Loading...
1996-09-17 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 56-96 Tax Map No. 15-1-35 Stephen & Linda Kirshon 1. Subdivision No. 7-1996 SKETCH PLAN Barbara L. Barber Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54 3. Site Plan No. 57-96 Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1 Story town U.S.A., Inc. D/B/A/ The Great Escape 4. Cont'd Pg. 9. Site Plan No. 44-96 DISCUSSION ITEM Aldi's Stores, Inc. 5. Site Plan No. 49-96 Tax Map No. 73-1-11.2 Knights of Columbus Council 194 25. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 60-7-2.1 Church of the King 28. 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 9/17/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER DAVID WEST GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 18, 1996: NONE June 25, 1996: NONE July 16, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SET OF MINUTES AS WRITTEN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 56-96 TYPE II STEPHEN & LINDA KIRSHON OWNER: LINDA KIRSHON ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA ADDITION OF TWO BEDROOMS AND BATH TO SECOND FLOOR. PER SECTION 179-79 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-1992 (DECK) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-35 LOT SIZE: 12,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 PHIL ALBRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 56-96, Stephen & Linda Kirshon, Meeting Date: September 17, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to build a 24 foot by 14 foot second floor addition to an existing home on Rockhurst Road. The addition, which is proposed to be 336 square feet in area, would contain two new bedrooms and a bath. With this building addition the total square footage of the home would then be 2,608 square feet. Permeability and setbacks at this location will not change as a part of this application. The - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) applicant should indicate to the Board what the height of this new addition will be. The current height requirement for the WR-1A district is 35 feet. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this application and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 56- 96." MR. PALING-Okay. Is someone from the applicant here? Would you come up and identify yourself, please. MR. ALBRIGHT-Yes. Hi. My name is Phil Albright from Albright Builders. I'm representing Steve and Linda Kirshon. The height of the building, the proposed addition, would not exceed 24 feet, which is less than the building height as it is existing. MR. PALING-Okay. That should clarify that. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions? MR. BREWER-Just about the septic. MR. HILTON-Yes. We have a Warren County Planning Board resolution dated September 11th. At their meeting, they voted to approve this item. The comment was made stating that "Providing that the septic systems meet the current applicable Code of the Town of Queensbury." MR. PALING-Why did they question it in this particular case? Is there something that? MR. HILTON-They're adding bedrooms, and under our current zoning code and building codes, if we have a functioning septic system, there's nothing that states that we have to have an updated system to handle the square footage that's being replaced, and all our records indicate that it's a functioning system. MR. BREWER-It doesn't hurt us to ask, though. MR. HILTON-No, sure. MR. ALBRIGHT-It is. Everything is fine there. They have a 550 gallon tank with two separate pumping systems that pump up to the leach field in the parking area above, and they get it about every three years. I have rebuilt both of these pumps in the past few years for them, just to make sure that everything is fine. MR. PALING-You said 550 gallon? MR. ALBRIGHT-Well, it's a holding tank outside of the house, and it pumps to two separate leach fields on top of the parking area. MR. BREWER-It's in the back yard? MR. ALBRIGHT-Yes, up in the parking area. schematic of it, because they asked me. I drew another little MR. PALING-That's okay. I can understand what you're saying. MR. ALBRIGHT-There's two separate systems for this. This is probably one of the more sophisticated systems out there in the Rockhurst area. MR. PALING-With the two pumps. MR. ALBRIGHT-With the two separate pumps, yes, and two separate leaches on the top of the hill. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Type II, but lets open the public hearing on this. Okay. anyone here that would care to speak on this matter? This is a Is there - 2 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-It's a Type II, and we don't need a SEQRA on this. So we can go right to a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-96 STEPHEN & LINDA KIRSHON, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For construction of two bedrooms and a bath to second floor. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 SKETCH PLAN BARBARA L. BARBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NW CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MAID MARION WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.00 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 1.11 AC., 1.14 AC., 1.79 AC., & 1.36 AC. TAX MAP NO. 48- 3-49.54 LOT SIZE: 5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1996 - Sketch Plan, Barbara Barber, Meeting Date: September 17, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 4 lots located at the northwest corner of Bay Road and Maid Marion Way. This single lot currently contains four duplexes. This subdivision would create separate lots for each building unit at this location. These new lots are being created under the current zoning of this property which is SFR-1A. All current buildings and future expansion will be required to conform to the setbacks of this zone. The setbacks are currently: 30 foot front yard, 20 foot side and rear yard. This subdivision as proposed meets the requirements of the SFR-1A district. This area is currently developed and has vehicular access off of Maid Marion Way. This subdivision is for the creation of new lot lines over already developed land. Staff finds this application in compliance with the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance and recommends approval of the sketch plan phase of Subdivision 7-1996." MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself please. MR. BARBER-My name is Daniel Barber, and I'm here for my wife Barbara. MR. PALING-Okay. There's a shared driveway between Lots B & C. That is a shared driveway? MR. BARBER-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-Okay. I know that we're subdividing lots with existing homes on them. Is that all covered in the deed, so you don't go through this again, the shared driveway? MR. BARBER-This is the way they're deeded. The first two, A & B, - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) were done in '86 and the other two were done in '88. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's all covered. So it wouldn't have to backfire on you? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. There's no public hearing. All right. Then there is no public hearing. Plan. Comments, questions? This is just a Sketch MR. STARK-George, these meet all the setbacks and everything, you know, for individual lots? Well, each one of these lots that are going to be subdivided, do they meet all setbacks and everything? MR. HILTON-They meet all setbacks and all area requirements. MR. PALING-Now this is just a Sketch Plan. Do we need a motion, still, on this, to approve it for Sketch Plan? MR. SCHACHNER-It's a recommendation, but you should do it by motion. MR. PALING-Okay, as a recommendation. To who? MR. SCHACHNER-To the applicant really, the applicant and yourself for future review. MR. PALING-Okay. Does someone want to make a motion on that. MOTION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 SKETCH PLAN FOR BARBARA L. BARBER TO APPROVE, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As submitted. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 57-96 TYPE: UNLISTED STORYTOWN U.S.A., INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: CHARLES R. WOOD ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE FUN PARK, NORTH OF BAVARIAN PALACE ON NORTH SIDE OF ROUND POND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER AMUSEMENT RIDE CALLED THE WAVE POOL WITH ACTIVITY LAGOON, DECK/LOUNGE AREA AND MECHANICAL SUPPORT BUILDING. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 9/9/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-21 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 57-96, Story town U.S.A., Inc./D/B/A The Great Escape, Meeting Date: September 17, 1996 liThe applicant is seeking approval to construct a water amusement ride and mechanical support building at the Great Escape amusement park located on Route 9. The ride and building will meet the setback, - 4 - '-..- -" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) density and parking requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Water service is adequate at this location to service this additional attraction. This attraction will be located within the park in an area that will not be visible from surrounding properties. The applicant should indicate what methods of dechlorinization and removal of pool water will take place at this location. All comments from the town's engineering consultant, including septic and stormwater management concerns should be addressed prior to planning board action on this application." MR. HILTON-And just for the Board's information and the applicant' s information, this application, as listed on our agenda says it's a Type II Action. It's an Unlisted Action. They have enclosed a Short EAF to review before a motion is made. MR. PALING-All right. In this case, before we hear from engineering, I wonder if we shouldn't hear from the applicant to give us an overall description of this, so that it kind of gets it in place for us. Would you want to do that? MR. LEMERY-I'd be glad to do that. My name is John Lemery. I'm counsel to the Great Escape. I didn't think we'd be on so early. MR. PALING-These things happen. MR. LEMERY-Yes. Mr. Wood is on his way over, along with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Premier Parks, the party that's going to be buying the Great Escape. MR. PALING-Do you want to take one more before you go on? MR. LEMERY-Sure, would that be all right? MR. PALING-Why don't we do that. Are the Knights of Columbus here? MR. BARBER-Charlie Scudder isn't here either. MR. HILTON-We could review and discuss Aldi, if you'd like. MR. PALING-Is Aldi's here? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Lets do Aldi's. MR. HILTON-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't see that. MR. PALING-It's just a pencil in. DISCUSSION ITEM: ALDI'S MR. HILTON-What we have before us tonight is a representative from Aldi. They were in recently with Site Plan No. 44-96 to use the now vacant Grossman's site as a new grocery store. One of the conditions of the approval of the Planning Board was that an ingress/egress island be constructed at both access drives at this location. With other site plans in the past where it's been a re- use of the site or it's been a pre-existing condition, for example Toys "R" Us, we've been instructed and Planning Board has approved those plans without that condition. In other words, because it was a pre-existing condition, they weren't required to go ahead and build this ingress/egress island. The applicant has indicated to us that this would be a problem to construct this at this location, for the movement of trucks and possibly emergency vehicles, and - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) they're here tonight to try to discuss with you and eventually have the Planning Board's resolution revised to take that stipulation out. Staff is supportive of this. Like I said, this is something we've done in the past, with other applicants, and we would recommend approval of the new resolution without that stipulation. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a copy of the old resolution, the one we approved? MR. HILTON-I don't have a copy of it here with me. I have the note comments that 1 put out. I have reviewed the resolution, and it does indicate, I think the only stipulation was that it have an ingress/egress island at both locations. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you revised your recommendation tonight to just say, striking that stipulation, if there are any other stipulations in there, they would still be protected. MR. PALING-Yes. They would have to be. MR. BREWER-Is that something that's in the Ordinance, or do we have a right to waive that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer is probably both, in that I think it is in the Ordinance, although the Ordinance typically contemplates new construction, and I think, although this is the first I hear of this specific issue as it relates to this applicant, I think that George is correct in terms of how we've dealt with this in the past with other applicants. You would know as well as I, but it seems to me that we've been presented with this in the past, not recently, but where we had existing ingress/egress, and I think the Board has, I think what George said is correct, as a matter of policy. MR. PALING-You're saying Toys nRn Us was a similar thing, where the Grand Union was? MR. HILTON-Right, and they did not operate with that island. Toys UR" Us came in with a site plan, and it was not recommended or stipulated that they provide one, based on the fact that it was a pre-existing condition. MR. STARK-Could we hear from the applicant? I don't know what you're talking about, or what he wants to do, the new. MR. PALING-Maybe if we looked at a finished drawing of the egress and ingress both. They just don't want to put the partition in the middle, the four foot island. Okay. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. Okay. MR. WEST-Was it somebody's recommendation that it be put in there? Was the engineering consultant's recommendation, or Staff's recommendation, that you recall? JIM CARE MR. CARE-Yes, it was the engineer's recommendation. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. PALING-It's pretty automatic, too. We get it whenever we can. MR. HILTON-Yes. It's in the engineering comments. MR. BREWER-Are you the engineer, Bill, that recommended that? BILL LEVANDOWSKI - 6 - ~c - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. Obviously, our firm did. If it can be accommodated, it's probably a plus. If there's reasons not to, we should hear them, I guess. MR. CARE-My name is Jim Care from Clough Harbor and Associates. I have a copy of the site plan. What I did was I took a copy of Ashto's turning radius templates, super imposed it on top, on the site plan so you can see how the concrete barriers would impede a tractor trailer, 16 wheeler, from entering the site without hopping over the barrier. If you'd like, I could unroll them and go over them with you in front of the Board. MR. WEST-Yes, please. MR. PALING-Well, it's good in some cases. You've got an 18 wheeler coming in, it might make a difference. Here and here is what he's talking about. MR. CARE-The shaded portion of the radius is what the truck actually needs to make the turn in, between the dashed line. MR. PALING-I see, yes. MR. BREWER-Does anybody recall what the original intent was for the trucks to come in the? MR. WEST-Yes. How were the trucks supposed to come in originally? MR. BREWER-The other entrance? MR. WEST-Weren't they going to come in the other entrance? MR. CARE-The trucks are going to come in the eastern entrance, which is this entrance, come up, hug this side, loop around, and then back back in. MR. PALING-And that's why you're not bothering with the other entrance, in so far as the trucks are concerned? MR. CARE-That's true. MR. BREWER-Well, why wouldn't you want to put one in the other? MR. PALING-They don't need it. If they've got one, they don't need two. MR. CARE-We could have it here, if you would like, but. MR. WEST-They could still have one at the other location, if we wanted them to. MR. PALING-There's less space there than there is in the other one. MR. CARE-Yes. The barrier itself would have to be a one foot wide barrier, a DOT mountable curb, side by side, to provide the barrier at that entrance, to use the existing entrance as it is out there right now. MR. BREWER-I don't really think it makes any big deal. It's a pain in the neck for plowing, too, probably. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what we were saying. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Well, why did we recommend to put it there, though? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Well, we were just complying with the, recommending - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MOTION TO RESCIND THE STIPULATION OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN NO. 44-96 ALDI'S STORES, INC., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To have the concrete curbing for the ingress/egress and revise it as just painted delineation of those ingress and egress, both entrances and exits. This is a minor modification not requiring further environmental review. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. CARE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Who is here now? (STORYTOWN U.S.A., INC. CONT'D) MR. LEMERY-Well, we'll go ahead. We'll get started, if it's all right. MR. PALING-Okay. There are only two more agenda items. So, do you want to give us an overall description. MR. LEMERY-With your permission, this is an application by the Great Escape to add another attraction to the Park. It's entirely within the Park. It's not visible from either Route 9 or from Round Pond Road. It's a wave pool, which is another attraction to compliment the water attractions that The Great Escape has added over the last few years, and which this Planning Board has been involved in the site plan review for what is called the Noah's Sprayground, and for what is called the Black Cobra ride, as well as the Pirate's Cove attraction there at The Great Escape. The wave pool, we've provided a map of the Park. The wave pool is really adjacent to the coaster, the Comet coaster. It's just to the north of the coaster, in a ravine area that has been vacant. It's part of the area of the Park that has not been utilized previously. Our design consultants are Aquatic Pools from Albany. Jim Diamond and Ken Ellis are here tonight from Aquatic Pools, who were involved in the designs in order to meet the site plan approval. Tom McCormick was the surveyor who was involved in doing the topo studies for the park attraction. The wave pool will accommodate some 700 to 800 people. The reason for the addition of the pool is to relieve some of the congestion that has taken place at The Great Escape within the water park area. On weekends, there are long lines that are being experienced, in terms of families wanting to get on the Noah's Sprayground and the other attractions there. So the wave pool is a compliment to the facility. When we were here for both the Noah's Sprayground and the Pirate's Cove attractions, the principle issues, if I recall correctly, that were addressed by this Board had to do with the drainage, what happens to the water in the pool or what happens to the water at the end of the season, what do you do with the backwash when you backwash the pool, what's the make up water required, and how are you going to deal with when you have to empty the pool from time to time? Those questions have all been addressed. The project has been submitted to the Town Engineer. Bill Levandowski at Rist-Frost has been - 9 - '-- -" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) complying with the Ordinance if possible. It's obvious, here, that it would appear to be a difficultly for the eastern side, eastern entrance, I think. They would have to substantially reconstruct that entrance to make it work. People are used to the entrances as they are. You might want to consider providing it at the western, but if the Board so chooses they could defer both of them. MR. CARE-We're still proposing on striping it, providing the turning arrows. MR. WEST-There's no lights at either of these locations. Is there any future plans for lights, does anybody know? MR. CARE-Just to the east, I think, probably about 20 yards, there is an existing one right now. MR. PALING-All right. AnYmore questions or comments here? MR. MACEWAN-I think the intent of the Ordinance is obviously to bring all site plans up to compliance with what the Zoning Ordinance says. The problem ~ have with this thing is I think it's cumbersome. I don' t think the intent of what they want to do really seems a practical purpose. I'd rather see the Ordinance re- written just to stripe that area, and not actually make a curbing of some kind. I think that would be fair to everyone. Not only re-vamping an old site plan, but also submitting a brand new one. I don't think it's fair to make people who are developing a whole new parcel adhere to that Ordinance, where those who are re-vamping an old parcel can get away with the Ordinance. I think we ought to actually ask the Town Board to re-vamp that Ordinance entirely. MR. STARK-We asked for that two, three months ago. MR. MACEWAN-Not on that particular. MR. BREWER-I don't think on a formal. MR. STARK-Is this a modification, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. This would be a modification of your previous resolution. That's exactly right. MR. PALING-All right. Do I hear a motion on the applicant's request, striking the previous? MR. MACEWAN-What are you doing, striking the previous? Are you going to delineate it somehow? Are you going to stripe it and paint it, is that what you're willing to do? MR. CARE-Yes. MR. PALING-Is that a suggestion? MR. MACEWAN-You need to have something showing in and out. MR. CARE-The site plan, as it was submitted to the Town, shows it being striped, striped with turning arrows. MR. MACEWAN-At both entrances? MR. CARE-At both entrances. MR. MACEWAN-I'm willing to go along with that. MR. PALING-And that's what you'd do with it? MR. CARE-Yes. - 8 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) extremely helpful in taking time to work with us. We submitted the plans, got a response back from his office. We had some additional answers provided to Mr. Levandowski in the last few days. He got us some comments back, the concerns that he had, and those were addressed, and I believe, as of late this afternoon, we have a letter that pretty much makes flat all of his concerns. The water at the end of the season is not discharged as chlorinated water into the soil. It's put into a decanting facility which is similar to the other decanting facilities that have been approved by this Board before, with respect to the other attractions. It's dechlorinated before it's released into the ground. This project is about 700 feet away from the wetland, so that there's no likelihood that any wetland which this Board addressed some years ago, in terms of the 100 foot buffer it's nowhere near that 100 foot buffer that you imposed, I think, four or five years ago. The utilities that serve the site are not going to be changed. They're the same utilities that have provided access to the attractions at the Park. It will use Queensbury water. It will take some five to six hundred gallons of water to fill it up. It will take utilities from Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The on-site sewage facilities have been addressed in the application before you and in the drawings which have been submitted. Obviously, it's The Great Escape's intention to try to keep the park current, and as part of that on-going process, Mr. Wood's history has been to try to put a new attraction in every couple of years to continue with making the park attractive and as a venue for residents of our area as well as others. This Board had to deal with the Comet Roller Coaster, and as I said, the two other attractions. It's entirely within the park, and so we're looking for an approval tonight, so that they can start construction, so that it would be ready for the 1997 season. Our technical consultants are here, with respect to any particular questions you might have. We also have a rendering of the pool, in terms of the decking. I don't know if you can see that very well, but in terms of the (lost words) for the children, the wave pool, the mechanism for producing the waves is up here at the east end. It traverses this way. The Noah's Sprayground, to orient those of you who haven't had a chance to go out on the site, the Noah's Sprayground comes down, I'm sorry, the Black Cobra ride comes down, and these are the tubes that enter the bridges here. This is a lounge/deck area for people to relax while some of the family is in the wave pool. The ground vegetation has been provided in the landscape plan. The trees on this side will all remain. There'll be a view here, and the Comet Roller Coaster, basically, sits at this area right here. MR. PALING-What is the second building for, the one that's just adjacent to the? MR. WEST-That's the old restaurant, isn't it? MR. PALING-No. I don't think so. No, down to your right, over here, the smaller building up on top. MR. LEMERY-That's an existing restroom building. MR. PALING-Is that going to be removed? MR. LEMERY-No. That's an existing restroom area that will service this area. It's an existing. Is this the one that's going to be taken out? Okay. I'm sorry. MR. PALING-Well, is that green right now? It's existing, right? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and that'll be done away with, functionally. MR. LEMERY-I don't think there are any plans to take the building - 10 - ~ -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) down. CARON BURKE MR. BURKE-The building will remain, as a maintenance building. MR. LEMERY-The building will remain, but it won't be used as a restroom facility any longer, but the building will be used as a maintenance building to service this area of the park down here. MR. PALING-I see. Okay? MR. LEMERY-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-All right. you. Thank you. George, lets turn it over to MR. HILTON-Okay. I had already read in my Staff comments. Basically, we would like to have the applicant describe what methods of dechlorinization will take place at this site, and as long as all engineering comments are satisfactorily addressed, we have a Warren County Planning Board resolution here from September 11, 1996. The recommendation was to approve. Comment made, "The Board would like the new owners to be aware that when the improvements to Route 9 take place the parking should be addressed and improved in order to provide pedestrian safety crossing Route 9." My only comment on that would be, there's adequate parking. There's painted crossing strips that go across Route 9. Maybe there could be some coordination with State Highway Department on timing the lights and the crossings, but I wouldn't recommend that as any stipulation or anything. MR. PALING-I don't know what they can do now, in regard to that request. Okay. MR. HILTON-The only other thing I have here is a resolution from the Beautification Committee. It was approved as presented. There's a note here. "Great Escape promised to never cut trees on hill behind the park. II The application, as I said, was approved as presented. This resolution is signed by Miss Mary Lee Gosline, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. We should then move on to the engineering comments, and there's been a couple of letters exchanged here, and I don't think we have all of them. So lets go through this. I think we better start with the original Rist-Frost letter. Is that the best way to do it? MR. HILTON-That's probably the best way to do it. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Okay. Our September 11th letter to the Planning Staff pretty much outlined several additional bits Qf information we needed for our review. I believe the Board probably has copies of that letter. MR. PALING-Yes, the September 11th letter from you to Jim Martin. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's correct. Any questions about that, or do you want me to discuss anything in detail? Most of the things that I requested there, subsequently have been submitted and discussed. MR. PALING-But then there was another exchange of letters, was there not? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's correct, and I'll go on to those. MR. PALING-Okay. I have a September 17 letter, also, from you to Jim Martin. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Okay. September 16th, the applicant submitted quite a bit more additional information. Do you have copies of that? MR. PALING-Yes. Then would the right thing to do now be to read your September 17 letter into the record, which we haven't had a good chance to look at? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Do you want to discuss what they submitted on the 16th at all? MR. PALING-Is it all okay with you? Did they meet all your? MR. BREWER-Only if it's sufficient with you or not. MR. WEST-Well, it appears that there's a number of additional comments. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's correct. I made some additional comments, and probably at this point, do you want me to read that letter into the record? MR. PALING-The September 17th letter, yes. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-All right. Let me do that. To Mr. James Martin, "We have reviewed the materials submitted for this project including the supplemental information submitted on September 16th in response to our letter of September 11th and have the following comments: 1. The applicant should submit documentation from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that the proposed retirement of the existing restroom and sewage system to accommodate this project is acceptable and in conformance with their permit. Will the seepage pits and surrounding soils in the area of the proposed stormwater infiltration basin be removed? 2. The applicant has stated that no relocation of existing utilities is planned. Drawing PL-1 shows existing water lines and circuit breaker shack in the area of the proposed pool. Will they be re- located? 3. Will the chlorine residual level of pool backwash or drainage be zero when recharged to the groundwater? 4. The proposed pumping arrangement for pool backwash appears to transfer solids in the holding tank to the seepage pits. Shouldn't the solids be segregated and disposed of as sludge? 5. The erosion control measures contained in the report should be placed on the construction plans. 6. The possibility of storm drainage from outside of the project area flowing into the project site has not been considered in the storm water analysis. Sufficient adjacent topography has not been submitted to verify that such possibility does not exist. 7. We recommend that a 50-year design storm be considered rather than a 10-year storm. Open infiltration basins are proposed for storm water recharge. Normally the Town discourages their use but for this application where access is closely controlled they may be appropriate. The size of the basins are significantly greater than required by the analysis even if the 50-year storm was used. It is not clear if this is intended to assist in pool drainage, to handle storm drainage beyond the project area, or for some other reason. 8. Documentation of NYS DOH approval should be provided when available. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, William J. Levandowski, P.E. " MR. PALING-All right, and then how about an answer to your letter? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Okay. Subsequent to that, we received a supplemental letter, again dated September 17th from the applicant that responded satisfactorily, to my way of thinking, to all of those questions. Again, it leaves open the idea whether this Board is comfortable with the open infiltration basins. That was not changed or commented on. - 12 - '- -~ ',- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. PALING-All right. Now you have eight points in your letter, and you have a letter in response to that. How about reading that, and I assume we can follow along in order. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. They go item by item. Sure. This is addressed to me. It's from Robert Scarano, Consulting Engineer, signed by James Dunn of his office. "Dear William: The following is a response to your September 11th letter to James Martin and the Queensbury Planning Department." I believe that I probably should read September 17th's. "1. The restroom facility was part of an RV Park complex that has not been used since the mid 80's. This area has not been accessible to the public since that time. The Warren County Office of New York State DEC has been contacted in a letter requesting that this system be removed from the SPDES Permit that will be sent shortly. My understanding is that this is a matter of making sure the permit reflects the correct number of discharge facilities for this site. The existing pits are below the site development. It is not anticipated. MR. PALING-Bill, excuse me, please. We're looking at another September 16 letter, but let us get our heads together up here. MR. BREWER-Where are you getting all these letters from, Bob? MR. PALING-Well, this one I just got tonight. The one you're reading we don't have, but there is another letter from Scarano, September 16th. MR. WEST-Yes. That was the previous one. MR. LEVANDOWSKI - Yes. That was their response to our original September the 11th letter. MR. PALING-Okay. They're both the 16th. This is the 16th, too. MR. WEST-This is the response to the original September 11th. MR. PALING-All right. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's the chronological order of the correspondence back and forth, including today's letter. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we can catch up to you. easier. Go ahead, Bill. This'll make it MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Okay. Do you want me to continue with the 17th's letter? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Okay. "The existing pits are below the site development. It is not anticipated that these pits will be removed or relocated at the time." This is in response to my question asking whether or not the existing sewage seepage pits at the restroom facility to be retired would physically be removed when the infiltration basin was constructed roughly in the same area. Their response was, since the pits will be below the infiltration basin that it's proposed to leave them at this time. "2. The circuit breaker shack will be demolished. The shack was part of the R.V. Park and no longer has any electric service to it. The existing water line is below any disturbed grades in that area. A portion of the line will be exposed to determine it's condition. The result of that investigation will determine a replacement and/or relocation as warranted. 3. The pool backwash or drainage water will only be released when no discoloration of the test reagent occurs. This testing is done prior to each release by Park personnel. 4. The transfer pumps are mounted on a pad 10 inches above the base of the tank. The 48 hour dechlorinization period - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) will provide ample separation for settleable solids. The slow pumping rate of the transfer pumps will not disturb the settled solid layer at the tank's bottom. The 10 inch available storage for settleable solids is more than ample for a season storage. s. The construction drawings will include the erosion control measures contained in our report. It should be noted the project site is a basin. It does not shed to surrounding areas. 6 . Visual inspection suggests off site contribution is minimal. Additional topographic survey work is in progress to substantiate this and will be submitted shortly. 7. The base levels of the infiltration basins are at or near existing grade levels to minimize earth work. This has resulted in the high capacity of the infiltration basin shown. 8. New York State DOH will be provided when available. Very truly yours, James Dunn, Director of Design and Engineering" MR. PALING-Release of the pool backwash. occurrence? This is like a daily MR. STARK-Weekly. MR. PALING-Weekly. When no discoloration of the test reagent occurs. That's a test of the water purity or lack of chlorination? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's the chlorine residual that's left in the water when there's no, typically, it's a color comparison against a test strip, and that shows no discoloration. They're proposing to allow it to go to the seepage pits. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I have a question in that regard, technically. How are the samples retrieved from that holding tank? JAMES DUNN MR. DUNN-My name is James Dunn. The samples are retrieved by going below the water surface with a test tube held upside down. Its direction is reversed, thereby filling the test tube, and then the sample is brought up for testing. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-You physically have to open a hatch in the tank? MR. DUNN-Yes. MR. PALING-And you feel that this sufficiently answers your questions. Item Number Six, additional topographic survey work will be submitted shortly. ' I didn't remember any other information pending, but that's still to be submitted to you. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That plus the State agency permits, ultimately, Department of Health, Department of Environmental Conservation. Those are the major outstanding items. MR. PALING-Okay. Comments, questions here for the moment? Okay. All right., Lets go to the public hearing on this, if we may. Is there anyone here that would care to talk on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED VIRGINIA ETU MRS. ETU-My name is Virginia Etu, and I've sat through a number of these myself, and I think that you've known in the past that the Glen Lake Protective Association has been very involved in a number of these projects, and I think over the last couple of years we've been able to develop a nice working relationship with the Park, in terms of looking at water sampling and some of the issues of concern in the past. However, "As a member of the Glen Lake - 14 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) Association and of the Glen Lake Watershed Technical Advisory Committee, I personally would like to make the following comments regarding the proposed Great Escape water ride. As we have heard argued in the past, it is necessary for theme parks to continually add attractions so that attendance continues to increase. We have also been told that by increasing attendance we also create more sale tax revenue, more jobs, and a stronger local economy. That is what we believe to be the positive results of expansion and development. We need to look at the other side of expansion and development. The expansion of the Park by adding an additional 'phase' to the Splashwater Kingdom poses key problems. The first deals with the overall parking/traffic pedestrian issues. While the purpose of additional attractions is to increase attendance, there once again seems to be no plan submitted that will deal with these additional cars and people, not just from the visitors, but from the additional employees that are required as the park expands. THIS EXPANSION DOES CREATE AN IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. Reminding the Board that there is a 100' buffer zone adjacent to the wetlands, does not seem in itself to address this scenario. The Glen Lake Protective Association has been assured in the past, that no overflow parking will be located within this buffer zone, and as well, there will be no overflow parking in the area just south of Glen Lake Road that has been cleared over the past years. Yet, every season there are more and more vehicles encroaching this critical environmental area. Current traffic patterns need to be reviewed before granting expansion. pedestrians are crossing all along Rte. 9 (not just at the crosswalks), often with no regard to the signal lights. Many vehicles slow down along the corridor to gaze, or to watch rides while others speed up, make turns, or stop traffic. Without the proper considerations and recommendations for handling the increase in traffic along this corridor, we will be faced once again with yet another traffic nightmare. The increase in traffic not only burdens Rte. 9, but creates additional problems when roads servicing residential areas such as Courthouse Estates, Twicwood and Glen Lake become main thoroughfares. This will not happen in the future, it is happening now. The past two years for the Glen Lake Protective Association and The Great Escape have developed into one concept of mutual concern for the Watershed which serves as an ecological resource for both parties. permission was granted to use property owned by the Park for the purpose of collecting and analyzing water samples. The results of previous and future samples are key in determining the overall quality of the surrounding fen and its natural absorption and cleansing capabilities. As Splashwater Kingdom continues to develop, the noise levels increase, buffers that once sheltered the noise diminishes and the surrounding residential neighborhoods are no longer sheltered. This will not happen in the future, it is happening now. Expansion and Development should incorporate long term strategies and goals, not short term capital gains. These strategies and goals need to anticipate and avoid the creation of negative impacts. I would recommend the following: Tabling the vote on this project until there is a commitment or resolution that provides for no parking of any vehicles within the 100' buffer zone of the wetlands and the cleared area south of the Glen Lake Road, East of Route 9. Tabling the vote on this project until there is a final plan from the NYSDOT regarding the repaving project on Rte. 9 in which careful consideration and input from local, Town and County planners can address the current and future traffic concerns. Tabling the vote on this proj ect until there is a commitment from current and/or new owners of the park, that there will be no additional hours of operation. Tabling the vote on this project until there is a commitment from proposed Purchasers that they will continue to support and participate in the ongoing water sample studies to assure water quality in this critical environmental area and the Watershed Management Planning Process." Thank you. MR. STARK-Now are you saying this year there were people parked - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) within that 100 foot buffer? MRS. ETU-There are cars that are parked down in the lower access road area. I haven't measured within the 100 foot buffer, but they are beginning to encroach and become very close to that 100 foot buffer area. There is an overflow parking problem. MR. STARK-As a result of your testing the last two years, have you found The Great Escape to put anything into the water that wasn't there from the roads going onto their property and then exiting their property? MRS. ETU-Actually, at this time, we have made no conclusions on the water sampling. I can tell you that both within the Park and the water that flows from Rush Pond toward the Park have shown no noticeable increases or decrease in water quality. Our concerns, however, are that we continue these water sampling studies, to determine that this water remains the way that it is right now. They've been starting in early spring. We've been trying to get the runoff, and they've been continuing through, I think the last one was probably just weeks ago that were taken. Again, our concern is that we continue that relationship. That was a development of a nice concern that both the Park and the Glen Lake Protective Association had for the wetlands, the Rush Pond area. We all have a stake in that natural resource. Our concerns at this point are that we not severe that relationship with any new purchasing. We haven' t had an opportunity to speak to the possible purchasers of the Park to maintain that. We'd like to see that as an ongoing process. MR. WEST-What are these samples collected for? analyze? What do they MRS. ETU-We' re looking at phosphorus loads. We're looking at contaminants. We're looking at chlorination. The Park has done, I believe they have two test sites within the Park. One of the main areas that we are testing at is the exit from Jungle Land into the Fen. I think one of the positive things that has happened is it probably has dispelled some of the bad feelings or the myths that many of the residents on Glen Lake possibly had in the past about what was going into the Park, flowing through the Park and flowing out, but again, water sampling doesn't become conclusive after one season of sampling. It needs to be done over a period of time. I mean, Glen Lake has been studied for over the past 10 to 15 years. We're just beginning to draw some conclusions about where some contaminants and some sources of nonpoint pollution are occurring. It's an ongoing process. We can't take two samples and say, this is the problem we have and this is how we clean it up. It is an ongoing process. We want to see that process continued. MR. MACEWAN-When you take your early spring samples, are they taken before the Park opens? MRS. ETU-April. I think the Park is getting ready to open. MR. MACEWAN-And you're not noticing any abnormally high numbers in your samples? MRS. ETU-Quite frankly, some of the samplings are indicating a runoff problem from both the Northway and from Route 9, which is, again, sparked a concern over this re-paving project that they're looking at doing in 1997, and that's one of our concerns, is we'd like to see how that design is going to go and what design changes, what type of , storm water management catch basin areas are going to be developed before we look at, again, expanding this Park with parking and things of that nature. I mean, I'm not sure that Route 9 is always going to be a one lane north, one lane south highway. What are we going to do with the parking problems that The Great - 16 - '--' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) Escape is having now? I think that working with DOT to help reduce nonpoint sources of pollution, and in addition maybe address the parking problems that are going to result from an expansion of the Park in this area. I don't think that the Park is going to dry up and fold up without an additional water ride there. I think that we need to sit back and maybe address what's going to happen in the future to that Route 9 corridor. We've got traffic nightmares throughout the Town because we didn't sit back and say, what's going to happen if we develop, or over develop or over expand in an area that's not capable of handling that. I can cite a half a dozen examples around the area that we've done that. I think that we need to really look at what the traffic concerns are going to be, the additional traffic. MR. MACEWAN-You do realize that's a State issue, though? MRS. ETU-It's a State issue with local County and Town input. I've attended a couple of those meetings. I know that Mr. Martin sits here from the Town of Queensbury. I think the input from the Town is going to be very important on what the State is going to do on that project. I think input from the County. I think the County's concerns, in their passing the resolution the other night were very much warranted. Their concerns are 'with traffic. It's with pedestrian traffic. It's with the motor vehicle traffic. You're going to be creating more positions, more jobs for this. Again, I don't think that the capital gains of this project are meriting not looking further up the road, six months from now or when DOT is actually getting into the final plan stages of what they're going to do with the corridor. MR. MACEWAN-Is that the philosophy you share with not only The Great Escape but all the businesses on Route 9? MRS. ETU-I think all the businesses on Route 9 have been concerned about what's going to happen with this re-paving. I think it's my personal concern. I live in that area. It's impossible, in the summer time, to make matters worse, I work at the Northway Plaza. I have to get out of there and you can't get out onto Quaker Road anymore. It's a nightmare. We're creating traffic nightmares all over the Town. MR. MACEWAN-Is it your position that you think we should have a moratorium of any development or expansion of the businesses along that corridor? MRS. ETU-No, but I think we should look at, no, that's not my position at all, but I think that we need to address those population, those traffic issues before we make approval for expansions to make sure that those roads and those corridors can handle the increased amount of traffic. Country Club Road is also taking on a tremendous amount of that overflow, Country Club and the Glen Lake Road. I'm just asking that we look at all of the issues before we allow expansion. I think there will be a large traffic concern with expanding anything along that Route 9 corridor, until we know what the Department of Transportation is proposing to do. MR. PALING-Any other questions? MR. BREWER-I have a question, not for this lady, but for George. MR. PALING-All right. Okay then, thank you. MR. BREWER-George, how do you calculate the parking? I know, I've been here for a couple of items at The Great Escape and every time, I won't say every time, I'm just saying that you say in your notes here that they meet the parking. How do you calculate that? How do you know how many he's supposed to have? - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. HILTON-Well, the Zoning Ordinance does not list a parking, schedule for amusement parks or mini golf places or anything like that. It operates right now with a set amount of parking. The addition of this one attraction, in my opinion, isn' t going to increase the parking needs to an extent where you're going to require, lets say, 50 or 20 more spaces. It's operating at a level right now. It's an attraction in and of itself. It's an addition of a ride in the middle of the Park. I guess my feeling is that the parking needs will not change dramatically with this ride. As far as any level or any parking schedule, we don't have one, and frankly it's up to the Board. If you feel that you require or want more parking out here. MR. BREWER-Well, I'm not saying that. I know, over the years, that Mr. Wood has improved the Park, and I don't have a problem with that. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. BREWER-But I'm just saying, when does it get to a point where we say that there's not enough parking? I mean, I can remember the Cobra, the Roller Coaster. I'm not sure what names or what rides, but the Sprayground, and I'm not saying you don't have enough parking. I'm just saying when do we get to that point? MR. HILTON-Well, with this Ordinance, you know, as I said, it's not clearly defined. I guess that's something that the Board would have to determine and instruct the applicant to either provide more or make that, work that into their decision. MR. WEST-Does The Great Escape know how many parking places they have? MR. HILTON-I don't know. They may want to comment on that. MR. PALING-Well, okay, but we're in the middle of a public hearing. Lets continue with the public hearing. MR. BREWER-I think this is important, Bob. MR. PALING-I'm not saying it isn't important. MR. BREWER-No, but I don't want to put it aside and forget about it. Can we ask Mr. Lemery or Mr. Wood? MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a comment regarding the parking and being a lifelong resident of this area. My contention is that adding this wave pool is not to necessarily increase attendance, but to maintain attendance, in other words, to mitigate the overcrowding that is already there with the water rides and the water attractions. The lines are incredibly long. So what we really need for the same amount of people is just to thin them out a little bit so they could enjoy the facility a little bit more. I can remember 25 years ago going down Route 9 in that parking lot on the other side of the street, and both parking lots were just packed to capacity, when I was a little girl, and they're still packed to capacity. As far as the parking area over by the, you know, encroaching upon the 100 feet, as long as they're not over that line and they have permission to be there, I don't think that's an issue at this point, and that's something that would be addressed if indeed there was some kind of a, if they were breaking the law over there. MR. MACEWAN-That becomes an issue for Code Enforcement action. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, but I think at this point, it's to maintain the attendance and the viability of the park economically. I don't think we're going to get 10,000 more people a week in that park. - 18 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that, Cathy, but I'm just saying that over the years. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm not even addressing what you're saying. What do you mean, over the years, what? MR. BREWER-Over the years with the new attractions you do attract more people, maybe. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but you also get the same people that come back again, because they say, yes, we're coming back again because there is a new attraction there. If there wasn't a new attraction, they probably wouldn't come back. They'd say, we've already seen that. We'll do something else this year. MR. BREWER-So could we get an answer to the questions about the parking, though? MR. PALING-Well, I've got traffic, parking and also the wetland notes that I'd like to have the applicant address, but lets move on to the public hearing. Is there anyone else that would care to speak? JOE KIRSCHNER MR. KIRSCHNER-Joe Kirschner. I wanted to address a little bit more in detail the parking south of Glen Lake Road, east of Route 9. MR. PALING-Are you with the applicant? MR. KIRSCHNER-No, no. I bought a house from the applicant up at the top of the hill there, and I was under the impression that there was no parking there at all in those areas that were cleared. Am I mistaken in that or not? MR. MACEWAN-Whereabouts are you speaking about? MR. KIRSCHNER-Coming up Route 9, across from the Coachman and all that, the cleared fields in the back there, but I have a very serious problem with the trespassers and all that, people coming up, I'm assuming people would park in there and don't want to get out onto Route 9. They've taken it upon themselves to come through my yard, which doesn' t quite please me, and I was under the impression that there was no parking down there permitted. MR. PALING-All right. We'll pass this on to the applicant tonight, to answer from your standpoint and from the other standpoint also. MR. KIRSCHNER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. LEE YORK MRS. YORK-My name is Lee York, and I'm a resident of Birch Road on Glen Lake. There's a long history here with The Great Escape and the many attractions that they've brought in over the years, and I think a lot of it has been very good for the community, but there's some questions I have about the development over the last few years. I believe in 1991 or 1992 The Great Escape brought in a concept of a water theme park, as a total package, a development of a water theme park, Typhoon Lagoon, or something of that nature. I can' t remember the exact name. At that time, the development was thought to have a number of impacts that could not be mitigated. Since that time, a number of water parks have come in individually for this area and have gotten approval, and at no time has the Board ever looked at cumulative impacts. What is going on, cumulatively, with all of these minor site plans within the Park. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) That's something that has to be examined under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. I believe what we're seeing here is an increase in not only duration but frequency of use of the Park. What you're having is The Great Escape Theme Park, but you're also having a water park called Splashwater Kingdom. They're under the same umbrella, but they are really two different areas of the same Park and at some future time might be divided into two Parks. What we're seeing here is people go to The Great Escape or Splashwater Kingdom for, they stay a longer period of time because there are more attractions there yes, but they are attractions of a different nature than they were 10 years ago. This is an expansion, okay, and have all the different elements of the expansion been examined? I can't say that they have. I haven't looked over every plan, as you have, and looked over what the needs are for that area, as far as, you know, what's required under SEQRA. What I will tell you is that I didn't live here 25 years ago, but in the 15 years that I have been here, I have seen in increase in use there, a substantial increase, and as I recall, The Great Escape has never really formally had a parking plan or identified how much parking they needed, how many cars are using that stretch of road or anything else, but I think it would behoove this Board to look at this Park, or this Splashwater Kingdom area, and the water rides associated with it as one site plan, as a total. You do that with subdivisions. You ask them to show you a plan with development for the future, so you can anticipate what that development will be and provide for that development. This isn't happening here, and it's a big concern to me. I'm not saying this is any fault of this Board, but I would urge you to consider looking at the total picture instead of one small area by one small area, because this isn't replacement of one ride for another ride. It is expansion. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Does anyone else care to speak? Okay. If not, then I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-What we're going to do is to ask for some replies to questions that have been raised. I think I've got traffic and parking, traffic in regard to, no, parking I'm going to address first, in regard to the, especially that wetland area and the 100 foot buffer, and then about the area that the gentleman referred to near the Coachman that may be being encroached upon, and then third I've got just plain old, capacity for parking. If you would address those three, and we may have others, too, but could you address those? MR. LEMERY-Sure, I'd be glad to. First of all, with respect to the issue relating to the 100 foot buffer, that buffer was put in place at the time we appeared before the Planning Board. I believe, when the Noah's Sprayground was approved in 1992, and as a condition of the approval, it was the position of the Board that there should be a formalized buffer between the Park operations and the Glen Lake Fen. MR. PALING-Are they parking on it? MR. LEMERY-There's no parking on it, and as a matter of fact, it's specifically delineated with fencing and markings, and no one's allowed to park there. There's a road that runs next to it in some places, but there's no parking that's allowed on that 100 foot buffer. With respect to the area surrounding the Coachman, that land is owned by Charles Wood, and so I can't speak to this gentleman's residence or his parcel of land that he owns, but the land that surrounds the Coachman, in fact the Coachman Restaurant is owned by Charles Wood, and leased to DeSantis Enterprises. So, but for the area that is provided for under the lease, that area is made available to patrons of The Great Escape for parking, and has - 20 - -- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) been the entire time that Mr. Wood has owned the land. Now certainly people shouldn't be going on this gentleman's property, and to that extent, I don't know if he's made that issue known to the management of The Great Escape, but to the extent that they can be helpful in keeping people out of his lawn and that kind of thing, then I think that'll be done and we're glad to know about that. MR. PALING-Okay, and capacity. MR. LEMERY-Well, the capacity, we talked about the capacity, really here before this Board a number of times. I remember when we were here before you with regard to the Coaster, capacity was an issue, and when we were here, the last couple of times capacity was an issue. You have to keep in mind that between the time that Charles Wood sold the Park in 1989 and the time that he bought it back in 1992, there was a deterioration and a diminution of the patronage of the Park. In fact, we showed you at the time that we made the application for the Coaster that there was a decline in attendance. So what has gone on in the last number of years has been an attempt, since Mr. Wood reacquired this Park, to get it back on its feet and to develop it, consistent with what today's family looks for, in terms of family entertainment. 'There might be two or three or four days a year where parking becomes a problem, and when it does, they are brought inside the Park and parked in areas within the Park, other than the buffer, that provide for that access. What we've said we would do is if there became a point where The Great Escape couldn't deal with it's patrons because the parking got so bad that people couldn't find a place to park, The Great Escape's position has been that it has the resources to acquire additional pieces of land and would do what we see all the major ski resorts in the area do. When they can't handle the parking, they buy a piece of land and shuttle the people in by bus to the Park. We've said that that could be done. There are parcels of land that can be acquired. Mr. Wood owns other land up and down Route 9 that so far he's not seen fit to make available, but if he had to, he could make available, and the new contract vendees of the Park, obviously, are aware of that and could do something about it, but at this point, parking is not a problem. You've got to remember that the entire parcel is zoned as an amusement park. The entire west side of Route 9 is devoted to the parking. so we've just not had a problem, and if there became a problem, the company has the resources to provide additional parking. I guess that's the best way we can answer it. MR. PALING-Okay. I think the wetland thing, if that's, there's any question there, the Enforcement Officer ought to be brought into play there, and how about other questions? MR. MACEWAN-John, the State is planning to re-vamp that corridor of Route 9. Have they been in contact with The Great Escape? Do they have any ideas as to how to alleviate some of the pedestrian concerns crossing the road? MR. LEMERY-Yes. I don't know the answer to that, Craig. I do know that, again, when we were here, I think it was either the time before for, I'll call it the Pirate's Cove ride, attraction, or again, the Noah's Sprayground, there was a request that The Great Escape take the time to put the traffic control devices in, put the fencing up, and reconfigure the crosswalks, if you'll recall, they did at that time. That's really all they can do. They don't have the ability, The Great Escape doesn't have the ability to determine what takes place on that public highway. MR. MACEWAN-I realize that. I was just wondering, had the State gotten together and asked for any input? MR. LEMERY-I think it's a couple of years away, and I think when - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) that happens there'll obviously be some dialogue, and we've agreed with the County Planning Board, when we were up there, that whatever dialogue is appropriate will take place. Obviously, The Great Escape doesn't want anybody getting run over and any traffic problems. So whatever can be done will be done to further protect the patrons of The Great Escape at that time, in terms of crossing Route 9. Whether they can reconfigure the traffic control devices, I mean, I don't know the answer to that. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Just one thing. Is there any substantial amount of water loss from the waves in the pool, from splashing? I know we talked about it before with the other ride, probably not. MR. LEMERY-Well, there's make up water, I believe, which is the evaporation. MR. BREWER-They're all contained? MR. LEMERY-Yes. I might point out, by the way, that the water that goes into the pool is Queensbury water. It's not from a well or it's not from Glen Lake. It's not from the Jungle Land area. It's Queensbury water, comes in from a hydrant, and the water that goes back out is as clean, because it's put into a holding tank, dechlorinated, and then discharged. So The Great Escape, in all its years, has never, I don't think, been accused by the Glen Lake Association or has ever contributed to any water situation on Glen Lake. As far as continuing to cooperate with the Glen Lake Association and to work with the lady who mentioned the, I have no reason to think that The Great Escape wouldn't continue that. At the conclusion of your deliberations here, I'd like to introduce to you Caron Burke who is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Premier Parks, the company which is acquiring The Great Escape, and I'm sure he'd like to meet you and tell you what his vision is, and he obviously recognizes how important protection of the environment and the contribution The Great Escape makes. So if you have a minute, he'd just like to say hello, because, obviously, he'll be seeing you again from time to time. MR. PALING-I think the appropriate time would be now. MR. LEMERY-Okay. MR. BURKE-Thank you, John. Good evening, and indeed it is a pleasure to come tonight and participate in the proceedings. I don't know whether I should say a great deal or respond to questions. What I can tell you on behalf of our company is that we're extremely pleased to be acquiring The Great Escape and having the opportunity to continue the quality that Charles Wood has brought to that Park. Premier Parks is a public company. We're listed on NASDAQ. We're currently the lOth largest theme park operate worldwide, and 4th in the United States. We own, currently, six parks in the U.S., and this will be our seventh. One of the other parks is here in New York State. We own Darien Lake, which is between Buffalo and Rochester and is a theme park and water park also, as well as a concert amphitheater and a campground. The thing I'd very quickly point out, however, is that we're not Disney. We specialize in parks like The Great Escape that are good quality family entertainment parks in communities like Glens Falls, and where we seek to develop them and run them the way Charles Wood has run this operation, and some of the issues that are being discussed tonight and raised, frankly, are the same issues that we deal with at everyone of our parks, in each of our communities. We have a significant commitment to the communities that we own parks in, and we take that very seriously, and I think that words are easy, but we will certainly demonstrate, as we have in each of the other communities we're in, that we will be a good - 22 - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) corporate citizen, that will be a very positive force in the community, and we'll seek to address, as best we can, the types of issues that are being raised and try to act responsibly to deal with them, and to deal with them more on a pro-active basis than a re-active basis, and I think that you'll see that spirit of cooperation and the last thing we want to be doing is being a poor neighbor or impacting water sources. I mean, those are all just terribly important to running the Park well. So we're going to be vigilant in that. Our safety records, our maintenance records, every aspect of our company and the parks that we run we're very proud of, and I think that we'd stand up to any scrutiny in terms of being good operators and I can only give you my personal commitment and the commitment of the community that we are going to be, you know, very good corporate citizens in this community, and we're delighted to be here, and I think you really hit it on the head. The whole purpose of the wave pool, frankly, is in fact to spread out the attendance in the water area. The one thing we noticed, which Mr. Wood observed as well, as we toured the Park this year, was that there's just an overcrowding in that area, separate and apart from overcrowding of the Park. It's just the people enjoy the water, and they're backed up and squeezed into the water attractions, and what this attraction will do will allow people to have a more comfortable experience, and that's really the purpose of the ride, but I'd be very happy to answer any questions that you might have about our company. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. Are you planning to increase the hours of operation at the Park, have you gotten that far? MR. BURKE-No. We really haven't addressed that issue, and so it would probably be inappropriate for me to take any position in any direction. I think that one of the things we were going to try to be very careful to do here is not fix something that's not broken. I think, you know, we're going to be very cautious, as we become the owners of the Park, to really operate it and understand it as best we can, and a lot of what Mr. Wood has done and accomplished over the years, obviously, works very well and so we'll just have to address that issue as we come through. MRS. LABOMBARD-And as far as maintaining the integrity of Mr. Wood's water studies that have been ongoing over the past few years, are you into that at all? MR. BURKE-Yes. I can't imagine why there'd be any, we haven't really formally discussed it, but I don't see that, on the top of my head, as any kind of a problem, and again, that's the type of thing that, you know, we depend on that water quality and the quality of the surrounding area. I mean, a large part of what attracts us to The Great Escape is that it's probably the most pleasant park that we've come across, in terms of the trees, the forest, the water and everything about it, and I think, you know, unlike so many parks that you go to that are really just a concrete or macadam and rides are plopped down, this park is special, and there are very few in the United States like it, and in many ways it's a park that, it's hard for me to think of similar parks to it, so, you know, for us, maintaining that quality is going to be key, and we think it's one of the reasons that it's been a successful park. MRS. LABOMBARD-Make sure that you keep that hill there that's been seeded with all those wildflowers. That was really nice. MR. BURKE-There you go. It is beautiful. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. BURKE-It's a pleasure. Thank you. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. PALING-All right. I think the next thing in order would be we can do the Short Form. MR. STARK-It's a Type II. MR. HILTON-No, it is an Unlisted, and they have attached a Short Form. So if you'd like to go ahead and review it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning Board an STORYTOWN U.S.A., INC,D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. ,An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, vote: 1996, by the following AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. HILTON-If I may, I just have one comment. On the first page, the first part of it, Question Number Ten, the question says, "Does action involve a permit, approval or funding now or ultimately from another governmental agency", the applicant lists the New York State Department of Health. I believe the New York State DEC should also be listed on that. I think we can just go ahead and write that in. That's just a matter of, they have to be contacted for the SPDES Permit. So, just to make that clear. - 24 - '- --" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MR. PALING-Okay. ahead? All right. Any other comments or questions before we go We'll entertain a motion then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-96 STORYTOWN U.S.A., INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For construction of a new Wave Pool with Activity Lagoon, deck/lounge area and mechanical support building, with the conditions of the Queensbury Beautification. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-96 TYPE: UNLISTED KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 194 OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-IA LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD TO RT. 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 CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-There was a public hearing back on August 20th. Did we leave it open? MR. PALING-I think we probably did. comment. Yes. We'll take public MR. HILTON-Yes, I believe you did. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-We'll take public comment anyway, to be sure. We probably left it open. Okay. Is someone from the applicant here? George, we'll turn it over to you. MR. HILTON-We reviewed this item last at the August 20th Planning Board meeting. At that time, a majority of the outstanding issues were engineering related. There was quite an extensive list of engineering concerns by Rist-Frost. Since then, the applicant has resubmitted a plan which you have before you. Staff is satisfied with all of the parking, setback, drainage, proposed paving limits, all of those aspects of the drawing. I think the only thing now to do, as far as planning or engineering staff, is to have Bill Levandowski here comment on the plan. Other than that, Planning Staff is comfortable with this submittal. MR. PALING-Now what letter did they answer, August 14th? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-There's been a series of them. August 14th was the first. A revised submission was made. We responded with another letter dated August 28th. They, again, made further revisions to the site plan, submitted those revisions over the last couple of days, and although I have not had a letter typed, I did draft it - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) this afternoon and basically it just says that "We have reviewed the revised site plan submitted September 17th and have the following comments: Proposed stormwater management plan and stormwater recharge system is acceptable. Proposed sewage system is acceptable subject to confirmation from New York State DEC, and the sewage disposal field should be graded to divert surface runoff. We have no further comments. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Bill Levandowski, P.E." MR. PALING-Lets address the septic if we can. I think we expressed doubt that the 1,000 gallon system, if I recall correctly, was sufficient for what would appear to be a big building with a lot of people in it. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. The latest submission increases that design capacity to 2400 gallons a day. MR. STARK-Bob, on here they've got a monstrous system. MR. WEST-Yes. They've got two, 2,000 gallon. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-There's no pumps in that, is there, Charlie? MR. SCUDDER-No. MR. STARK-Just gravity. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Now that's taking the place of the old septic system that was in here before. MR. BARBER-That's in addition to the existing system, that' s correct. MR. PALING-In addition to. Okay. All right. Would you identify yourselves, please, for the record. MR. SCUDDER-My name is Charlie Scudder, Mr. Chairman. Consulting Engineer, representing the K of C. I'm the MR. PALING-Okay. comments on this? Thank you. George, do you have any other MR. HILTON-No, no other comments. The only outstanding ones, as I said, were engineering, and it seems that they were satisfactorily addressed. MR. PALING-Okay. We have no letters on this one, do we, anything like that? MR. HILTON-Let me check. If there were, I think they were read into the record. Let me just double check here. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-No, we have no other letters. The only thing I would mention is that we have an approved plan from the Beautification Committee in here, that any construction would have to be also in compliance with the recommendations and contents of this plan. MR. PALING-Okay, and Rist-Frost is satisfied. My concerns are septic, and that's been answered. Any questions, comments from anyone on this? MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only question I had was the run going from the D boxes to the (lost words) septic tanks. Isn't there a better way to make a nice straight easier run? - 26 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I thought that, too. MR. SCUDDER-I haven't found it. There's a building in the way. MR. MACEWAN-You don't think it's going to present any design problems down the road? MR. SCUDDER-No, I don't. MR. MACEWAN-Do you agree with that, Bill? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-It's after the septic tanks and most of the solids are gone. So we're only dealing with effluent. About the only the other thing you can do is provide clean outs at the bends, and it's more of a maintenance consideration than anything else. MR. PALING-Okay. if anyone has it. we'll close it now. We'll take public comment on this at this point, Okay. If we didn't close the public hearing, PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is an Unlisted Action. Short Form. So we need a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 49-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 194, and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MACEWAN-Should we enter Tom Flaherty's memo into the record? MR. HILTON-Last time we met, we had a letter from Tom stating that there was sufficient water out there. He has a letter dated September 6th which states that a fire sprinkler main may be required and that the 16 inch main located on the east side of Route 9 has sufficient capacity. So he's basically repeating that there's sufficient capacity for water and sprinklers at this location. MR. BREWER-Is it required? MR. HILTON-The sprinklers are going to be required. MR. SCUDDER-We hope never to need it. DANIEL BARBER MR. BARBER-The site plan does show a sprinkler main running into the building. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll go to a motion on this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-96 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS COUNCIL 194, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: That the Beautification Committee's suggestions and recommendations be adhered to. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DISCUSSION ITEM: SCUDDER ASSOCIATES HAS SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF A PROPOSED NEW CHURCH DEVELOPMENT - CHURCH OF THE KING - ON BAY ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 60-7-2.1 AND IS REQUESTING PLACEMENT ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH THE BOARD. MR. HILTON-I just have a few brief comments. STAFF INPUT - 28 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) Notes from Staff, Discussion Item, Church of the King, Meeting Date: September 17, 1996 "The applicants are proposing to use a piece of property zoned MR-S as a location for a church. The property is located on the west side of Bay Road just to the north of ACC. The applicant proposes to construct a main building at the south end of the property to be used as a main assembly hall. Staff has completed a preliminary review of this site plan and has the following comments: The zoning ordinance requires the proposed church building must be constructed 75 feet back from Bay Road property line. The use of the existing driveway for vehicular access is acceptable to Staff and Warren County DPW." The Warren County DPW has sent back a schematic showing a planted ingress/egress island at this location that they would like to see used as a part of this new access and new use of this property. "The use of this drive should contain a four foot wide planted island to separate the two lanes of traffic. A schematic developed by the Warren County DPW is attached with these comments. The applicant's proposal for parking at this location will contain areas which will be paved and unpaved. The Planning Board should work with the applicant to determine how much parking can remain unpaved. The parking requirement for this use is 1 space per 5 seats. The location of a future septic system, landscaping and stormwater management systems should be addressed by the applicant and the Planning Board." MR. HILTON-And those are the only comments that I have, other than that I have talked to Charlie, and he's fully aware of all my comments. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-How many members in this congregation? MR. SCUDDER-Char I ie Scudder, Consul t ing Engineer. I learned tonight, talking to the pastor's wife, that they now have 50 to 55 people in their congregation. This church is called Church of the King. It's new to me, and I'm sure it's probably new to you. The pastor and the co-pastor are English people who now live here. They have some sort of a church over in Corinth, I believe, or, I think it's Corinth. I don't know anything about it. I don't know anything about them, but they want to establish a church here. MR. STARK-The proposed church, 60 by 100, one story building, peaked or steeple? MR. SCUDDER-I have no architecture, no idea how it lays out, George. I think the west end of the building, however, is going to be beyond where the ground breaks. If you're familiar with the site, I don't know whether you are or not. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-But if you go back in there, you see that it drops off substantially to the southwest. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SCUDDER-And to the west, and the building with the 75 foot setback and that length, I think it's 100 feet, is going to be beyond the break. So there'd be an opportunity to have some kind of a grade situation, two stories on the west end. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words, the church is going to be built where that property is low. Because there used to be a garden down in there, and you have to go down that bank to get to it. When we were there, it looks like that's where the Church would be. MR. SCUDDER-Well, I don't know. Did you notice two stakes in the - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) ground with flags on them, on the southerly side of the driveway? MR. STARK-No, I didn't. MR. SCUDDER-Well, the pastors put those there, because the first one lined up with the front of the farmhouse, and the second one was 100 feet farther back. That kept the building up on the flat, but when you push it back to get the 75 foot setback for the corridor requirement, it pushes the building over the bank, as it were. MRS. LABOMBARD-So it might have to be, like, built into the hill. MR. PALING-But that setback requirement isn't our jurisdiction. That's the ZBA. MR. HILTON-Well, no, it's a Zoning Ordinance requirement. It's something that they have to adhere to, unless they obtain a variance from the ZBA. MR. PALING-From the ZBA, yes. MR. HILTON-Right, but if they bring in a development plan and they haven't received their variance, they're obligated to comply with that 75 foot setback. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. We're proceeding on the assumption that we're going to have the 75 foot setback, and the other thing is, it might work to our advantage, in the sense that you could put the absorption system in the front of the building. Is that right, George? MR. HILTON-That's something you could do. MR. SCUDDER-And that might work out well in the future, if and when we get a sewer on Bay Road. MR. PALING-Does the planted island pose a problem of any kind for you? MR. SCUDDER-The boulevard entrance? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-No. I think that's a very good idea and we're in favor of it. MR. STARK-Parking? MR. WEST-Yes, where's the parking? MR. SCUDDER-We haven't done any work yet. We've been out there and walked around and waved our arms around and so on, but we wanted to get some guidance from the Staff, Planning Staff, and from this Board before we start spending the money at the Church. MR. HILTON-If you have any ideas where the parking may be, you just may want to show the Board, just so they have an idea. MR. SCUDDER-Well, this sketch shows just the front end of the property. This property is 660 feet deep. It goes back all the way and beyond the stream. Old Maid Brook is back in the bushes. So this is just the front couple of hundred feet. There's another, say, 400 feet westerly, and that break that I'm talking about is right across here, and we'll have to go out and survey it. We'll have to do a boundary and a topo survey, but if we put the - 30 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) wastewater system up in here, then the parking we'll have to work out back in here somehow, but we really haven't done any planning, other than to make these measurements. We did enough surveying so that we could make these measurements to show the configuration of the driveways. MR. MACEWAN-You're intent is not to demolish any of the existing buildings, correct? MR. SCUDDER-I hope they'll take this down, this barn. That's an awful mess. They want to keep the house, of course, and this is sort of a ramshackle shed that ought to come down, in my opinion. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you think the Church will have a, like kitchen facilities or a downstairs cellar, like you could do parties and church breakfasts and things like that? MR. SCUDDER-I would guess so. days. That seems to be customary these MRS. LABOMBARD-So there would be bathrooms and septic and all that, probably. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. You'd have to have that. have to have bathrooms. You certainly would MR. MACEWAN-What are the parking requirements for this? MR. HILTON-One space for every five seats. MR. PALING-For every five seats. MR. SCUDDER-I asked a question about seating, and they say that they seat on chairs, not pews. MR. BREWER-So they're not going to have pews, they're going to have chairs? MR. HILTON-Still, you're talking one space for every five seats. It's capacity, based on every five people you can get in there, you need one parking spot. MR. SCUDDER-Well, I want to make this point, that they hope to enlarge their congregation. They'd like to get up to 200 or so. MR. BREWER-They've certainly got enough room for the parking if they need it. They've got enough land, I mean, to accommodate it. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. Well, a good bit of it is heavily forested, you know, densely, a lot of brush. MR. STARK-What do you think about having 50 parking spots, 20 paved and 30 graveled or stoned? MR. SCUDDER-I like that idea. MR. STARK-I don't know. expansion in the future. I have no idea. That should take any MR. WEST-Yes. I mean, if you look at your existing size of your congregation, how many is that? You said 50? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. We only need 10 spots. MR. HILTON-Right, and if you had 20, that would more than exceed what their initial membership or attendance will be. That would work well, I think we get the required handicapped spaces to be paved, up against the building, somewhere close to the building, - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) and the rest we'd be comfortable with leaving unpaved. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I would minimize the blacktop. don't see any big advantage to a lot of blacktop. some. Personally, I You have to have MR. STARK-You're just not going to put the parking in the front? That'll be all grass? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, I would think so, and landscaped. You know those maple trees are something, you know. One of them is 50, 45 inches in diameter. These are diameters. I mean, I don't know how long it takes to grow a tree like that. Nobody wants to destroy those. MR. PALING-It would be nice if you were landscaped and grassed in the front and all the parking were to the rear. I think the Board would like to see that. MR. HILTON-That's also a requirement of the 75 foot setback, along Bay Road at least. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-Because we're trying to have some type of a natural corridor. None of the parking can go up front anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-So the front of the Church would face Bay Road? MR. SCUDDER-Presumably, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-But not necessarily. MR. SCUDDER-That's right, not necessarily, but I haven't seen any sign of an architectural drawing, and I haven't been asked to make one. MR. MACEWAN-They obviously, probably aren't aware of that 75 foot setback. Once they become aware of it, they may want to change their mind and maybe make the entrance to the Church on the side, closer to their parking area. I wouldn't think it would make much sense to have the parking area behind the Church and walk all the way around the front. MR. WEST-Or give more thought to a variance. MR. SCUDDER-Well, they are aware of that. MR. PALING-I don't think parking on the side is viable. MR. STARK-They can have an entrance on the side. MR. PALING-Entrance, but not parking, yes. MR. SCUDDER-Well, you may be familiar, some of you, with the Bay Road Presbyterian Church, up on upper Bay Road, up toward 149, up past the Dream Lake Road. I've had occasion to visit there a few times. My grandchildren were in nursery school there and so forth. They have that arrangement, where the parking's in the back. The lot is relatively narrow on frontage and deep. It has certain similarities to this lot, and their main entrance is on the side, on the north side. It seems to work well, but they are aware of that 75 foot corridor. They do know about that. They had hoped to keep the front of the Church in alignment with the front of the house, and that's why we drew it that way, but it's not going to be a big problem to move it back. Maybe, as we get into it, we'll see that it is a problem, but right now it's not. MR. PALING-And you said you did like the 20 parking spaces paved, - 32 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) for now? It seems reasonable. MR. SCUDDER-I don't think that's what I said, and I don't think that's what George said. MR. BREWER-George said 20 paved and 30 unpaved. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I thought you responded to. MR. STARK-You've got to have a certain amount of paved, handicapped. MR. SCUDDER-Right. So I would think we'd have to have some pavement, but I don't think we have to have 20 spaces paved. Do you, George? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, 20, if you're willing to provide 20 paved and leave the rest unpaved, great. That minimizes your pavement. Ten would minimize it even further. If the Board's comfortable with 10, I have no difficulty, I mean, that's okay with me. MR. PALING-We can't require paving, can we? MR. STARK-How about 10 paved, and 20 unpaved. MR. PALING-We might like it, but I'm not sure that. MR. HILTON-You can require that there be a minimum number paved, and at least for the ADA requirements and the handicapped spaces, I believe that they absolutely have to be paved. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that's reasonable, but what advantage is there to paving, blacktopping? MR. PALING-It makes for a friendlier building site, or whatever you want to say, a lot less problems in winter time and that kind of thing, from a practical standpoint, but it isn't something we can require you have 50 paved parking spaces. MR. SCUDDER-Well, we agree that we need some. MR. STARK-Ten paved, twenty unpaved. MR. BREWER-Why don't we say this, that we are going to require some pavement, and see what they come back with, with the plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. BREWER-And then we can determine that then, but we are going to require some pavement. MR. SCUDDER-For 50 people, we only need 10 spots. MR. BREWER-Yes, but if you grow to 200. MR. MACEWAN-I think that's something we can worry about down the line. MR. PALING-I agree. MR. WEST-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-The main point that I wanted to discuss tonight was the driveway. We have done that, the septic system, the setback. We have done that, the aesthetics, I call it aesthetics, beautification, the septic system, and our thoughts about the future. We don't know what the soils are there yet. We haven't done any test holes. We really haven I t done much of anything, - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/17/96) except do a one hour survey and make this sketch, and we wanted to get your feelings before we start spending the Church's money. MR. PALING-It'll be a good addition, I would think, to the area. MR. WEST-What's the intent with respect to the house? Do you know what's going to happen to that? MR. SCUDDER-I'm not sure that they know, but they want to have some offices over there, and a residence, I guess, on the second level. That's my understanding, but all of this is subject to change. At first, they were trying to figure out how they could cram their Church into that old barn. Well, that old barn, I mean, you don't. The pigeons have been living in there for years. The back end of it's open to the weather. MR. PALING-Any other questions of us? MR. SCUDDER-No, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, ladies. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCUDDER-I think that's positive response, and that's what I was hoping for. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thanks. The only other item I have is just that the final date on the Planning Board workshop, Mark couldn't make Wednesday the ninth, which was our first choice, so we've gone to Tuesday, the eighth, on the workshop. MRS. LABOMBARD-And what time is that, seven o'clock? MR. PALING-Seven o'clock. It is Tuesday. You should have a letter on it in your packets. MR. BREWER-Tuesday the eighth. MR. PALING-Meeting adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 34 -