1996-08-29 SP
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 29, 1996
INDEX
Site Plan No. 53-96
Tax Map No. 55-2-19.5
BMI Supply
1.
Site Plan No. 49-96
Tax Map No. 73-1-11.2
Knights of Columbus Council 194
2.
Site Plan No. 6-96
Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1
Ken Ermiger
2.
Site Plan No. 51-96
Tax Map No. 136-2-7, 8.2
Jay Curtis
22.
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 Meeting 8/29/96)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 29, 1996
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY
GEORGE STARK
DAVID WEST
CRAIG MACEWAN
ROGER RUEL
MEMBERS ABSENT
TIMOTHY BREWER
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI
PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT
JEFF FRIEDLAND
MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 53-96 TYPE: UNLISTED BMI SUPPLY OWNER:
ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF
QUEENS BURY (COUNTY LINE ROAD) SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD - SITE IS FIRST
VACANT LOT NORTH OF EXISTING MASONRY WAREHOUSE OWNED BY ADIRONDACK
INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT.
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED WORK. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.:
8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 55-2-19.5 LOT
SIZE: 1.603 ACRES SECTION: 179-26
MR. PALING-Okay, and I think the public hearing was closed in this
case, and we did the SEQRA.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it was. Yes. You were simply waiting for Warren
County's report.
MR. PALING-Right, which we have.
MR. GORALSKI-And Warren County approved. They had a condition that
the driveway from Queensbury Avenue be eliminated when the loop
road is constructed, which I believe is the same thing that this
Board discussed, and the applicant agreed to.
MR. PALING-All right. Then with that in mind, we have nothing else
to do. Lets go to a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-96 BMI SUPPLY, Introduced by
Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
With the condition that, Warren County condition, that the driveway
from Queensbury Avenue be eliminated when the loop road is
constructed.
Duly adopted this 29th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. West, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
- 1 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
SITE PLAN NO. 49-96 TYPE: UNLISTED KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL
194 OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD TO ROUTE 9
- ONE MILE NORTH PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A KITCHEN EXPANSION,
BANQUET DINING AND BINGO ROOM TO EXISTING BUILDING. BEAUTIFICATION
COMM.: 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-
11.2 LOT SIZE: 3.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
MR. PALING-Okay. Is someone here for the applicant from the
Knights of Columbus?
MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry. I spoke to Charlie Scudder, the engineer
for the Knights of Columbus today. They have not resolved all of
their engineering issues and requested that the application be
tabled until September.
MR. PALING-Do you want us to table it to a meeting, or just the end
of September?
MR. GORALSKI-What we'd like to do is schedule it for the first
meeting in September, if that's all right with you?
MR. PALING-Okay. All right.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-96 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL
194, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roger Ruel:
To be tabled to the first meeting of the Planning Board in
September.
Duly adopted this 29th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 TYPE II KEN ERMIGER OWNER: SAME ZONE:
HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, WEST SIDE OF ROAD, JUST NORTH OF AGWAY
PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT GO CART TRACK, OFFICE/ARCADE BUILDING AND
ROLLERBLADE RINK. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 1-1996 SP 58-95
BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/11/96 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
3/13/96 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6 ACRES
SECTION: 179-23
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-And that public hearing, I think, was left open.
MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was closed.
MR. PALING-It was closed?
MR. NACE-I think the minutes will show that that was closed.
MR. GORALSKI-That's my understanding, that the public hearing was
closed. Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then what new information do you have, John?
MR. GORALSKI-Two items. One is you were waiting for Warren
County's decision. Warren County approved with the condition that
the applicant look into moving the parking area along the road and
replacing it with green space, and then the other issue that came
up, as I explained to the Board, although the Board decided not to
retain a consultant to review the noise, the study was
- 2 -
'~
---,'
'-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
inadvertently sent to a consultant for their review and that
consultant did respond. The applicant will not be held responsible
for any monies that the consultant charges. That'll be taken care
of administratively, but there is a letter of response that's
addressed to Bill Levandowski of Rist-Frost Associates that I've
distributed to you and that the applicant received this afternoon.
If you'd like, I can read it into the minutes. It's fairly long
and technical.
MR. PALING-Does the Board want to hear it?
MR. STARK-No.
MR. PALING-Okay. I've read through it.
MR. GORALSKI-You've all read it?
MR. MACEWAN-Maybe it would be better if you just read the
conclusion of the letter.
MR. STARK-Did you get a copy?
MR. NACE-Yes, I have a copy. I spent my afternoon researching.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Would you like me to read the conclusion?
MR. STARK-The conclusion.
MR. PALING-I don't think I'm comfortable with conclusions. I think
if we're going to read it in, we better read the whole thing.
MR. MACEWAN-Good idea. Do the whole thing.
MR. GORALSKI-I can read it. This is a letter addressed to Bill
Levandowski, Rist-Frost Associates, subject: Technical Review -
Ermiger Go Kart Track Noise Study. "Dear Mr. Levandowski: Thank
you for requesting acoustical consulting services from Acentech.
Based on our review of the above-referenced noise study we have
developed the following comments concerning the study methodology
and results. Noise Metrics and Impact Criteria The report does
not provide sufficient description of the noise metrics used to
quantify existing ambient noise conditions, source noise levels,
and predict future project-related noise levels. The designation
'A-Weighted Decibel' is not sufficiently complete or precise in
describing whether the noise being measured or predicted is, for
example, a maximum noise level, an instantaneous noise level, a
time averaged noise level, or a sound power level. In addition,
neither an absolute noise criterion (maximum allowable noise
levels) nor a relative noise criterion (maximum allowable increase
in noise levels) are used in determining or evaluating potential
noise impacts for this project. Typically, a well-defined noise
impact criterion will specify the appropriate noise metric to be
used for measurements and predictions. This would not be such a
problem except that many of the applicable standards for community
noise refer to specific noise metrics such as the Equivalent-
Continuous Sound Level (Leq averaged over a specified time period,
or the Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) , a 24 hour averaged
noise level with a 10 dB penalty assigned to nighttime noise, or
some statistical metric such as the ' L90' (the ' ambient' level
exceeded 90% of the time). All of these and several others are
measured in A-Weighted Decibels. The report goes on to state that
'There are no established standards for the noise in the area of
the proposed go-kart track facility.' While it may be true that
there is no current legal community noise statute within this
particular municipality, this certainly does not mean that a
suitable recognized noise criterion cannot be employed for the
purpose of identifying community noise impacts for public review
and comment. For examples of some recognized criterion standards
- 3 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
see Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (March 1974), or
Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Noise, ISO R1996
(International Organization for standardization, Switzerland).
Noise Measurement Technique and Documentation Where noise
measurements were presented in this report, little or no
documentation was provided as to the measurement techniques and the
relevant existing conditions at the time of the measurement.
Proper noise measurement documentation typically includes: the
type of noise measurement device used; a site diagram of
measurement locations and the surrounding area including the
proximity of other observed noise sources; weather conditions and
time of day; traffic counts, speeds and road conditions (for
traffic related noise); instrument settings, measurement type and
averaging time. Noise measurements can be misleading without
proper documentation. For example, the measurement of the existing
highway noise levels on Route 9 (that were used to suggest that
track related noise would result in only a small increase over
ambient levels at the nearby receptor locations) may have varied
greatly depending on whether the measurements were conducted for a
few minutes very late at night or for an hour long period during
peak rush-hour traffic conditions, orïf measurements were made on
wet pavement or dry. Additionally, ambient noise conditions were
reported at only one of three identified noise receptor locations.
Noise Source Documentation and Future Noise Prediction The report
provides no documentation for manufacturers' source noise
estimates. Techniques for accounting for multiple moving sources
are not clearly explained and are not referenced. In particular,
the 'Track Effect' referred to in the report is unknown to us,
insufficiently explained, and unreferenced. Suitable, recognized
techniques for evaluating this type of noise source do exist, for
example, see Prediction of Laeq for Motor Racing Noise, Applied
Acoustics (1989). Without this information we have no way of
verifying the report's finding regarding the noise levels produced
by the go-kart track. Additionally, details of the hours of
operation for the proposed facility are not discussed. We can only
suggest that impacts may occur in the evening hours when ambient
noise levels fall below track related noise levels. Noise
Mitigation Estimates The report suggests that a relatively short
(4 foot high), non-continuous noise barrier 'will provide 10 to 14
dB (A) attenuation of sound from the nearest portions of the track.'
In practice, 15 dB (A) is often considered a practical limit for
even tall (15-20 foot) noise barriers. We believe that, given the
low wall height, variable track elevations (portions of the track
grade are higher than the top of the proposed walls) and obvious
flanking paths around the sides and between the gaps of the non-
continuous wall, and recognized noise barrier insertion loss
equations (Noise and Vibration Control, Beranek, 1971; Acoustical
Measurements and Noise Control, 1991, Harris) that the maximum
attenuation would be no greater than 5 to 10 dB (A) . The report
also states that'. ..the dense vegetation in the camping area will
provide attenuation of the noise from the proposed go-kart track.'
While vegetation does provide some acoustical attenuation, this is
limited to approximately 1.5 to 2 dB(A) of noise reduction per 100
feet of densely wooded area with a practical maximum of 10 dB (A) ,
(Harris). Conclusions We find the noise study to be lacking in
terms of recognized criteria and referenced methodology; to have
insufficient and poorly documented ambient noise measurements; and
to be recommending inadequately justified mitigation. As a result
we cannot support the conclusions reached in the report. We hope
that this letter report is sufficient for your current
requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of
any further assistance. Sincerely, ACENTECH INCORPORATED Paul L.
Burge, Consultant, Transportation Noise and Vibration"
MR. PALING-I think you could get into the battle of experts on
this, and it's read into the record, and we can have any comments
- 4 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
anybody wishes to make. Now I think at this point it would be
right to ask if the Board concurs, ask the applicant what they
would like to tell us tonight. Do you have something you want to
talk about?
MR. NACE-The only thing we can talk about, that I have, is the
noise. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing Ken
Ermiger. I can respond to the noise. Okay. I spent my afternoon
researching the experts, one expert to another. So we can get into
that if you want. I have no other issues. I think the other
issues we've fairly well address. There's a fence to be put up, to
be shown on the plan, between our site and Animal Land, and we've
agreed to some additional trees between our site and Agway.
MR. RUEL-Do you have any comments on the Acentech study?
MR. NACE-Yes. I can address it point by point if you would like.
MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't you go ahead with what you were saying,
and then lets come back to that noise study. Okay. You talked
about the fencing.
MR. NACE-The fencing, and an extra' buffer of trees between,
fencing, in fact I've marked up these plans for the draftsman to
do, so you can see a fence I've inserted back along the back
property line, and then on the landscaping, we will be putting a
couple of clusters of trees we have put here, at the near sections
of the track. We will in-fill between those clusters with addition
arborvitae or evergreens, to provide additional buffering, and
those are the only, at least from mY recollection, those are the
only open items from our last meeting.
MR. PALING-Okay. The trees were for the benefit of, I'm sorry, the
fencing was for the benefit of the Zoo.
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. PALING-And that gives them that barrier they asked for.
MR. NACE-They asked for, yes. So that'll be just a five foot high
chain link fence.
MR. PALING-Right, and then the arborvitae, or the trees, okay, I've
got that. The drainage, erosion was okay. Hours of operation we
can't get into. We talked about vehicle storage, fuel storage is
okay. Maintenance, entrance, noise, okay, and that's the Agway
thing, trees. Okay. The only two items that I have also are the
fencing for the Zoo and trees.
MR. STARK-What about the green area along the front, get rid of the
parking?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, what Warren County said.
MR. PALING-Well, are we going to, okay. Lets ask the applicant to
comment.
MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, as you will recall, we originally had
green area up here, okay. We thought we had a good plan to begin
wi th. We got forced into moving the track back, which forced us to
move back into some of our parking we had back in here, for the
building and for the area around the building. At that point,
we're far enough back here with the building that we're really
forced to put additional parking up here to serve both of the
sites. We do have green space, and this is one thing I tried to
make the County see, and they had seen the previous plan and liked
it, and I guess they were upset enough at the moving of the site
and their shuffling of the site that they didn't want to accept
- 5 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
that what, we do have 20 feet of green space between the parking
lot and the edge of the road, and if you'll recall from looking at
the adjacent properties along there, almost all of those properties
have asphalt right out to the road, okay. So I would maintain that
we already have more green and more landscaping up front than our
neighbors have.
MR. PALING-And I think you're better off for noise reasons, for
rearranging it that way.
MR. RUEL-See, I have a question. At one of the meetings I asked
you whether you had space for future expansion, as far as parking,
and you indicated that there would be.
MR. NACE-Back in here, and the County wanted us to take this
parking and put it back here, and that really cuts off future for
the entire site. Pirates Cove has said they may, if things work
out well, want to put another 18 holes in, and they've allocated
space back in here to do that, and Ken, if things go well with him,
may have some other attractions he would want to put back in this
area.
MR. RUEL-So if you move that parkinsf area in the front, you've
moved it to that area, then you no longer have any room for
expansion?
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. MACEWAN-If these two parcels were to be maximumly built out, do
you have enough parking set aside to cover all the foreseen
expansions?
MR. NACE-We believe with expansion of the parking back in here that
we would, okay.
MR. MACEWAN-How many more spots are to be added?
MR. NACE-Well, for the Pirates Cove, I believe right now they have
55 spots, okay, and that's what they feel they need for 18 holes.
They've told me if they go to 36 holes, they don't have to double
that, but they end up going to 80 some, and I'm not sure whether
it's the low 80's or the high 80's. I just don't remember, but as
far as this site here, the expansion plans for that are so nebulous
at this point we don't know what it would be. It would be some
sort of amusement attraction, but we have no idea what.
MR. MACEWAN-Getting back to the County for a minute. Were they
aware as to why this site plan was revised the way it was?
MR. NACE- Yes. They are, but they, I don' t know. I've had
experience with them in the past that if they like something and
another agency forces the applicant away from that, they don't
necessarily agree with the other agency. So the applicant suffers.
MR. MACEWAN-That's the way they proceed?
MR. NACE-In my estimation. Okay, but at any rate, that's neither
here nor there. They like the green space they saw there before,
and they didn't want to give that up.
MR. RUEL-You're talking about green space. What are you talking?
What is green space?
MR. NACE-We have, right now we have 20 feet. We had had I think 45
feet, yes.
MR. RUEL-You're talking about just the lawn or bushes?
- 6 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. NACE-Well, out on the highway right-of-way it will be just
lawn. Okay, but back on our property we have landscaping shown in
that area. Okay. A couple of large trees and some low bushes.
MR. RUEL-So that would provide further attenuation, noise wise?
MR. NACE-Yes, it will. Well, it's not really that high. So, it
would probably be fairly minimal.
MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, how about the 27 cars parked in that area?
Wouldn't that become a barrier, as far as attenuation?
MR. NACE-I'm not enough of an expert, yet, on sound to be able to
really address that.
MR. STARK-I don't think that they're going to fill up that much,
that they're going to have the 27 parking lots filled in the front
most of the time, because that's 200 feet away from the office.
You start the cars, you know, you're not going to park out there
and walk 200 feet if there's a parking spot closer.
MR. NACE-As I explained before, the parking sort of all works
together, okay. Some of this parking~ in reality, may be used by
Pirates Cove, and some of this parking used by the race track.
MR. PALING-John, do you have any comments on this? My number one
question on this would be, is the print that we're looking at, or
that I'm looking at here, take into consideration all of the many
modifications we discussed with perhaps two exceptions being the
trees and the fencing, and I think they're taken into consideration
now, too.
MR. GORALSKI-The trees and the fencing need to be added to any
final plan.
MR. NACE-And the other thing I've marked up there in red is you
wanted a note about the curb cut, an existing curb, that's in the
front of this property being closed off, which we were obviously
doing, but there's an extra note in red added there to reflect
that.
MR. GORALSKI-Otherwise, I think everything is addressed.
MR. PALING-Everything has been addressed.
SEQRA on this.
Okay. We have had a
MR. GORALSKI - No.
Unlisted Action.
Assessment Form.
You have not done a SEQRA yet.
You should review the Short
This is an
Environmental
MR. PALING-All right.
MR. GORALSKI - Something I might bring up, and I'm not sure. I
haven't really analyzed the parking on this site. So I might have
missed something, but what you were saying is the reason you
couldn't take these 27 spaces and put it out back is because there
could be future expansion back there?
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. GORALSKI-Two thoughts on that. One is, it's going to be future
expansion of parking, right?
MR. NACE-Well, future expansion of facilities and parking, yes.
MR. GORALSKI -Okay. Well, one thing I was thinking is, well,
couldn't you take those 27 spaces and put them out back, and then
leave the front here for future parking? The other thing is, the
- 7 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
Board always has the prerogative, if you think there's enough
parking in those 27 spaces, somebody mentioned those 27 spaces will
never be used, you know, you may want to, at the Board's
discretion, leave that as green space, for now, and then if the
need arises, have it installed later.
MR. PALING-The only thing, I can't remember exactly, but I think
I'm right when I say, I think we were the ones that influenced
that, to have the parking be put there in the first place.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would say it was the Zoning Board's
determination regarding the fact that the track had to meet the 75
foot setback.
MR. PALING-Well, I'm thinking of noise, too.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's up to you. I'm just trying to throw out
a couple of suggestions here.
MR. STARK-Would you rather not have the parking, not have the 27
spaces?
MR. NACE-No. We want the parking. /~
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay, and we would like it there, and, you know, again, I
sort of take issue with the fact that your 75 foot building
setback, it's not like Bay Road. It's not a green setback. It's
simply a building setback, and none of your regulations address
setting parking back that distance, and we do have more green space
up there than most of the adjacent properties.
MR. RUEL-The question about parking, all of the parking is joint,
isn't it, between the two properties?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Except what we're talking about now.
MR. NACE-No. All of it is really joint. There will be agreements,
written agreements, allowing parking. We're hopeful that somebody
comes, parks their car, and uses both facilities is the bottom
line. It's an amusement, you know, I don't want to say
conglomerate, but it's a joint effort, in a way.
MR. RUEL-From a Planning Staff, standpoint, you've checked the
number of parking spaces for this facility?
MR. GORALSKI-Correct.
MR. RUEL-And what's the recommended?
MR. GORALSKI-They meet the statutory requirement. I think it might
exceed it by a couple of.
MR. RUEL-It's close?
MR. NACE-Roger, you have no real statutory requirement when it
comes to this type of facility. We have based our estimates on
existing facilities. In Pirates Cove they have a lot of
facilities, and we've looked at other tracks and see what they
require.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. PALING-All right. If there are no other comments, then why
don't we go to the SEQRA.
- 8 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, before you do the SEQRA, would the Board
consider opening the public hearing in light of the new information
on the sound?
MR. PALING-Well, yes. We've opened it to the applicant. So I
think we're going to have to allow public comment. Lets clarify a
point here. Jon, you said we had to have a SEQRA, did you not?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. This is an Unlisted Action. I believe on your
agenda originally it said Type II, but that was because originally
you didn't have this 13,000 square foot building proposed.
MR. PALING-Okay. We've allowed the applicant to comment. I think
it's only fair that we do re-open the public hearing, if the Board
agrees.
WALTER REHM
MR. REHM-Could I say something, Mr. Chairman? My name is Walter
Rehm, and I'm the attorney for the applicant. Mr. Nace's comments
were in response to the Board's invitation. We did not intend to
open the public hearing, and we do not want to re-hash these things
allover again. The hearing was closed the other night. There has
been plenty of public notice. Everyone has had an opportunity to
speak ad nauseam, and for someone to come in here tonight, and to
open the public hearing is simply unfair , given the history of
this, the long history of this transaction, and I would
respectfully request that the Board not open the public hearing.
This report, in football terms, is a blindside. This is dated
yesterday, and we didn't know about it, I think, until yesterday or
today.
MR. NACE-Until three o'clock this afternoon.
MR. REHM-And this is a report that the Planning Board voted not to
have, and I don't think that that should, from fairness, be used as
the basis for opening the public hearing on this project.
MR. PALING-Okay. The basis of opening the public hearing, believe
me, is not that letter. The basis for opening the public hearing
is I think we're pretty loose, but we're even handed in that, and
we do re-open them, in an attempt to be fair. We did ask you to
reply, but we also gave you the opportunity to say whatever you
want to say, and you still have it, and I will poll the Board and
ask them if they, do you want to open the public hearing? Re-open
it?
MR. RUEL-No. I say no.
MR. STARK-No.
MR. MACEWAN-It's a double edged sword. He raises some good points
because it's a report that the Board voted not to want to have
done. It was done, but they had an opportunity to respond to it.
I think it's only fair that those opponents have an opportunity to
respond to that.
MR. NACE-I did not respond to that report at all yet, Craig.,
MR. MACEWAN-I take that back. I'm sorry.
MR. PALING-All right. Do you want the public hearing re-opened, or
no?
MR. WEST-I say no.
- 9 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. PALING-Two noes.
MR. STARK-Three noes.
MR. PALING-Three noes.
MR. RUEL-How about from a legal standpoint?
MR. PALING-I think from a legal standpoint we can re-open the
public hearing if we wish. Is that correct? From a legal
standpoint, are we all right?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Sure. If you want to take some more public comment,
in your discretion, you can do that.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RUEL-Either way.
MR. MACEWAN-Are you planning on responding to that report?
MR. NACE-Only if you have questions regarding it.
/~ ,
MR. PALING-All right. We are legally allowed to re-open or take
additional public comment. So it's a Board decision.
MR. MACEWAN-I think it's only' fair. I mean, we've done
applications in the past where some new information has come in
front of this Board at the last minute. We try to be fair and even
handed all the way across. I can't be changing policy.
MR. PALING-So you're saying yes?
MR. MACEWAN-I think we should open it up.
MR. PALING-George?
MR. STARK-I said no.
MR. PALING-Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I say, the only reason, I just want to say this. If
the public hearing is going to be re-opened, then there probably
were even more people that, if they had known that, would want to
come and talk, and in all fairness to these other people, you know,
that were here the last time and the public hearing was closed, I
don't see them here tonight, and they might say, well, if I had
known, we'd be here again.
MR. STARK-Maybe some people would have come to speak in favor of it
tonight.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true. I think that we've gone out
done our site visits and our investigating, and we have
carefully to everything, and probably to hear a little
could be valuable information and it might not be
information. So lets open it.
and have
listened
bi t more
valuable
MR. PALING-Okay, and I say open, but that's, what did we have, two
noes here?
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. PALING-And one no here is three. That's a three and three.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we have to make a motion. Don't we have to
make a motion first?
- 10 -
'-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. RUEL-No. I don't think so.
MR. MACEWAN-Bob, ultimately you're the Chairman.
power.
You have the
MR. PALING-All right. Then I'll re-open the public hearing, and
with this in mind, that we try to be fair and let everyone speak
their peace, and you can't always be fair, but we try the best we
can. We have allowed public comment in the past. We'll allow it
tonight. I would ask you, please don't re-hash what we've been
through before, what you've got. If there's something new that you
want to talk about, come forward and we'll listen to you, and then
the applicant will have ample opportunity to respond as they wish.
So we'll open, hopefully it will be brief public comment.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name's Jon Lapper from
Lemery & Reid, and I'm here on behalf of Charlie Wood and Story town
U.S.A., Inc., the owner of the Great Escape. Coincidentally, I
only came here to talk about one issue, and that's the potential
noise impact. Mr. Wood is only interested in this project getting
the same level of review that he's had when he's had expansions to
the Great Escape. I brought with me the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the roller coaster, and
interestingly, noise was an issue there, and he had to do detailed
noise study. The issue is impact on the neighborhood and how that
might effect the Great Escape and other property owners in the
area, and we feel, I didn't know about this report before we got
here tonight. I came to talk about noise and we feel that a
detailed noise study is required before the SEQRA review is done.
In other cases before this Town, there have been cases where, for
machinery there had to be mufflers. It's possible that the sound
could be otherwise buffered, which would make a big impact on
residents, the residents across the street and the people in the
motels, and even the Great Escape down the hill. Just without
having the empirical data with respect to noise, it's hard to know
how loud these things will be and whether it's going to be a real
issue that everyone in the neighborhood's going to have to put up
with noise, and that's the only thing I'm here to talk about, and
Mr. Wood would just like a detailed review on that issue.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MARTIN AUFFREDOU
MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members, my name is
Martin Auffredou. I'm an attorney with the Bartlett/Pontiff firm
in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of the Lake George Campsite and
also Skateland. Earlier this evening, I submitted a letter to Mr.
Friedland, which I would ask to become part of the record. It
basically highlights a number of our concerns. I'm not going to
re-hash that or take a lot of time this evening.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Excuse me, is that the one addressed to Jim Martin?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, it is.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay. I didn't open it because it wasn't addressed
to me.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Addressed to Jim Martin, I did hand it to Mr.
Friedland. It's for the record. Just really a couple of concerns,
on the noise study that was done. I was here last week and it
struck me that a noise study that depends upon sound testing that
was done in March of 1996 cannot be representative of the sound
studies that are generated at the project site during the summer
- 11 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
months. So I think that's a fatal flaw in the sound study that was
done, and I think that was an important part of the sound study.
The gentleman that was here, the expert indicated that the sound,
the decibel levels were recorded in March of 1996. It has nothing
to do with the activity at the project site in the summer months
when the go kart track's going to be operating. Another point that
struck me last week is a number of the members indicated that they
didn't feel that a sound study was necessary because the only way
to really gauge whether a project is going to generate noise is to
observe first hand a go kart track. The idea of going to the
Action Park in Lake George was discussed. I'm not sure that that's
going to be very helpful to you, and I would just point out that
the proposed track, as I understand it, is going to be operating 27
go karts at one time. The Skateland track, which of course is the
track of my client, the maximum number that operates at anyone
time is 15, that's go karts, and we have, upon information and
belief, that the maximum number of go karts that operate at the
Action Park in Lake George is 19. So I submit to you that the
cumulative effect of 27 go karts operating at one time may be
something quite different than what you would observe at either one
of those go kart tracks. On a point of SEQRA, a procedure, I would
simply say that I don't see how the Board could really take the
requisite hard look that SEQRA requires" by simply examining a Short
Environmental Assessment Form, and I would urge you, in your
discretion, to require the applicant to complete along, Full
Environmental Assessment Form, and that you utilize that for
purposes of your SEQRA review. With respect to a site specific
concern, last week, my client Mr. Gardner, who is also here this
evening, did state to this Board that he was looking for a fence to
be erected along the north end of his property, which is of course
the Campground, citing camping concerns. Obviously, campers are
there at 10, 11 o'clock at night. They're in their tents. They're
in their pop up campers. There's a security problem. We think
that needs to be addressed. Lastly, with respect to the, there was
also one issue that was raised last week concerning the hours of
operation. There was a statement made by the attorney for Mr.
Ermiger that he didn't believe that the Board had the authority to
limit the hours of operation. I don't believe that's correct at
all. I believe that you have statutory and inherent authority to
do, but I would submit that if you have a question about whether
you can limit the hours of operation, that the question be placed
with the Town Attorney. Thank you.
MR. PALING-Thank you.
talk?
Is there anyone else that would care to
ED GARDNER
MR. GARDNER-My name is Ed Gardner. I own the Lake George Campsite.
I don't know if this particular point has been brought home solidly
enough and has been recognized solidly enough in all of our
discussions, and I sure want to make sure it is. We are now
adjoined, or adjoined by, the business on the south end known as
Skateland. The noise factor that is projected from the operation
of the machines alone is not the most serious problem with respect
to that go kart track. The single biggest noise, and the one that
projects the furthest into the Campground are the screams of glee
and delight that come from the participants who are using those
machines, and it's great to see them and hear them having a good
time, up to a certain point. Believe me, if you're trying to run
a campground which is already bordered on the south end with a go
kart track that produces those kinds of noises, and you have guests
who are trying to go to sleep at approximately 11 o'clock at night,
which is a normal going to sleep time for campers, and if we know
that those are the people that we're dealing with, we now have the
option of moving them to the north end of the Campground where they
won't have to be besieged by those kinds of noises. If we now at
a go kart track to the north end of the property, we're going to
- 12 -
'-,
-..--'
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
have the same kinds of screams and noises that project into the
Campground as we now have. It's going to be a serious problem for
the continued operation of this Campsite. I hope that message is
heard by you, and can be in some way built into whatever
consideration you make as a result of these hearings, and I thank
you very much.
MR. PALING-Thank you. Is there anyone else? All right. Then
we're going to give the applicant a chance to respond, and then
we'll close the response from both the public and the applicant.
Would you just respond to what has been said, okay?
MR. NACE-Okay. I guess the first thing I have noted here, I don't
believe that Mr. Wood's lawyer is aware that we have done a sound
study for this proj ect. So I would simply point that out.
Responding to Mr. Auffredou, he made the comment that the sound
readings that we took for ambient sound levels were done in March,
and that the sound readings should have been taken now during the
summer season. In fact, that would probably make the ambient
background noises higher. Okay. During March there may not have
been as much traffic in the middle of the day as there is in the
middle of the summer. So we believe that having taken them in
March, in fact, is a conservative approach. As to the number of
karts, an issue has come up, not only tonight, but in the Acetech
report, dealing with the number of karts and the effect that the
number of karts has on the overall noise. Our consultant used a
term called "Track Effect", and what that really deals with is the
fact that with go karts, you're dealing with a relatively high
frequency of noise, and that high frequency is dissipated through
the air in relatively short distances. The attenuation of that
sound occurs much more rapidly over distance than the attenuation
of car traffic or truck traffic noises, because they are a lower
frequency. They travel through the air longer distances, and what
the means is that when you have a bunch of karts going around a
track, you lose the effect of the karts that are on the rear
portion of the track, and you hear much more prominently the karts
that are on the front portion, okay, and the track effect is simply
a method of normally, well, let me back up. Normally sound
engineers deal with noise generators from a point, and calculating,
if you put, two, three, four, five noise generators at that point,
what the noise, overall noise is, relative to one. In other words,
if you have one noise generator here, and have 70 dB over here, if
I add 10 more noise generators at that same point, how much is the
noise over here now? So the track effect simply is an equation
that allows them to distribute these noise generators over a track
area, which is not all equidistant from the receptor, and to
calculate what the effect of the additional cars are because of
that, but I think you've all heard and listened to some of the
tracks. By their admission, Skateland has 15 cars. Action Park
has 19. We have a track length of about 1200 feet. I believe, I
didn't measure it, but from looking at it, observing it, I believe
the track length at Action Park is more in a variety of six to
eight hundred feet. So you'd have much less area to distribute the
cars over, and 19 cars is a more appropriate number for that track.
The actual noise you hear from the cars comes from those, mostly
those cars that are bunched up at a curb or wherever, nearest to
where the receptor is. So adding a few cars, or comparing 19 to 27
makes very little difference in the noise that you will hear. The
next question was the fence along the campground. We've said at
the last meeting, and I still contend, that the campground is far
enough away from us. The attraction for people that come to this
facility is this facility itself, most of those people probably
won't even be aware that there's a campground back there. There's
several hundred feet of trees between the nearest part of our
parking lot and the campground, and I don't believe that that
presents a significant risk, the campground. Hours of operation,
I think we addressed before. Skateland is open until 12, and our
intention is to remain open until 12. The noise at the south end
- 13 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
of the campground from Skate land and the screams. The part of
Skateland closest to the campground, as I think you are aware, is
the waterslide area. From my observation, being around not only
the Skateland facility but also the one up in Old Forge, is that
that's where the voice or the screaming noise comes from, not from
the karts. Around the tracks I've been, you hear very little
screaming from the track. In fact, I don't recall really hearing
any to speak of. So that's, unless YOU have anything to add, Walt,
that really addresses, I believe, what we've just heard.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. The public hearing is closed, and the
input from the applicant is closed. We reserve the right to ask
questions, but we're not going to accept further input. I think
we've done plenty now for both sides of this, in attempt to be
fair. So now the conversation will be within the Board and the
Staff, as we proceed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING-Did you want to have further discussion before going to
the SEQRA?
MR. STARK-Lets do the SEQRA.
/ ,...
MR. PALING-Lets do the SEQRA. Okay. Go ahead, Roger.
MR. RUEL-"Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part
617-12?
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-"Will action received coordinated review as provided for
Unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR Part 617.6?
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL- "Could action result in any adverse effects associated
with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or
groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for
erosion, drainage or flooding problems?"
MR. STARK-I would say yes. The noise level would be small to
moderate, but it can be mitigated.
MR. PALING-Yes. It's got to be a yes, but do we have that option
on this particular form to say that, that it can be mitigated?
MRS. LABOMBARD-It says to explain briefly.
MR. RUEL-Well, the explanation is what the objection is.
MR. PALING-Well, there is noise, but we think that the level, I'm
speaking for myself now. We think that the level of noise doesn't
have that much of an impact on it. There are other noises in the
area, I believe, that are worse than the go kart track.
MR. RUEL-Would it be sufficient to answer, yes, but can be
mitigated?
MR. GORALSKI-I think you should use that entire statement that Mr.
Paling said.
MR. PALING-All right. We're saying that there is noise from the
track, but that the level of noise is less than the level of other
noise in the area, namely street traffic, and that the noisiest
thing there is Route 9, or in some cases, music, and that it does
tend to mitigate the effect of the sound of the track, which isn't
- 14 -
-...-/
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
too bad.
MR. MACEWAN-Based on what?
MR. PALING-Based on what? Based on, I believe, five visits, now,
to there at various times of the day and night, and various days,
going up there and standing at the edge of the track, standing 100
feet away on the edge of the parking lot, standing across the
street in Leonard's Insurance and down the street at the curtain
place, and observing it, visiting the campsite and listening to the
Interstate 87 traffic, within the campsite, and I know that the go
kart is going to generate noise, but I honestly don't think that
it's going to be that much, and I think that other noise is worst,
mostly Route 9, and a little bit of Interstate 87, too.
MR. RUEL-Do you want to reference the geosonic sound study?
MR. PALING-I don't want to reference either sound study. I don't
think we're qualified to, and I think we're just going to get into
a battle of the one expert contradicting another, but I think with
a number of people visiting them, in their own opinion, I'd rather
go on that.
..
MR. RUEL-You say we're not qualified. We get traffic studies. We
get noise level studies. Why do we get these studies if we're not
qualified to evaluate them?
MR. PALING-Well, that's a good question. I don't think that,
there's a lot of technical terms in the sound study you won't find
in a traffic study. I think traffic study you can understand,
because that's something we all experience, but you get into dB's
and track effect and some of the other terms they use, and I think
it's a little bit tough for the Board.
MR. RUEL-Well, are we then going to ignore the results of this
geosonic sound study, and base it strictly on observations?
MR. PALING-I am going more by my own and others that were with me
of the observation. That's what I'm doing personally, yes.
MR. STARK-I was going to tell Rog. We were up there at 11 o'clock
at night until twenty after eleven, and when there's no cars on
Route 9, you can hear a couple of cars, and we're 200 feet away
now, which is approximately where the motel rooms are, where the
motels would be from the track, and you could hear one or two cars
going around. They had like five or six on the track at one time.
The minute a car comes down the road, you don't even hear that
noise, you hear the car, or you hear Bob talking more than you
would the car. If we kept quiet, and there was no cars in the
road, then you could hear them just very little, but a voice would
override it.
MR. RUEL-Yes. I made some observations, and I'm inclined to agree
with you, but of course I don't know about the screaming. There
was no screaming.
MR. STARK-We didn't request this study. They did it on their own.
MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. We didn't request it.
MR. STARK-Inadvertently it went to this Acentech.
MR. RUEL-We didn't request that.
MR. PALING-No, and maybe we should have left it out, but it's
submitted. I hate to ignore it.
MR. RUEL-Well, these studies can go on forever. We keep getting
- 15 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
them.
MR. PALING-All right. Is that sufficient for everybody on that,
the noise factor there? All right. Go ahead.
MR. RUEL-Do we have to have a documented reply?
MR. PALING-Well, it's in the minutes. I think we can use what's in
the minutes, and what I said.
MR. RUEL-Is that okay? All right. I'll go on to the next one,
then. "Aesthetic, agricultural archeological, historic, or other
natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood
character?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. STARK-It would have a positive effect to the neighborhood
character. What's there now, a bunch of woods.
MR. RUEL-It's zoned for that. It's typical of the area.
MR. PALING-It's zoned as commercial, yês.
MR. RUEL- "Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species,
significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL- "A community's existing plans or goals as officially
adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-And any conflict with the master plan?
MR. PALING-I don't think so.
MR. STARK-No.
MR. RUEL-No. "Growth, subsequent development or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action?"
MR. PALING-No.
MRS. LABOMBARD-No.
MR. RUEL- "Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects
identified in C1-C5?"
MR. PALING-I'd say no.
MR. RUEL-Okay. "Other Impacts (Including changes in use of either
quantity or type of energy)?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?"
MR. STARK-No.
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-I waive the balance of this document.
MR. PALING-Okay. Do I have a second?
- 16 -
"---"
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. STARK-Second.
MR. GORALSKI-You said, waive the balance of this document. You
have to make a motion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-Your motion is that you find that there is no
significant environmental impact related to this project.
MR. PALING-We don't usually do it that way, John. Maybe we should.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, you should be doing it that way.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, wait a minute. Yes we do. When I say, when
I read it, I would like to waive the rest of this, and then read
all of these, we always second that.
MR. PALING-But then John's asking that it be put to a motion.
MR. GORALSKI-All you did is read Part II of the EAF. You didn't
make any determination.
/ c-...
MR. PALING-All right. Well, why don't you put it in a motion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-First of all, Part E. I have a problem with.
Everybody said no. I think that there is controversy related to,
I mean, an environmental impact is the whole ambiance of what's out
there, and I believe that this noise matter, it's just another way
you could bring in the noise controversy at that point, on E.
MR. PALING-Well, I thought we answered the noise.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I know, up in C1, but I think that there's such
a thing as noise pollution. That's an environmental impact, and
that's where I think that we would be remiss if we didn't mention
it in Part E.
MR. PALING-Well, then we're just going to give it the same answer
as we did above.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly. That's okay. Go right ahead and do that,
but I think that by not using noise as an environmental.
MR. STARK- I don't think they mean noise down here. Otherwise, they
wouldn't have put it up here.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RUEL-We can answer that one by making a reference, See C1
above, which is the one we just talked about.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, but I think that noise is, there's such a
thing as noise pollution, and I think that's an adverse
environmental impact.
MR. RUEL-Well, okay. For each one of the adverse effects that we
identified, and we did identify C1, right, the noise, determine
whether it is substantial large important or otherwise significant.
MR. PALING-We did that, I think, by the explanation I gave, and I
think the Board concurred with that, or we can poll the Board to
see. Do you concur with my analysis of the noise?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STARK-Yes.
- 17 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. WEST-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Yes, except that maybe we should classify it as
substantial large important or otherwise significant.
MR. PALING-Well, that's what I tried to do.
saying.
That's what we're
MR. RUEL-Can you pick one of these?
MR. GORALSKI-Well, you guys are bouncing around between different
sections of this form. Are you talking about E.?
MR. RUEL-I'm looking at Part III, determination of significance.
MR. GORALSKI-Right, but why are you looking at that when we were
talking about, Cathy was talking about Part E.? Wasn't she?
MR. RUEL-Yes. We were talking about.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and Bob said he was going to respond to E. the
same way he responded to C1.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So what you're saying is that you're answering
yes to that.
MR. RUEL-Yes to C1.
MR. GORALSKI-No, I'm talking about E.
MR. RUEL-C1, yes.
MR. GORALSKI-I'm talking about E.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Cathy, which is the one you were asking about?
MR. PALING-D. is what I think Cathy was talking about.
MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry, they're using the old form.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It's E.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, you're looking at the old Part II.
MR. PALING-The new part doesn't have an E.
MR. GORALSKI-It's D. on the new one.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Excuse me.
MR. GORALSKI-That's all right. It's the same question.
MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I thought Roger left one out.
MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry. Cathy's right. She's got the new form,
and the new form has an Item E., which is the same as Item D. on
the old form.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger's reading an old one.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-We have the new one.
MR. GORALSKI-The point is, the question is still the same. Is
there or is there likely to be controversy related to adverse
environmental impact. Mrs. LaBombard said that noise was an
- 18 -
'-
----
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
environmental impact and felt that it should be answered yes. Is
that correct?
MR. REHM-No, that's not what she said.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I said I felt that there is controversy.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And I felt that the adverse environmental impact
that there's controversy about is noise, because I believe that
there's such thing as noise pollution.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. You're not saying that this is a significant
impact. You're just saying that there is controversy related to
noise.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel that by not addressing the noise on Part E.,
that we're making a joke about it on C1.
MR. PALING-No, wait a minute. You've addressed the noise once.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Just try to listêh to me, okay. The question
on E., is there or is there likely to be public controversy, okay.
Your answer is yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-Why are you answering Yes?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Because I believe that the controversy that there is
likely to be or there is at this point, is related to a potential
adverse environmental impact, which I define as noise.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So that's it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And I believe that noise is a form of pollution.
So, therefore, it effects the environment or the outside.
MR. GORALSKI-That's it. All you're stating is that there is
controversy, that's all you're stating.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's it, period. Now, if yes, explain briefly,
and the explanation I would like would be just the same as Bob said
for C1.
MR. GORALSKI-Find.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So, we don't even have to have it enumerated,
stated.
MR. GORALSKI-That's correct.
fine.
If everyone agrees to that, that's
MRS. LABOMBARD-Now we can go on.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. STARK-You want a motion that there's a negative dec.
MR. GORALSKI-Then if you've gone through Items A through E., your
next step is to determine whether or not there is significant
environmental impact related to this project that would require an
Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. PALING-Okay. That's what the question before us is.
MR. GORALSKI-So you would need a motion to say, no, there is not
- 19 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
any significant environmental impacts that would require an
Environmental Impact Statement, or yes, there are significant
environmental impacts that would require an Environmental Impact
Statement.
MR. PALING-All right. Then lets go to a motion on that. George,
do you want to?
MOTION THAT, HAVING DONE THE SEQRA FOR SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 KEN
ERMIGER, THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND A FULL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY, Introduced by
George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel:
Duly adopted this 29th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
/~,
MR. GORALSKI-Four votes, so there's a neg dec, so you can go on to
make a motion on the project.
MR. PALING-All right. Now does the Board wish to discuss anything
else before we go to a motion on this application? All right.
We've covered all the other business, and I'll entertain a motion
in regard to this site plan.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Before you make a motion, can I talk to you?
MR. PALING-Yes, certainly.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Could we include a couple of things in this motion?
I'm really concerned about maybe the hours, I think, one lawyer
says we have the power to dictate the hours of operation, and the
other attorney says we don't.
MR. PALING-Lets let Mark do that for us.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to put something in there on the hours
of operation, when you make a motion. I also think that even
though many of us feel that the people from the campgrounds are
going to go over and use the park, or use the recreation here for
their enjoYment, if the traffic's going to be more from the
campground into the miniature golf and the go karts. Maybe the
campground owner does have a legitimate concern that he is worried
about the welfare of his campers and maybe a wall of some sort
should be constructed, if this is going to.
MR. PALING-Did you visit it?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I was there.
MR. PALING-Well, lets go to Question One. Mark, would you want to
comment on the hours of operation, whoever you want to comment on
it?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Is the applicant agreeing to some condition on the?
MR. PALING-No, they have not.
MR. FRIEDLAND-Would the applicant agree?
MR. PALING-They have expressed a desire to stay open until
midnight. They have stated that they intend to stay open until
- 20 -
-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
midnight, and I think they've addressed it as a non issue, ~hat we
really shouldn't be able to address it, but now we're ask1ng the
Town Attorney or whoever to tell us. We don't know.
MR. RUEL-Can we set the hours?
MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. If you believe that conditioning the approval
on restricting the hours in a reasonable manner would benefit the
community and the neighborhood, you certainly have the inherent
authority to impose a reasonable condition on the hours.
MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I just believe that the traffic at that, the
Route 9 traffic, the Northway traffic at midnight, between 11 and
midnight, is such that it's not going to have that much of, you're
not going to hear it as much as you would in the earlier hours of
the evening. So maybe at that point in time, the go kart noise
wouldn't be drowned out by the surroundings, and that's a crucial
time because people want to go to bed.
MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. RUEL-Well, in all fairness, Skateland is open until midnight,
and how do you restrict one and not:' restrict the other, that's
close to it, the same sort of operation, and this one he even has
the track further away from the road, and you restrict them and not
the other ones?
MR. WEST-Yes.
potentially.
That puts them at a competitive disadvantage,
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I just want to thrash this out, because
I want to make sure I've turned over all the stones.
MR. RUEL-All right, and then this fence you mentioned there, that
would be between his property and the adj acent property, the
campgrounds, right? You mentioned that this large buffer zone,
about 100 feet of trees?
MR. PALING-Three hundred.
MR. RUEL-Well, that's certainly more than adequate as far as a
buffer zone is concerned. It's tough walking through there.
MR. WEST-You'd hear more from the Northway there than you're going
to hear from the cars.
MR. PALING-I believe that, too.
MR. RUEL-I was talking about from a security standpoint, rather
than noise.
MR. PALING-All right. Any other comments?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I just wanted to thrash those things over a little
bit and hear what everybody had to say.
MR. RUEL-Well, there are no other conditions then, right?
MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to make a motion?
MR. RUEL-Yes. I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 KEN ERMIGER, Introduced by
Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
To construct a go-kart track, office/arcade building and roller
blade rink, that the arborvitae and other trees be added to the
south end of the track to provide barrier between Agway and the
- 21 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
track. That adequate fencing be installed between the track
property and the Zoo to prevent any interference with the animals
or animals with the kids, and this should be similar to the fence
that we approved before with Pirates Cove. That the existing curb
cut on the property be closed off.
Duly adopted this 29th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling
NOES: Mr. MacEwan
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
SITE PLAN NO. 51-96 TYPE: UNLISTED JAY CURTIS OWNER: FRANK
PARILLO ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: CORINTH RD., WEST OF NORTHWAY TO
BIG BAY ROAD SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 800'. PROPOSAL IS TO DEVELOP A
6.7 ACRE PARCEL FOR BUILDING MATERIALS STORE (10,000 +/- SF) AND
WAREHOUSE SPACE (67,390 +/- SF) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, ON-SITE SEPTIC AND GREEN SPACE AREAS. BEAUTIFICATION
COMM. : 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING:-'8/21/96 CROSS REFERENCE:
UV 50-1996 TAX MAP NO. 136-2-7, 8.2 LOT SIZE: 6.724 ACRES
SECTION: 179-24
JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-John, we shall turn this over to you, and you bring us
up to date as to what's going on here.
MR. GORALSKI-There were several issues that remain to be addressed,
engineering issues, zoning issues. I believe the major issue that
everyone's probably most interested in, at this point, and we can
start out with, is the Lupine habitat on the site. I can read you
a letter from DEC, and then the applicant's representative can give
you any further explanation that you might need regarding the
outcome of that situation. This letter is addressed to George
Hilton, Assistant Planner. "Dear Mr. Hilton: We have concluded a
meeting with the representatives of the applicants in the Big Bay
Road Curtis Lumber Project and believe we have come to terms on
acceptable mitigation for the removal of the lupine habitat at the
site. Curtis has agreed to set aside $8,000 in an escrow account
for the conduct of the lupine survey under discussion. The
mechanics of this escrow account remain to be worked out. However,
we anticipate the acceptable completion of this account. In our
judgement, this commitment from the developer addresses our
concerns and outweighs the loss assumed from taking this habitat.
We have also consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
obtained their concurrence with the mitigation plan. Therefore, we
have no objection to the Town proceeding with the approval process
for this project. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in
this matter. We look forward to your continued involvement in this
effort. The signatures below of the parties to this discussion
represent our intentions to follow through with this agreement.
John Richards, attorney for Curtis Lumber Jon Hallgren, Curtis
Lumber Richard Colyer, Curtis Lumber Sincerely, Kathy O'Brien
Peter Nye Endangered Species Unit"
MR. PALING-If there were some hitch, glitch in the agreement
process, we would have to be notified, because that's what I
believe the letter says. They're just about there, but not quite.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, my recommendation would be that any
determinations regarding this project be conditioned on fulfillment
of the agreement set forth in this letter.
MR. MACEWAN-Can you answer a question for me? How can a matter of
- 22 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
seven days go by and that estimate double?
MR. GORALSKI-I'm at a little bit of a loss here.
MR. MACEWAN-I have a letter here, August 14th, from DEC, says it
will cost $4,000 for the survey. I have a letter here, August
21st, from DEC, says it will now cost $8,000 for the survey.
MR. GORALSKI-I was not a party to the discussions today. So maybe
Mr. Richards could address the Board.
MR. PALING-If we need to address the questions, we'll wait for the
applicant to get up there. Lets move on.
MR. GORALSKI-I can't answer that. I was not a party to the
discussions, and nobody in our office was.
MR. PALING-If we need an answer, we'll let the applicant answer it.
MR. RUEL-I have a question. Some clarification. This $8,000 is to
make a study of Queensbury for location of the Blue Lupine?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I have the exact same question, and at whatever
time the Board thinks it's appropriate, we can't answer these
questions. I think it would be appropriate to have some
representative of the applicant explain the Board, in detail, what,
specifically, the letter is referencing. We heard a little bit
about this at last week's meeting, but this particular letter
refers to the study under discussion, I think it says.
MR. RUEL-At the last meeting, it was stated that the study would be
to study all of Queensbury and to locate the areas.
MR. PALING-Lets let it go to the applicant.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Fine, but the reason I bring it up is that,
apparently an $8,000 study will negate the Blue Lupine on the
Curtis property. In other words, what happens to that? Are they
going to eliminate it?
MR. PALING-Again. Lets wait until the applicant is up there. Let
me interrupt. John, other than the letter, do you have any input
at the moment?
MR. GORALSKI-There are a couple of other issue that I believe still
remain to be addressed. I can list them, and I believe that the
applicant's engineer can address them. Would you like me to list
them?
MR. PALING-Yes, please.
MR. GORALSKI -Okay. The access onto Bay Road. There was some
discussion about a shared access with the adjoining lot.
MR. MACEWAN-Big Bay?
MR. GORALSKI - Big Bay, I'm sorry. Wi th regard to parking, the
handicapped spaces shown show an access aisle of five feet. The
Code requirement is for eight feet. There was a discussion of
parking counts, and the applicant was going to provide a plan of
the warehouse to show the amount of parking that can be
accommodated inside the warehouse. There were several comments
from Rist-Frost, specifically regarding the stormwater retention
area, and I believe there was going to be a change in one of the
re-charge basins. There were several other Rist-Frost comments.
There are signs shown on this plan that do not meet the Queensbury
Sign Code. So I would recommend that you not approve any of the
signage that's indicated on the plan, and then a new site
- 23 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
development data sheet was required, and that has been submitted.
MR. PALING-A new site development sheet. Okay.
MR. RUEL-We never approve the signage.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, I just want it to be clear, because there are
signs shown on the plan. I don't want anyone to walk away thinking
that the signs shown on the plan were approved.
MR. PALING-All right. I think, why don't we go right to having the
applicant come up. Would the applicant, representative or whatever
come up please and identify yourself.
MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name, again, is John Richards. I'm
the attorney for J. Curtis, the applicant here, and I can answer a
number of the questions that were raised.
MR. PALING-Do you want to start with the one that we were going to,
had a little brouhaha on there, about-the agreement that you're
working out with the environmentalists?
MR. RICHARDS-Surely. Let me just add that, to my right is Dennis
MacElroy from Environmental Design Partnership, who is responsible
for the site plan and any of the engineering questions, and he can
address some of those. As far as the DEC letter, and what's the
genesis of it, as you know, last week we explained that we were
working on a mitigation. As Mr. MacEwan pointed out, these were
based on letters we'd received from Kathy O'Brien, the Wildlife
Specialist at DEC, and you're entirely right. The initial estimate
that she gave us was $3,000 to $4,000. She then, I know she's had
a number of discussions with George, and we've tried to keep George
in the loop on all of this, too. So we've had discussions with
George, and she had more review of the specifics of the study that
she wanted with her supervisor, who is Peter Nye, and that, I
think, was the reason for the subsequent letter of the 21st, I
believe, that talked about the seven to eight figure.
MR. PALING-Could you tell us what they're going to do with the
$8,000?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes. I was just about to. I'm speaking from my
understanding. We had a number of discussions and a long meeting
with both Mr. Nye and Ms. O'Brien, and my understanding of what
they plan to do is do a Lupine habitat survey for what they call
the Glens Falls Recovery Unit. Apparently there are units, and
Mark, you may be more familiar with this than I am. There are
units throughout the Capital District ranging north, and we may be
the farthest north, but I could be wrong on that, at any rate,
ranging north of areas where they think there may be a possibility
of re-establishing or encouraging the habitat for the Karner Blue
butterfly. The Glens Falls Recovery Unit extends roughly the lower
part of Queensbury, I believe east of West Mountain, over to the
very western part of the Town of Kingsbury. It actually straddles
the counties. Most of it's in the south part of Queensbury, but
some does go over into Kingsbury, and that is what she wants
surveyed. She's anticipating a lot of walking on the grounds, and
of course use of aerial photos and other things, and then inputting
the data in such a fashion that I think the Town can draw on it
very easily. I think there's different talks about how to automat
that. John, I don't know if George mentioned that part to you, but
they're trying to make that as user friendly for the communities as
possible, so that people don't find this out at the 11th hour, and
adequate habitats can be encouraged. So that's what they're
planning to do. We don't profess to be specialists in, although
- 24 -
'-,
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
we're becoming that, on Karner Blue butterflies and Blue Lupine.
We do understand the importance of this, and once we acknowledge
this, we're certainly enthusiastic about getting a proper study
done for the benefit of this Town, and we think it'll be a
wonderful benefit for the Town, and I can tell you DEC is
tremendously enthusiastic about it.
MR. WEST-Do I understand you to say that this could be a future
potential habitat, versus a currently existing habitat?
MR. RICHARDS-They don't know where all the Blue Lupine is in this
area. They think this general area can, and I'm saying this from
my understanding. They think that there is a lot of Blue Lupine
that's undiscovered in this Town, and they think there are many
areas in this Town where long term populations of the Karner Blue
can be encouraged. My understanding is that this site, no matter,
the long term prognosis for this site is not good in any event,
given it's location, surrounding.
MR. PALING-It's not good for the butterfly?
MR. RICHARDS-And the Blue Lupine or anything else.
MR. RUEL-will the study take in all of Queensbury, or just the
southern part, as you indicated earlier?
MR. RICHARDS-It's not all of Queensbury. It's not up by the lake.
I know that.
MR. RUEL-If they don't know where it is, how can they just select?
MR. RICHARDS-They go by soil types, and aerial photos and things
like that. They've already done some preliminary work, as you~
know, and have located several sites. We're not experts. We're
relying upon what they're telling us. We've just said, okay,
you've demonstrated to us that you do need this increased amount of
funding. We'll take care of it, and that's where we are.
MR. PALING-Okay. Maybe we shouldn't go too far afield. There has
been an agreement reached, and for which I think that CVS should be
complimented, and thanked. I mean, Curtis. Excuse me, and I think
they're doing a good service to the Town. We know what happens
when we run into Blue Lupine. It delays everything, and so I think
you're reaching an agreement with them. It's going to be a good
service to the community. We appreciate it, and I think we can
move on from that point to the other parts of this.
MR. RUEL-Except they'll make this study. What do you get out of
this, on your property?
MR. RICHARDS-I want to emphasize, we're not involved in the day to
day workings of the study. We will be establishing this fund.
We've committed to establish this fund, so that the Town can be
assured that this study will take place. DEC maintains technical
control over who actually does it. My understanding is they'll be
reporting back to DEC, but I don't want to make any representations
beyond that we will assure that that $8,000 funding fee is paid.
That we can tell you, and that really is the extent of our role in
it.
MR. RUEL-What does Curtis get out of this?
MR. RICHARDS-Well, we get to, obviously we want to move our project
on, because time is so critical to this.
MR. RUEL-And what? What happens to the Blue Lupine that you have
on your property?
- 25 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. RICHARDS-It'll be moved off. I mean, there's no question that
we have to put our facility there.
MR. RUEL-It's going to take it away?
MR. RICHARDS-There may be some on the fringes.
MR. RUEL-I thought it was critical, it was important?
MR. RICHARDS-There may be some on the fringes. Again, the letter
I think speaks for itself. They have made the determination that
it is more important to the benefit of that habitat and the Blue
Karner, ultimately, that this study take place.
MR. RUEL-The $8,000 takes care of the Blue Lupine on your property?
MR. RICHARDS-What the letter said, I can't really speak for DEC on
that.
MR. MACEWAN-By them contributing the $8,000 to DEC for this Town
wide study, it negates them having to preserve the Blue Lupine
that's currently on the site that they want to build on.
MR. RUEL-But we've had this Blue Lupine on other properties, and it
was sacred. You couldn't touch it. You couldn't do anything to
do. No money could eliminate it, and then all of a sudden now.
MR. STARK-$8,000 talks.
MR. RUEL-Yes. Money talks.
MR. RICHARDS-I don't think that's fair to Curtis or to DEC. I
think there was some indication in one of our earlier letters that
she did not think that site was fortuitous to the long term
survival of the Blue Lupine there.
MR. WEST-They wouldn't have lived anyway, Roger.
MR. RUEL-Well, I'm not crazy about any blue butterflies.
MR. SCHACHNER-I know a little bit about this topic, although I'm
not a wildlife Biologist, and I think it's important for the Board
to recognize, especially Roger, in terms of your last question,
not, in the view of the Department of Environmental Conservation
Endangered Species Unit, which are the people we're talking about,
not all habitat for these endangered species is created equal. So
to speak. When they evaluate critical habitat for various
threatened, endangered, and protected species, they evaluate it on
the basis of, to what extent that particular habitat, Number One,
has the threatened, endangered or protected species on it, and,
Number Two, if it does not have it on it, to what extent that
particular habitat would be hospitable to that particular species.
MR. RUEL-And you won't know that until next spring.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as 1 understand it in this particular case,
nobody knows whether there are actually Karner Blue butterflies on
the site or not. Isn't that correct?
MR. RICHARDS-She's assuming that it's occupied.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and the reason for that is because Karner Blue
butterflies, unlike certain other types of species, only have two,
what's called flight seasons, during the course of a year. One of
them comes, as I recall, either in late Mayor early June,
depending upon the temperatures, and one of them comes later on in
the summer, in late July or early August, and I think what happened
- 26 -
r
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
here is that this investigation didn't occur during those time
periods. Correct?
MR. RICHARDS-It came after the, you only learned about this after
the August flight period.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and what that means is that you can't know for
sure what's on the site or not until the following flight season.
Now everything I'm telling you is only what I've read in the same
record that you have before you.
MR. RUEL-Yes. I read the same thing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So what I'm understanding to have happened
here is that the critical habitat, or the Endangered Species Unit
from DEC is of the opinion that even if this is a Karner Blue site,
it's a Karner Blue site of such limited value to the preservation
of the species that on balance, weighing the benefits of the $8,000
town wide or area wide study, versus the detriment to removal of
this particular portion of critical habitat, their opinion is that
they'd rather see the study done. I'm not saying whether that's
right or wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation.
MR. RUEL-Right, but your definition did not apply to other
applications that have the same problem?
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I'm not sure what you mean.
MR. RUEL-It was very critical.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I'm not sure what you mean by my definition,
but all I'm saying is that, if you're saying that, in some
instances, DEC views certain habitat as more critical than others,
that's absolutely correct. That's absolutely correct. In some
instances, some habitat is viewed as more critical than other
habitat, and what the generally relates to is the size of the
habitat, and what's called its linkage, and that means the ways in
which it is or is not linked to other similar critical habitats.
MR. PALING-But you know we worked all of these out, where the Blue
Karner butterfly or the flower was involved, on an individual
basis, but another advantage to this is going to be that it's not
going to be a surprise. When we came to these others.
MR. SCHACHNER-You mean to other applicants in the future?
MR. PALING-Yes. We did know we were going to be faced with this,
and now the applicant and us and everyone else is going to know
what's coming. There's another advantage to this study.
MR. SCHACHNER-But I think I need to make clear, at least for
Roqer's benefit, I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm just
trying to explain what I understand DEC's position to be.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other?
MR. WEST-Well, does $8,000 pay for the entire cost of the study, or
is that just a portion of it?
MR. RICHARDS-I should specify, we're ready to pay up to $8,000. If
it's a little less, it won't cost that much, but that's what they
feel is a fair estimate.
MR. PALING-Okay, and I think we have covered that subject. I think
we should move on. Do you have anything else to add to that list?
MR. RICHARDS-Not on that particular subject. We have some other
engineering comments.
- 27 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. PALING-Yes. Why don't you go right down, you've probably got
them there, have you, the access to be paved and so on, handicapped
parking?
MR. RICHARDS-I can let Dennis address the Board on that.
MR. PALING-Good.
DENNIS MACELROY
MR. MACELROY-Okay. There were a number of issues on both the Town
Consultant, Rist-Frost, Paul Collins, had made, and we've addressed
and responded to, and John has the letter for the file that
addresses each of those. There were also Staff Notes that we've
addressed in that same letter. To touch on the ones that John has
brought up tonight, to orient you, again, Big Bay Road, Corinth
Road to the north, the Northway to the east. There are two access
to the property. The primary or customer entrance is the northerly
access. There is a truck and delivery access to the south. A
comment had come from Staff related to sharing an entry to serve
the northern portion of this property, which also has frontage on
Corinth Road. What we have proposed and shown on this site plan is
an area right in here, which opposes this aisle, and it's, we've
noted on here, reserved by easement for future connection, so that
in the future, because the concern of Staff was to have, minimize
the number of curb cuts on Big Bay Road, that there would be the
ability to access the northern portion through this entry, and this
is the solution to that that we've proposed.
MR. PALING-Do they need a separation in that, John?
MR. GORALSKI-If it's an ingress/egress, yes, they should have.
MR. MACELROY-Right. We have a physical barrier between the two,
and that's in response to a previous comment which now shows on
this site plan, both entries. So that's, again, that's the
response to that particular issue. A corridor that would provide,
in the future, if as this property, that's deemed to be an
appropriate access, that that's available for that future
development.
MR. RUEL-This would not impact the parking area there, would it?
MR. MACELROY-No, sir.
MR. RUEL-Okay, and there'll be a note on the new plan indicating.
MR. MACELROY -There is a note reserved by easement for future
connection.
MR. RUEL-Now, is that a new plan?
MR. MACELROY-Correct. It's different. It's updated from the one
that's in the file.
MR. MACELROY-It's one that you have, John?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay.
MR. MACELROY-I have some extra copies here with me tonight, but it
would be, it's the next generation.
MR. GORALSKI-Would that easement be included in a deed for that
property?
MR. MACELROY-In a deed for?
- 28 -
--
----
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. GORALSKI-I just want to know how we're going to handle it for
future record, if it's 10 years down the road and nobody else is
here, you know, nobody who's here now is here when that next parcel
comes in to be developed.
MR. RICHARDS-We could put it in the deed.
objection to putting it in the deed.
Again, we have no
MR. GORALSKI-Just so there's some record of it.
MR. MACEWAN-I may be here.
MR. RUEL-Do you have extra copies of these plans, the new ones?
MR. GORALSKI-I don't have any extra copies right now.
MR. RUEL-Why don't we have the latest copy, instead of looking at
old ones.
MR. MACELROY-Okay. The next item I think you mentioned was related
to handicapped spaces. I guess I would just say that we'll double
check that. I'm presuming that our designer had, I think when
spaces are side by side, two handicapped spaces, that there's.
MR. GORALSKI -New York State Code requires an eight foot access
aisle. ANSI Code requires five foot.
MR. MACELROY-If that's not in compliance, we certainly will.
MR. GORALSKI-That's fine.
MR. MACEWAN-And the only way that customers are going to access the
yard is through the warehouse, right? Access to the yard, if they
need to get materials in the yard, they go through the warehouse.
MR. MACELROY-The materials will be in the warehouse. There would
be an access, in some occasion when you might have a larger piece
that's out in this area. They'd be able to access out the south
end of the warehouse.
MR. MACEWAN-Then they would exit out that back drive?
MR. MACELROY-I suppose. I'll let Jon Hallgren answer that.
JON HALLGREN
MR. HALLGREN-Jon Hallgren from Curtis Lumber Company. Just to
explain, 95% of the retail traffic would be able to come in the
warehouse, exit out the warehouse, or enter the yard area, if
they're picking up some material from the side of the building. If
somebody comes in with a larger vehicle, a large dump truck with a
trailer, we would encourage that person to make a yard entrance
here, instead of trying to bring them through the retail parking
lot.
MR. PALING-They turn around inside the warehouse?
MR. HALLGREN-There is room to turn around in the warehouse.
There'll be an area right here where they can turn around in this
portion, and at the end of the warehouse.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. HALLGREN-And there's two turnarounds, Bob, through the
warehouse, but I don't want anybody to get the false impression
that no retail traffic would enter through this area. There will
be an occasion. Some customers will understand. They'll
specifically enter through that area with a large dump truck or
- 29 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
some of the larger vehicles.
MR. MACEWAN-So like 90% of the customers (lost words) will go right
in that warehouse there.
MR. HALLGREN-Correct. Yes. There's just some products that are
just too big to load from in there, the TGI' s and some of the
longer length lumber.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Is most of this material that's stored at the
warehouse, I mean, is it like self serve where the customers will
pick up their own stuff? Is there help there?
MR. HALLGREN-Picture a lumber yard that's covered. Instead of
standing out there picking up your two by fours in the rain or in
the snow, your two by fours are on a rack similar to the boards
that you normally find in a lumber yard, but you have a roof over
your head and you're on cement, and you're parked next to the pile.
MR. WEST-Is the warehouse totally closed in with walls and so
forth?
MR. HALLGREN-The front portion of the warehouse is walled. The
last portion of the warehouse here is cantilevered rack, running
down the two edges and this side here, and you've got lumber stored
on both sides. I don't know if that explained your question.
MR. WEST-Yes, that answered my question. If you look at this, you
can see an idea of the scale, with respect to the average car going
in there.
MR. RUEL-The Beautification Committee had recommended bermed areas,
three feet high on both sides of the main entrance. I don't see
it on the plan.
MR. MACELROY-Correct. Well, in this area, along the frontage of
the parking, there is a bermed area. There's a note which
indicates berm approximately two to three feet high, 175 feet long
by 15 feet wide, in this area. We've added some additional
planting from our original plan in response to their comment. They
also made a comment about having a berm over in this side of the
entry, but there is a stormwater structure in that location.
MR. RUEL-I think they're just talking about the main entrance.
MR. MACELROY-Correct.
MR. RUEL-The main entrance is the other one, isn't it?
MR. MACELROY-No. The main customer entrance is right here. So
what we have, we've responded to their comments in that area.
MR. RUEL-On one side only.
MR. MACELROY-Again, the comment was, in this limited side, on the
north side of the main entry, they had commented on that, but we
have a stormwater structure right in that same location, and it's
a fairly small area. So we haven't added plantings in that area,
other than the oak that's scheduled several feet back. John, I
think another comment was related to parking.
MR. PALING-Yes. Parking count is the next thing on mY list.
MR. MACELROY-Okay. There are two uses here, retail and warehouse.
Each have their own parking schedule and number associated with
those. The numbers as indicated under the site statistic section,
- 30 -
'-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
lower left hand corner of the plan, show that what is required is
73 for retail and 59 for the warehouse, a total of 132. What we
have is 62 exterior spaces and 79 interior spaces as shown on the
smaller plan that I handed you. That's a total of 141. So we
exceed the requirements for parking on that site.
MR. RUEL-Okay. I have a question about the water runoff from the
roofs of the retail store and the warehouse. Would you explain to
me where that water goes?
MR. MACELROY-Well, there are several sub regions within the site.
Basically, the drainage is from west to east, toward, you'll see
it's a combination of sheet drainage and structures, where drainage
will come off the roof. The roof line runs north/south. So we
have water to this side, water to this side. It's graded and
pitched, again, either a sheet drainage or two structures. In this
case, this parking area drains to a structure, subsurface piping to
a junction basin, and then onto the stormwater recharge basin. In
this parking area, this drains to the east and flows to a basin, a
catch basin, which then goes sub surface to a stormwater recharge
basin in that area. The yard area, which is the graveled surface
area, sheet drains to the south and to the east.
MR. RUEL-The recharge areas are usually dry, right?
MR. MACELROY-Correct.
MR. RUEL-It's only when they get an excessive amount of rain?
MR. MACELROY-That's right.
MR. RUEL-And then it fills up the stormwater recharge area and then
it evaporates and start over again.
MR. MACELROY-It recharges to the ground, right, and these soils are
very permeable soils, excellent for this type of recharge.
MR. RUEL-All sand, right.
MR. MACELROY-Correct, and we have addressed, there was a comment
that Paul Collins from Rist-Frost had made, and we've addressed
those comments and issued a revised and updated stormwater report,
which John has for the file, Paul Collins has had an opportunity to
review, and he also sent a letter, today, for the file indicating
his concurrence with any of the changes and responses to the
comments.
MR. PALING-Okay. The next one on that list John read off, I think,
is the signage situation.
MR. MACELROY-We've indicated like two locations of signs, in
compl iance with the, I want to say the Sign Ordinance, or the
requirements of the Sign Ordinance, but what I'm hearing is that
that's a separate action, then?
MR. PALING-Yes. We won't act on it.
MR. MACELROY-Well, as long as any signs are in compliance with the
Code, we don't need the Planning Board's approval. Do we?
MR. GORALSKI-That's correct.
MR. RUEL-No. I think you'd just try to indicate the fact that
they're on here, doesn't necessarily mean that they're approved.
MR. MACELROY-Right. We understand that.
MR. PALING-John, what was your comment, site development sheet,
- 31 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
I've written down here?
MR. GORALSKI -The site development data sheet that's typically
included in the application had some, I'm not sure if it' s
inaccuracies or exactly what it was. At any rate, the corrected
one has been provided for the file.
MR. PALING-Okay. So we can check that off, and the last note I had
was about berms.
MR. GORALSKI-The berms were for the Beautification Committee
resolution, and Dennis addressed those.
MR. PALING-That's already covered. Okay.
MR. RUEL-Except that it's not necessarily 100% in line with the
motion made at the Beautification resolution.
MR. PALING-They can't do anything here.
MR. RUEL-I know, but I'm just saying that the motion was made there
to accept the site plan, with the addition of this 80 foot berming
you mentioned on one side, plus a bermêd area on the other side of
the entrance, and you said you're not going to have that.
MR. MACEWAN-There's a drYWell there.
MR. RUEL-I know, but I'm just saying.
MR. PALING-Okay. They've done as much as they can.
MR. MACELROY-And in fact, there's 175 feet of berming along that
frontage, in that area, as opposed to the 80 that perhaps the
resolution indicates.
MR. RUEL-So we can ignore that.
MR. PALING-Did we cover everything then, John, that was on your
list?
MR. GORALSKI-You covered everything that was on my list.
MR. WEST-I have one other question. In the warehouse, you've got
spaces for, what, 79 plus or minus cars?
MR. MACELROY-Correct.
MR. WEST-Is there any issue with respect to ventilation? You've
got a lot of cars in there. Is there an issue with respect to
accumulation of fumes and carbon monoxide from exhausts? Do you
have ventilation? Is there a need to address any ventilation
issues?
MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I can tell you is that there are
certain building code issues related to that that Curtis Lumber has
been going over this with the Building Department over and over and
over again, and they've addressed all of the fire issues and
ventilation.
MR. PALING-Okay. That's a good point, but they would catch that?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-They may be able to be more specific on that, but the
only thing, what I wanted to be sure YOU understood was that the
Building Inspectors were addressing the building code issues
- 32 -
'-"""-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
related to that.
MR. RUEL-Okay. The Rist-Frost had a comment about "Building areas
paved and green areas are not consistent between the site
application and the stormwater management plan. One or both should
be corrected.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's why we have this new site development
data sheet.
MR. RUEL-That takes care of it?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. PALING-And has the Fire Marshal looked at this also?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. He's been involved with the discussions with the
Curtis Lumber people.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then we're okay there. All right. Any other
questions or comments on this? Okay. ~We had a public hearing on
August 20th. I guess, in keeping with the evening, is there anyone
from the public that would care to comment on this matter, the
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
LORRAINE TROY
MRS. TROY-My name is Lorraine Troy, and I live on, own property on
Big Bay. My question is the entry way. Are the cars coming and
going in and out that same, is it an island or what is it?
MR. PALING-I think you're referring to the one in the upper right
hand corner?
MRS. TROY-Yes, the northern.
MR. PALING-It is entrance and exit, and there is a separation in
the middle.
MRS. TROY-Okay. That's all I wanted to know.
MR. STARK-Where's your house, right across from that entrance?
MRS. TROY-No, just a little bit up the road, a little bit to the
north, kind of kitty corner, but, you know, we've got a full view
of everything.
MR. PALING-Okay. Anyone else care to comment? All right, if not,
we'll close off the public comment, and close the hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING-And I think you're finished with everything you have to
tell us, and our question's answered. Any further comment? Okay.
Do a SEQRA. This is an Unlisted. We can do a Short Form on this?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. PALING-Go ahead, Roger.
MR. RUEL-"Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part
617.4?"
- 33 -
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-IIWill action receive coordinated review as provided for
Unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-IICould action result in any adverse effects associated
with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or
groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for
erosion, drainage or flooding problems?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL- "C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or
other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood
character?"
MR. PALING-Lets pause on that one. Now, should we comment, just
have a comment there that it could, but there, it's being mitigated
by the study and all that's gone on.
MR. SCHACHNER-It seems like you might be one ahead of yourself.
Where are you finding, in C2., an impact relative to what you're
talking about?
MR. RUEL-No. It's not in there. Maybe C3.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I'm thinking.
MR. RUEL-C3. is the one.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I'm thinking, but I think you just read
C2., didn' t you?
MR. RUEL-Yes. You just jumped ahead, I think.
MR. PALING-All right. If you're on C2., just re-read C2., then.
MR. RUEL-Well, it's "Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological,
historic or other natural or cultural resources; or community or
neighborhood character?"
MR. PALING-Okay. No.
MR. RUEL-Okay. "Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife
species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?"
Yes.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but it can be mitigated.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay. "C4. A communities existing plans or goals as
officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land
or other natural resources?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL- "C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects
not identified in C1. through C5.?"
- 34 -
r
'~. f"
-../
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-IIC7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either
quantity or type of energy)?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL- "will the proj ect have an impact on the environmental
characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-"ls there or is there likely to be controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?"
MR. PALING-No.
MR. RUEL-I waive the balance of this document.
MR. PALING-Now should we go back and explain.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's exactly right.
MR. RUEL-I can't waive that. We're going to check one of the boxes
right?
MR. PALING-Well, no. We've got to go back to, what was it, 4?
MR. SCHACHNER-C3. We need to have an explanation of the answer to
C3. The answer is yes. I think one of the members also said but
it can be mitigated, and I think we should have explanation in C3.
of both what the potential environmental impact is, and I think the
potential environmental impact is something like loss of some
portion of critical habitat for an endangered or threatened
species, and I think there should also be an explanation of why the
Board feels that's, or how the Board feels that's being mitigated,
and why that mitigation is adequate, and that explanation I would
suggest would refer, if this is the Board's opinion, would refer to
the agreement with DEC.
MR. RUEL-Would we then have to check the second block in Part III?
MR. SCHACHNER-You mayor may not check the second block in Part
III. I think you're jumping ahead of yourself. First you need to
provide the explanation in C3. At the end of C3. and every place
else it says explain briefly, and I think we need to provide an
explanation of your response in Item C3.
MR. PALING-Okay. All right. In regard to Item C3., the applicant
has worked with the Department of Environmental Conservation and
determined that there is a possibility of Blue Lupine in the area,
although it may not be the best of Blue Lupine. They think that
more important would be to determine in the whole area, greater
Queensbury area, the presence for or the potential for Blue Lupine
and the Karner Blue butterfly. In regard to this, the Department
of Environmental Conservation and Curtis have reached an agreement
whereby Curtis will pay $8,000 for an environmental study which
then mitigates any impact on potential Karner Blue butterflies on
this site.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Sounds good, Bob.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now we need, can we go to motion?
MR. RUEL-Yes. I think so.
MR. STARK-A motion on the dec.
- 35 -
-~
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MR. PALING-Yes, on the dec. Right.
MOTION THAT THE SEQRA REVIEW IS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced
by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded George Stark:
Duly adopted this 29th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-96 JAY CURTIS, Introduced by
Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
With the following conditions. Number One, and foremost,
acceptance by DEC of the funding provided to the developer for the
Blue Lupine area survey. Number Two, that the handicapped parking
area be revised to show the access in between the spaces that they
were talking about. Number Three, Beautification comments
approval. Number Four, the easement for the internal access to the
northern most property be done by deed. Number Five, the signage
is not part of this approval. Number Six, all Rist-Frost comments
be addressed and met.
Duly adopted this 29th day of August, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West,
Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RICHARDS-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Just let me make sure that you understand the dates for
next month. Okay. The site visits are on the 12th, Thursday the
12th. Now I've got a very important thing to say here, all right.
We're going to do, at a special request, we're going to do the site
plan, preliminary and final, or try to, on CVS, at the site visits.
Okay. The day of the site visits we'll meet in the little room at
4 o'clock, at a regular meeting which will be advertised.
MR. RUEL-Wait a minute, CVS, that's the place they're building now.
MR. PALING-Yes. They used two or three different engineering
firms. There was a foul up in who was responsible for signing what
papers. It resulted in a delay, and they've appealed to us to have
this meeting so that they won't be delayed in their construction,
and I would suggest that we.
MR. MACEWAN-I have no problem with it as long as notice is put out.
MR. PALING-All of that will be done.
MR. GORALSKI-We have enough time to do that right now.
MR. PALING-Now we've got to be careful because we need four, and
then those four have got to vote unanimously. So that's on the
12th. So that we will have a quorum and can handle that. Now the
other two meetings during that month are on the 17th and the 24th,
the regular meetings, 7 o'clock.
- 36 -
L,'
/
-
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/29/96)
MRS. LABOMBARD-What did you ask us to keep in our folders? What
did you ask us to keep just now?
MR. WEST-K of C.
MR. PALING-John, will Aldi's be up in September do you know,
Grossmans/Aldi's?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I didn't keep it from the other day.
MR. GORALSKI-Didn't we do Aldi's last week?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. We did it Tuesday.
MR. MACEWAN-Why would they be coming back?
MR. GORALSKI-Aldi's got their plan approved last.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the deal with Mr. Brock?
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Brock has not received his variances yet.
MR. MACEWAN-So this drawing (lost wordEl ) as well.
MR. GORALSKI-You better hold onto that one, too.
MR. MACEWAN-I will hold on to just this one.
MR. PALING-He has a date with the ZBA for both Area and Use
Variances. I think it's the 12th, the night we have our site
visits, Brock is, I believe, before the ZBA.
MR. GORALSKI-No. I think it's the fourth he's on.
MR. PALING-Is it? Okay. I have nothing else, unless someone else
has something else? Meeting adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Paling, Chairman
- 37 -