for the person to get there, and also the ramp system is designed to make it easy for the person to get back. This ramp coming back is at less than a five percent grade. It doesn't even require hand rails. When it's over five percent. we have to put a handrail on it. So, we've made every provision that we can to accommodate handicapping this ride. It's a law. too, by the way. We can't avoid it. New construction requires it. MR. BREWER-How high are the ramps off the ground? You said the tubes are nine feet. MR. ANTHONY-At this point, it's nine feet off the ground. MR. BREWER-The tubes are? MR. ANTHONY-The tubes. right. MR. BREWER-How about the ramps? MR. ANTHONY-The landing platform and the ramp, at this point. are around nine feet off the ground. MR. BREWER-So there will be handrails there? MR. ANTHONY-Yes. The ramp has handrails. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ANTHONY-The surface walk does not have handrails. MR. BREWER-Anyone else? Carol? MRS. PULVER-Just on the multiplastic? rafts, are they inflatable, or MR. ANTHONY-That's a good question. Tom, what are the rafts? TOM WAGES MR. WAGES-They are inflatable. MRS. PULVER-They are inflatable. but there are no, that's a pretty smooth ride. I would assume they're not going to puncture a few small people. MR. BREWER-Roger? MR. RUEL-How much of the area is enclosed in the 10 foot chain link fence? MR. ANTHONY-What's enclosed right now are the swimming pool facilities that are required to be enclosed by Health requirements. and the fence basically runs, if I start from the building, the fence runs right through here. There's a gate here. Then we'll cross here and we'll put another gate here, so that we can allow access into this ride, and then it comes up, and it follows the paved edge of the pool deck. and then the fence comes along here. from the back, and returns to the building. and there's a gate here. The pool facilities are required to be fence by the Health Department. This facility, since it's not a swimming pool. or has any standing water in it, is not required to be fenced. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. - 9 - MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Not right at the moment. MRS. PULVER-Who monitors the chlorination in the pools. the Health Department, or just the Park itself? MR. WAGES-Both. MRS. PULVER-Both? I mean, the Health Department periodically stops and inspects to see that the pools are chlorinated. and? MR. WAGES-Absolutely. We keep records, and the Health Department comes by and checks. and also checks the water. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. ANTHONY-One other comment, the landscaping. The landscaping that's shown for the Noah's Sprayground is actually an as built of what's there. We've, drawings, what's proposed. The landscaping from here on is proposed to install with this part of the project. MR. BREWER-That brings up a question. Beautification Committee? Will that go before the MR. ANTHONY-An interesting question. I learned something the other day. The determination was made that since this is not visible from a public highway, the Beautification Committee doesn't review it. We were scheduled to go. and hours before we were to go. MR. MARTIN-The applicant desired to go before the Beautification Committee, and the Committee turned them down. MR. BREWER-They don't want to see them? MR. MARTIN-They don't want to see them. MRS. PULVER-That's a first. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got one other probably shouldn't be talking about it. there was talk about increased parking. whether there should be increased parking this is a ride inside the Park, but if attraction, how do we determine whether it it doesn't? question, and I know I but the roller coaster. How do we determine or not? I understand it's going to be an needs more parking, or MR. ANTHONY-The position that we're taking, and we prepared the Environmental Impact Statement for the roller coaster also. and I reviewed that, in preparing for this project. The position that we're taking is that Noah's Sprayground, and this ride. are not unlike other rides wi thin The Great Escape. There are over 100 rides in The Great Escape. You probably can't do all the rides in The Great Escape in one day. If you go there, you probably can't physically ride every ride in one day. People coming to the Park. the intention to come to the Park is to enter at the main gate, buy a ticket, and have access to all the rides in the Park, and I think these are similar attractions to any of the other attractions in the Park. Either one of these. in themselves, is probably not a driving factor for a person to get in their car, come here and go. MR. BREWER-I understand that. but my question is. who determines whether there is a need for increased parking? MR. ANTHONY-Noah's Sprayground operated last year. and in talking to Torn and The Great Escape Staff, they don't believe they have a need for additional parking at The Great Escape. operating at the level of activity as it is now, or as it did with the Sprayground. and this ride here certainly as one of any number of other amenities, you probably will not be able to use all these rides in - 10 - '-- --' this Park at anyone time. which is the theme here, and that this ride in itself is not so attractive as to create a demand for people to come and drive to the Park for this purpose alone. Now. on the other hand, if you reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement for the roller coaster, there's a different story. The roller coaster is a nationally recognized, or maybe even internationally recognized, piece of apparatus. It's on the 10 best list, and it certainly would, people would come to the Park because the roller coaster is here. and then maybe use the other stuff because the other stuff is there. When we wrote the Environmental Impact Statement for the roller coaster, we did say that it could possibly increase attendance at the Park by two percent, or 20 cars an hour. and in that instance, we feel that it would be a generator of new traffic, and that's the philosophy behind that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have another question. What are the hours of operation? MR. WAGES-Nine thirty until six. MR. ANTHONY-Nine thirty until six. MR. RUEL-Six. So there's no need for lighting. is there? MR. ANTHONY-No. MR. RUEL-I see you have adequate lighting in the area. MR. ANTHONY-Yes. well, like I mentioned, we will have a security light in here, and the security light's here, but there's no night lighting that is probably going to be provided. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thanks. MR. MACEWAN-Is there ever a time when the Park is considered at maximum occupancy, that no more people are allowed in the Park? MR. WAGES-We've never reached that. MR. MACEWAN-What is the maximum? MR. WAGES-Well, as I said. we've really never reached the maximum. We've never reached the maximum at the Park. and in terms of the capacity of the Park to service people, we are comfortable in the 12.000 person range. As I said. we have not reached that. Our limit really would be parking in that case, but we really have not reached that level. so that that's a concern. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anyone else? MRS. TARANA-I have questions that I'd rather ask after the public hearing. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. All right. There is a public hearing scheduled, and I believe there's probably one or two people that want to talk about it. I would ask, though, if we could keep our comments as brief as possible, because there are a lot of people here. Is there anybody that would like to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JACKLYN TOUBA MRS. TOUBA-Jacklyn Touba. I have just a basic question. I really don't understand what's being reviewed here, because from what I understand, this is already there? MR. BREWER-The Noah's Sprayground is already there. The raft ride - 11 - "...../ ----' is not there. MRS. TOUBA-So, what we're really talking about is the raft ride, and the raft ride, does that mean the roller coaster? MR. BREWER-No, no. no. MRS. TOUBA-Where is the roller coaster supposed to come into play? Because, you know. it seems like things, they're being mixed up here. and it becomes very confusing for the audience to know what we're talking about. MR. MARTIN-The roller coaster is not part of this application. The roller coaster is a separate matter that is not before the Town at this time in any active way, and the site of the roller coaster, I believe. would be to the north of this. I believe. Maybe they can show us where. MR. ANTHONY-I can clarify it for you. The roller coaster would be located in an area right about here. MRS. TOUBA-So it's .really south of there. right? Lake? Can you tell me where Glen Lake is? Where's Glen MR. ANTHONY-Up there. South is towards me. MRS. TOUBA-What kind of noise pollution are we talking about with this other ride? Has that been addressed at all? Is there any noise involved? MR. BREWER-Well. we don't know. MRS. TOUBA-Isn't there a review of that for the? MRS. PULVER-Well, according to the Staff, they don't feel that there will be any significant impact as far as noise is concerned. MRS. TOUBA-Is that something that is official? I mean. who decides that? MR. LAPOINT-Well. we do when we go through our SEQRA Review. MRS. TOUBA-You're secret review? MR. BREWER-No. SEQRA. Nothing's secret. MRS. TOUBA-And there is no possibility of chlorine leaking into the wetlands or anything like that? MR. BREWER-No. He's stated that the wetlands is 1,000 feet away. and they have provided stormwater or water management, and Rist- Frost has approved it. MRS. TOUBA-Okay. Well, that clarifies things for me. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anyone else? LAURIE GRAVES MRS. GRAVES-Laurie Graves, from Glen Lake. I have a couple of questions that would concern me. In the fall, when they close this down, where are they going to put all the water? Obviously they'd have to put it some place or else it would freeze, and one of the other comments that I would have is, last year the summer was not a normal summer. It was a very cold summer. and I don't really think the Sprayground would have been used to the capacity that it normally would have been used, had it been a hot summer, and if we have a hot summer, what kind of increased traffic is that going to create? Because I do know people that went last year specifically just to use the Sprayground. That was their only purpose in going. - 12 - and there were a couple of people that commented that they thoroughly enjoyed it, and they had hoped that it would have been a hotter summer. that they would have gone more often. The traffic, again, would be one of my concerns. Coming out of Glen Lake, there are times when the traffic is so heavy, you have to turn around in the Trading Post and back through the County Center just to get the traffic light to get out onto Route 9, and that's a problem coming out there. and I'm sure over on Round Pond, coming out on that side, it's the same problem. There are traffic lights there which stop traffic both ways on Route 9, but then you have traffic coming out of the Theme Park itself. that just gets the traffic flowing back on Route 9 again, and I would seriously hope that the Town would do something about the traffic problems that exist there, even now, before any additional amusements are added. MR. BREWER-Okay. PETER VALENTI MR. VALENTI-My name's Peter Valenti, a resident of Glen Lake, and I'm in the Glen Lake Association. One concern that, and I want to be careful, because I'm not necessarily opposed to this project. As a comment and a concern. we're currently dOing some water quality management on the lake, and I personally did some testing this fall, and found a measurable amount of chlorine. Again, I can't suggest that it is The Great Escape causing the chlorine in the water. However. there's not a great deal of pools along Glen Lake. I guess I would like to see some kind of water quality management testing done. maybe at the mouth. where the wetlands come into our lake, to verify whether or not its this project or a previous water project at The Great Escape that could possibly be causing this. MR. MACEWAN-Who did the testing for you? MR. VALENTI-I, personally. did it. MR. LAPOINT-The little pool chlorine test kit? MR. VALENTI-No, sir. I was doing some work with AGWAY. and they have an extensive testing kit. MR. LAPOINT-They have a little pool type test kit. too. right? MR. VALENTI-No, no. This was an extensive test. MR. BREWER-And where did you test? MR. VALENTI-I tested it down towards my property, which is at the window, which is on the eastern third of the lake. Again. I'm not suggesting it was The Great Escape. My concerns are that there will be chlorinated water coming into the lake. and if they provided for, that that won't happen. then I'm satisfied. MR. MACEWAN-You were doing testing in the vicinity of that window, right there on that point? MR. VALENTI-This will be an ongoing system for us on the lake. The Association wants to ensure the water quality. MR. LAPOINT-Do you recall what the concentration was? MR. VALENTI-No. I have it written down. actually. so I could bring it in. Again, by no means am I any water testing expert. MR. MACEWAN-Could you supply the Planning Department with a copy of those test results? MR. VALENTI-You bet. - 13 - --- ..-' MRS. PULVER-And did you go to The Great Escape at all and approach them with this? MR. VALENTI-No. At the time, it wasn't even in my mind of the situation. I was testing my water to see if, I was going to put in some filtration systems for the water in my home. The chlorine came up. it showed up. and I thought, why is there chlorine in Glen Lake, especially measurable amounts. MR. BREWER-That would bring a question in my mind. How much chlorinated water would have to go into Glen Lake to have you have a reading? I mean, lots of chlorine. MR. LAPOINT-Vast. We test for chlorine all the time, probably at the detectable level, half PPM, or whatever. The test is actually very inaccurate, especially the one AGWAY uses. They're very similar to the little yellow color metric test you use for your pools. If you want to do chlorine, Ion Chromatography is the way you do it, in the Department of Health lab, and that'll give you a real reading. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but how much would have to go into Glen Lake? MR. BREWER-How much would have to go into Glen Lake, the amount that's in those pools? MR. LAPOINT-Again, you could figure it out. If he had a half a PPM chlorine, it would be tons to pollute Glen Lake for that level. MR. BREWER-More so than what's in those pools right now. probably? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. VALENTI-Again, I think addressed, as opposed to. if none. fine, but lets see some to do is destroy this lake. it's a concern that ought to be there was none there, if there was monitoring. The last thing we need MR. BREWER-I understand that, and I appreciate that, but if, the amount of water that's in those pools, by the time it got to Glen Lake, the amount that you're measuring, I don't know either, but I don't think that it's fair to make The Great Escape monitor Glen Lake. MR. VALENTI-I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting they monitor what they put into the wetland area. at the mouth of Glen Lake. and verify that there is no pollutants coming into the lake. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. VALENTI-I don't think they ought to be held responsible for. MR. WAGES-The Great Escape doesn't put anything in that wetland area. There's nothing going into that wetland area. MR. VALENTI-I don't know your facilities. MR. BREWER-I'm sure if the Department of Health has looked at it, I'm sure if there were any leaks or whatever. maybe they wouldn't detect it, but. MR. VALENTI-I don't know, does the Department of Health monitor the wetland area. or the mouth there. that end of Glen Lake? MRS. PULVER-DEC might. Does DEC do it? MR. LAPOINT-The big question is, why would you? MRS. PULVER-Yes. - 14 - - ----' MR. LAPOINT-Especially for chlorine. MR. MACEWAN-Are all the water rides in the Park, the Desperado Plunge. the Raging River. are they chlorinated water rides as well? MARK CRIBEDO MR. CRIBEDO-My name's Mark Cribedo. I've got a couple of questions about that. Could you tell me the number of gallons of chlorinated water in the Raft Ride at the Great Escape? MR. ANTHONY-In this one? MR. CRIBEDO-No. the one with the round raft. I'm sorry. I don't know the name of it, the Raging River. MR. WAGES-I don't know the exact. MR. CRIBEDO-Hundreds of thousands. millions? MR. WAGES-The chlorine level is very, very low. MR. CRIBEDO-How about on the flume ride. could you tell me the number of gallons? MR. WAGES-I don't know the gallons. MR. CRIBEDO-But at least hundreds of thousands, and the diving pool, the number of gallons in that? MR. WAGES-Again. I don't know the exact gallons. MR. CRIBEDO-In the fall. from the flume ride. there is a direct line from the main pool. which is the holding tank that you go by on the right. directly down into the swamp, I be lieve, is there not? MR. ANTHONY-Yes. MR. CRIBEDO-That the water is drained to in the fall? MR. BREWER-I think we're swaying away from, we're reviewing these two pools. MR. CRIBEDO-Okay. The only thing that bothers me is the level of chlorine that's going into the swamp area. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes. I've got a question. What is your specific concern about chlorinated water that you would normally drink being discharged into a lake? MR. CRIBEDO-Does that effect the biological character of the lake? MR. LAPOINT-That's what I'm asking you. I don't believe it does. Again. the water in a pool like this is typically higher quality than the water in the wetland itself. MR. CRIBEDO-Is there any rule against discharge of chlorine into a wetland area? MR. BREWER-I don't know that. We can certainly find out. MR. CRIBEDO-One thing that I would suggest may be doing is some kind of testing at the dam that's been constructed at the end of where the swan boats turn around. because all the water that would be draining in there, or at the end of Jungle Land, where the flume ride drains out through. MR. BREWER-Again, I want to state that we're reviewing these two rides. not the whole Park, and I don't want to take any questions - 15 - '-' -' away from you. but we're reviewing these two rides. MR. CRIBEDO-I think one thing that would be good, I see that they've put a chlorinator evaporator in this, I think that's a great idea. I think maybe they should work some kind of system where the other rides, the overflow and the discharge at the end of the year would go into that, and I think that would make everyone happy. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WAGES-Mr. Brewer. can I just make one comment? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. WAGES-Just for the record, we do not discharge any water with chlorine in it. At the end of the season, we let the water sit for the number of days that it takes for any and all chlorine that's in that water to dissipate. before the water is discharged. We do not discharge water with chlorine. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Let me ask a question, too, with these pools, in the winter time, you just drain the pools down to a certain level and keep the water in and cover them, or do you drain the entire pool? I'm going to assume the chlorine is gone if you drain the entire pool, but I mean, usually it's customary with a pool, you drain down to a certain level, keep your water. MR. WAGES-Noah's Sprayground is only 18 inches, and we do drain the entire pool. but again, before the pool is drained, we ensure that the chlorine has dissipated, which really only takes a few days for that to occur. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN HAYKO MR. HAYKO-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board. My name is John Hayko. an attorney of Mancini and Hayko, in Guilderland. New York. We have represented and continue to represent Victor Thomas, who's in the audience, and James Mehalick and Mr. and Mrs. Koncikowski with regard to the original appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator on May 5, 1992, which granted the construction, or the permission to construct a 4200 square foot wading pool. or in ground amusement pool, I believe were the exact words of the building permit. I think this Board would benefit from understanding a little bit of the historical perspective. and I will try to be as brief as I can in presenting that. When this permit was issued on May 5. 1992, at that time there existed the tennis courts and the pool that you see to the left most side. which existed as part of the campground parcel, which was separately assessed, until May of 1992. and in fact was part of the campground parcel of The Great Escape, and which had been owned by separate owners throughout, IBC had owned it for several years. The pieces were not actually merged until the application for these pools were put before the Building Department. It should be understood that on the basis of that 4200 square foot permit. that what was actually constructed on the right hand side of the existing in ground pool for the campground, actually takes up nearly 12,000 square feet of space. and the pools are not wading pools. and in fact several of them are splash down pools for a 16 foot high elevation, at least that's according to the plans that were originally submitted in support of the building permit. swimming pool permit is actually what it was, technically. We first presented our appeal from the granting of the building permit at a public hearing of the Zoning Board on July 15, 1992. At that meeting. we had asked why or if a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued for the pools, as apparently they had been in use for about - 16 - -- ~ a month at that time. advertising up and down the Hudson. basically, as had been in place at that time. The Albany Times Union, certainly the local papers had used the Noah's Sprayground as a major new attraction at the Park, and a reason to come to the Park. We inquired whether one had been issued. Nobody in the audience or from the Building Department was aware, at that time. We had also determined earlier in the day. by just calling the Park. what was going on with that Johnny Appleseed building, where were people changing into their swim suits? And we had learned through that phone call that the building had been converted into a changing area, locker rooms, and later we see it was also used for the recharge tanks. We asked if a building permit had been applied for that, and no one was aware. Two weeks later, we got a copy of the building permit for the Johnny Appleseed conversion, dated July 15, 1992. The Certificate of Occupancy which came with it was dated July 16,1992, along with the CO's for the pools. Now, based upon a 4200 square foot permit for a swimming pool. suddenly we had the existing approximately 4200 square foot pool for the campground, the 12.000 feet of other pools, and a building that was converted in one day to a changing area. That was something that certainly troubled us as we were making our presentation to determine whether the applicant's contention that this was an accessory use. and thus buildable as a matter of right. was in fact correct. Our position was that as this is a new attraction and an area of the Park which had never been used before for active rides or active amusements, that this certainly was not, given its expansive nature. the fact that the entire area encircling it, which is now, in fact, I think. bordered by that chain link fence, is about an acre. and an acre is 43,000 square feet. Certainly a lot more than 4200. So our concern was, was this going out of control and where was the site plan review when it was needed, and now its built, and the Zoning Board, after being consti tuted, unfortunately we were not able to have sufficient membership on the Board to be able to make a vote until December, did decide by a four to one vote. with two abstentions, that this indeed was something that should have been subject to site plan review, as a use such as this is not customary and incidental and does require the Planning Board's input. So it should be stated that this is not just a wading pool. It is a major attraction, and it was something that the Park pushed and promoted as such, and in fact in the application materials to the Board from the applicant there is an indication that the deck areas can hold, I think, 800 people, and the slides themselves, the active amusements themselves. pools. the lower areas, can hold about 260, or I think 257 was the number. and that's more than 1.000 people that can use that ride, or be on that ride at anyone time, and certainly 1,000 people, I don't think. is a minor amount. In conjunction with this application. and in fact combined even though the applicant wants to show you that this is being proposed from the ground up, the wading pools. or the Sprayground, we really should look at these combined but separately. in that one really isn't facing this Board in the same situation as the other one is. The shovel hasn't hit the ground yet on the Raft Ride. I think it's important also to note that the Raft Ride. again, in the application materials, are not noted here this evening. it's indicated that it can have a capacity of 800 customers in the course of an hour. and when you put the two together, we're talking 1800 capacity. Certainly. that could be a major part of the patronage of the Park at anyone time, and certainly something that should raise the parking issues. traffic issues, and all the standard environmental concerns that come with something that really isn't as minor, I think, as the applicant would have you believe. Also, we should mention that the Warren County Planning Board last night, I was present. It was a very contentious three and a half hour meeting. where there was no decision made at the end because the Board members couldn't reach a consensus on whether to approve it with a condition, or disapprove it. or disapprove it as incomplete, or say that it needed environmental review in the nature of an Environmental Impact Statement. We think that's necessary. The roller coaster still remains pending before this Board, as lead environmental - 17 - "- - review agency under SEQRA. I think it's very important that the Board understand it's obligation under that environmental review. given that this is still an open and pending application regarding an attraction which is to be readily adjacent to the north of the Raft Ride that's proposed. I think Mr. Anthony also mentioned last night at the Planning Board meeting that there were ways, or there could be a new way to have walkways or ramps or some kind of access going right from where the Raft Ride is to the roller coaster, at such time as the roller coaster is designed, and I certainly will stand corrected if that's not right. I believe that's what I heard. I think the Board is being requested to segment its environmental review of this process. There are now three separate amusement attractions before this Board in one context or another, which raise many, many issues. some of which have already been raised, and some of which are going to be somewhat augmented or worsened, or made more serious, if you will, by these two additional rides. Mr. Lemery has asked that we will address the impact of these two new attractions if we are approved this evening and we go forward with the roller coaster ride. We will address the cumulative impacts of these two rides, but approve us first. I don't think that's the way that SEQRA is supposed to work. I will read from the SEQRA Regulations. Section 617. G of the SEQRA Regulations. State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations. states that prior to the filing of a findings statement, the lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to specific issues not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS, in the following circumstances: One. changes are proposed for the project which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact or. Two, newly discovered information arises about significant adverse effects which was not previously addressed. or Three, a change in circumstances arises which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect. The decision to require preparation of a Supplemental EIS, in the case of a newly discovered information, shall be based upon the following criteria: The importance and relevance of the information, its probably accuracy and the present state of the information in the EIS. If a Supplement is required, it will be subject to the full procedures of this Part. I don't think it can be denied that this will significantly impact an area of the Park which once had been used for a much lower intensity. the campground, and in fact as the roller coaster is not intended to be abandoned. or withdrawn. or in any sense not pursued at some future date, I don't think this Board can segment its review and say that we will just look at these two right now, when indeed there is an application, a review pending, for something right next door, and something right next door will in fact be integrated with these rides, at such point that it is built. So I think the plans of the applicant. with regard to the roller coaster have really got to be addressed with some more depth. here, just to see exactly what the total picture is going to be. We grant that it is impossible for the applicant to say, given an industry that can be somewhat difficult to gauge, in terms of predicting the future. I mean, nobody knows what rides are going to be hot, and what rides are not going to be successful in the future. but we do know that these three are in front of us right now, and together the three will have a lot more impact than anyone of them. and I think that has to be addressed, and I would think the Environmental Quality Review Act has a provision for that, in the form of a Supplemental EIS, or, and these two rides can be brought in the context of that EIS, to see what these three rides are going to impact by way of traffic, parking, visual, noise. The noise impacts addressed in the EIS for the roller coaster discuss ambient background noise presently existing. If these rides are approved, that ambient background noise presently existing isn't going to be the same. and vice versa if the roller coaster is done first. There's just no way of looking at this properly without looking at all three at the same time. There are 13 acres left in that area of the Park between the proposed rides and the Fen, which were formerly part of the campground, which remained open for development. In 1989. the proposal was the Tahitian Tempest Water Park. In 1991. the proposal to some extent, but not the entire extent of those 13 - 18 - '-- acres, was the roller coaster. I think given what can be done there and given what's on the table today, there has got to be a much more serious, hard look is required on the environmental laws of the State to determine what the outcome of this will be. I think it's very clear that these are thematically linked. There's no question that these are both water based rides. People are required to change their clothes. They could stay in their change of clothes using the Raft Ride, which is not really relevant, but it is very clear that the rides are very similar. and they're attractions. I have a question, and I'm not too sure if anybody's going to know this, but is there any site plan or any type of agreement between the applicant and any of the Town Fathers about the hours of operation of the Park? Is that within the applicant's determination, or has there ever been a condition put on an approval for anything? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's ever been any conditional. MR. BREWER-Do you know of any conditions? MRS. TARANA-I could address that. because I asked that same question when I was on the Warren County Planning Board. and asked if we could, in fact, have some kind of guarantee that the hour would not be extended to beyond six or six thirty, and we couldn't really get that guarantee, and also I believe the Park has been open after six o'clock for special events. MR. HAYKO-In what everybody hopes to be closing. I'm just going to provide the Board with three copies of the letter that was submitted to a Mr. LaMothe, who is an Assistant Planner for the County Planning Board. It is co-addressed to the members of this Board. and I do ask that the Board consider what is contained in there. We are trying to provide a little historical perspective. how we got here, and why this shouldn't be treated as something that is minor or something that is already built and thus. I mean. it's been there, why should we have any concern with it now. if it's already been approved by Health Department? I don't the only concerns here are whether it's handicapped accessible or whether the stormwater quality preparations are properly in place. I think there are many more impacts which have yet to be addressed, especially given that you're talking nearly 1800 people that can use these two rides. I think that, in and of itself, is a very eye opening figure. MR. LAPOINT-I've got a question for you. Didn't you say that it's very difficult to get a measurement system for what these true impacts are, so we can evaluate whether this is indeed significant adverse environmental impact? MR. HAYKO-Well, I think the problem is that these issues haven't been addressed, and to the other extent, I think the problem is, what I did say is it is difficult to say, five years down the line, what else is going to be there, but the fact is we do have three rides which are proposed, two before us and one which has not been wi thdrawn. and has been stated will be likely picked up in the future, and pursued. I think, again, segmentation. as a term of our under SEQRA. indicates that a Board of review, especially a lead agency. should not be in a position to segment its review, to look at a little bit at a time what this is going to do and what this is going to do, especially when the Board does have that opportuni ty to look at all three together. or more than one together. I think that's something that really needs to be addressed in much greater detail by the applicant. MR. BREWER-I guess I would ask our attorney if it appears that we are segmenting it? MR. DUSEK-Well, maybe this will help the Board. The section of law that's being referred to by Mr. Hayko is under 617.3 K, and I'll read this to you, because I think it's important, the way that the - 19 - "--../ Department. keeping in mind ENCON wrote these regulations, and this is what they say about segmentations. They say, actions commonly include a set of activities or steps, for example. capital projects, the activities may include planning, design, contracting. demoli tion, construction, and operations. In other words. a particular project had several phases to get through before it was completed. What's up front before you, for example, there's going to have to be, obviously one's been constructed, but there'll have to be a construction phase. There will ultimately be an operations phase. Now, in this particular case, your Board only approves up front. So you don't have two separate approvals, but if you did. For instance, if you had to approve the construction part of it and then later you had to approve the operations, what they're saying to you here is, don't split them apart. That would be segmentation. That's a clear example of segmentation. The law goes on to say. the entire set of activities or steps shall be considered the action whether the agency decision making relates to the action as a whole or only a part to it. So. in other words, I think here what they're contemplating is there may be other agencies involved. and when you're looking at it, you just can't look at it from that one perspective. especially because of the lead agency. but then there's a more important part of it as you go along. It says. considering only part or a segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQRA. Okay. Here again you have to find. first of all. whether you have segmentation between the two different sets of rides. the roller coaster and the water slide. It goes on, though, and says. and this. I think, is very important. It says, if a lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review. it must clearly state in its determination of significance and any subsequent EIS, before you reason, and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less protective of the environment. In other words, I read this to mean that even if you have a situation where there might be a case for segmentation. you can still segment. In other words, the law's not an absolute here, but I think you've got two questions. The first question is whether it in fact even involves this type of issue that is contemplated under SEQRA, and then the second issue is whether or not, even if it does, do you want to still justify treating it separately? Now. just looking at it off the top, here, it seems to me that certainly the applicant has argued that the rides are separate. That there will not be necessarily a roller coaster ride. Maybe there will and maybe there won't be. He's got an application in the hopper. Everybody knows that, and John. correct me if I misspoke. but as I understand it, it's possible that the roller coaster may never come about, and it's possible it may. MR. LEMERY-Let me just, if I can speak to this issue. for a moment. Our position is simply stated that each of these two rides stands on its own. They're not thematically linked. One is a wading pool, principally for children. Another is just another ride. a modern kind of ride, as opposed to what the kinds of rides were when Charlie opened the Park in 1954, and the Jack and Jill and all the rest of it. This is what's needed today to attract people. So. it wouldn't matter whether this ride was located here or in some other area of the Park. They are not thematically linked. The infrastructure. which is one of the things you'd look at if you were looking at. a segmentation issue, is totally different, a series of pools, a series of tubes. The infrastructure is not the same. MR. DUSEK-But, John, I think we're talking. though, a link between the roller coaster ride and the water. MR. LEMERY-But the roller coaster ride. first of all, is in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement position. and if you're going to say that the roller coaster ride somehow involves, I'm not sure I'm articulating this correctly. but if the roller coaster ride sits out there, and if we say to you, it's impossible to try to deal wi th what's going to happen next at The Great Escape. to me. segmentation involves a situation where somebody's going to open up - 20 - a real estate development in one section, and then another section the same real estate development. Here, if you were going to treat the roller coaster as being the big issue. and this is all segmentation, you couldn't do anything here, at this Park, without considering whether or not are you going to build the roller coaster. aren't you going to build the roller coaster, and I don't think that it's anybody's intention that the roller coaster becomes the driving force. Hopefully, if the roller coaster is built, it will be subject. and it will be subject to a thorough Environmental Impact Statement that's complete, and to the extent we've said. okay, we'll take a look at any kind of impacts when we do that. you have to, the whole impact on the whole Park of the roller coaster ride. because it is unique. It is different. and it is stated that it will increase, hopefully increase, some of the traffic at the Park. The idea that 1800 people are going to line up at one time is just sort of foolish and silly to think that that would be required, but we have provided, in the Environmental Assessment Form. the maximum number of people, if you stood them, lined them up on the platform. you might take 800. So, I think we're trying to deal with it in that sense. I f I could just. by way of summation. these rides stand alone. The roller coaster, Paul, is not linked to these rides. It's a separate attraction with a separate infrastructure and a separate time frame and a separate construction, and all the rest of it as you said. MR. DUSEK-I was going to suggest to the Board that if you did in fact see these as two separate entities. one that did not require the other, and if the applicant recognizes that as well. and also recognizes and agrees that, if, in fact, the roller coaster comes to pass, that he's going to have to deal with the fact that these rides are already here, subsequently to this, then I don't think you have a problem. because that roller coaster will be treated totally on its own, and you don't have to, just because you approve this. you don't have to approve the roller coaster later. but I think you can look at, if the Board chose, I think it's within your parameters to treat these separately. That's where I'm kind of leading. I read to you the parts of the regulations, though. so you can see some rationale in this. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor wants to say something. MIKE O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, if I might just address just this one issue. Okay, because I don't want to repeat everything Mr. Hayko has said on every issue. I'm Mike O'Connor. I'm appearing tonight individually. and as the Director of the Glen Lake Protective Association and as the Attorney for the Association. I agree with the comment that has been made that you cannot segment this application from the other application that is pending before this Board. If the question of the roller coaster were out in right field and there was no application pending before this Board. I would agree with what Mr. Lemery has said, but this Board has before it a pending application for a roller coaster. an application which by itself brought about the need for a Full Environmental Impact Statement, because of concerns of capacity of the Park for that ride. plus what was there already. Now they're adding two other rides to it. I don't think you can separate them. I really don't think you can. under SEQRA. You've got to look at the cumulative impact of what you have before you. I think this Board is entitled to get a direct answer from the applicant. Does he intend to put the roller coaster in, or doesn't he? Otherwise, this Board cannot make an intelligent decision. It's like me coming in for a housing development and telling you, I may build an extra 50 units. MR. LAPOINT-Well, you've come in for Phase I and Phase II of subdivisions yourself. MR. O'CONNOR-And we have to show you the total subdivision when we - 21 - -- -- do it. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and you don't even start Phase II unti I you start Phase I. MR. O'CONNOR-Your Environmental Impact. as I understand it considers the whole thing, and that's all I'm saying here. that the 'same analogy would apply. I've got a statement that's going to soften my position greatly. okay. when I get to my position, but I don't think, under SEQRA, you can do what the applicant has proposed for you to do here. MR. DUSEK-I've got to interrupt, Mike. just a moment. because I just read to the Board a clear statement of SEQRA that does indicate that the Board has some authority here to decide this issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The Board has the obligation to apply what you have read to them to the facts before them, and my interpretation of that, and maybe your interpretation of it may be a li ttle different. but my interpretation of it is that you cannot ignore a pending application. and that's pending before this Board. MRS. PULVER-Well. I think what we've got here. then, is two different interpretations. We have our Town Attorney's interpretation, and then your interpretation of what we should do as a Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the Town Attorney has said that you can make your own decision. He hasn't given you an interpretation contrary to me. He also hasn't agreed with me, and seldom does. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think not agreeing with you. he gave an interpretation by not agreeing. MR. O'CONNOR-I just wanted to address that one issue. I also have a problem, has this Board made a classification of this project as a Type I project or as a Type II. and if it is a Type I. who is lead agency, and have you given notice to other involved agencies? MRS. PULVER-Planning Department type. MRS. TARANA-It was left blank on our sheet. MRS. PULVER-Unlisted. MR. BREWER-Unlisted. MRS. TARANA-Then why did they send in an EAF? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I would argue that. MR. BREWER-That was my question tonight. MR. DUSEK-You can always use a Long EAF Form. MR. MARTIN-You can always use a Long Form. MR. LEMERY-We provided you with a Long Form so that there would be no question that you have a Long Form included with the. involved the stormwater management, all those kinds of things, in the site plan review process which you'd want to look at. We are not under obligation to provide one. MR. BREWER-Right. We can do a Short Form, but this is better. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask you. and I will ask you. as part of my presentation. ask you to look at 617.12(3) where it gives you one of the thresholds for Class I projects. and also subsection 12. where it talks about any unlisted action which takes place wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any Critically - 22 - - --' Environmental Area designated by a local or State agency pursuant to Section 617.48 of this part. MR. MARTIN-We considered that specific Section exactly. and in my view this is still an unlisted action, as it is not contiguous to it. It's a matter of interpretation. That Section was considered specifically. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. I think if you go back and you look at the environmental review that was done in 1989. that is the Section which brought this in to a Class I project. Also, that was for the waterslide proposal. and then secondly when they came back for the roller coaster. and I'll speak directly to that, in the sense that if by chance any of this application requires just the need for overflow parking on one day, you're talking about parking within 50 feet of a wetland. Now. I'm not talking about just where they're constructing the ride. I'm talking about the cumulative impact on the total site. and if you take a look at the map up here, that was at the County, you will see where they talk about putting their overflow parking. MR. BREWER-This was talked about last year when we talked about the roller coaster. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, this is a different map then they had last night before the. MR. ANTHONY-It's the identical map that was there yesterday. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Do you have the small map? MR. ANTHONY-No. That was an erroneous map that was used as part of the Tahitian Tempest Waterslide plan. MR. O'CONNOR-They talk about their overflow parking right in this area. That's immediately adjacent to the flagged wetland. It's almost right to the edge of the flagged wetlands. MR. BREWER-And I don't recall exactly, but I think we discussed that when they talked about the roller coaster. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly, and we would come up with. as part of our motion, that there would be no overflow parking within 50 feet of a wetland, and take care of that. I mean, what actual quality issues do you attorneys have we can put down? Traffic and parking. MRS. PULVER-I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you. First of all, I seem to have the impression that on Noah's Sprayground, here, that you consider it an adult ride. rather than a childrens? I mean, you talk of it as a ride rather than an amusement. and I consider that little, I'm considering that area as kind of an amusement, or an attraction, not a ride. The pool's only 18 inches. I don't hardly see myself doing dives. MR. LEMERY-Well, I don't think it's restricted to children. Although it's. MRS. PULVER-Well, no, if I have a child, I'm going to be probably wading, too. and then what is 16 feet high that they're going to be jumping off? MR. LEMERY-Not jumping. The top of the platform, I can show you the plans that were originally submitted, and approved as part of the building permit application. They're right here. It shows the elevation. MRS. PULVER-Well, is it part of this plan right now, this 16? MR. LEMERY-Well, it's already built, so it must be. - 23 - "--/ .- MRS. PULVER-Well, I was up there, and I didn't see any platform, or at least I don't recall a 16 foot high platform that people were going to be diving off of. MR. LAPOINT-What difference does it make? MR. BREWER-It doesn't. MRS. PULVER-That was my only question. diving there. I can't see where there's MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor, please briefly. MR. 0' CONNOR-Mr. LaPoint asked for my bottom line. I think my bottom line, on behalf of the Glen Lake Association, would be that there be a condition of this approval or any other approval for any further expansion at The Great Escape, that no parking of any nature would be allowed within 100 feet of the designated wetland. No additional improvements would be allowed within the 100 foot buffer of the wetland, where the road presently encroaches, same will remain as it and will not be paved in any manner. Parking below and to the east of Route 9 would be limited to overflow parking, and will be limited to the area closest to the bank, between the service entrance road from Route 9 to the underpass to the train attraction. There is no parking north of the service road and along the bank of the wetland. Prior to the use of the two attractions for which permission is sought tonight, the engineering safeguards against erosion for the mining permit should be installed. If the mining permit has been abandoned, it should be abandoned officially and reclamation of the land should be done. That. basically, is the bottom line on what we see for these two rides. I don't think they are minor rides. I do agree with what they've submitted, as far as numbers. If you're talking 1500 to 1800 people, and you use the statistics that they gave us before, that the average arrival at their park is three people per car, you're talking about 500 cars. I think. cumulatively. that may have an effect upon parking, and that's been our concern from Day One. This is zoned for this type facility. It is zoned for an outdoor type facility like this, and all we're saying is stay back from a protected wetland which is the headwaters of Glen Lake. MR. BREWER-This is 1,000 feet away from the wetlands. isn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-This is itself, the rides as proposed. except that these rides as proposed, if they increase the attendance. will require additional parking, which parking is immediately adjacent to the wetlands. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-All we're talking about is the cumulative effect of parking. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. correctly? Those were five conditions. Did I get that MR. O'CONNOR-Four, actually. MR. LAPOINT-Four. That was no parking north of the paved area, I just want to make sure that I've got them in writing. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand the layout. what I'm talking about is that this is called the service road. It's the existing gravel road. the most northerly entrance to the Park facilities along Route 9. They had talked about being grandfathered to have some parking in that area, and I'm talking about parking from here to here, whatever that is is fine. on the west side of the service road, on the east side of Route 9, but I've seen plans with 190 parking spots down there for the roller coaster that are right on those wetlands, right on the edge of the wetlands. This is the - 24 - -- area for which they obtain the mining permit. mining permit was by Town Board approval and by plan approval. With that mining permit. they engineering. as to filtration. of sediment and bank. and I think the this Board's site had all kinds of erosion from the MR. LEMERY-Excuse me. Tim. We're going on a frolicking detour here, MR. BREWER-We are. MR. LEMERY-And this is not acceptable to the applicant. These conditions have nothing to do with these two rides. 1,000 feet from the wetlands. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to jump in, because, again, we're getting to some points. finally, in this whole discussion. MR. LEMERY-But you're getting into areas that involve this Park, in terms of something beyond what's here. It's not acceptable to the applicant. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the Board's entitled to condition the approval as to impacts that it might see. MR. LEMERY-Attendance is 15 percent below what it was the last two years. so we've got a long way to go before this parking issue, here, with The Great Escape. MR. BREWER-Lets just hear him out, and get to his points, and we'll go through it, and if we decide that's what we want. then that's our decision, not Mr. O'Connor's or anybody else's. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, our position is that this is beyond what was the footprint of the Park. You're not talking about replacing the existing rides. There aren't rides going out. If you look at the second page of my comments. I make a couple of addi tional comments, simply so everyone will know where the Association stands, that if they do come back for further expansion. like the roller coaster, we will ask them to address the direct infiltration of the parking lots on the west side of the highway. as a reasonable condition. Every time it rains, those parking lots simply flush right into the stream that is the main tributary to Glen Lake. Nothing has ever been done. A couple o! years ago when Americade wanted to set their tents up they paved it. They made the circumstances worse. I've been through applications before this Board on a lake. on Glen Lake. where somebody wanted to put an addition on to a restaurant, and we went through. and I think it was reasonable. a complete capturing of all the direct sheet water so that there would not be any pollution of the lake, as part of the approval process of that application. I'm saying that up front, I know I'll probably be back, and that's our concern. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing which I disagree with, and I guess this is just a statement. As I understand it from the applicant, the applicant tells us that he is required to come for site plan review each and every time he changes a ride within the. MR. LEMERY-We didn't say that. that I know of. We didn't say that here tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. that might have been what was said before the County Planning Board last night. I simply disagree with that. I think if they're changing rides, there ought to be some way or other that that's not required, so we don't get involved in all this business that they're changing one ride, unless it's a theme type ride. okay, we're going to do a new Ghost Town, or something of that nature, then I think they should come back, even if it's in - 25 - 'V' -- the original footprint, but I'm not here to say that every ride, like they change their gasoline driven cars and electric cars. requires site plan review. That's the substance of it. I think I can nit pick the application to death. I can go back, I can make comparisons. MR. BREWER-Lets not, though, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It might be of interest. okay, for the Board to look at the positive declaration that was made in 1989, with regard to The Great Escape Water Park. MR. BREWER-But that's not the issue, okay. MR. LEMERY-The Great Escape Water Park is not even. this is just ridiculous. MR. BREWER-Okay, Mr. Lemery. I agree with you. MR. O'CONNOR-As part of my public comments. I think that this is a back door to the same project. That project had, like, six acres. This has got 1.8 acres in it. It has lesser facilities. lesser rides, but it's more of the same, it may be coming in degrees. and I think that we ought to face it as we come along to it. I also am a little bit surprise. if I have to get into the merits of the application, that there really is no dissertation as to noise. As I understand it, one of the grounds for requiring the EIS on the roller coaster was that the rides were going to be within 150 feet of the adjoining residential property. I don't think these rides are much further from that. and still have not seen any dissertation as to what the ambient noise level is going to be off these rides as compared to what's there. I have a problem with the DEIS that's presently pending. because they use the existing background. Is this now going to be part of the background to make the background louder, to make the increased noise off of the roller coaster less of a difference? I don't think you can avoid making some type of comparison when you get into cumulative impacts, because you're adding to what is already there. I also have a question as to, again, lead agency status. MR. BREWER-It's an unlisted action, and we are the lead agency. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Even if you are the lead agency, why you have not given notice under the coordinated review process, because as I understand from the applicant. the Health Department had to approve this project. That falls within the qualification. as I understand it. of an agency that has the right to make a determination in regard to the project. MR. DUSEK-Well, I can answer that. If it's an unlisted action, if that's the Board's final determination, it's not necessary to coordinate in any event. The only time it's absolutely necessary under SEQRA to coordinate. is if you have a Type I Action. MR. O'CONNOR-I still go back to my argument that I believe that it is a Type I Action. and it may have a cumulative impact directly abutting and adjacent to the wetland, as far as parking. I don't know how you avoid that issue. They admit, in 1992. they had overflow parking in that area twice. If you add a couple of more rides to it, you increase your percentage of attendance by one percent or tw~ percent, you increase the need for overflow parking one day, five days. MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll take that into consideration. MRS. PULVER-Possible to end some of this. maybe the Board. we could just poll ourselves and determine whether or not you consider this a Type I or Type II or unlisted right now. and that will settle a lot of arguments. - 26 - - -- MR. LAPOINT-Unlisted. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I guess I agree with the Staff as unlisted. MRS. TARANA-I'd like to know what the criteria was for selecting it as an unlisted. MR. BREWER-Can you tell that. Jim, what the criteria was for selecting it as unlisted? MR. MARTIN-It's just simply, unlisted means it's not listed on the Type I list or on the Type II list. So therefore it's termed as unlisted. Just to give you an idea, some of the types of actions that qualify as Type I, in terms of, like, construction of new residential units which meet or exceed the following thresholds: Ten units in municipalities which have not adopted zoning, 50 units not to be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems. in a city or town or village having a population less than 150,000, 250 units to be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems. but these are just examples of Type I Actions, activities other than the construction of residential facilities, a project or action which involves a physical alteration of more than 10 acres. a project or action which uses ground or surface water in excess of two million gallons per day, parking for 1,000 vehicles. So those are the types of things that constitute Type I Actions. and what Mike was referring to. any pro j ect or, let's see, any unlisted action which takes place wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any Critical Environmental Area designated by a local or State agency, and the Glen Lake Critical Environmental Area. essentially, is around the wetland area, and that's what he's making reference to, but I just didn't see, given other comparisons of non-residential Type I Actions, where this was of that magnitude that it would warrant designation as a Type I Action, and I didn't see this as contiguous to the wetland, being 1,000 feet away. MR. BREWER-Okay. Ed? MR. LAPOINT-I still, unlisted. MR. BREWER-Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Just give me a minute. MR. BREWER-I'll say unlisted. Carol? MRS. PULVER-Unlisted. MR. BREWER-Roger? MR. RUEL-Unlisted. MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I think it's a Type I. MRS. TARANA-I'll say it's Type II. I'd like to know why it's not considered an amusement center? MR. MARTIN-No, no. site plan review. Those are the uses that are referring to the MRS. TARANA-I know where I got That's why I'm looking at that. RC-15. that. This was on our notes. It says. reference Section 179-D MR. LAPOINT-But we're speaking about SEQRA. You're into the Town Zoning Reg's which has a different definition for Type I and Type II. - 27 - '- -- MR. MARTIN-That's why it's here at site plan. MRS. TARANA-I see. Okay. I'm sorry. MRS. PULVER-So it's four, two. MR. BREWER-Four, two unlisted. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no other comments. I think we've touched upon what we wanted to touch upon. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, and I didn't introduce, I should have, this is John Brown who is President of the Association. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? MR. LEMERY-If I could just put everything into perspective, The Great Escape is open 105 days of the year. It's closed 260 days of the year. It's been in existence since 1954. It predates a lot of the activity around there. If at a point where the roller coaster is before this Board, you can be assured by the applicant that every single comment that came in as a result of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is going to be reviewed. It's a new owner now, since it was here before. I've tried to give Mr. 0' Connor assurances that all these issues that he's raised are going to be addressed and dealt with and hopefully mitigated to the satisfaction of the people who have an interest in, A, seeing the Park developed, and B, protecting the environment. I want to make one final comment, and that is that the land that involves The Great Escape was assembled over the years through the 1970' s. There's nothing new here. The attorney who represents the Koncikowski's suggests that what we propose is a tougher use than the campground. I submit to you that if we were here tonight saying, Charlie Wood wants to open a campground at The Great Escape, most of the people in the room would say that's a much heavier use, 24 hours a day, people, campers parked, all kinds of use. than what is proposed here. and the campground hasn't been around since 1984. So we hope that you'll consider these things and a reasonable approach to it. We are sensitive to what needs to be done there. but at 'the same time, The Great Escape needs to try to deal with the regrowing, and if we can't get approval, here, for this new ride, it won't come in and we won't see attendance where we need to see it in order to preserve and protect what we believe to be a major asset to the community. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you, and with that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Should we ask questions, if we have any, before we do SEQRA? MR. LAPOINT-I have none, well, yes, I do, because I do think parking within the wetland could potentially be related to this, and I know that when we get to the roller coaster, we're certainly going to have conditions on parking within 50 feet, which you can't do anyway, with that wetland, and possibly extending that to something that's a little more conservative, like maybe 100 feet. To me. these are the real environmental issues related to this project, and all the rest of this is just smoke. When we get through that, again. because the only possibility is that you'd be parking this with the increased parking along that overflow stretch. Again, that may be something I would need for conditional approval, and I think it's the only real issue we've had over the past two hours to really talk about here. MR. BREWER-But is parking allowed there at present? - 28 - '-- -- MR. LAPOINT-Well. not within 50 feet of the wetland now. MR. BREWER-So. if we put that in there is a condition, it's not allowed there anyway. So why should we condition it? MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, what I just said is. MRS. TARANA-Then it's not an unlisted action. If you're that part of this project is contiguous to the wetland that's where they're using overflow parking. then description of an unlisted action is not right. saying because you're MR. MARTIN-To me, the action is defined as the construction of this ride. MR. BREWER-That's right. I disagree with that, Corinne, because if parking is not allowed there now. MRS. TARANA-This is part of the action. action. Parking is part of the MR. BREWER-But if it's not allowed there now, how does this have any effect on it? They do. but if it's not allowed. then they're in violation of some rule. MRS. PULVER-Then it's an enforcement. MR. BREWER-We don't have any authority to enforce that, do we? MRS. PULVER-That's Dave Hatin's. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think that what Ed is suggesting to you. and Mr. O'Connor is suggesting in his letter, is that you could make that a condition of your approval. MR. LAPOINT-And what I'm getting at is that it's certainly going to be a condition when I consider parking and what goes on with this roller coaster, and it's a marginal issue now, and to me, if we can get through with some type of compromise, which is really the art we're practicing, here, there may be a condition. Again, this could increase parking some marginal amount. and if it's reasonable to stipulate their 50 feet. which they can't do. and say 100 feet. which would further re inforce that and be a more conservative condi tion on our part, I think that's reasonable to address, I think the one key issue that this thing revolves around. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not sure where you're thinking of 50 feet? The buffer area is 100 feet. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If the rule is 100 feet, then it's 100 feet. MR. BREWER-Then that's what it is. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. but it has never been put into a condition for approval, they claim that they have some grandfathered rights. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that's what I'm talking about here. taking those away. MR. O'CONNOR-That's all I'm talking about. MR. LAPOINT-I'm talking about taking those away now. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And I'm certainly going to be considering that, and I'll repeat myself. for the roller coaster. My only question here is whether I want to consider it as part of this action here and do it before then. Now, that's the issue. - 29 - '- '- MR. BREWER-Okay. questions at all? Is there anybody else on the Board who has any MR. MACEWAN-I guess I have a concern. The raft portion of the attraction is considered an attraction, but they're also talking about this being a ride, which is capable of handling another a00 people per hour. and if that's the case. and it can handle another 800 people per hour, you're now bringing in an additional parking problem. which directly goes to what goes on across the street. Using real raw numbers, you're probably, at a minimum, looking at. and possibly another two to three hundred cars in there. just for that one attraction. MR. BREWER-In my mind, it doesn't necessarily mean that because it can handle 800 people an hour that it's going to draw another 800 people an hour. If the Park has 4,000 people there on a day, 800 of those people that are there can go through that ride in an hour. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to bring another 800, because if it did, they'd have six or eight or ten of them there. I mean, realistically. I understand that it may bring some more people, but I don't, in my mind, think that it's going to bring another 800 people there a day, an hour. It can handle a00 an hour. It's possible. Sure it is, but the other rides can do the same thing. MRS. PULVER-People will not specifically come for Noah's Sprayground. They're going to come for the other attractions. and maybe Noah's Sprayground is going to get some of the overload. MR. RUEL-It definitely will increase the traffic. because these people would not be spending that kind of money for a couple of attractions like that, unless they knew that it was going to increase the attendance. MRS. PULVER-Well, it will keep the people there longer. That's one thing that it will do. I don't know if it will increase or not. but with amusement parks. MR. RUEL-Well. there's no advantage to them to have them stay longer. MRS. PULVER-There is. They eat, they drink, they play, they buy souvenirs. I mean. that's one of the advantages to staying longer, but also it can accommodate 800 people. I think of my son and daughter who are older, who would go, who would probably go through that ride two or three times if there wasn't a line, and they would be counted several times as they're going through, but it's actually one person going through two or three times, because there's no limit as to how many times you can ride these rides. I've gone and taken the Desperado Plunge like five times in a day. If the crowd wasn't that bad, you just keep going through the ride. MR. BREWER-Okay. Ed, are you ready? MR. LAPOINT-I'm ready. MR. RUEL-Which one is he reading? MR. LAPOINT-The Long Form. MRS. TARANA-I want to make a comment before he reads that. I feel that this is segmenting this SEQRA. I think that we have to look at the cumulative effect of everyone of these projects, because you can't pick out how much traffic is generated by each of the individual rides. You've got to look at the whole project, and when I say project, I'm talking about the whole Great Escape, and I think to pullout one ride, one attraction, one roller coaster, and if the roller coaster isn't a go, something else is going to go in there. You can be sure they're not going to use that space for green space, and I think that on that basis, well, let me just say - 30 - -- one other thing. I think there are some other things involved that we have to look at before we look at the SEQRA. I think we have to be concerned about the evening hours. If they're putting in more adul t amusements, you're going to have the Park open, I would guess. later than six 0' clock, because adults don't want to go during the day. They want to go at night. There's already been a trend for the Park to be open at night on special occasions. I think that's something we have to consider. I think the pedestrian traffic on Route 9 has been an issue before. At the Warren County level we tried to get it addressed, nothing's been done about it, nothing that I can see has been done about it. It's still a traffic hazard, pedestrian traffic hazard. The parking along the wetlands, I see that as a problem. I think that that would continue to be a problem, and I think that that has to be looked at in a cumulative way. Another thing that I feel that we should have a plan from The Great Escape. It doesn't have to be specific exactly. but we should have a plan for their buildout of the last 13 acres, because that, as well, is going to have a big cumulative effect. and I think we're flying blind by not knowing what's going on in the other 13 acres. I, personally, will not approve the SEQRA. I won't vote for it based on the fact, right from the beginning, where I feel that we're segmenting the SEQRA by separating out the two projects. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anybody else? MR. MACEWAN-I agree with her. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets go through it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Impact On Water Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?" No. MRS. TARANA-What about the wetlands? MR. LAPOINT-I want to hear the explanation of how this is going to impact the wetland. MRS. TARANA-If they park along the wetland. MRS. PULVER-No. When they're referring to this on the water. then you go down the list underneath water, like, examples. developable area of site contains a protected water body? No, it doesn't. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from the channel of a protected stream? MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER-Extension of utility, distribution facilities, through a protected water body? MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER-Construction in a designated freshwater or title wetland? MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER-Other impacts. MR. RUEL-It could be other. MRS. PULVER-Well, name. MR. MACEWAN-Why not parking within a wetland area? That's an other impact. MR. BREWER-Isn't there a 100 foot buffer provided? MRS. PULVER-Yes, by DEC. - 31 - '.-' MR. BREWER-By DEC that says they can't. in violation. and that's up to DEC, or that. is it not, Paul? If they do, then they're someone else to enforce MR. DUSEK-Well, certainly DEC Regulations can be enforced by DEC. There's no question about that, and whether you want to make that as an additional comment on your own, so that the Town can. you know, the Town can't enforce DEC Regulations. but the Town can enforce its own regulations or its own conditions that it attaches to plans. MRS. PULVER-Well, I would be more inclined to have anyone that objects call, rather than we. as a Board, get involved with DEC. that they should call DEC themselves and complain. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. MRS. PULVER-I mean. we can't take on another agency's problems. MR. DUSEK-Before you leave the water. Mike just whispered in my ear, here, and he may have a point that I didn't realize. He said that DEC Regulations prohibit construction within 100 feet, which I recognize that. but he mentioned that the DEC Regulations may not necessarily prohibit parking within 100 feet. So therefore maybe DEC Regulations can't stop this problem. Now I don't know the answer on that, personally. I'd have to check the Regulations and find out, but I just thought I should mention that to the Board. because I'm unsure of that issue. MR. LAPOINT-All right. Well. we're going to deal with that when we get to our motion on the subject. MR. RUEL-A condition? MR. LAPOINT-As a condition. correct. MR. RUEL-Stormwater management plan? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. The stormwater effect of any surface water runoff. on Transportation Will there transportation systems?" management plan mitigates the So. the answer is no. "Impact be an effect to existing MR. MACEWAN-I would say yes. MR. BREWER-How is that going to effect the existing transportation? MR. MACEWAN-You could potentially have a lot more traffic going through there. I'm just bringing it up to put it on the record. MRS. PULVER-But you have to pinpoint. MR. LAPOINT-All right. No. MR. BREWER-No. MRS. PULVER-No. "19. Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. LAPOINT-Again, I haven't heard any specific environmental impact, adverse. MRS. PULVER-Anything significant on this form. So I would say no. This Environmental Impact Statement has not brought any. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if they are, what are they specifically? write them down again. I'll MRS. PULVER-Yes. - 32 - '- --./ MRS. TARANA-Parking along the wetlands. MR. LAPOINT-Parking along the wetlands. That's key, and again, this is something we're going to consider when we get to our motion. Okay. MR. MARTIN-What was the answer to 19? MR. LAPOINT-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. She said if there's something to do with the wetlands, then it's yes. If there's public controversy about it, then it has to be yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, I believe what they're asking is, is there public controversy related to the potential adverse environmental impacts. meaning on this statement. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets all say yes, and we'll clear it. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE GREAT ESCAPE. the proposal is for two additional a.useaent park attractions. Noah's Sprayground and the Raft Ride, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The New York State Department of Health and review with the Warren County Planning Board 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of March. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer - 33 - '--" --- NOES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? MR. LAPOINT-Well, we've got to talk about that. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think, regardless of what the applicant thinks, in terms of whether all these things are related, I think we can do something about the parking along that wetland and our motion is a conditional thing. They can not accept. if we approve. they can not accept our condition, and not do the project, and try to come back before us. I think that would be the result. if we put some type of stipulation on there that they couldn't live with. Now in terms of parking along that 100 foot, I think you should limit it specifically to overflow parking, and that he, I've been to the Park several times. and they do use those back areas. probably within 100 feet of that wetlands, for their utility trucks. maintenance activities. that type of thing. That should be something that's allowable. If they have a bad leaking truck that's a reportable spill to the State that they have to take care of, and they are directly responsible for. Whereas, if we were to allow them to park overflow parking within that 100 foot buffer. there could be significant environmental impact from runoff and that type of thing. To me, we're here to try to get the best compromise we can, in the best interest of the community, to protect Glen Lake, and to allow these people to continue along with their business, and some type of reasonable compromise like that is the way I think we should go. MRS. PULVER-So you're saying nothing within 100 foot, except maybe emergency vehicles or maintenance vehicles, for parking? MR. LAPOINT-That's what I'm throwing out as my initial. would do is exclude overflow parking wi thin 100 feet wetland. What I of the MRS. PULVER-And just that area would be designated overflow parking only? MR. LAPOINT-I would say that would be excluded from overflow parking. MRS. PULVER-No. One hundred feet would be excluded. MR. LAPOINT-Excluded, correct. MRS. PULVER-But there could be some other parking. There is more than 100. so there could be some parking. MR. LAPOINT-There could be some overflow parking down there. MRS. PULVER-Okay. overflow. Well, that's what I'm saying is it's only MR. BREWER-We'd have to have some kind of a marker for that 100 feet. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that's up to the applicant to meet those condi tions. and we'll make sure our motion tells our BUilding Inspector to make sure that happens. Now, again, and just a point of discussion, this is certainly going to be considered appropriate. more so with a roller coaster than a smaller type attraction. which I don't think will generate a need for this. So we're going to have to deal with this some time, either now, or with the next application. - 34 - - ..- MR. MARTIN-Has that wetland boundary ever been flagged by DEC? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It's on the map. MR. MARTIN-Those markings are still present at the site today. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a survey map. I'm sure the applicant has a survey map of it. MR. LAPOINT-It has to be in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It's got to be in there. MR. O'CONNOR-It's been flagged, and I think it was part of the DEIS on the roller coaster. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So I guess that we can deal with it here. We can deal with it later. MR. BREWER-Lets do it now. MR. LAPOINT-And again, I'm trying to come up with a compromise that's the best thing to put together a consensus. , MR. MARTIN-Just as a point of information, and Carol will recall I think. I think this is the type of thing we were driving at before, as we were going through the DEIS, and then it was derailed. MR. BREWER-I remember conversation of talking about that. MRS. PULVER-I distinctly remember it being a concern that they have to address when they come. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Again, I listened to nearly two hours worth of debate, and that's the only thing I can boil down as to even a remotely impacting type environmental thing, after two hours of argument, and again, it just wasn't there. I tried to write down what all the attorneys said. and there was just no substance. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with the 100 foot, keep Tom Yarmowich's note in there about the eight drywell should be indicated on the construction anybody else have anything else they want to add? talk about the hours of operation? but we want to foot depth of plans. Does You wanted to MR. LAPOINT-Not in my motion. MRS. PULVER-Me neither. MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. We can do that when it comes to the roller coaster or whatever. MR. LAPOINT-If it would help change your vote, we could talk about it. MRS. PULVER-We've already discussed that when we went through that with the roller coaster. We can't command to them when they can and can't be open. MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. MRS. TARANA-I think that's an impact on the neighborhood, when there's noise. MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed, would you care to make a motion? - 35 - "- -../ MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-93 THE GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: The proposal is for two additional amusement park attractions - Noah's Sprayground and the Raft Ride, with the following conditions: One, that the applicant meet the requirements specified by the Rist-Frost letter dated 12 March 1993. with respect to indicating the eight foot drywell depth on the construction plans, and. Two. that the applicant prevents overflow parking from customers within 100 feet of the boundaries of the wetland, so that one parks there. as designated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and that to make sure that this is implemented, so that no one parks there, they mark and layout that 100 foot boundary, where it is, so that we can know from an enforcement point of view, that they're not parking within 100 feet of that wetland. That marking is to occur prior to opening day, 1993, that the parking exclusion within 100 feet of the wetlands applies to the applicant's vehicles. Duly adopted this 16th day of March. 1993, by the following vote: MRS. PULVER-You might want to add, too, that emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles for the Park would be allowed to cross that 100 foot. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Emergency vehicles, park utility and maintenance vehicles. would be allowed access to the area within 100 feet of the wetlands. MRS. PULVER-No, within 50 feet. MR. BREWER-Only on that access road. couldn't they? MR. LAPOINT-Only on the access road. MR. BREWER-Not within the 100 feet, just on that access road. MR. 0' CONNOR-You're not understanding how they operate. There presently a fence at the end of the service road, and it's behind that fence that they keep their maintenance and storage area. That's not open to the public, and they do park right up to the wetland on that. MR. LEMERY-Why is it that Mr. O'Connor is speaking to what happens at The Great Escape? I object to that and ask that you deliberate as a Board, and forget hearing from everybody in the audience. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets go back and rethink the part about the applicant's vehicles. We're clear on the overflow parking will not be allowed within the 100 feet. MR. BREWER-I think I understand where he's talking about, now. If you were to look. you know where the bridge that goes over for the train? I don't even know where it is on the map. There's a fence right here, I believe. that goes up. He's talking about right here. and I think you're talking about over here. There's a fence here that goes up, the maintenance building is up in here, and I think what Mr. O'Connor's talking about is this area right in here. MR. LAPOINT-All right. resolution. Well, help me out with this part of the MR. BREWER-I think we should say that they can't have any parking wi thin 100 feet of the wetlands, period. I mean, unless, if a vehicle breaks down and they can't, naturally they can't take it out of there immediately. but I wouldn't think that we should let them park within 100 feet of the wetlands. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Period. - 36 - '---' ..- MR. BREWER-Period. MR. RUEL-Agreed. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to strike all the parts about the applicant being able to encroach on that 100 feet. and include, in Item Number Two, that the parking exclusion within 100 feet of the wetland applies to the applicant's vehicles. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. DUSEK-Can I just make one suggestion? I believe earlier in your resolution you made some sort of statement that the applicant prevent parking. I think that what the Board is trying to accomplish is to dictate a rule that no one shall park, and the applicant shall undertake such steps as may be necessary to make sure that no one parks in that area. Am I correct? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Absolutely. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe :3-- \lJA3 OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM OWNER ~AUL KNOX. III REQUEST FOR A SECOND 90 DAY EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SANDY ALLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. ALLEN-Hi. My name is Sandy Allen. I'm with the Law firm. Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, and I'm here tonight on behalf of Mr. Knox. We got conditional approval for this subdivision in June of '92. One of the conditions that continues to be a problem is that we need to get approval from the Department of Health in reference to water. I came back in December of ' 92 and asked for an additional 90 day extension because we had been having problem with the Department of Health. They don't tend to move to move very quickly and now we're in the process of drilling wells. So we need another 90 day extension in order to guarantee we'll have the Department of Health approval. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is it my understanding that all they're allowed is two 90 day extensions? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-And you're assured, Sandy, the next 90 days you're going to be able to get this problem solved? MS. ALLEN-We're certainly hoping so. We've been moving forward, finally, and like I said, the problem right now is they've attempted to drill wells on all the lots. and it's winter time, and there's a lot of snow. MR. BREWER-What happens if you don't get approval in the 90 days, you start allover again? MS. ALLEN-You're regulations, I believe that's what we would have to do. I can guarantee you the LA Group is running around like crazy making every effort to get it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any problems with this? MR. RUEL-No. - 37 - ~ MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-Does someone care to make a motion? MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION .TO SUBDIVISIONtlO._ 11-1991_. SUNSET HILL FARM. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For an additional 90 days, which would bring it up to June 16th, 1993. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. MARTIN-Yes. Again, just as a point of recommendation, I've found that these things. it's awful hard for us to keep dates when they fall in the middle of the month like that. If you make it at the end of a month, it allows you to have two meeting dates to consider it, if need be, again. MR. BREWER-Doesn't that exceed the 90 days? MR. MARTIN-That's the only problem. MS. ALLEN-We don't have any problem with June 16th. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. LAPOINT-They have to keep track of the date, not us. MRS. PULVER-Well, Jim, when they come in, like we'll say. they have to keep track of the date, they come in and they want to do something. doesn't a little flag come up on the computer or something if it's past June 16th? Anything they want to do, doesn't this approval show up instantly? MR. MARTIN-We try and keep track of them as best we can, but it's not to the point where it's computerized yet. We're working to that end, but it's not to that point yet. MRS. PULVER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-81 CEDAR COURT MAP AMENDMENT A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION FOR A CHANGE FROM FOOTPRINT ONLY LOTS AND HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND TO ALLOW LAND OWNERSHIP BY THE INDIVIDUAL. LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT PRESENT MIKE O'CONNOR. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-87, Cedar Court, Meeting Date: March 16, 1993 IIPro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to modify an approved subdivision. The master plan for the entire project depicted 64 units with a footprint ownership plan. None of the buildings were intended to have property included with them. The property was to be in common ownership. The applicant received approval to modify duplexes one and two on 10/27/92. This modification changed the footprint concept to include land with each of the units. The applicant is now proposing to expand the modification to include the entire project. The modification is to include a grand lot with each of the buildings. The grand lots will be divided when the individual units are constructed so that - 38 - '-- -../ each unit will have a lot. There are no other modifications proposed. Proiect Analysis: The proposed modifications should not cause any problems with the overall project. The location of the buildings, roads or utilities will not be altered. nor will any other site specific items. Responsibility for the sewage disposal systems has to be worked out. The applicant is proposing a homeowners association that will have ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the sewage disposal systems. Conclusion: There does not appear to be any significant problems that relate to this project. Provided that the applicant has a satisfactory plan for ownership and responsibility of the septic and sewage disposal systems, the staff can recommend approval of the proposed modifications." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? I guess the only thing that I would have is. where does the sewage system has to be worked out, how does that fall into play with the approval? MR. HARLICKER-Well, in some of the cases, the septic systems serve all the units, and if it's located on one lot, but it's servicing three units, who's going to be responsible for it? MR. BREWER-I understand that. this approval? How does he work that out against MR. HARLICKER-You could probably work out easements regarding maintenance and ownership of it. That's one of the ways I would suspect. MRS. PULVER-Through the homeowners association, or through deeds? MR. STEVES-Homeowners association. Most of the systems, most of the homes there will be on a central system, and that's what the homeowners association ownership will be. Incidentally, my name is Leon Steves from the firm of VanDusen and Steves. Mike O'Connor happens to be with me. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically the sewer is the same as what it was before. All we would be changing is the lots. We did. under Board approval, subdivide off units one and two which are right in the corner. They sent, I think your approvals in December. we sold both units. We closed on one at the end of December. We're closing on the other one on Monday. Apparently, with individual lots it is a much better project than if they are just footprint lots.' In those two deeds there is a common septic system that serves both units, and they have a cross obligation and a mutual easement for the maintenance and repair and even replacement of that system. MR. MARTIN-Is there any regular maintenance schedule, Mike, or is it just. is it a shared responsibility? MR. O'CONNOR-It's a shared responsibility with an obligation to go fifty fifty on any cost for the use of the system. There's a contractual agreement set up in the deed. There's also the same thing as a common wall easement, an easement for a common wall. MR. BREWER-What is the zone here? MR. STEVES-Now or before? MR. BREWER-When it was approved. MR. O'CONNOR-When it was approved, it was UR-5,000. MR. STEVES-And it's SR-30, I think, in the front. That's why the duplexes are in the front. The back is zoned for multifamily. MRS. PULVER-So it was Urban Residential. - 39 - .-' MR. STEVES-Urban Residential 5.000 square feet. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and now it's MR-5? No, the back part is. MR. STEVES-The front part was SR-30. MR. BREWER-I guess what the question is. do all the lot sizes meet? MR. O'CONNOR-Not your current requirement. but this comes in under the theory that when you're mOdifying an existing map, you do not need to meet the current requirement for lots. MR. BREWER-It meets the requirements previous. MR. O'CONNOR-It actually exceeds what was there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Paul was here. We went through this once before with Paul at a meeting with him some time ago, before we proposed the amendment for the first unit. MR. BREWER-Wasn't there something about drainage on this site. Jim, that was? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's been a problem, but it's not because of a failure of a design. It's because it hasn't been built out. The design assumes buildout and finished grading and things like that, and because it hasn't built out, the finished grading hasn't come into play, and the catch basins and all that aren't working because as a practical matter they're about a foot or a foot and a half above grade right now, because it hasn't been completed. Anything to get these lots moving and the units built will help the drainage si tuation. Right now the system isn't functioning as it was designed. because it's not finished yet. MR. 0' CONNOR-There was, at one time, there was a complaint, I think, to the Town Board. Dave Hatin wrote, I guess. to this Board, a letter, it's in your file, it should be in your file, April 23rd. 1990. I won't read the whole letter, but therefore we have concluded that it is due, they're talking about runoff problems, to heavy runoff from the adjacent properties through the woods, and not caused by recent development in these two subdivisions. MR. MARTIN-And the most recent development has been. the owner of this project has reestablished a berm at the end of the drainage easement here, to keep the water from flowing into the pond. That was the most recent problem. Dave's inspected it. He's happy with it. That was done. I think, late last fall. MR. BREWER-Anybody else? MR. RUEL-What's this building shown, solid line and dotted line. Phase I and Phase II? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. RUEL-You build half of it and then you build the other half? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Each one a duplex? MR. STEVES-Well, this is a party wall. So, it could be a duplex, buildout. MR. RUEL-It wouldn't be a single and a single, right? MR. STEVES-Chances are that it won't be that way, because we have - 40 - -- -...-' to build out 60 percent, I think it is. before we go into Phase II. We don't have to build that other half of that building, but rather 60 percent of the total of Phase I. MR. RUEL-Yes. Would you just build Phase I and leave it then? MR. STEVES-I doubt that. MR. O'CONNOR-These people are losin9 so much money right now. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. This says Phase I and Phase II. What is Phase I, a duplex? MR. STEVES-No, no. Phase I is a certain number of units. You're pointing to a certain lot there on that map. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. That's the only one that's split there. MR. STEVES-That's correct. and that happens to be the Phase line between Phase I and II. MRS. PULVER-See, Roger. what they're saying is all these little dotted ones here, that's Phase 1. When they build this. this, this, this, this, they will have completed the first phase. Then this is Phase II. MR. RUEL-Yes. I know. I just didn't like to see a building split in half. MRS. PULVER-They probably won't do that. They'll build the whole building. but they're just showing it in phases. They'll build the whole building. MR. RUEL-It's misleading. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Correct. MR. MARTIN-Mike, just to get back to the septic systems, how is one going to prove, on a shared system, like if one, you have a duplex, and one occupant of one side of the duplex is constantly dumping grease in, and the other people are being good and maintaining their system properly. how are you goin9 to prove that the problem might have been caused by the one person with the bacon grease every morning after breakfast? These shared systems make me nervous. MR. O'CONNOR-That's the problem when you have common properties. It's something that both people have to work out, because if the fellow realizes what he's doing. and he's dumping grease, he's dumping grease into, the system, too, and at the minimum, fifty percent of it is going to come out of his pocket. If the other fellow can prove that he was responsible for it. one hundred percent of it is going to come out of his pocket. MR. BREWER-Didn't we do something with Diehl's property, where the homeowners association had a. MR. MARTIN-I think what the solution there, was, I think Ed thought was just a regular maintenance schedule. whether it needed it or not. MR. BREWER-Every three years, or something like that, we did. MR. O'CONNOR-The septic system as we have it here is not changing at all from what we did the first time. All we're doing is changing the lot configurations of the footprint to make a front yard and a back yard. and in part we're doing that, to be honest with you. to avoid some of the common maintenance charges that's driving people away from townhouse developments. because if we tell them that they buy then they're going to have to spend $120 or $150 - 41 - '- --' a month for their common area and maintenance charges. then they don't come near you. They run in the opposite direction. They want to maintain their own, do whatever they can to their out of their own pocket. as opposed to having a service come in, and do it on a commercial basis. MRS. TARANA-AII of the lots are going to be included in the homeowners association. right? MR. O'CONNOR-Just one or two are not included in the homeowners association. We excluded them from the amended map before. MR. BREWER-Which is Lot E and F? MR. STEVES-No, A. MR. BREWER-A? MRS. TARANA-A and B? They're abutting the common area and they don't have to be part of that? MR. O'CONNOR-No, they do not. The lots are big enough, in essence, their lot was big enough to maintain their own septic system. The common area was there for the main purpose of the common septic system. MR. BREWER-They're both over a half an acre. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. motion? Anything else? Would somebody care to make a MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAP AMENDMENT FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 5-81 CEDAR ÇOURT, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: For a modification to an approved subdivision, for a change from footprint only lots and homeowners association ownership of the land to allow land ownership by the individual. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe SITE PLAN NO. 5-92 BRIAN GRANGER MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN. BRIAN GRANGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-92, Brian Granger, Meeting Date: March 16. 1993 "Project DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to modify an approved site plan with the addition of a trailer for office space and additional parking. The modifications will be to the rear of the property near the sand pit. The additional parking will be located near the office trailer and will expand the parking from 7 spaces to 13. Three of the spaces will be for equipment and trucks. The applicant received site plan approval on 2/18/92. Pro;ect Analvsis: The modifications should not have an adverse impact on the site. Consideration should be given to improving the gravel parking area and access drive." MR. HARLICKER-When I was out there on a site visit, just to clarify - 42 - '-- this last comment. the parking lot was in pretty rough shape. I know it was springtime, it was snow melt and all that, but you might look at some sort of parking lot improvements. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions with this? MR. MACEWAN-A couple. How did it come to be that you're in front of us tonight with the trailer already there? MR. GRANGER-A difference of opinion. MR. MACEWAN-A difference of opinion. Would you care to elaborate? MR. GRANGER-A technical term of whether the trailer is mobile or not. so instead of fighting it, just go through the motions. MRS. PULVER-The trailer was already there. MR. MACEWAN-What do you mean the trailer was mobile or not? MR. GRANGER-The tires are still on it. technically it can be considered a non permanent structure until I enclose that. I stress that to the public people that went by when I saw them. I plan on building the bUilding right next to it and then closing that into the building, the same as what West Side Automotive did. and right now it's technically not considered permanent. Mr. Hatin requested I get a building permit and go through the motions with it. MR. MACEWAN-And you're saying of that trailer, 130 square feet of it are going to be used for office space, and 1320 square feet of it are going to be used for storage? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MACEWAN-That's what the application shows. MRS. PULVER-Originally, wasn't the trailer used for storage? MR. GRANGER-Not the original application. MR. MACEWAN-That's the application I have in front of me. Is there a different application I should be looking at? MR. GRANGER-What's the date on that application? MR. MACEWAN-We're looking at the date of, no date. MRS. PULVER-Mine says, 5-92, that's all. which would be May of '92 that this came in, right. 5-92 would be May of '92? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-So this would be the original application. MR. BREWER-This. I think, is speaking of the house, isn't it, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't you submit a new application? It's just a modification of this one? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's just a modification of the existing approved application. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So. originally this trailer was used for storage. Correct? And now you want to use it as office space, and it has, - 43 - '- --' it's been in application? the spot that it's No, it's been moved? been in since it's original MR. GRANGER-It's been moved. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-You're original intent was to use the trailer on the site where it is now, for storage. correct? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And now you want to convert it, or have converted it already into office space? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And that's when you got caught? MR. GRANGER-No. I don't consider it being caught. Okay. There's several other trailers in the Town that are just about the same. MR. MACEWAN-I'm curious how your situation all came to be. MR. GRANGER-Well, there's several other trailers in town that are used as office trailers and what not that are still considered mobile, do not require permits. I figure this is going to be there permanently anyway from now on, even though right now it's not permanent because the tires are still on it, it's still mobile. I didn't have a problem with going to get a permit for it. and I didn't "get caught". I don't look at it that way. MR. RUEL-You're parking an office trailer in the back? MR. GRANGER-That's what it is, yes. MR. RUEL-And then it was mentioned about a construction trailer also? MR. GRANGER-An office trailer, a construction trailer. MR. RUEL-The same thing? Is that permanent? MR. BREWER-No. It's not. He says. MR. RUEL-Is that temporary? MR. GRANGER-It would be considered temporary now. MR. MARTIN-But you are going to take the wheels off it and affix it to the ground? MR. GRANGER-That is my plan, if the site plan were approved, the new building that I propose, yes. MR. RUEL-You will make it permanent? MR. GRANGER-At that point, but I'd have to come before the Board again for a site plan for the building and to make that permanent. MR. BREWER-How long is temporary to use, for this. guess. MR. GRANGER-A year or two. MR. BREWER-A year or two. MR. GRANGER-Has everyone visited the site? May I ask that? MRS. PULVER-I have. - 44 - - MR. BREWER-Yes. I don't know about everybody. MR. LAPOINT-Was it different when you were here the first time? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. RUEL-I'd like to add a condition about placing a limit on the length of time that the trailer is there. You indicate a year or two, you know, it could be forever. I want to see a limit on that, since you've said it's temporary anyway. So. you won't object to it. MR. GRANGER-No. I have a question. Did you visit the site? Did you see that the trailer. and the way it is now? Did you see the site? MR. RUEL-Did I see the site? I'm familiar with it. I go by every day. MR. GRANGER-You don't see the trailer from the road. MR. RUEL-No. MR. GRANGER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I do. I went by there just today, as a matter of fact. MR. GRANGER-All right. You see just one small part, if you really look close. I'll give you just a brief rundown of what the property started and when I took it over. When I took the property over, there were 200 tires up in front. There was nine loads of metal, garbage debri s, brush. Since I've been there, I have planted shrubs. I have put up a fence. I have gone through my site plan review to put my business there. I have cleaned up the back yard, added gravel, it does need some addressing because of the spring weather and it got a little soft there and we were running trucks back and forth. I do agree to that. I believe the yard now is kept up. and it's kept clean, and if everything's parked where it's supposed to be, I have employees, and sometimes they don't do everything they're supposed to. you don't see any of the trucks from the road, that's if it's parked where it's supposed to be. That's the way it's designed. the way I've laid out the site, so that the neighbors or people going by from the road don't see any equipment, don't see any trucks. and everything's neat. clean, and put away. Even though I don't have a facility large enough to house all my trucks right now, which is what I intend to do in the future, and when I build the building, I'll want to enclose the trailer as an office. adjacent to the building, the way West Side Automotive did when he built his facility. I do need the office space. now. I don't have enough office space, what we were using in the house, and that's why I use this trailer for that. MRS. TARANA-Brian. just let me get this clear in my mind. I wasn't on the Board when the original one came in. The original application, you were going to build an office. and that's what this is referring to, the 130 square foot? MR. GRANGER-No. We were using a part of the house. MRS. TARANA-Okay. That says the present use of the property, and you're using part of the, the office is located in the house? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Well, then it says the proposed use is for a general office of 130 square feet. and storage of equipment of 1320 square feet. MR. GRANGER-I believe that was the other building in the back, near the garage. - 45 - -. -- MRS. TARANA-Okay. So what we're doing is we're changing that other building out back to the trailer? Is that what the modification is? I'm not sure what the modification is. MR. BREWER-The modification is putting the trailer on the land, that's what the modification is. and he changed the parking. MRS. TARANA-That's what I'm saying. He originally had the building in the back for office. So the modification is that that building in the back is going to go, and the trailer is taking its place? MR. RUEL-And the parking is different. MRS. TARANA-I'm just not sure what we're changing here. MR. HARLICKER-It's my understanding that the only modifications to this site from the originally approved site plan is the placement of the trailer, and he's indicated on the paperwork he submitted a slight modification in the parking arrangements. an addition of six or seven spaces, for a total of thirteen spaces. Those are the two modifications to the site plan. MRS. TARANA-So it's adding a trailer in addition to the office? MR. HARLICKER-Right. Nothing else on the site is changing from what was originally approved. The only thing changing is the addition of this trailer and some additional parking. MR. MARTIN-It's my understanding you're moving the office out of the house, right? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You're moving the office out of the house where it was originally approved to go, and into the trailer. MR. BREWER-Into the trailer. MRS. TARANA-And the other office in the back is staying? MR. BREWER-What other office? MRS. TARANA-The storage equipment, that's staying. MR. GRANGER-Yes. That is not an office. MR. BREWER-It's a garage. MRS. TARANA-That has nothing to do, so we're not modifying that part. We're only modifying that part, we're only modifying this general office part? MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. RUEL-The only change is office trailer, a change in the location of the parking area, and the movement of the storage shed. period. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. GRANGER-The storage shed wasn't moved. incorrectly on the first site plan. It was drawn MR. RUEL-It was moved on my plan. MR. GRANGER-I know. It was drawn incorrectly on the site plan. MR. RUEL-Well, that's beside the point. - 46 - -- -- MRS. PULVER-Well, does everyone agree that. MR. RUEL-What about a condition on time limit on the trailer? MR. BREWER-If you want to make a motion and put that in the motion. MRS. TARANA-Or he's going to make it permanent, after a certain length of time. he's going to take the wheels off. or whatever you do to make a mobile trailer permanent. MR. GRANGER-My intention is to come back before the Board with a plan for the building, and it will be permanent to that new building. MR. RUEL-Can we put a limit on it? MRS. PULVER-Speaking for myself, no, because if we tell him that in two years he'd have to build a building and remove a trailer, and we're in a tough economic situation and his business hasn't done that well, he could be in here asking for extensions or more modifications, or whatever. MR. MARTIN-I'm not entirely sure that I would view the construction of a building, in the area of the trailer. to have the same use. I don't know if I would view that even as a modification to the site plan. MR. BREWER-When he comes back and we see a building he's building, we might not want him to put the trailer in the bUilding. MRS. PULVER-Well, that was the second thing, is we might not, we're going to make him build a building, which leads him to believe that we would accept the building that he would bring before us, which therefore we might not. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-Also. he could have the trailer there for 10 years. MRS. PULVER-He could. Yes, but it's zoned. structure in the zone. It's an allowable MR. RUEL-Okay. restriction. If it's an allowable, I'm not going to place a MRS. PULVER-Yes. I wouldn't want to tell him, okay. you can do it for two years, and build a building, and then the next Planning Board he faces doesn't like his building. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-92 BRIAN GRANGER, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Modification to an existing site plan. as approved, modification to existing site plan to add an office trailer and additional parking spaces. as approved by this Board. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: JARVIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: UNLISTED SR-1A CINDY NORTHEAST CORNER OF - 47 - '--" -- INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. RD. AND LUZERNE RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 121-1-51 LOT SIZE: 6.18 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JEFFREY G. MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott. do we have Staff Notes? MR. HARLICKER-On this one, no, there isn't. The applicant came in with modifications this afternoon, late morning, at our request. Originally, if you look on the site plan that was provided for you, the larger lot was not wide enough. He needed double the lot width on Lot Number Five. So, instead of going before the ZBA to seek a variance for the lot width, he came up with this new proposal, which is here. This is an al ternati ve design for the five lot subdivision. MR. RUEL-West Mountain and Luzerne are arterial roads? MR. HARLICKER-They both are. Yes. MR. RUEL-And that's the reason for the combined driveways? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. MARTIN-The double the lot width requirement, and he's taking advantage of the new laws of the shared driveway for four of the five lots. MR. HARLICKER-If you notice, originally the access for Lot Five was out onto Luzerne Road, and the way the lot was situated, he didn't have enough lot width there, but with access out onto Luzerne Road, the lot width dimensions change. So he now has enough. MR. RUEL-There has to be a certain spacing between the driveways on these roads? Is that it. minimum? MR. MARTIN-Well, what the Ordinance reduction in the number of curb cuts on it's doing that by requiring a double driveway. is try to encourage is a a major collector road. and the lot width, or a shared MR. RUEL-That doesn't cut down on the amount of traffic coming in and out of these houses though. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MARTIN-No, but it cuts down on the number of curb cuts and access points, yes. MRS. PULVER-Why the new plan? MR. MARTIN-Because the old plan would have required a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, because he did not meet the lot width requirement on Lot Five. MRS. PULVER-All right. When was it decided that he would need the new plan? When was it decided to have this new plan, versus the old plan? I mean, we were sent this old plan, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-And we went out there on site visits, and this is what we were referring to. Now. between site visits. which was what, Thursday. and Tuesday, when was the new plan? MR. MARTIN-Today. MR. HARLICKER-Today. The applicant was notified, we talked about this at the beginning of last week. It was brought to their - 48 - '-- -' attention, and they were working on redesigning and trying to decide if they wanted to go for a variances. Well, you can explain better. I guess. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-My name is Jeffrey Martin. I'm the surveyor with Morse Engineering. representing Cindy Jarvis. MR. BREWER-I think what we're getting at is, it's 10 o'clock, and we're looking at a subdivision, and we're getting a map at 10 o'clock at night, when we should have had it last week. MRS. PULVER-When we went out on site visits on Thursday. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Well. I would question one thing that the other Mr. Martin said, and he states that a variance would be required, and as we read your Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, a variance would not be required. MRS. PULVER-Well, lets see. You're in a one acre zone, and you said these were not one acre? MR. JAMES MARTIN-Under the new plan it wouldn't need a variance. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Under the old plan it would not need a variance. MR. BREWER-Why do you say it does, Jim? MR. JAMES MARTIN-Because the frontage'is onto Luzerne Road. and therefore the yard fronting on Luzerne Road is considered the front yard, and the lot width is defined as from side to side, and the lot width didn't meet the calculation. I think he was some 20 some feet under double the lot width. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-We've been discussing an average lot width of 274 feet, as opposed to an Ordinance that requires a lot width of 300 feet in this zone. MR. JAMES MARTIN-Right. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Now, Ordinances. there is a specific. in both Zoning and the clustering provision that Subdivision has certain MR. BREWER-This isn't clustering. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-That was the original comment. Then we went back and started reading the actual rules, and this is what we got down into, when we presented the plan, the original plan as presented to you, represented our best interpretation of your Ordinance, the wording and the intent. The intent was to cut down the number of driveways, to have one driveway for approximately every 300 feet of road front. We did that. In doing so, we ended up with one mathematical little problem in the back, where we have a lot of 2.672 acres, two and two thirds acres, in a one acre zone, but because it's facing Luzerne Road, it's deemed to be too small. If it's facing West Mountain Road. it is large enough. MR. BREWER-It's the road frontage, I believe, is what they're talking about, not the size of the lot. MR. JAMES MARTIN-The lot width. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-The width, but it's not the frontage. Under the provisions of your Ordinances, under Clustering, now granted, the traditional approach to clustering that we've been talking about with your Staff, and that comes to mind, and I can see it on your faces. it comes to mind. taking all the lots and crowding them into one corner, and that may be what we all consider clustering to be, but if you read the Ordinance, and I went through it with Staff this morning, with the Subdivision Ordinance, there are some very - 49 - specific requirements as to the size of the parcel, regarding this zone, and this zone would be at least five acres, and there are several requirements there. We meet all of them. and by meeting all of them. we can request that it be called a cluster, and you have the specific authority to waive lot width. We would be asking you to waive lot width on this one particular lot, from 300 feet, down to 274 feet. We'd still have over 400 feet in depth. We'd have a two and two thirds acre lot. MR. JAMES MARTIN-I think that's a rather creative interpretation of cluster development, though. I read the definition of Cluster Development, a planned development in which the lots are plotted with less than the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements, but which have access to open, common space, which is part of the overall development plan. Where' s your open, common space. and where's lots under the required size? MRS. PULVER-Well, I agree that our Cluster provision in our Ordinance needs a little work, or could be more clearly defined, because we all know, we've been through this several times. Everyone has a different kind of interpretation, and I look at Clustering as kind of traditional clustering. not this, but my opinion is that before I would give the relief for the lot, I would ask them to go and get a variance. MR. BREWER-What about, what map are we going to go with tonight. this one, or this one? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-We're here for Sketch Plan. This is for a discussion. This is our first meeting with the Board. MR. MACEWAN-But which plan are you going with? The plan that you submitted with the packets for last week, or the plan that you gave us three copies tonight? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-We're here to discuss that with you. MR. MACEWAN-We're not prepared to discuss this second plan. because we don't have enough information in front of us to review it, to give an honest opinion of it. I'm speaking for myself, not the rest of the Board. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Okay. We're here. we've been discussing this wi th your Staff, and we've been trying to figure out what the options are, what's going on there. We're getting caught with, we have close to seven acres in a one acre zone. We're getting down to splitting it up several ways, which way is best, which way most clearly meets the intent of your Ordinance. Now, we came in with a proposal that we believe most clearly meets the intent of all of your Ordinances, and what you intended to do, the best and highest use of that property. Now, the Staff has come up with a question, on one particular lot, on one particular dimension, and in an effort to resolve this question, rather than bringing it in here tonight, raising a question, and everybody going away for another month or so, we've been talking with them and talking amongst ourselves. We've been talking with the client, and as things have grown, as they've progressed, and we said, well, there is another possible solution. and we would throw this out to you. Now, we're on a very simple subdivision here. We have five lots. We've already done the soil testing. in all other respects, the lots all comply with the zoning. They are equal to or larger than the other lots in the area. This is precisely what you have zoned this area for. We're not discussing construction of additional roads. We're not discussing any, we aren't going to have any kind of drainage problems. nothing. We're in for a Sketch Plan discussion. MR. MACEWAN-Sketch Plan means you have a set idea in mind. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Yes. - 50 - '- -- MR. MACEWAN-You're first idea didn't meet the criteria that the Planning Department needed. It needed to be modified. In order to get that modification, you either have to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance, or alternate the lot lines so that it will reflect the changes that need to be done. Your second choice was to come in here with another plan, which you've come in here with tonight. However, it didn't get to us in time for us to be able to review it. That's where we're coming from. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-You have the opportunity, here, to sit and look at this. and say, you've looked at the other plan. You've been looking that plan now for 10 days. at least. MR. MACEWAN-We looked at that plan first last Thursday when we went on the site visits. MR. BREWER-We looked at this plan, and now we're coming in with this one. I guess what I want to know is. how does everybody feel about looking at a new plan at 10 o'clock at night? MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely not. in my opinion. until we decide what he wants to do. I vote we table it MRS. PULVER-Well, it's only Sketch Plan, which means there's no approvals, no nothing anyway, and it's a discussion. I don't care, the old plan or the new plan. I don't consider either of them clustering. So, you can either table it, and then we can go through the whole thing again next month, he can bring these same things and we can still say we don't consider it clustering, or we can hash it out now, and decide what it is that we even want to consider seeing. MR. JAMES MARTIN-I could throw out another option for you. I mean, you have the option of a meeting next week. I mean, there's no reason why you couldn't consider this next week, since it's at Sketch Plan. MRS. TARANA-How many are on next week? MR. LAPOINT-If we're going to consider it next week, I want some direction from the applicant as to what he's to do between now and then. MRS. PULVER-Absolutely. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Don't let us decide which way you want to go. You decide which way you want to go, and we'll tell you whether you can or can't. MRS. TARANA-I don't think it's clustering. She doesn't think it's clustering. MR. MACEWAN-I don't either. MR. JAMES MARTIN-I can tell you right now, as Zoning Administrator, I will make an official determination that that is not clustering, and he can appeal me to the ZBA. That is not clustering. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So you want to go back and come up with something other than clustering, at this point. I have a question to ask you. Jim. Some place I read that they were going to have to get approval from the Warren County Highway Department? MR. JAMES MARTIN-Yes, for driveway cuts, you need a driveway permit. Typically the Board takes those at the Preliminary Stage. MRS. TARANA-West Mountain's a County Road? MR. JAMES MARTIN-I believe it is. - 51 - -- MRS. TARANA-So, doesn't it, then. have to go to? MR. MACEWAN-So then he has to go to the Warren County Planning Board. MR. JAMES MARTIN-Yes, but we never send Sketch Plan. They always go at Preliminary Stage. MR. MACEWAN-Preliminary? MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. JAMES MARTIN-You have a lot of latitude at Sketch Plan. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-It was not our intent to present you a second plan tonight and say, throw this one away and look at the other one. Our intent to our discussions with the Planning Staff was to bring in another solution. We're here at Sketch Plan. This is where things get discussed. If we were to just stop the clock, three weeks ago, and say, we cannot discuss this project any more, since this has happened. a question has come uP. that we've been working with the best of intentions to get an answer to that question before we came here. MR. BREWER-Clearly. I think this Board does not think this is clustering. If that's your intention, to provide us with this, as far as clustering, I don't think you're going to go anywhere. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-We've been discussing all of the technicalities of the law, what is the intent of the law, and again, what is the actual wording of it. MR. JAMES MARTIN-Well, it's my role as the Zoning Administrator, I won't accept this as a cluster design. MRS. PULVER-Well. I was just going to say, this Board does not interpret the Ordinance. The ZBA interprets it. We ask for an interpretation from our Zoning Administrator. If we don't agree with him, then we go to the ZBA. So, we don't make interpretations, but what we do do is make, I hope . intel~igent planning decisions on what we consider clustering, or not clustering in this case, and we have been through the clustering subdivision enough times where I don't consider this a cluster subdivision. MR. RUEL-I have a question. I'd like to back up a little bit. I looked at the original plan, and I read in the Zoning book here that that original plan did seem to meet the requirements on size of the lot and the frontage, 150 feet, right? MR. HARLICKER-You only need 40 feet for frontage. MR. JAMES MARTIN-You need 40 feet for frontage, but the lot width needs to be 300 feet, when you're fronting onto a collector road, which both of these qualify as. MR. RUEL-It says, width 150 feet, right? MR. MARTIN-But it doubles when you're on a collector road. So that would be 300. MR. RUEL-Why was that first plan rejected? MR. JAMES MARTIN-Because technically it has frontage on a town road. and it works out to be some 274 feet, and does not meet the requirement. The new plan would be fine. MR. RUEL-That doesn't meet it either, does it? MR. JAMES MARTIN-Yes, it does, because the lot width in this case - 52 - '- ----' is how much, 404 feet? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-It's over 400 feet, because the lot would now be technically facing West Mountain Road. The same lot, but now it's technically facing West Mountain Road. MR. JAMES MARTIN-Because it qualifies, the definition of the sidelines are now 400 feet apart. MR. RUEL-The one facing West Mountain is 262 feet, right? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-No, Lot 3 and Lot 4. Those two lots could face the Luzerne Road. MR. RUEL-Three and four. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Right. They would have an average width of over 150 feet. MR. RUEL-That's okay. MR. JAMES MARTIN-Is there any objection on applicant to submitting the second design application? the part as your of the official MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-We have no objection to that whatsoever. MR. JAMES MARTIN-Well, second application. determination. then he doesn't need a variance I can tell you. that would for the be my MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-The second design, what he needs to do is get seven copies of them to the Planning Department so we have a chance to review them. That's what he needs to do. MR. BREWER-Would you be agreeable to that? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Next week? MR. BREWER-Next Tuesday night. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Next Tuesday night. MR. BREWER-Provided we all get maps so that we can look at them. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Do I submit them directly to you? MR. BREWER-No, to the Planning Department. They can get them to us. MR. JAMES MARTIN-I can make sure that they're hand delivered. MR. MACEWAN-We would need them in our hands for Friday? So, get them to the Planning Department by Thursday, close of business Thursday, so they can deliver them to us Friday. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-I promise tomorrow that I will do it. MRS. PULVER-I have one question. Have you considered, and if you have, why didn't you like it, something like this. This is Luzerne Road, one road coming in, and you could have a cul-de-sac, or you could just have the road dead end here. You'd have to change the configuration a little bit, but it could be clustering. You'd have a house, a house, a house, a house. a house. You'd have five lots. I can't believe that that road would cost any more than all those driveways. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Do you know what it costs to build a road? - 53 - .- ~ -../' MRS. PULVER-I know. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. but the difference is, Carol, that the driveways are, the cost are absorbed by the homeowner, where the roads are absorbed by the. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but look at this plan. MR. MACEWAN-I know. I mean, there's no point in looking at it until we can get an opportunity to review it. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-There's really no point for a brand new road. Usually you build roads when you absolutely need them. It provides extra infrastructure for somebody to maintain. whether it's private or public. I'll tell you what Paul Naylor's comment would be about having another road like that to have to maintain. There are existing roads with more than adequate capacity. There are existing utilities, and it's an incredible expense. MRS. PULVER-Well, you don't have to convince me. the Town would have to maintain it and take it over. that that's an option for clustering. I mean, I know It just seems MR. BREWER-Okay. So would someone care to make a motion to table this application? "OTIQN TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1993 SKETCH PLAN CINDY JARVIS. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a period of one week, to our March 23rd meeting, pending submi ttals of new site plan drawings to be submitted to our Planning Department by close of business Thursday, March 18th. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MRS. TARANA-You know if you're going to stick with the clustering, you have to change this? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-No. We are not looking for clustering. MRS. TARANA-I' m saying if you do continue with the clustering. You're going to drop that? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-That's simply one of the alternatives that we're discussing. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I just wanted you to know that this would have to be changed before next week if you did go with it. MR. JAMES MARTIN-The only thing I would just remind the applicant of, in terms of you're probably meeting the submission for the April meeting for your Preliminary. The submission date for the April meetings is March 31st. That's a week from next Wednesday. So that's a short turn around time between if you get Sketch Plan approval, next Tuesday night. you've got essentially a week to submit your Preliminary application. I just want to make you aware, so you don't get caught. Okay. You got the memo about the. MRS. PULVER-Wal-Mart. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 SKETCH PLAN NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - 54 - -- ......,., MIKE O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the record. I'm Mike O'Connor from the Law firm of Little & O'Connor, and with me is Bill White from the engineering firm of Flint. This is a continuation of the Wal-Mart two lot subdivision, Sketch Plan application for discussion with you. We were here some time ago and discussed it. At that point, there was no motion made, and I think, if I could summarize this Board's intentions. they had real concern with, we were going to try and put the signalized traffic control signal, they wanted to see that. have more information on that before you went forward with your comments back to us. Presently what we've done, this is a little different than what you saw, even at that point, is we've gone through the variance process. I don't think we've been back to the Board since we did the variance process. We did get a variance for encroachment upon the buffer area in the back. which is shown there. MR. MACEWAN-Mike, could I interrupt just for a second. Is this site plan that you have here different from the original one that was submitted to us in the original Wal-Mart proposal? MR. O'CONNOR-It is different only in that the landscape has been added to it, and some additional drainage. parking, landscaping has been added, and some of the buffer areas have been made more distinguished. MR. MACEWAN-The traffic study isn't different, the traffic report? MR. O'CONNOR-If I could bring you up to date on that. we are wai ting for, we have submitted the information to DOT. In our initially submission to DOT, we were asking for a signal at the lower intersection, or the lower driveway, the most southerly driveway. DOT responded that they wanted to see what this Planning Board and what the County Planning Board's comments are, so they can get local input. We've got copies of minutes, Jim Martin supplied them, from this Board, and I've got copies of the minutes of the workshop that we had with the County Planning Board, and with the actual application time of the County Planning Board, and sent those to DOT. They are going to give us a formal response March 25th. The problem with that is, we would not get into your agenda, so that we could get into a filing for March, so that we'd be on the April agenda, if we could. for Preliminary approval, and get Sketch Plan in. MR. MACEWAN-But aren't you asking us to entertain any of this without having all the information in front of us? MR. O'CONNOR-At Sketch Plan, yes, we are, except that this, we would add this, okay. We do not have final control of the signal, and we have told DOT, and we would tell this Board. that wherever DOT tells us to put the signal, we will put it. We have a belief that they are going to tell us to put it at the north entrance, but that's an informal comment from them, and we have told them that if that is their conclusion, based upon their studies. that that is where it will go. I don't think we can change DOT from where they determine whether it should go at this entranceway or that entranceway. MR. MACEWAN-But if DOT had. in fact. asked you to move that location for your entrance, that changes your site plan. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. MACEWAN-Why wouldn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-What we're talking about, this is not site plan. This is not site plan. This is a two lot subdivision. and we're talking about a subdivision line right here. That subdivision line is dictated by the parking required for each tenant, for each - 55 - ,-.. -- -- representative lot. MR. MARTIN-Just let me remind the Board as to what approvals are yet, if a recommendation is made to move out of Sketch Plan. You still have Preliminary approval to be given by this Board, after public hearing. and then you have Final approval to be given by this Board of the subdivision. and then we still have the third approval of the site plan, site plan review. So there's still t three levels, once you leave Sketch Plan. There's three decisions that have to be made by this Board. So. you have numerous ways of control over this application. MR. O'CONNOR-We thought we would have a response from DOT by now. Early indications were that we were going to, until they started considering the comments, the County Planning Staff was very extensive in their comments, suggesting we move the signal further north. I think this Board was too. and I think the problem is this lower drive, if you come out. if you put the parking down here, they're saying that Montray Road doesn't become the best entrance in the world, and people may start using Montray Road as a quicker way of getting on because there's a signal there. MRS. TARANA-What if they tell you you can't have a traffic signal? MR. O'CONNOR-Then we would not have a traffic signal. It's not going to change the site plan either, or not the site plan, it's not going to change the subdivision. MR. BREWER-Wouldn't the traffic signal be part of the site plan, rather than the subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it doesn't really change us. as far as subdivision goes, I think, because this is still going to be the line. The line is dictated by the requirement of the parking, that we have to dedicate to Ames. BILL WHITE MR. WHITE-The subdivision line is set. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. WHITE-It's not going to move. MR. O'CONNOR-And we're going to have to have cross easements. MR. MARTIN-It's also pretty well locked in by way of the variances that were granted, also. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I guess our question to you at this time, do you have comments that would say that you do not want to move from Sketch Plan approval to Preliminary approval using this subdivision line that's shown here? MRS. TARANA-Well, what choice do we have? MR. BREWER-We don't have a choice. MRS. TARANA-What choice do we have? MR. O'CONNOR-You can table us. if that's the Board's direction. We made a formal application for Sketch Plan approval. We were tabled once before. We had a lot of discussion about it at that time. At that point. we were kind of firm in our position that we didn't think we could change the signal. Since then, we've come to the conclusion that if that's where they're telling us to change it, we can change it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody want to make any motion? - 56 - "- .- MR. MARTIN-Again, it's not an approval. It's just a recommendation to go on. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. A recommendation that the applicant move to Preliminary subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-And the applicant has already stated that the drawing he's showing is the same one we had in our original proposal. Right? Nothing's changed? MR. BREWER-As far as the lot lines. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MOT1PN TO RBCOMMEND THAT SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 SKBTCH PLAN NATIONAL REALTY & DEVBLOPMENT CORP. PROCBED TO PRBLIMINARY STAGE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a two lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to elect a Vice-Chairman. If you would care to nominate somebody. I will resign as Vice-Chairman. Would anybody care to make a nomination? MR. LAPOINT-I'll nominate Craig MacEwan. MRS. TARANA-I'll seconded it. MOTION TO NOMINATB CRAIG MACEWAN VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUBBNSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. MARTIN-The only other issue I'd like to take up with the Board, I'd like people to consider if they'd like to serve on a Planning Advisory Commission to undertaken a revision to the master plan. MR. LAPOINT-Are you putting this together from scratch right now? MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm going around. I'm asking the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, the Environmental Committee. the Beautification Committees, as Committees to the Town, if anybody would like to serve. It's a long drawn out process. It requires a lot of dedication, extra evening hours. I'm just trying to be honest. MR. LAPOINT-Would it be a good substitute to trade off, to get on that Board and leave this Board? MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't make any recommendations one way or the other. I'm just asking. I think as Planning Board members, you input on such a committee is very valuable, and I would suggest maybe a representative group of two people or something like that could serve as a communicate back to the full Board, and keep them - 57 - ~ - abreast. MRS. PULVER-I will volunteer, but I really hope that we get some non-Board members. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't want to exclude the Boards or the Committees to the Town either. MRS. PULVER-I think we need to have the public, like we went through before. We had Board members advising themselves. We had an advisory committee that. MR. MARTIN-I agree. You're the people who deal with this. You're supposed to be dealing with this plan meeting after meeting, and with every application that comes, and you should certainly understand thoroughly what went into it. and the thought behind it. MR. RUEL-I volunteer. MR. MARTIN-So, that's nothing formal. I just wanted to throw that out for your consideration. MR. LAPOINT-Where's Kathy? I mean, she just got on for the Red Lobster? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I would like to have the Planning Staff make a phone call and find out. MR. MACEWAN-I would like to make a motion, here. to have you guys contact her and find out what her intentions are, and if her intents are not to come back anymore, ask for her resignation. MR. MARTIN-I recall in the Planning Board Guidelines, so to speak, there's three meetings. MR. MACEWAN-Three meetings. MR. MARTIN-And they can be considered for, I think it requires the Town Board to do that. MR. BREWER-I don't really want to try to dismiss anybody, but I'd just like to find out her intentions. If she wants to be on the Board, fine. If not, then at least if somebody's not going to be at a meeting, call and let the Staff know. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I worry that the appearance starts to look like real special interest type. MRS. TARANA-Have you ever been contacted when she hasn't been going to be appear here? Have you had any contact? MR. MARTIN-No. We've had no calls. MRS. TARANA-I mean, it's my feeling that there's no interest there. MR. MARTIN-I get awful busy. and my time is awfully split, but to the best of my knowledge, we have not gotten any calls, but I will confirm that. MRS. PULVER-Well, she left in the middle of the last meeting, right? MR. MARTIN-Not the last meeting, the last meeting she was at. MR. MARTIN-Will call here. and hopefully have a response for you. or hopefully she'll be in attendance next Tuesday, and it will be a moot point, but I'll call her. - 58 - ~ -- MR. BREWER-If not, if she's not going to be here, we want to know. That goes for everybody I think. MR. MARTIN-As a past Chairman. it's very annoying when you come to a meeting and you don't have a quorum. and you had no idea that was going to happen. MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no, I mean. we're designed to function as seven. MR. MARTIN-That's right, and the Board is seriously impacted when you only have four, or even five. MRS. PULVER-Five, if you need to overrule Warren County. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-The only thing I was going to say in regard to that is I, personally. am ready to make a motion tonight to have her replaced. and it's nothing personal. I don't know her, but it's for just these reasons you're saying. but if you want to give her the opportunity of speaking to her. I'm not interested in the circumstances. To me, if somebody doesn't even respond. MR. MARTIN-I might suggest that it may have more impact coming from the Chairman. as one of her peers, but I'll do it. I have no problem doing it. MR. BREWER-I'll call her. I'll call her tomorrow. I don't have any problem calling her. MR. MARTIN-That was just a suggestion. MRS. TARANA-In response, Jim, to your questionnaire about these applications, I did have a couple of things. MR. MARTIN-Good. MRS. TARANA-I read it. I would put the instructions at the beginning rather than at the end. Old teacher's trick. Never put directions at the end of the test, put them at the beginning. MR. MARTIN-All right. MRS. TARANA-When the applicants come to pick up these applications, I would suggest that that's a good time to give them the marker or whatever it is that we want them to display so we can find them at site visits, whether they pay for it, whether you give it to them for free, whatever it is, I don't know. but give it to them when they pick up the first application, and tell them it's their responsibility to get it hung somewhere, wherever you deem they should hang it. post it some place prior to site visit day, and you can guess when that usually is. MR. BREWER-Which is usually a Wednesday or Thursday before the first meeting. MR. MARTIN-And an additional comment that came from the Town Board, I'm going to insert language in there, in terms of the subdivision, for dedication of roads. the process behind that. because that's something that's usually new to the applicant. and they don't even know they're aware of, if they have a road involved with their subdivision. MR. BREWER-Those are only subdivision applications. but can we do that for site plan reviews also. for a marker? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm just working my way through subdivisions, and now we're going to move on to site plans. - 59 - ~" -..../ MR. BREWER-No. I mean, implement some kind of marker before that is all through. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. We're going to do the same thing with variance applications, too, because the Zoning Board's now doing the same thing this Board does, with the organized site visit. So we'll do it for all three applications. MR. BREWER-It's really irritating to go look for a site up in Lake George. unless it's 90 degrees. MR. MARTIN-They have the same problem from time to time. MRS. TARANA-Just one other thing, and this is a general comment about applications. I'd really like to see them complete. Complete to the point where people have dated them, have signed them, in every place where they're supposed to date and sign. I also don't like seeing Part II of the EAF completed. I don't think that's appropriate for the applicant to complete Part II. It says qui te clearly on it that it is not to be done, that it's the responsibility of the Agency, and I've heard the argument it's for our benefit, to clue us in to what's going on with the project. I don't think we should be clued in. We're reading Part I. It's up to us to make the decisions on Part II. MR. MACEWAN-I think, personally, when Part II is filled out, it's more to sway us. than anything else. MRS. TARANA-Yes. and I don't think it should be on there. I think that should be made part of their application. very clearly, that they are not to do Part II. MR. LAPOINT-Better than 50 percent of the time they're just trying to fill in all the blanks, and they just keep doing it. MR. MARTIN-They don't understand what it means, in most cases. MRS. TARANA-People are not that stupid. MR. MARTIN-Well, no. The lawyers that do it are clearly trying to sway you. MRS. TARANA-The lawyers do it. and we've gotten applications from people who didn't know what they were doing, and they were done perfectly. MR. LAPOINT-We ought to have a little exercise where us Board members have to go through this process with some type of theoretical application and see how well we do. MRS. TARANA-You' ve applied for GRE' s and stuff, right? things right, or it's sent back. I'm just telling you. You do MR. MARTIN-That's your explanation. As a frequent applicant to the Town. the past Staff instructed them to do that. So they've been getting mixed signals. MRS. TARANA-I do understand that. and I'd just as soon not see it. I don't think it should be there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it from everybody? MR. MACEWAN-I haven't had a chance to go through them yet. MR. MARTIN-All right. If you could, by next week, because we'd like to press these into service next month. MRS. PULVER-My only comment, I made it earlier, is that I would like Staff Comments before the meeting. I have to have them before. - 60 - -'~ ..-.-"",." MR. HARLICKER-I try to get them to you either the Thursday or Friday before the meeting. Sometimes. I do the best I can. MRS. PULVER-Well, I understand there was a snowstorm, but when I get here at the meeting, I don't like finding out that you've had a problem, the same time that the applicant's finding out that there's a problem. MR. MARTIN-And I'd remind everybody, there's a Route 149 Corridor meeting next Thursday, the 25th, at 7:30 in this room, if anybody wants to come. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 61 -