Loading...
1993-08-12 SP QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 12TH, 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ._-,>~-----, - ____..c'·----. ~ '--' GUEENSBURV PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 12, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT CRAIG MACEWAN CAROL PULVER GEORGE STARK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: RT. 9, LAKE GEORGE RD. SUBMISSION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS. TAX MAP NO. 36-2-7 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Basically, it's just a workshop on and get everybody up to speed as far as, as John? Story town to try far as the EIS. MR. LEMERY-I've prepared a chart, because it can get confusing, basically, because this project has been pending for some time. So if you'll permit me to go through this, I have six or seven pages of a flow chart that should explain to everyone how this whole situation evolved, and where we are today. The zone, the Great Escape is located in an RC-15 zone, as described on Page 47 of the Zoning Ordinance. It's titled a Recreation Commercial zone, and the purpose, as described on Page 47, involves areas in the Town where the Town wishes to isolate, protect, encourage expansion of the recreation industry, and this is set forth in the Ordinance, and in particular with respect to the.. Amusement Center is a Type II use within the Recreation Commercial zone, and it requires Site Plan Review, a Type II use, Amusement Center would. The roller coaster is an accessory use, attached to an Amusement Center. So it would, of necessity, because it's within a Type II, Type II's require Site Plan Review, and because it's an accessory use within a Type II, it would require a Site Plan Review. In January of 1990, the Attractions Land company made an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review for the roller coaster. On April 10th, 1990, the Queensbury Planning Board adopted a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, basically finding that rather than give the Site Plan Review a negative declaration, they so called pos dec'd it, saying that there was a need for an Environmental Impact Statement, based on potential noise impacts. So, that's what happened on April 10th, 1990, the Queensbury Planning Board sent the applicant back to do an Environmental Impact Statement. In February of 1990, the County Planning Board approved the Site Plan application, before it got to this point. So this does not require this applicant to go back to the County Planning Board. That's where we are today. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the preparation started for the Environmental Impact Statement, and on July 11th, 1991, the Planning Board, made up of some other members, accepted the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as complete for review. Now what that did, under SEQRA, is trigger another hearing, and on August 13th, 1991, there was a combined public hearing of the Planning - 1 Board for not only the SEQRA Review of the application, but for Site Plan Review of the application, and written comments were accepted by the Planning Board, until August 23rd, 1991. So what happened on August ,13th was that the Planning Board said, we accept the Draft Envlronmental Impact Statement as complete, and now we accept public comment. So there was a period of time between the 13th of August and the 23rd of August when written and oral comments were made to the Site Plan Review. The comment period closed on August 23rd, and the Planning Board directed that the Final Environmental Impact Statement be prepared addressing all of the comments that were both provided orally at the hearing, and provided in writing to the Planning Board between those dates. Between August 23rd, 1991 and today, the Planning Board approved a number of extensions for the roller coaster. In September of 1991, Attractions Lands filed bankruptcy, and that, in effect, de I ayed the preparat i on and completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The assets of the company were acquired out of bankruptcy in December of 1992, by Mr. Wood. Now the Final Env i ronmental Impact Statement requires that there be a public hearing and written substantive comments identified and responded to, not a public hearing, but the Final Environmental Impact Statement, I'm sorry, contains the minutes of the public hearing. So when you read, if you haven't already, when you read the Final Environmental Impact Statement, every comment made, in the ent ire minutes of the public hearings that were held, are in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Every single written comment was provided, also, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. So the purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Statement was to identify and respond to every single comment made by people who spoke, and who wrote the Planning Board, and basically they came down roughly 50 for, 50 against, if you were looking at a percentage, and basically most of the people, if not all who had a comment, an adverse comment about it, were people who were located very near where the roller coaster would be located. The comments targeted the following: traffic, parking, noise, v i sua 1, operat i ng hours, purpose and need for the proj ect, erosion control, emergency services, land use, future expansion and positive comments. So these were the issues that people concerned themselves with in the comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I'm going to by-pass that for the moment, and we'll get back to it. What happens now is that you as a Planning Board review the Final Environmental Impact Statement. On August 24th, at the Planning Board hearing, we are requesting that you find that the Final Environmental Impact Statement is adequate, addresses all of the issues, provides for mitigation, and accepted as complete for review. It's not a finding that you accept the project, but that you accept the project, but that you accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement as prepared by the applicant, as complete for review purposes. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is then released to the public and to the Town's technical consultants, and at the same time the Town Attorney, Jim Martin's office, and our office, would be preparing Statements of Findings with respect to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. We would ask that if you accept it on this date, that within a reasonable time thereafter, you would schedule a public hearing, or rather a public meeting, to vote on the findings that are prepared in conjunction with the planners and your attorneys, and either approve or disapprove the SEQRA for the ride. In other words, that we have complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We have looked at and taken into account all of the impacts, both positive and negative, from the location of the ride in the park, that we've addressed them all, and that while we haven't necessarily fixed every single one of them, we've addressed them. We've provided answers. We've responded to the comments, and there isn't anything else the applicant can do. You find it complete, and then' we make certain findings, in conjunction with you. We find that it's adequate. We find that the mitigation is either appropriate or we make a finding that we - 2 - '-- -- require you to do this or that or whatever, with respect to the ride, and that we've completed the SEQRA process. If you find, at that meeting, that we've complied, and that we make findings and you accept the ride, then we've got to file an amendment to the Site Plan Review application, because the entrance has been modified, to the ride, because it now goes over the Black Cobra which is not the case when it was originally before your Board: So what we would do would be immediately file an amended, amendment to the application, basically modifying the Site Plan to provide the Site Plan as you see it here, which deals with the bridge over the Black Cobra ride. You would then schedule a meeting, like any other site plan review before this Board, and you, at that time, can decide whether to reopen or close the site plan review public hearing, because the hearing, if you'll recall I mentioned before, that took place in 1991 was a combined SEQRA and site plan hearing. The SEQRA would be closed. The SEQRA hearing was closed. You did not close the Site Plan hearing. So at this meeting, for Site Plan Review, you can elect to take comments from the public again, about this ride, or you can elect to say, we've heard al¡ the comments. We've looked at the mitigation measures. We'll discuss the mitigation measures, and we'll close it for the purposes of complying with ~ rules and regulations here at the Planning Board. You then have to accept our Site Plan within 31 days of the hearing, or send us back to modify it in whatever form you determine that is appropriate for the ride. If we're lucky, we get through this process quickly, and if you find that it's acceptable, obviously the Great Escape would like to get started building it, so that it's available for next summer. The Final Environmental Impact Statement deals with the following issues, and these are the mitigative measures provided by the Great Escape. I've cited over here, the Final Environmental Section, Impact Statement Section that deals with everyone of these, the issue that's raised, and how we've responded to it. So it'll help you as you go through it. The first issue was traffic. Since the application was provided, pedestrian crosswalks are in. The crossing lights are in. The walk/no walk lights are in. The traffic has been channeled very carefully across Route 9, and so we think what we've done, consistent with what DOT requires, we've mitigated all the issues raised in the comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that people were just willy nilly wandering across Route 9. They've all been channeled. They've all been channeled through these pedestrian walkways with walk/don't walk signs, and so we believe we've mitigated that. Parking, you'll recall this Board, as a condition to the approval of the Black Cobra ride, discontinued parking in the wetland, as a condition to the erection of the ride. Parking in the wetland buffer has been discontinued. This was a major issue of the Glen Lake Association, and it's been discontinued, and is one of the mitigative measures. I might point out to you that as was the case with the Black Cobra, the roller coaster is about six to seven hundred feet away from Glen Lake, and as you saw when you took the Site Plan visit, it's at the lowest area in the Park, down that depression, and it's six to seven hundred feet away from the Glen Lake Wetland. Noise, which was, if you'll recall, the principal reason why the Planning Board, as it was formerly constituted, required a positive, gave a positive declaration, required Charlie to provide an Impact Statement. We believe we've mitigated this, by the location and the topographic area encompassed by the hills and vegetation in the Park. Keep in mind, also, that the entire Park is zoned the RC-15 zone, and the purpose for the zone, and keep in mind, too, that this Park has been in existence here for some 40 years. The next issue that was raised was the visual impact. Basically, the original Draft Environmental Impact Visual Analysis said you really can't see this from anywhere. There was a possibility that if you went up Route 9, after you passed, going north on Route 9, after passing the little railroad there, at the Western area, if you looked back towards the south and the east, you might be able to see the top of the roller coaster. Beyond that, it really wasn't visible - 3 - -' -- from anywhere. Now the operating hours were another issue that was raised. The Great Escape, at this point, has no plans to extend the hours, with the exception of the events that everybody knows about, that happen from time to time there, which are mostly charitable, or for very specific purposes. If Mr. Wood was to decide to operate any more than what he's operating now, it would require an extensive rework of the Park, in terms of increased lighting, increased security to handle young people and things at night and the dark up there, and the need for increased Staff. So at this point in time, Mr. Wood's position is, look, I have no plans for operating the Park beyond the closing time that we close now. The purpose and need for the project, which is one of the positive aspects of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, obviously reinvest in business in the Park, ride cycling attractions, alternative attractions. We all know that the days where you could put in little rides in these kinds of Theme Parks just doesn't work with families any more, young peopl e, even ch i ldren requi re someth i ng more, and in order to keep the Park remaining competitive, and to provide the ability, to attract people to the Great Escape and to the area, and as a destination, it's the opinion of the Great Escape that this is the kind of attraction that has to be put in here from time to time. Erosion control, which was addressed. There is a berm protecting, the berm protecting the wetland has been in place since 1982. It's our position that native sand allows stormwater to percolate into the subsoil, reversing the erosion potential. During construction there might be some silt, but there will be a silt fence which will be used, and we ask you, again, we refer you to Section 307, Figure 3.9 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. After construction, it would be seeded and mulched and prepared the way you saw it, that the Cobra has been prepared. Emergency Services, the Final Environmental Impact Statement clarifies the number of fire calls to the Park per year, apparently one. The fire department drills at the Park bi- annually..employee safety training program, and we wish to point out to you that a few years ago, Mr. Wood donated $150,000 to Queensbury Central, and Queensbury Central went out and bought a very large ladder that has more than the need to get to the top of this roller coaster, if someone were to get stuck at the top. So, Charlie gave the Town $150,000 for a new engine. Land Use, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Environmental Impact Statement examine the potential impacts, these analysis of noise, visual traffic, disclose, in our judgement, in our opinion, and in the opinion of the experts Mr. Wood hired to do this work, really no significant impacts, indicating adjacent lands can be used and enjoyed in their current conditions, or under those allowed by Zoning. Now one of the interesting things about your current Zoning Ordinance, it says that residential use is compatible with the RC-15 zone, and recent assessments of these areas show that the Town values are up. So it's our position that there isn't any significant treatment that is any different to what's going on there now or in the future than what's going on today. Keep in mind, also, this Park is open 105 days a year. So about 260 days of the 365 days this Park is vacant, and there is no impact whatsoever to adjacent lands or adjacent land owners of any effect. There was an issue regarding the future expansion. Well, the only way that we believe we can answer that is to say that any proposals are subject to Planning Board review, Site Plan Review, the Park has really no room for any major additions. There are really only five or six or seven acres left to develop in the Park without buying additional land, and of course, Mr. Wood can't buy any additional land for it unless it's zoned properly, or unless he comes in and gets a re-zoning or a variance. So he's subject to your control and municipal responsibility for any kind additions. Certainly, if he wants to upgrade from time to time, the rides that are there, then they would replace what's already in there, from time to time. MR. BREWER-Can I interrupt and ask, where would the additional 4 - - 'r-' acreage be on the..You said he has five or six acres after the roller coaster goes in. Where is that land? HOLLY ELMER MS. ELMER-Well, it's to the north, and to the west, and above the coast er. MR. STARK-Yes, Whalen and Guido. MR. LEMERY-No. Great Escape. It's not anybody else's land. It's right in here. It's land of the MR. BREWER-All right. it? That goes out into the wetlands, doesn't MS. ELMER-There's very little property there before the wetlands, yes. There's, like, room for two small rides. MR. LEMERY-Section 3.11 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement deals with the positive signs. This is an approved use under your Zoning Ordinance. There is a significant economic impact if this roller coaster can attract people, and we describe that in Section 109. The Great Escape provides $23.5 million in spin off businesses to motels, restaurants, gas stations, all of us. $1.7 million spin off business is sales tax, $3.1 million in employee salary turnover. Tourism is 75 percent, in Warren County, Tourism accounts for 75 percent of our economic base, and finally, and I guess there's a, I see a fellow with a roller coaster shirt on. The roller coaster, we believe, has the potential to be placed on the National Historic Landmark list as a National Historic site. So that's what we've tried to describe for you, in terms of the process, where we are. I'd be glad to take any questions you have. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-The only question I had is will the admission price increase because of the roller coaster, or will that remain the same? CHARLES WOOD MR. WOOD-The price will not increase because of the roller coaster. The price ~ increase due to the tax that is levied on us because we all in business must keep a certain portion, the cost against profits. So the roller coaster has no bearing on whether the price increases or not, no way. MR. BREWER-I guess it's just like any business. nat ural I y go up. The prices just MR. LEMERY-The latest report out tonight said inflation's at one percent, but that shows that we've not got such a great economy. MR. STARK-When you purchased this, in Ontario, you purchased a whole, everything, I mean, the wood and 50 on? When you rebui ld this now, are you going to use this used wood, or put up new wood, or pressure treated wood, or what? MR. WOOD-Are you talking, George, about the Coaster? It's a steel coaster. The track is made of wood. It's five layers of two by twelve's laminated with a track, and on that track is placed a steel band iron that the wheels roll on, but the uprights are all steel. It was a steel coaster, and it still will be a steel coaster. The track will be on laminated wood. MR. STARK-That's fine. MR. LEMERY-He wants to know if you're bringing everything that 5 - '---' - you purchased out there back over here? MR. WOOD-Except the train. The trains will be brand new. I don't want to gamble on the trains, because they're very old, and will have brand new train, new track, cut all the old wood up and junk it. The only thing we save is the steel uprights, and we'll have a coaster company install the wooden basic track and we'll buy new cars, either from the Philadelphia Toboggan Company, or the, Les Morgan, out in California, who built our little turnpike cars. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. PULVER-My only comment is that, under Emergency Services, you may want to add, for your benefit, that you do have your own first aid station, and your EMT's, so you take care of a lot of emergencies right there yourself, and fire is the only thing you can't handle right there on site, and they do have to come in. MR. LAPOINT-My only question goes back to the timing, just flip back to maybe your third or fourth chart, where, I'm mostly concerned about what our next step is, which I think we're saying that the FEIS is complete, and we need to do that, formally, at a meeting? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And are we on the agenda to do that? MRS. PULVER-Yes, the last meeting. MR. LEMERY-We're on your agenda for the 24th. MR. MARTIN-That's an action you should undertake by resolution, and then after that, all the involved agencies you'll allow, I think, a 10 day comment period, under law, on the FEIS, and then you're in a position to consider those comments, and undertake your Statement of Findings. MR. LAPOINT-While we're on that subject, so it will come up as a regular agenda item, and we all have, some of us have been through this twice, but most of us will be through it for the first time. We come up and we, basically, there's no public hearing involved? MR. BREWER-It's already been done, only at the Site Plan. MR. LEMERY-Only your option, if you decide you want to do it. MR. LAPOINT-Ri ght, but th is next st ep, where we just complete, there's really no need for that, correct? say, MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, I just wanted to make sure that we're not going to go into the 24th, unprepared. MR. MARTIN-I think the other thing you should do, in terms of being prepared for the 24th, if there are any outstanding comments tonight, in terms of completion, I think that's why they're here. They'd like to know those, and have the chance to respond by the 24th, so you have a complete document. MR. LAPOINT-All right. So basically what we're here tonight for is if, again, we won't have a lot of time to look at it, but if there were anything incomplete, and perhaps even what Carol has suggested, or they could add on, they would do that, in between now and then. MR. LEMERY-Well, we were also asked, too, to just go, show you - 6 - '-" "'-" just how it got here. MR. LAPOINT-I was here for the Draft debate, and, you know me, I love to e)(pedite the process, and I just want to make sure, really, all I care about is we do not have any procedural hiccups, because, again, the technicalities of all this, I've been through once myself, and it's a matter of just getting through the bureaucratic steps. So we say complete or incomplete, and then we go, they have to get on the agenda for a regular site plan review, at that point. MR. BREWER-E)(actly. Then the public hearing was left we probably will take comment. open, and MR. LAPOINT-I would tend to, trying to keep people quiet's a mistake. Let them have their say. MR. BREWER-Well, you almost really have to. MR. LAPOINT-Definitely. I think I agree with that. that's yet to be scheduled? So then MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-They have a certain waiting period to which this gets distributed to the County, to all involved agencies. MS. ELMER-There aren't any involved agencies. MR. LEMERY-There aren't any involved agencies. It's you. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MS. ELMER-See, after the FEIS is accepted as complete, you have a minimum of 10 days, but no more than 30 days, to vote on the findings. MR. STARK-So you'd be on in September, then, for the Final? MR. LAPOINT-Now here's what I worry about. No more than 30 days is critical. We're going to make that, assuming the steps go. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You're on the, what, this is the last Planning Board meeting for August, by the first one in September, you'd be within that 30 day time frame. MR. LEMERY-If we could get on your first meeting in September, if you determine, we could get the findings to Jim would work on the findings, we would work on the findings, Paul Dusek, assuming that you found those to be adequate, Jim, could accept the findings, and SEQRA is then complete, and then, between now and then, of course, we'd be working on putting the amended application. MR. BREWER-After, you've got me lost for a minute. If we accept this the 24th, say it's complete, then there's a 10 day period to accept comment. MS. ELMER-No, no. It's a waiting period. MR. LEMERY-It's just a waiting period in the law that says, don't do anything for 10 days. MR. BREWER-Then we have 31 days after that? MS. LEMERY-You have to wait at least 10 days, a maximum of 30. MR. MARTIN-Ten to thirty days is what she's saying. the period is. That's what - 7 - MR. BREWER-We have to make a decision on. MS. ELMER-Vote on the findings, approval of the. MR. BREWER-All right, not the project itself, just the findings? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LEMERY-No, no. That's an approval of the project, subject to Site Plan Review. It's an approval or disapproval of the project under SEQRA, subject to Site Plan Review, to go on to Site Plan Review. MR. MARTIN-It takes the place of the normal resolution you do for like a negative declaration, where you're done with SEQRA, and then you go on to your resolution of approval. Well, this would be a resolution constituting a statement of findings, and once you've voted on that, you're done with SEQRA. Now you're ready to entertain the Site Plan. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Last question on that subject, from me anyway. What's the default, if somehow they can't get on for the first meeting in September. We can't act. It's automatically approved? I just don't want to bungle. MS. ELMER-You have set special meetings just for that. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. MR. LEMERY-We don't want to put anybody in that kind of position. I think if for some reason, we'd say, we'd like to get going, obviously. We'd like to get, Tom certainly wants to get started. If you could have a special meeting, we'd appreciate it, and let us know one way or the other where we are. So, I guess that would be a way we'd ask you to accommodate us. MS. ELMER-Or if your next Planning Board meeting, lets say the second meeting in September was coming up in five days, perhaps they would agree to wait five days for that meeting. MRS. PULVER-Jim, is there anything big coming up, that you know of? I think there's already, we've been through Wal-Mart. We've been through K-Mart. MR. MARTIN-K-Mart's going to..probably in September, because we're hearing from Fred Austin that the letter will be available next week, on the traffic impact on that. MR. BREWER-I don't think meeting. it's a problem if we have a special MRS. PULVER-Yes. I wouldn't mind. MR. MARTIN-Again, K-Mart is to the point where, you've had a lot of meetings on that. I mean, there's not that many issues left with that. I don't know how much discussion time would be left for that one. MRS. PULVER-For K-Mart you mean? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-There wasn't a lot of public comment. MR. MARTIN-Well, you haven't had your Site Plan. MR. BREWER-Public hearing, though. MRS. PULVER-They always show up well in advance. - 8 - MR. MARTIN-I think John's on the right track. Between our office, and Paul Dusek's office, we would generate consideration like a pre-written resolution that statement within it, that would reflect any comments up to this point. himself, for your had that you've had MR. LEMERY-It would be you've approved it and would come to you with Attorney's. approved by, it would be submitted, after after Paul Dusek's approved it. So it your Planning Department and your Town MR. MARTIN-You've asked Paul to be at the meeting of the 24th, right? Okay. MRS. TARANA-Who do we get input looking for, on the Final? from, I guess, is what I' m MR. HARLICKER-The comment s, I guess, I don't know how we would. MR. MARTIN-You may have some written comments for the 24th, but the Statement of Findings will really be, constitute that. MR. BREWER-Will probably be real minimal. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I mean, it'll be a summary of the mitigation. MR. LAPOINT-One more comment, make sure, either the Staff or the applicant, make sure you've got everything we did, including my motion on the Cobra, and Noah's Sprayground, for me or anybody else, because again, I think we resolved some of these issues as part of another project. MR. BREWER-Like the parking. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. All through this procedure, right to the bitter end, it would be good, if we're in front of the public again, and the parking within the wetlands comes up, and this and that, that we have our facts in front of us, and reference the previous motion, which limited whatever we did at that time. So it would be nice to have all that there, so we could respond to that, because that's probably going to come up again, and if we don't have it in front of us. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the passage of time has been beneficial in that you have now in place, it's not a conditional approval. You have the sidewalks in place, the crossing walks. We've addressed the buffer of the wetland. Mike O'Connor indicated to me that was his principal concern all through this process. MR. LAPOINT-So I guess you want to be, the suggestion that you're armed with all of that. MR. LEMERY-Yes, back, too, if through this. we 11, we'll be armed. I mean, you want this on the 24th, I could bring this if you want to go MR. MARTIN-Yes. They've the wetlands throughout times. been in compliance with the parking in the summer. Dave has been by several MS. ELMER-I just have a quick question. vote on the findings, and close SEQRA, Plan Review? On the night that they can they start the Site MR. MARTIN-There's no reason why they can't. Like I said, they normally do that, just like your negative dec resolution that you do, then you take up the site plan. MR. LEMERY-It's the same as your negative dec. this. You found that the applicant's addressed You pos dec'd all the issues - I) - _._--_.~ - -- raised. MR. MARTIN-John, what plan application and August. I would do is I get that in by would prepare your site the submission date of MR. LEMERY-It's fairly simple. It's just amending it. MS. ELMER-Would we need 14 copies of that? MR. MARTIN-Ten. MR. BREWER-Okay. These yesterday, that I asked. feet? are just How long some things that came is the roller coaster, up in MR. LEMERY-Eight hundred. MR. BREWER-Eight hundred. Okay. Just out of curiosity, and the construction's going to be about a year, roughly? MR. LEMERY-Right. MRS. TARANA-What's three minutes, the length of the ride? MR. BREWER-Yes. I think somebody said yesterday, three, three and a half minutes. The only other issue that I wanted, and asked for is an outline of the issues that are supposed to be in there. Is that possible to get for me, if not anybody else? MR. LEMERY-Yes, that's, Tim? That's right here. get it to you, I mean, I you mean the issues that we're raised, Do you want me to get this typed up and can. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. RUEL-Just reduce that. MR. BREWER-That would be perfect, just an outline. MR. LEMERY-But rather than how they were, I don't want to g\ve you a summary, because this just sort of a one page summary çf how they were addressed. You just have to read the comments\ 1'11 have this whole thing typed and provide it for you. I'll get it done tomorrow and 1'11 get it to Jim, and Jim, you can disseminate it, right? MS. ELMER-I just want to point out, too, in the FEIS, Section II is where the public hearing minutes are for SEQRA, and all the written comments. So that's what makes it so big. MR. BREWER-Right. to add? Okay. Scott, you had some things you wanted MR. HARLICKER-Yes. This is, I guess it ties into the parking aspect up there. You have in here five to ten percent is the anticipated increase in attendance. Where did you get that? What's that based on? MS. ELMER-That's an industry standard. MR. HARLICKER-You've got in here a summary of the attendance over the past eight years, nine years. Do you have any information regarding a peak daily attendance or something like that? That might be handy, when you're talking about noise and that sort of thing, what was the attendance on the days that they made the noise measurements and stuff like that. That might have some bearing, as far as how noisy the Park was. You have in here that the Bavarian Palace parking lot will be used to park, for employees and for people who are attending the Park. Was that - 10 - considered when they did the traffic study? any mention of that. I didn't really see MS. ELMER-I think he parking. Well, yes, on was going to use peak days it says, it for just patrons. employee MR. HARLICKER-Yes. stud y? Was that considered when he did the traffic MS. ELMER-It was figured worst case. MR. HARLICKER-Was it? Okay. Getting back to that peak attendance, any ideas, what is the peak attendance out there? What's the capacity out there? Any ideas? On a busy day, how many people are going through the turn styles out there? MRS. PULVER-I don't think they calculate it calculate it by cars. by peopl e. They MR. HARLICKER-Or number of tickets. When you have people go through the turn style, doesn't it tick over on a counter? MR. LAPOINT-Forty-three hundred would be your average, does that sound about right, forty-three hundred people a day? MR. LEMERY-Average, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Average. Okay. you've got 10,000. Just do that's 4300 people average, thousand. So lets say on a really peak day the math, 430,000 people, 100 days, and double the average, right? Ten MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-On a peak day? MR. LAPOINT-Okay, 8&00, then. MR. BREWER-Would be the most you would ever have. MR. STARK-I should hope so. MRS. PULVER-Whatever the parking is, people to a car, that would be peak. figure if you have four MR. BREWER-So it's going to be no more than 8,000. nice if it was 8,000. It would be MR. HARLICKER-I'm still, I don't know if I'm alone in this, but the information regarding noise totally befuddles me. I was looking for something, as a result of this roller coaster, what's going to be the increase in the ambient noise level, coming from this part, and I couldn't find any. MR. LEMERY-There isn't any. MR. HARLICKER-There isn't any. MR. LEMERY-There's no way. MS. ELMER-It's not cumulative. The addition of another ride doesn't add another two decibels on to on top of the &5. MR. LEMERY-It's not possible to measure it. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Then how are they saying that the ride is not going to have any significant increase? If they're making a statement that the ride is not going to have any significant adverse impact relating to noise, what are they basing that? - 11 - '- -- MR. LEMERY-On the noise studies? MR. WOOD-We have seven new rides this year, seven, and there's no more noise, seven new rides, and no more noise. The people that were there, that visited the site, could not hear any noise out of the Park, down where the Coaster would be located. MR. LEMERY-They measured noise levels at the parameters of the Park. They measured noise levels of another Coaster, four other Coasters, and a car drives by, and the noise level from the car is ten times higher or fifty times higher than, so it's just not possible to measure the cumulative impact of the roller coaster. So our position was, A., there isn't any noise that can be, there isn't any way to measure it, and by way of mitigation, even assuming there was some way to measure something, they've, in effect, buried the roller coaster, down at the lowest area in the Park, so that the buffer, there's a huge natural buffer there, which will, should dimute any sound coming from it. There isn't anything else you can do. MR. LAPOINT-It kind of makes you wonder if you needed the Study. I mean, you knew this going in. That's part of the irony of the whole process is that we're asking the wrong questions, that can't be answered by the stuff we're sending people in.. MR. LEMERY-Well, somebody on the Board suggested that they had to do a noise, because somehow noise. MR. BREWER-I can tell you that when we left there yesterday, we went, I don' t know the name of the road, Birdsall Road, where Passarelli's subdivision is, there's a little turn off. We pulled in there, turned the car off, got out and heard nothing, birds, and that was about it. I mean, we just absolutely heard nothing. MRS. PULVER-And I've done the on a good Sunday. bi ke trai 1. I did the bike trail MR. BREWER-I'm not saying at some time some noise. you're not going to hear MR. LAPOINT-Just hearing a noise, too, is no cause for alarm. You're not going to have 80 db in your back yard from this roller coast er. MR. LEMERY-It's not possible to measure. MR. HARLICKER-Boats on the lake cause more noise. MR. MARTIN-This Park was the first kid on the block. I mean, anybody that moved in here has seen this for a long time. MR. HARLICKER-That was pretty much it. MR. BREWER-I know this isn't a public hearing, but there are three people here, and if you promise to keep your comments brief, we'll let you speak. Just identify yourself for the record, if you'd like to. DICK BURCH MR. BURCH-My name is Dick Burch. I'm a Queensbury resident. I've been here 25 years, and I'm the Regional Representative for the American Coaster Enthusiasts. It's a big region that goes all the way from the Canadian border, down past Poughkeepsie and the Vermont, Mass, Connecticut border, all the way past Syracuse, and I'm just kind of the eyes and ears of four and a half thousand people in the American Coaster Enthusiasts. We started out 15 years ago with three people and said, lets have a club, and we're up to four and a half thousand, and the latest national 12 - --~---~-~.~-- ~ --' amusement park tally just came out naming our favorite coasters and our favorite parks, and all kinds of, we've got favorite french fries, and all kinds of things like that, ahd year after year after year, the favorite defunct coaster is the Crystal Beach Comet. I know that we'll do whatever we can possibly do to help, and I know that we, alone, will put a lot of people in this area, and I have hours and hours and hours of videos of coasters allover this Country in the last 'two summers. I have been almost allover the Country, except the West Coast, and I'll tell you, the noise thing, you can stand right next to a coaster and hear a few screams, but back off 30, 40, 50 yards, and the screams from the rides all mix in. It's just part of the fun. This is a wonderful roller coaster. It's a classic, and it is probably..on the Registry, too, as a historic landmark. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. TOM RHODES MR. RHODES-My name is Tom Rhodes. I'm originally from Saratoga Springs. I've lived in that area my whole life. I'm a member of the American Coaster Enthusiasts, also. I'm an Associate Editor with their magazine, and obviously I'm here in support of the application, and I'd just underline what Dick said about the noise experience at any Park that you can choose to go to, get just a few feet away from the Coaster, around the corner, especially behind trees, like the site at the Great Escape is. There just is no noise. When the Comet closed, out at Crystal Beach, it was, I think, Number Five or Six rated in the US and Canada. So it was a very popular ride at the time. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. BOB COOLEY MR. COOLEY-Bob Cooley. I live in Saratoga, and I do like both the Park and riding roller coasters. This particular one is, indeed, well known as a classic. It will be documented, it'll manage to be in magazines, as it's going up, probably. It's just so well liked and well known, too, and the Great Escape's a nice park. I've gone so many times that, I was there. I have pictures of myself on opening day. I don't remember it, but. MR. BURCH-If anybody would like to see on ride videos or standing next to videos of the Comet, give me a call. I'd be glad to come over to your house. MR. BREWER-Well, I can appreciate your feelings for it, but I can tell you who's not going to ride it. Has anybody else got anything? I guess we're done. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-Thank you. MRS. TARANA-I'd just like..the Environmental Impact Statement, the purpose of this should be a positive thing, too, and not a negative thing, because there are so many questions with such a big thing, the purpose of this is to find out that there are no impacts, instead of, remember that meeting we were at, one of those Teleconferences, they said, this is your vehicle for finding out positives and negatives, and everybody looks at it as a negative thing, and it should not be that. MR. BREWER-They look at it as a negative thing because it costs so much to do it. That's the basic reason. MRS. TARANA-That's what you've got to make sure that making any mistakes. you are not MR. MARTIN-I've learned my lesson from Hudson Point. I'm never going to put an applicant through that again. It would have been - 13 - , '- -- better just to, right up in thing, that was dragged out point of having a resolution and. the front say, lets pos dec this for no reason, and we were to the drafted for a negative declaration, MR. BREWER-On the resolution through, night that they they pos dec'd it. were going to send the MR. MARTIN-They pos dec'd it, and that's, they should have, just from the very get go, said, when the project first came through the door, guys, determine the environmental plan, and an impact statement, now what's next on the list. MR. BREWER-They should have. MR. MARTIN-I mean, it might have been cheaper in the long run. Now it's got twice as much. I've learned my lesson. MRS. TARANA-But I think any time you have public controversy, as much as you did with the roller coaster, you've got to require this. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't think we're out of the woods yet, as far as public comment. MR. HARLICKER-Well, legally, you don't have to. MRS. TARANA-I was looking at the SEQRA handbook. the public hearing for the Final EIS. You can open MR. HARLICKER-You can if you want to. MR. BREWER-The public hearing was on 1 y. left open for the site plan MRS. TARANA-The site plan only. somebody wanted it re-opened. You would have to re-open, if MR. BREWER-If people are here and they want to talk about it, you almost have to let them talk about it. I mean, not drag it on for hours, and hours and hours and hours, but. MR. HARLICKER-Don't regurgitate stuff that's already been talked about. If you've got something new, say it, but don't rehash old news. MR. MACEWAN-They all do it. They all get up there and rehash. MR. RUEL-How will they know what has been said before? MR. BREWER-Well, they can request a copy of the. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but if they don' t have a copy, and they'll repeat. MR. MARTIN-Does anybody have any formal comments on the 149 Study or anything they'd like to change, or they'd like to change? Is there anything at all? Because we're looking to formalize that, and I'm going to ask Paul about how we formally adopt that, if the best vehicle to do that is to have the Planning Board adopt it, or to have the Town Board adopt it, but I want some kind of official action on that from one of the Town Boards. MR. MACEWAN-What is this with the thing about the fences? MR. BREWER-That's to amend the Ordinance. MR. MACEWAN-Why is it going out to all these area municipalities? MR. BREWER-Because it has to, it's a change in the law. - 14 '- -- MR. MARTIN-It's a change in the Ordinance. municipality has to be notified. Any adjoining MRS. TARANA-You can't have fences in your front yard? MR. MARTIN-Well, what it's doing, primarily on corner lots, you've got a street like this here, a corner lot here, and you have a house, what this is going to allow is a six foot fence up to this point, and then four feet from here, all the way around to, what, here, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And then, here, what you have on a corner and this is, you have two front yard. five feet lot is, this front yards. in, and then six, because here is one front yard, This area here is one MR. BREWER-I always thought the front your house? yard would be In front of MR. HARLICKER-Yes, we tied it into that. fence is opposite the architectural front entrance, and the five foot high fence is would consider the side of the house. The four foot high of the house, the main on what normal people MR. MARTIN-But there's two front yards on a corner lot. MR. BREWER-How can there be two front yards? MR. MARTIN-Because, the concern is, if you go further down the street, you want the same setbacks for front yards, so the streetscape, in either direction, is uniform. So all the front yards are the same, because if this guy, on this corner, say, you say this is his front yard here, and then he's held to a side yard standard here, he can put his house, this, side yards are usually narrower, ten feet or something. His house will stick out. MR. BREWER-So why does it have to be even? , MR. MARTIN-Because it's aesthetically more pleasing. MR. BREWER-To who? MR. MARTIN-That's always been the thinking, though. would you, on a corner lot, have a house, that's always opinion, that you maintain the streetscape. That's the Ordinance reads, the two back yards and no side yards. Why else been the way the MR. BREWER-Okay. Are we done? I'll make a motion to adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 15 -