Loading...
1997-02-25 --. QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1997 INDEX Freshwater Wetland Permit No. FW2-96 George Boivin 1. Christopher Marchand Tax Map No. 44-2-4 Cont'd Pg. 12. Site Plan No. 7-97 Ray Kraft/Kraft Construction Tax Map No. 15-1-39 2. Subdivision No. 2-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE Howard I. Krantz Tax Map No. 54-2-7.25 5 . Subdivision No. 3-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE H. Croswell Tuttle 17. Tax Map Nos. 1-1-22, 23.1, 23.2 Site Plan No. 3-97 Randy Tompkins Tax Map No. 124-2-7.4 19. Site Plan No. 4-97 Randy Tompkins Tax Map No. 124-2-7.4 25. Site Plan No. 33-94 MODIFICATION Charles Seeley, Craig Seeley Tax Map No. 135-2-2.1 30. DISCUSSION ITEM The Great Escape 32. 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 2/25/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STARK-The first order of business, the resolution is off the agenda, for people in the audience that have an agenda. The first order of business will be under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FW2 - 9 6 TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE BOIVIN/CHRISTOPHER MARCHAND OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A., DEC LOCATION: DINEEN ROAD WETLAND AFFECTED: GP-21 PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 3 BEDROOM HOUSE WITH ON-SITE WELL AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. PROJECT IS A REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN A DEC DESIGNATED WETLAND. PER SECTION 94-6 A PERMIT HAS TO BE OBTAINED TO CONDUCT A REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN A WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 111-1996 TAX MAP NO. 44-2-4 LOT SIZE: 2.08 ACRES SECTION: 94-6 RON KUHL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Is someone from the applicant here? Would you come up to the table and identify yourselves, please? MR. HILTON-Just before we proceed with this, I would just, for the record, say that today we received a letter from the applicant, in the matter of Al Cerrone and his dedication of parkland to the Town. We received a letter today. He wished to withdraw this item from consideration at this time, and we have a letter in the file, and the matter is deemed closed at this time. MR. BREWER-The whole application? MR. HILTON-The offer of dedication of parkland. MR. PALING-Yes. I should have said something, but that's why we're not opening a public hearing or anything on that. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-It's just withdrawn. MR. HILTON-Withdrawn. MR. PALING-So we don't need to do anything. Yes. Okay. Fine. Excuse me. Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please? MR. KUHL-Yes. My name is Ron Kuhl. This is my wife, Ellen. Chris Marchand is the builder building the home. - 1 - "'" ~ -.~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Now this is for a wetlands permit, right? MR. KUHL-Correct. MR. PALING-That's all we're doing tonight, and there is a public hearing, and you've received a permit from DEC? MR. KUHL-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. this? Does anyone have any comments or questions on MR. RUEL-Yes, I have. MR. STARK-Well, how about George reading the notes? MR. PALING-All right. Go ahead, George. MR. HILTON-Okay. STAFF NOTES Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. FW2-96, George Boivin/Christopher Marchand, Meeting Date: February 25, 1997 "The applicant is seeking a freshwater wetlands permit in order to construct a home with on site well and sewage disposal system. The applicant expects to have DEC approval for this construction at the time the item is heard before the Planning Board." We have this permit in the file. "The applicant must submit a SEQR short form prior to Planning Board action on this application." MR. HILTON-I have a SEQR short form here that the applicant can fill out, and this is a unique situation because most freshwater wetland permits in the past, I believe it's been practice that they haven't, or SEQR may have been handled differently. We list it as an Unlisted Action this time. Therefore, it needs a short form to be filled out. I have one right here. MR. PALING-Okay. tonight? You're saying they could fill it out here MR. HILTON-Fill it out here, if you want to postpone them for five minutes or whatever. MR. PALING-Yes. Why don't we interrupt what we're doing now and just fill out the form. We'll have you right back up, and then we can proceed, okay. WILLIAM MAHONEY MR. MAHONEY-Mr. Chairman, for the record, Mr. Boivin couldn't be here tonight, and I'm appearing for him, Attorney William Mahoney. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you with? MR. MAHONEY-Yes. I'm with the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you see what we're just doing now? There needs to be a short SEQR form filled out, and they're going to do it now and we'll just have them back up again and proceed with the meeting. MR. MAHONEY-Thank you, sir. SITE PLAN NO. 7-97 TYPE II RAY KRAFT/KRAFT CONSTRUCTION OWNERS: FRAN!( & DEBBIE STEWART TAYLOR FREEZER ZONE: WR-1A, C. E. A. LOCATION: ROCKHURST ROAD TO BUILD SUNDECK OVER EXISTING DOCK WITH - 2 - ~ -- '- -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) STAIRS AND RAILING. BUILD OVER EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO WITH A DECK AND STAIRS AND CHANGE A WINDOW TO A DOOR. ALSO, LEVEL GROUND ON RIGHT SIDE OF HOUSE AND PUT IN RETAINING WALL. CROSS REPERENCE: AV 6-1997 WARREN CO. PLANNING: AV 6-1997 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/11/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 15-1-39 LOT SIZE: .10 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 RAY & WENDY KRAFT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-97, Ray Kraft/Kraft Construction, Meeting Date: February 25, 1997 "The applicant is seeking site plan approval for a proposed sundeck over an existing dock and a deck and stairway to be attached to an existing home. The ZBA has approved setback variances for the sundeck as well as the deck and stairway which will be attached to the home. The sundeck meets the height requirements for sundecks contained in the Zoning Ordinance." MR. HILTON-And at the February 11th meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this application was approved with the condition that the stairs terminate on the dock. The applicant has re- submitted plans which indicate that the stairs will be located entirely on the dock. MR. PALING-You didn't say, so I assume that you'll go along with it? MR. HILTON-We're comfortable, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. please? All right. Would you identify yourselves, MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft. MRS. KRAFT-And Wendy Kraft. MR. PALING-Did you know about the Warren County Planning Board's condition that the stairs terminate on the dock? MR. KRAFT-Only when the County told us at the County meeting. we were at the County meeting, they said no land bridges. re-designed it. When So we MR. PALING-This is okay with you, then? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Any questions, comments? MR. RUEL-I find the sketches very difficult to follow. There's several things. There's a retaining wall on one side with a, to improve that entrance on the side, right? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-You're going to build that up and put a retaining wall, is that it? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-And also in the side of the building facing the lake, are you changing a window to a door in the front there? MR. KRAFT-When the deck goes over the existing slab, yes. MR. RUEL-And that slab, then you'll have a deck over that slab, is - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) that it? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-And then you'll have stairs going down from that? MR. KRAFT-Correct. MR. RUEL-And in addition to that, we have some construction at the deck, at the dock itself, right? MR. KRAFT-Right. MR. RUEL-And you're going to put a structure above the dock? MR. KRAFT- Yes. MR. RUEL-With stairs? MR. KRAFT-Down on to the dock. MR. RUEL-The stairs go from where? MR. KRAFT-The back top down to the entrance to the dock onto the dock. MR. RUEL-I see, and you intend to have, what, a canvas cover between the two sections? MR. KRAFT-No. It used to have a canvas cover on it. going to be a hard top. Now it's MR. RUEL-It presently is, you say, canvas? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-And you're going to convert that to? MR. KRAFT-A regular boathouse top with a sundeck on it. MR. RUEL-I see, with a fence around it, railing around it? MR. KRAFT-A rail around it, yes. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no other questions, why don't we open the public hearing on this matter. Did you have any other comments for us before we went to the public hearing? MR. KRAFT-No. MR. PALING-Is there anyone here that would care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay, George. MR. HILTON-A letter that we've received within the Planning Department dated the 24th of February, it reads as follows "I am submitting this fax according to your suggestion made during our telephone conversation this afternoon. No objection to building sundeck over existing dock with stairs and railing. Objection to building over existing concrete patio with a deck & stairs. We had applied for a permit to do the same thing on our property - which is directly north of property in question, and were told that it was not permissible to build such a structure on Rockhurst. No objection to putting in a retaining wall on south side of house. Staffield Family Partnership, L.P. Jeanne A. Staffield 1900 So. Ocean Drive #811 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Jeanne A. Staffield" - 4 - ~' -- "- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) That's the only comment we have. MR. PALING-That's the only one. brings out? Did you find any problem that MR. HILTON-To tell you the truth, I don't know the circumstances behind their application. In relation to this? MR. PALING-It doesn't create a problem? MR. HILTON-No. This application, as I said, has received variances from the ZBA. This complies with what was approved by the ZBA. Staff doesn't see any problem allowing this. MR. PALING-Okay. So is there anyone that cares to talk on this in the audience? All right. If not, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now this one is a Type II. MR. HILTON-With Type II, no SEQR is required. MR. PALING-No SEQR. I'm sorry. They've got a short form here, but there is a resolution with this, is there not? MR. HILTON-There is a resolution. MR. PALING-Okay, and we're going to be talking about this later on tonight, but make sure we use this the right way, which we haven't been doing. MR. RUEL-Are we going to do this right now? MR. PALING-I think this applies right now, doesn't it, George? MR. HILTON-Certainly. There's really no clear cut way to handle this. If you would just like to make a motion for approval, citing the prepared resolution, you could certainly do that. MR. PALING-There's no questions or comments or changes, we could just go by the resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-97 RAY KRAPT/KRAPT CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. KRAFT-Thank you. MRS. KRAFT-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE PINAL STAGE UNLISTED HOWARD I. KRANTZ OWNER: JANE LOWELL ZONE: TYPE: SR-1A - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A +/- 74 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF +/- 7.412 ACRES AND +/- 68.86 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 4-1996 TAX MAP NO. 54-2- 7.25 LOT SIZE: +/- 74 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HOWARD KRANTZ, PRESENT MR. RUEL-This is a subdivision, both preliminary and final tonight? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Together? MR. PALING-Well, we've got to do them separate. We're going to do it all tonight. MR. WEST-We've done it in one motion before? Didn't we do that? Wasn't that precedent setting last week? MR. PALING-I think we did do it in one. MR. SCHACHNER-I wasn't here last week, but actually it would be more appropriate, if you do those things in the same meeting, it would still be more appropriate to do them in separate resolutions. MR. PALING-Two resolutions. That's fine. here representing the applicant? Okay. comment on this? Okay. Is there someone George, do you want to MR. HILTON-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1997, Preliminary and Final Stage, Howard I. Krantz, Meeting Date: February 25, 1997 "The applicant is seeking preliminary and final subdivision approval for land located on Chestnut Ridge Road. The applicant seeks to divide a 74 acre lot into a 7.412 acre lot and a 68.86 acre lot. The applicant is seeking a waiver from the requirement of sketch plan approval. The applicant's subdivision map is missing a number of elements which are required by the subdivision regulations. II The Staff has informed the applicant of this through a letter which you may have in your packets for this evening or a previous packets. Staff is comfortable allowing waivers for such items that were listed in those letters. "The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a waiver of these requirements. The applicant has not yet provided a SEQR short form for this application. A SEQR short form", which we have just received, "and proof of notification of property owners within 500 feet of this project must be received prior to Planning Board action on these applications." MR. HILTON-Other than that, Staff recommends approval of Preliminary and Final subdivision. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz. MR. PALING-Lets get to the first question about notification of the neighbors. Okay. Would you give those to George. If that isn't there, we don't have anything. Okay. Lets talk about the waivers requested. Should we go over them one by one? I think we better. MR. HILTON-Well, you may want to start with Sketch Plan. They're seeking a waiver for Sketch Plan, and that would probably be a good place to start. - 6 - -- ..-/ ,-",. ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-All right. There's not much of a sketch involved in something like this. I don't have any objections to that, unless someone wants to raise one. MR. RUEL-We normally grant the waiver. MR. PALING-When there's something like this. All right. Lets say okay on that. What's the next one? MR. BREWER-We've got to do that first, don't we? MR. HILTON-You probably should approve it in some form of resolution. MR. PALING-Each one? MR. HILTON-Just the Sketch Plan one. MR. BREWER-Just the Sketch. MR. PALING-Okay. Can I get a motion on that? MOTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER FOR SKETCH PLAN ON SUBDIVISION NO. 2- 1997 FOR HOWARD I. KRANTZ, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. HILTON-The next item, we're on discussion of the Preliminary application, and the applicant has informed us through a letter, has informed Staff through a letter, that they are seeking a number of waivers that we have identified in a letter to them dated February 6th. I believe you have this letter. You should have it. I will quickly go over what all of those waivers are. Location of water courses, topographic features, contours at two foot intervals on the property and extending 100 feet off the property, location of electric, telephone, and cable television lines, setback requirements for each lot, location and construction details of storm drainage system, elevation of proposed monuments, clearing plan, grading and erosion control plan, drainage report, and a statement that the applicant agrees to install all required improvements and monuments. As I said, the applicant is seeking a waiver from these items, and Staff has no objection to granting such a waiver. MR. PALING-Okay. We're only doing a subdivision here. Now what about the location of the utilities? They're in place on Chestnut Ridge Road, are they not? MR. HILTON-Some of the major utilities, I believe they are. I really think that that's an issue separate from subdividing into two lots. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-It may be of help to the Board. This property was previously subdivided. It was the Lowell subdivision, which you approved the subdivision into five lots, of which Jane Lowell's lot is this parcel now that's in front of you. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. KRANTZ-We subdivided the five lots, and Jane Lowell's is the 74 acre lot that's now being subdivided into two parcels. MR. PALING-Why are you shaping the lot the way that it is? Why is that? MR. KRANTZ-You mean the L piece behind? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-That was the desire of Mrs. Lowell to even out the lot, not to have the primary lot jut into the property and then her butting up to the neighbors. I think her term was to square off the lot. MR. PALING-Because that's still a pretty wide lot, that 279 feet. So in the future, a lot of things could be done with that. MR. RUEL-They'd need a road though, wouldn't they? MR. PALING-Yes, along here they've got to have, yes, because there's no access, right. They would have to. MR. RUEL-I have a question about this list. George, wouldn't most of these items listed in this letter, wouldn't most of them be available at site plan review? MR. HILTON-There's no site plan review for a residential home being built. MR. RUEL-So there wouldn't be, none of this would ever be available? MR. HILTON-No. Some of them would be reviewed at the time of building permit, but the Planning Board, recently, has been very interested in having the applicant seek waivers for things that aren't shown on the plan, and this is Staff's attempt to alert the applicant that some things were missing. MR. RUEL-But in your opinion, these are not? MR. HILTON-Staff is comfortable allowing these waivers and such. MR. RUEL-Well, we have contours on here, but they're not too feet, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-What are these, ten feet? MR. KRANTZ-I believe they are two feet. MR. RUEL-They are two feet? MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. RUEL-Then why the waiver? MR. HILTON-They're not contained on the entire subdivision map. MR. RUEL-I see. You have to extend 100 feet off site? MR. KRANTZ-When I spoke with Planning, what we're doing, on the seven acre parcel, my wife and I are building one single family home, and when I spoke to, I think it was Jim Martin, and asked him how much information did he want on the map, he said to show the contour lines significantly past where the house is going, rather than, for example on the "L" shaped section behind the other one, he said there's no need to show it there. - 8 - "-- - '- .~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. RUEL-Yes, so that's the only reason you need the waiver? MR. KRANTZ-Right. We gave, I think, for all intents and purposes, all the information you need on where we're going to place the home. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments or questions? Lets go to the public hearing, unless you have any other comments, lets go to the public hearing on this. We'll open the public hearing on this application. Does anyone care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-So we'll need a motion for these waivers? MR. PALING-Lets take a look here a minute on this one. Unlisted. So we need a SEQR then. This is MR. RUEL-Yes, short, I guess. MR. HILTON-Yes. A short form which we have right here, the applicant has just provided us with. MR. RUEL-AII right. This is the environmental assessment form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1997, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the HOWARD I. KRANTZ, and Planning 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Do we get a motion for the waivers? MR. STARK-Include that in the motion. MR. RUEL-You can include it? MR. PALING-Refer to the letter. MR. RUEL-Instead of spelling out each one. Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we're ready. MR. RUEL-AII right. Is this resolution? MR. HILTON-There's no resolution with this one. MR. RUEL-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1997 HOWARD I. KRANTZ, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To subdivide a +/- 74 acre parcel into two lots of +/- 7.412 acres and +/ - 68.86 acres, and as part of the motion the requested waivers in the letter dated February 6, 1997 to the Town of Queensbury are approved. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. RUEL-Now we go to Final. MR. WEST-Do we have to re-open the public hearing? MR. STARK-No, not in the final. MR. PALING-All right. Now this is the Final Stage. Are there any other questions? MR. HILTON-Just a couple of other items that need waivers. I can list those real quick. Setback requirements shown on each lot, fire and school district boundaries, existing zoning on site and of property within 200 feet, a statement that the plan conforms to the Zoning Ordinance, drainage report, and erosion control plan. Staff is comfortable granting these waivers. MR. PALING-Is that the same list? MR. HILTON-This is for Final. Some of the items are the same, but they're also required for Final. - 10 - '-' -../' ,--,' --.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-And they're in that same letter? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Are they? MR. HILTON-Yes, a separate sheet, but it's dated February 6th, and it was sent to the applicant. MR. PALING-The same one, okay. Any further comments or questions? Do we need to open a public hearing on this now? MR. BREWER-No. MR. HILTON-The public hearing is only done with Preliminary. MR. PALING-And the SEQR's done, right. MR. SCHACHNER-You have the option of conducting a public hearing on Final, but in Preliminary it's mandatory. On Final, it's optional. MR. PALING-Yes. this. I would say we could pass the public hearing on MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I would just suggest you include that in a motion, that you don't, include in your motion that you don't see the need for any additional public hearing at the Final Stage. MR. PALING-Good, okay. Do you want to do that, Rog? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1997 KRANTZ, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its seconded by George Stark: HOWARD I. adoption, To subdivide a 74 acre parcel into two lots of 7.4 and 68.86 acres. This motion includes the approval of waivers requested in the February 6th letter for this subdivision at final stage. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Now I think we're done. MR. KRANTZ-You need the mylar? MR. HILTON-You would bring the mylar into the Planning office and we will have the Chairman of the Planning Board come in and sign it. MR. KRANTZ-The original mylar. MR. HILTON-The mylar, and I believe we also need 10 copies extra. They can be paper, but just one mylar and 10 paper copies. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. Thank you both. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Howard, what school district is that? MR. KRANTZ-Queensbury. MR. PALING-Are we ready? - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. HILTON-Yes. We can go back to the Boivin. MR. PALING-All right. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, we have a SEQR form that's been filled out for this application for your review. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Where were we in this one? Can we go right to SEQRA? MR. RUEL-No. I don't think we even started it. MR. PALING-We didn't even start it, yet, okay. Okay. We've heard from George. Any comments by the Board, or questions? MR. RUEL-Well, how about comments from George? MR. STARK-I have a question. George, where this property is located, the water table is two or three feet under the ground. What kind of a system can DOH approve for that? MR. HILTON-That's a good question. I'm not really sure what type of a system they would allow here. It'll certainly have to be reviewed by them, and they'll take into consideration the site factors and I just honestly can't tell you what kind of system they'd approve here. MR. WEST-Do you know where the water table is below your property? MR. KUHL-My name is Ron Kuhl. Chris Marchand is the builder building the home. Boivin is the seller. MR. RUEL-Okay. I have a question for George. In your Staff note you indicated that you want to construct a home with an on-site well. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-In the permit from the DEC, it indicates excavate and backfill of trench to Glen Lake to install a water supply line. Are they getting water from the lake or is this a well? MR. HILTON-Is it going to be from the lake? Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes, because it did sayan on-site well. MR. HILTON-Okay. That's the way we had it advertised. It was our information. Either way, if they're gathering water from the lake or an on-site well. MR. RUEL-I see. Is this drinking water from the lake? MR. HILTON-I believe it is. MR. RUEL-People drink that water? MR. HILTON-Yes. ELLEN KUHL MRS. KUHL-With a filtration system. MR. RUEL-Okay. It has a chlorine system with it? Okay, filter, etc. How about in the winter time? You get water in the winter with that kind of a system? You do? As long as the line is deep enough in the ground, right? MR. KUHL-Sure. - 12 - ',,--, ....- '-- ......." (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. RUEL-How long is that line from the lake to your house? MR. KUHL-I don't have that. MR. RUEL-It looks like about 40, 50 feet? MR. KUHL-More than that. We're about 80 feet from the water, give or take. MR. WEST-Were you going to be bringing in any fill on top of the existing? MR. BREWER-The DEC's going to allow that? MRS. KUHL-Yes. MR. HILTON-Staff just has one question for the applicant, real quick. On your DEC permit, the applicant that's listed, or permittee, is Ronald Kuhl. MR. KUHL-That's me. MR. HILTON-That's you. To tell you the truth, I'm just trying to find out where George Boivin and Christopher Marchand fall into this. MR. KUHL-Marchand is the builder of the house, and Boivin is the seller of the property. I'm purchasing this property, subject to your approval, DEC and Town Board approval. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. RUEL-So DEC has nothing to do with the approval of a septic system? MR. HILTON-Well, actually they do approve whether or not to allow a septic system within that regulated area. MR. RUEL-Does this permit allow the installation of a septic system? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-And then they type of system, then, is up to, what, Department of Health? MR. HILTON-Well, the Department of Health would review what type of system is going in there, and they would make recommendations or approve or deny any type of system out there. MR. RUEL-I see. So it's subject to approval at a later date. MR. HILTON-They'll have some review. The Department of Health will review it. MR. BREWER-Do we have any kind of drawings of this? MR. HILTON-Drawings were issued to you at a past date. MR. BREWER-I don't have them. MR. PALING-I thought I lost them, but if you don't have them, maybe I never had them either. MR. BREWER-I never got them, I don't believe. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. I think there were some sketches. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. We have a drawing here which was given out. MRS. LABOMBARD-I remember that. MR. PALING-We all want to take a look at this print. So it's going to take a minute. MR. STARK-I remember seeing it when we went out to look at the site. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. WEST-Does this include a basement, or is it on a slab? MR. KUHL-It's going to be above the ground. It's going to be at road grade in the front, and it'll be double level in the back, looking at the lake. All that will be fill. So it'll be single level off the road. So effectively the basement will be out of the ground. MR. PALING-George, what's the setback of the wetlands here? MR. HILTON-As shown on the map, well, I actually would have to look at that. MR. RUEL-It's about 15 feet. MR. HILTON-Okay. The normal setback from the wetland is 50 feet. With the changes to the Waterfront Residential zone, the setback from the regulated area would be 50 feet. The applicant received a variance to allow it to be 25 feet away from the regulated area. MR. RUEL-Who granted this variance? MR. PALING-The ZBA. MR. HILTON-The ZBA. MR. PALING-Okay. That seems to be the critical item, but they've got a variance, and that's done. All right. There are no more questions of the Board at the moment. Lets open the public hearing on this matter, on the Boivin/Marchand application. Does anyone care to talk about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we're going to do a SEQR on this. Okay. This is Unlisted. We can use the short form. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Environmental Assessment, Part II. "Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following; existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. PALING-Well, we can say no on that, with the ZBA. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just because they gave them a variance doesn't mean it takes that away. - 14 - -- .-/ '-- ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. RUEL-There is a yes on that one. MRS. LABOMBARD-I believe there is a yes on that. MR. BREWER-What's the question, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger, read it again. MR. RUEL-"existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? II MR. STARK-I'd say they're slight, small to slight, but it probably could be mitigated. MR. RUEL-No, how? The variance does not mitigate it. MRS. LABOMBARD-The variance doesn't mitigate it. them they can do it. It just tells MR. STARK-During the building it could be mitigated. MR. HILTON-There are special conditions attached to the DEC approval, which are meant to control stormwater runoff and erosion into the lake, specifically stake bales will have to be on the property during construction. It's outlined in the permit that's in the application, and the applicant will be required to follow all the conditions of the DEC permit. MR. RUEL-Yes, but most of those conditions have to do with during construction, not necessarily after construction, the ones ~ read. MR. HILTON-Most of them are during construction. MR. RUEL-But aren' t we concerned here with these problems not necessarily at construction, but at any time? MR. PALING-Okay. Which one are you concerned with in the list? MR. RUEL-Well, lets see, you've got surface or groundwater quality or quantity. MR. PALING-I don't think that's a factor. MR. RUEL-AII right. Then you have potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems. MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-Those are the only three. MR. STARK-It's going to be filled, Rog, and he's got to put haybales along the edge. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. WEST-I see minimal risk for erosion. MR. PALING-If any, sure. I say no. I don't think there's enough there to bother. Does anyone object to that? MR. RUEL-If so, it's very minor then. MR. STARK-Put down very minor. MR. RUEL-Check box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant. I don't have to do anything. Okay. So I'll - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) go on to the next one. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. FW2-96, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning Board GEORGE BOIVIN/CHRISTOPHER MARCHAND, and 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-It says on your special conditions of your permit, where are you going to store the construction equipment if there is any? MR. KUHL-The construction equipment, as I understand it, will be up by the road MR. BREWER-Okay, because the permit says that areas more than 100 feet distance from the wetland boundary, and I think the wetland boundary goes up the whole length of your property, doesn't it? MR. KUHL-It goes around, yes, but the bales are going to be put out to stop any erosion into the lake, and there is an area into the right front that is way away from that. MR. BREWER-Just as long as you're aware of all the conditions and you can meet them. - 16 - -' --- ~ '-..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. KUHL-Well, we'r~.going to try like.~he devil. MR. BREWER-That's the only concern I had, because he's going to be grading and filling. MR. MACEWAN-I wouldn't imagine that, whoever is going to do his excavating for him would store a back hoe or a dozer there for any length of time. Usually those folks come in, they do whatever they do in one day, and then when it's capped they come back and (lost words) . MR. RUEL-Do you have to display the permit, DEC permit on the property? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. Is that it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Lets go to the resolution, then. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. FW2-96 GEORGE BOIVIN/CHRISTOPHER MARCHAND, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, and to comply with all the special DEC conditions noted in your DEC permit. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED H. CROSWELL TUTTLE OWNERS: H. CROSWELL TUTTLE/CHARLES H. TUTTLE, II/THOMAS F. CURRIE, III/JULIA L. CURRIE/THOMAS F. CURRIE , IV/WILLIAM D. CURRIE ZONE: WR- 3A, C. E. A. LOCATION: EAST SIDE LAKE GEORGE OFF LOCKHART LOOP, BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY LADD'S GAS STATION PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 32,297 SQ. FT., 29,939 SQ. FT., AND 31,454 SQ. FT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 4-1997 TAX MAP NOS. 1-1-22, 23.1, 23.2 LOT SIZE: 2.23 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. PALING-George, is Tuttle off? MR. HILTON-Tuttle is off because they are still involved in trying to get variances with the ZBA. MR. PALING-So Tuttle is off. MR. RUEL-Do you have a new date for them? MR. MACEWAN-I thought that they had received that? MR. HILTON-No. They asked fora continuance from the ZBA. They have some type of illness or health issues that they have to deal with, and so they're continued from the ZBA and they're continued from us. MR. PALING-All right. We'll just take it off the agenda and wait until something else happens. MR. HILTON-With the ZBA. - J:"f"- ,.;> :..-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. BREWER-If we take it off the agenda, don't we have to re- advertise and everything? MR. HILTON-Well, it's going to have to be re-advertised anyway. You do have the option. MR. BREWER-Table it. MR. PALING-Well, that's why I was asking the question. MR. BREWER-He's got a request here to table it. MR. RUEL-To the next meeting. MR. HILTON-Right, and you could open the public hearing this evening and then make a motion to table it with the public hearing open, until the second meeting in March, if you'd like. MR. PALING-Yes, but what does that do to the notices now? MR. HILTON-No notice would be required, no further notice, anyway. MR. MACEWAN-And has the Planning office gotten any phone calls, inquiries about it at all? MR. HILTON-Well, we've had a couple, and there has been some comment received at the ZBA. MR. MACEWAN-I'm in favor, then, of taking it off and re-notifying people. MR. BREWER-So it's a whole new application then? MR. STARK-Have they been notified, George? MR. HILTON-They've been notified for this evening, yes. MR. PALING-I agree. I think it should be done allover again, because there's no opportunity for anything in this. MR. BREWER-Then he's got until tomorrow to submit? MR. HILTON-Well, no, because his information is in. He can just give us the application fee. MR. RUEL-So what should we do, table it? MR. HILTON-If you table it and you don't open the public hearing, then we have to re-advertise it anyway. So you can just table it without opening the public hearing, and it will be re-advertised. MR. MACEWAN-I don't want the public hearing open because I want the people who are going to be attending this thing to be notified again when it's going to be. They're all assuming he's going to be here tonight and no one's told them differently. MR. BREWER-I would agree. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think that makes more sense. MR. RUEL-Well, there might be people here tonight. MR. PALING-That's what I'm wondering, too. Is there anyone here tonight that came to speak on this matter, talk about it? MR. STARK-Okay. Just take them off the agenda and have them re- notify. - 18 - _/ .'--" ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. RUEL-Then you can go on the basis of what Craig said. MR. PALING-Well, do we table it or just take it off the agenda? MR. HILTON-Just table it. MR. PALING-All right. We need a motion for that then. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE PINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3- 1997 H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the stipulation that the public be re-notified at the time of the next meeting. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Now, Tompkins. SITE PLAN NO. 4-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RANDY TOMPKINS OWNER: WEST NT. SKI CENTER ZONE: P.U.D./RC-3A PROPOSAL IS FOR A TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR A MOTORCYCLE HILL CLIMB ON JUNE 6, 1997. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 124-2-7.4 LOT SIZE: 125+ ACRES SECTION: P.U.D RANDY TOMPKINS, PRESENT; JIM KISLOWSKI, ALSO PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was opened last week, on February 18th, and it's still open. MR. PALING-If it isn't opened, we'll open it. MR. RUEL-We have, on this application, two site plans. MR. STARK-That's the second one, Cathy. Indian Festival. The first one is the MRS. LABOMBARD-The Indian Festival. That's right. I'm sorry. Okay. So the first one was for Site Plan No. 3-97, Type: Unlisted for Randy Tompkins. SITE PLAN NO. 3-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RANDY TOMPKINS OWNER: WEST NT. SKI CENTER ZONE: P.U.D./RC-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN SKI CENTER PROPOSAL IS FOR A TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE POR A NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN FEST TO TAKE PLACE ON JUNE 4 - 5 1997. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 124-2-7.4 LOT SIZE: 125 +ACRES SECTION: P.U.D RANDY TOMPKINS, PRESENT; JIM KISLOWSKI, ALSO PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was scheduled for last week, but nobody was here. I don't know if we opened it or not. MR. HILTON-It was opened and left open until tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. TOMPKINS-Yes. Randy Tompkins. MR. KISLOWSKI-Jim Kislowski from North Country Cycle. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. George, do you have comments? MR. HILTON-Well, last week, I'll just repeat our comments. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-97, Randy Tompkins, Meeting Date: February 18, 1997 "The applicant is seeking two site plans for two different merchant markets which will be held at West Mountain Ski Center. The first event, a Native American Festival, will be held on June 4th and 5th, 1997. The second event, motorcycle hill climb, will be held on June 6, 1997. The applicant has provided one site plan for both applications. This site plan and a letter submitted on behalf of the applicant on January 21, 1997 outline how the festivals will operate and what services will be available to vendors and patrons. The applicant should provide further information on the amount of noise that will be generated by motorcycles on the day of the hill climb. The applicant should also provide information on what type of site re-vegetation will be provided after the hill climb." MR. HILTON-The things that the applicant should clarify would be what type of re-vegetation will occur at this site, after the hill climb, and some discussion or some statement concerning how, what the level of noise will be at this location should also be discussed. MR. TOMPKINS-Well, part of our contract with West Mountain states that any of the slopes that are tore up or anything like that, that we have to reseed them, bring in topsoil if needed. We doubt if we'll need it, but seed it and hay it, so there won't be any kind of erosion or anything there at all. MR. PALING-Would you describe for us how many vehicles are involved in this at the same time, and how far you go and long? Tell us a little bit about it. MRS. LABOMBARD-What trails are you going up on? MR. TOMPKINS-It would be the area right behind the main office area. MR. STARK-Well, lets do the first one, first. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. Wait a minute. MRS. LABOMBARD-We need the Indian Fest. MR. STARK-Show us where the Indian Fest. MR. KISLOWSKI -The Indian Fest will be located behind the main building and in between the restaurant area and where they have the ski booths and where the rentals. MR. STARK-Not up the slope at all? MR. TOMPKINS-No. MR. KISLOWSKI-No. The Indian Festival will be contained into this one small area at the bottom. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that the T Bar or the chair that goes up the face? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, that's the face. - 20 - .-r"" "--' '-"" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. LABOMBARD-That's the chair that goes up the face? No, no, no, the little chair that goes just up the face. Is that where we're talking, right there? MR. KISLOWSKI-Exactly, where that little booth is, and that goes up. MR. RUEL-And these Indian artifacts, etc. will be in the open area back there? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, right in this area here. MR. RUEL-With tables? MR. KISLOWSKI-With tables. These are all garbage cans located. MR. RUEL-You'll have tents there? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, a couple of (Lost words) will be there. MR. RUEL-I see, but the area for the sale of items, etc., is not necessarily in the tent? MR. KISLOWSKI-During the Indian Festival, there won't be any vendors allowed to sell. There's no alcoholic beverages allowed on the premises. MR. RUEL-Do you have a rain date? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. It will happen. MR. WEST-What about parking? Do you plan to use the? MR. KISLOWSKI-They gave us the full facility of this, and then they have the overflow parking lot that I think houses 500 or 600 vehicles there, and this is during Americade week. So there mostly would be motorcycle parking. MR. RUEL-What will be the hours of operation? MR. KISLOWSKI-For the Hill Climb? MR. RUEL-No, for the Indian. MR. TOMPKINS-Ten to seven. MR. KISLOWSKI-Ten to seven. MR. RUEL-So you don't even need any lighting. MRS. LABOMBARD-What are those little arrows on the right? MR. KISLOWSKI-This here is, the Board wanted to know how the rescue vehicle, we will set up an EMT booth right here, so they can overlook everything, and have the ambulance/rescue squad would be right there, and there's access through there. MR. RUEL-That's mostly for the Hill Climb? MR. KISLOWSKI-Well, there's going to be EMT's there during the whole event. MR. RUEL-But primarily for the Hill Climb. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Yes, I hope so. Okay. All right. Any other questions on the merchandising part of this? - 21 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. BREWER-Yes, bathrooms? MR. KISLOWSKI-The bathrooms (lost words) this building, handicapped access bathrooms. MR. BREWER-Port-a-potties? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. HILTON-They're allowed with festivals shorter than, I believe it's four days. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. KISLOWSKI-There will be no impact of the port-a-Iette toilets, either, because it's a self contained unit. They come in, they clean it up, and it's gone. This weekend on Lake George they had the snowmobile races and they had port-a-Iette toilets out on the ice. So they're really not any threat to the environment. MR. BREWER-My only concern for them was they're normally not allowed in the Town. MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. They're allowed for festivals. Like they have them at the Balloon Festival. They have it during West Mountain, when they have their fireworks display. They have it when they have their music festival. They use them there. MR. RUEL-The Native American Festival is June 4th and 5th, and the Hill Climb is just the 6th. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. TOMPKINS-Which is Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. MR. RUEL-It's not a weekend? MR. TOMPKINS-No. MR. PALING- I hadn't heard the four day, and we've kicked this around before. Is that new or what? MR. RUEL-Yes. I always heard you couldn't have them. MR. PALING-Well, on new construction, I thought you could. MR. HILTON-It says, exceptions, employees engaged in construction, temporary festivals, and/or celebrations that last fewer than five days, 136-36. MR. PALING-You can't lump construction in there, I wouldn't think. You'd be okay. I'm saying construction wouldn't fit very well in that. MR. RUEL-Aren't there facilities in the building there? MR. KISLOWSKI-There's facilities inside the building, but that would create more stuff. MR. TOMPKINS-We just thought for the first year that we're at West Mountain, it would be much easier to contain it just outside for the first year. We'll see how we do this year. If we do well enough, we'll go back and re-negotiate with West Mountain next year, and we will open up the restaurant and stuff also, but for the first year we wanted to just take on that. MR. RUEL-Yes. Good idea. - 22 - --- "-- ./ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Now we're going to need two SEQRs for this one and the Hill Climb, I would think. MR. HILTON-A separate SEQR for each. MR. PALING-Lets open the pUblic hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to speak about this transient merchant application, and we're talking about the merchandising part of it right now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we'll go right to the SEQR. MR. RUEL-Environmental Assessment, Part II. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-97, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before RANDY TOMPKINS, and the Planning 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 23 - '-.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) SITE PLAN NO. 4-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RANDY TOMPKINS OWNER: WEST MT. SKI CENTER ZONE: P.U.D./RC-3A PROPOSAL IS FOR A TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR A MOTORCYCLE HILL CLIMB ON JUNE 6, 1997. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 124-2-7.4 LOT SIZE: 125+ ACRES SECTION: P.U.D RANDY TOMPKINS, PRESENT; JIM KISLOWSKI, ALSO PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And you're going to show us exactly where the motorcycles are going and how far up they're going. MR. KISLOWSKI-Okay. The motorcycles will be staged in this area here. Okay. They will come down one at a time. It's a timed event to see who can go up. It will be about 400 feet up, okay. There will be a big log here where they'll start. They'll start here, come up here. This'll be the finish line. They'll turn around and return back down into the return rug. Each person only gets two tries at the hill. MRS. LABOMBARD-And how much time do they have? You said it's a timed event. MR. KISLOWSKI-It's either how far you go or the time in between the two lights that you go. It measures the time in between two lights. So the person would start, pass through a light. The timer would start. As soon as he got to the finish line, it shuts off the timer and that's his or her time. MRS. LABOMBARD-So there is a finish line. I thought maybe it was, you gave them so much, had so much time to see how far you could go during that certain time. MR. KISLOWSKI-No. They won't be going over the top. MRS. LABOMBARD-You said it was 400 feet up? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. WEST-Is it relatively flat terrain, or is there jumps and bumps? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. There'll be one jump, and then the rest is, you know, you're on your own. That's a pretty rough surface. MR. WEST-Do you get a lot of guys who do this? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. MR. STARK-Concerning noise, now these cycles are strictly hill climb cycles? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. This is going to be run by AMA rules, okay. Because of Americade going on, we can't, they don't want another AMA event right there at West Mountain, but it will be run by AMA rules. All motorcycles have to have a baffles. You know, they don't run correctly if they don't have an exhaust on them. MR. TOMPKINS-It's not anybody off the street that can come and try to do this. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. TOMPKINS-They have to be on the circuit, competing on the AMA circuit. MR. MACEWAN-How do you know that they're on the circuit? MR. KISLOWSKI-They have an AMA card that you have to belong to. - 25 - - '-- .~ -.../ "--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-97 RANDY TOMPKINS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 3- 97, RANDY TOMPKINS, for a Transient Merchant license for a Native American Indian Fest to take place on June 4, 5, 1997; and Whereas, the above mentioned subdivision application, dated 9-24- 96, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map on 8 1/2 X 11 paper 3. Letter from James Martin dated 9/25/96 regarding completeness 4. Letter from Jim Kislowski dated 1/21/97 5. List of vendors (undated) 6. Memo to Town Board from James Martin dated 1/22/97 regarding additional information received Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes 2. Warren County Planning Board 3. Notice of Public Hearing dated 2/11/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/18/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 3-97, RANDY TOMPKINS. 2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Now we can go to the Hill Climb. Do we need to read this separately, open it up. - 24 - '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. STARK-How many motorcycles do you anticipate, not to view, to enter? MR. KISLOWSKI-Hopefully 60. MRS. LABOMBARD-And they're all starting in the same spot, more or less? MR. KISLOWSKI-See, you don't want to start in somebody's hole. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, that's what I was wondering. How big is this hole going to be, or how many holes are we going to have. MR. KISLOWSKI-Usually a 10 foot wide area is what they have, and that'll all be refilled in, you know, the Brandt's are very concerned about what happens to the mountain. So, you know, believe me, we run a lot of these hill climbs. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is 400 feet football field and a third. little chair lift gets off? high. up, I'm trying to picture like a Does it get up to where that first I don't think it would get up that MR. KISLOWSKI-I don't think so. I don't think it would get up that high. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now you've got them starting way over to the right. So that's got to be where, you're starting way over where the rental shop is? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. It'll be in between the rental. It's like about if you walked out of the office door, like straight right there. Right there would be the area, and what we do, right where the starting area, what we're going to do is we're going to put some dirt there anyway, you know what I mean, to start off in. So they're not going to be starting out on the grass, just burning up the grass, you know, there'll be probably a foot and a half, two foot of dirt there, you know. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you charging admission for spectators? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. MR. STARK-You know where the snowboard shoot is? MRS. LABOMBARD-It's right on the right where all those moguls are. MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes, I think I do, where those big, they're like blue liT" things? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. Okay. MR. STARK-And you know where that starts, halfway up the face, is that about where it ends, the 400 foot ends? MR. KISLOWSKI-Yes. I'd say roughly about there. MR. PALING-What would your hours of operation of the hill climb be? Okay. That will be, we won't allow any motorcycles to be started before 11 o'clock. The Hill Climb will start at 12 o'clock sharp and probably be over by 5:30. MR. PALING-Okay. time. So you're well within day light hours at that - 26 - ~/ --,' / "--./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay, and you are committed to that. night? There'll be no MR. KISLOWSKI-No. MR. RUEL-Any type of motorcycle is permitted? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. Except for the three wheel ATV. MR. RUEL-Just the two wheelers. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right, and four wheelers, also. MR. PALING-Four wheelers, too? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right, the ATV four wheelers. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now Summer Fest usually comes in a month later, around the 4th of July? MR. KISLOWSKI-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-And if there's any depletion or erosion or wearing out of all that grass there, it's not going to be able to grow back in in time. MR. KISLOWSKI-Well, see, what I'm saying to you is right in the area of the starting area, we're going to dump like an 18 wheeler load full of dirt there, and then put a huge log, the logs will probably be about that tall and 10 foot, okay, and that would be the starting area, to give everybody a fair chance to stay within that boundary to start. MRS. LABOMBARD-Have you talked to Barney McCabe over there at all? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Barney McCabe over at West? MR. KISLOWSKI-No, just Bill Brandt and the Brandts. MRS. LABOMBARD-He manages a lot over there. I was just wondering. I mean, they obviously don't think it's going to be effect things too much, do they? MR. KISLOWSKI-No. They ride their four wheelers up and down there all summer long. MR. BREWER-You said that you won't be able to start before 11. The application I think says 11:30. MR. PALING-He said they wouldn't start the races until noon. MR. KISLOWSKI-Until noon, but like 11 o'clock people, like an hour before they like to start up their bikes. There won't be any riding of these bikes that will be in the Hill Climb. There's no test ground for them or anything. The only place they run their bike will be is to the start line, up the hill, and after they go up the hill, the bike has to be shut off to come down the hill, for safety reasons also. MR. PALING-I don't have a problem, 11 versus 11:30, really. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's only going to last a half hour? MR. PALING-No, no, their practice time, or whatever you want to - 27 - ',-.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) call it. They'll race at noon? MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And you'll quit at 4:30? MR. KISLOWSKI-Five, five-thirty, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Five-thirty. All right. Lets go to the public hearing on this matter. Now this is the Hill Climb. Does anybody care to talk about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is Unlisted I think. So we need another SEQR. Roger? MR. RUEL-Part II, Environmental Assessment. "Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-You've got erosion and you've got noise. MRS. LABOMBARD-Noise. MR. RUEL-Yes, slightly, but to be mitigated, correct? MR. PALING-Well, it'll be corrected. MR. TOMPKINS-It's in our contract with West Mountain. It states in our contract with them that we have to return all grounds to their prior, you know, the way they were, or else seed them and hay them to make sure that it properly goes back in. MR. RUEL-I'll include two conditions, one to govern the noise level and the other one for the re-seeding, vegetation. MR. PALING-What are you going to say about the noise level? MR. RUEL-I was going to say that the noise level to be suppressed by AMA noise level standards. MR. KISLOWSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-97, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before RANDY TOMPKINS, and the Planning 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: - 28 - ..-/ ~/ / --../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Now, if there are no other questions or comments, we can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-97 RANDY TOMPKINS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, with two conditions. One I noise level to be suppressed by using AMA noise level standards. Two, re-vegetation to be accomplished by the applicant by re-seeding damaged areas as required. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 4- 97, RANDY TOMPKINS, for a Transient Merchant license for a Motorcycle Hill Climb to take place on June 6, 1997; and Whereas, the above mentioned subdivision application, dated 9-24- 96, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map on 8 1/2 X 11 paper 3. Letter from James Martin dated 9/25/96 regarding completeness 4. Letter from Jim Kislowski dated 1/21/97 5. Flyer entitled North Country Hillclimb Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes 2. Warren County Planning Board resolution dated 2/11/97 3. Notice of Public Hearing dated 2/11/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/18/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal - 29 - _/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 4-97, RANDY TOMPKINS. 2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. All set. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 MODIFICATION CHARLES SEELEY, CRAIG SEELEY OWNERS: SAME ZONE: LI -lA LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION INCLUDES REVISIONS TO LIMIT OF CLEARING AND RELATED MODIFICATION INCLUDES REVISIONS TO LIMIT OF CLEARING AND RELATED MODIFICATION TO GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN. TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.1 LOT SIZE: 7+ ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MR. PALING-Now, George, where are we here? Are we at Seeley now? MR. HILTON-We're at Seeley. It's still scheduled for this evening. However, the applicant has indicated to us that he would like to, at this time, have the item continued until March, and Staff is supportive of that. We don't have any problem with that. We've let the applicant also know that we would schedule him for the second meeting in March, and we need all application materials to be in to us by March 12th in order for this item to be on March 25th. MR. PALING-Now is there any activity going on associated with this? MR. HILTON-Well, it was an enforcement action that has initiated all this discussion, and has brought this before the Planning Board. To tell you the truth, I don't know, we're really waiting the outcome of the Planning Board's decision on any site plan modification before going further with enforcement. MR. PALING-Okay. So you're comfortable with the postponement, because we can't do anything until we get more detail. MR. HILTON-Right. Actually we can't, and that's why we're allowing - 30 - -./' "--" ,,-,,: (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) the applicant to get his materials in March 12th, because this is brought to us because of an enforcement action. We'd like to give the applicant all opportunity to get the information in to us and get this matter resolved. MR. MACEWAN-What happens if he doesn't come back? MR. HILTON-If he doesn't come back in March and there's another delay, we will proceed further with enforcement. MR. PALING-Okay. Did anyone here come to talk about the Seeley application tonight? Okay. No one came to talk. Then I don't see why we can't just postpone it. Now notification did go out. MR. HILTON-Notification did go out, and this is another situation where you might want to table it until March, without opening the public hearing, and we will have it re-advertised. MR. PALING-In my opinion, it's got to be re-advertised. MR. BREWER-Do the same exact thing as we did with that other application. MR. PALING-Yes. It's got to be re-advertised. MR. BREWER-Is that noticed, or just advertised? MR. HILTON-Noticed and advertised. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Then so be it. It's put aside and we'll see it in March. MR. RUEL-Do we have to table it? MR. PALING-Do you want a motion to table it? I thought we weren't tabling it? MR. HILTON-You're tabling it until March. You're not opening the public hearing, though. MR. RUEL-AII right. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 33 -94 CHARLES SEELEY, CRAIG SEELEY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until some time in March, with a notice and re-advertising for public hearing at that time. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. STARK-George, in relationship to Seeley's, does Batease have anything to do with that, his section of the property or what? MR. HILTON-It's my understanding that it's solely on the southern section, which is Seeley property. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we're moving on to The Great Escape, I believe, are we not, George? - 31 - _/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. HILTON-Yes, we are. MR. PALING-It's kind of a chopped up schedule here. DISCUSSION ITEM: REGARDING THE POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED EXPANDED HOURS OF OPERATION AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-And I think either Mark or George wants to just kind of set the theme for what we're doing here. MR. HILTON-I have a letter that I handed to you this evening that I'm going to read, and if Mark has any comments after that or wants to clarify anything, he will. Okay. I guess I will just read the letter. "It has come to Staff's attention that the owners of the Great Escape Amusement Park may, at some point in the future, seek to expand the hours of operation at the amusement park. The applicant is scheduled to appear before the Planning Board this evening in order to discuss what procedure should be taken if the Great Escape decided to pursue extended hours of operation. The extent of the discussion this evening will only be what procedure the applicant should take, and not whether or not the Planning Board supports extended hours. The addition of lights and extending the hours was never identified on any previous site plan or SEQR approval. In addition, this issue specifically came up during the Planning Board's SEQR review of the roller coaster during July of 1993 and a statement contained in that Final Environmental Impact Statement for the roller coaster stated that hours of operation into the evening or beyond what existed at that time, were not planned. Therefore, Staff would recommend that any proposal, including additional lighting and extended hours of operation be reviewed as a site plan modification. Again, the discussion this evening concerns what procedure the applicant should follow. Any discussion on whether or not to allow addi tional hours of operation should be conducted at a future Planning Board meeting." MR. PALING-I think that's pretty clear as to what is strictly the procedure. Well, then we're going to turn it over to you or Mark to kind of lead us through this then. MR. HILTON-Well, actually, the applicant probably would like to discuss it with you. MR. PALING-Yes. I'm sure. yourselves, please. Would you come up and identify MR. STARK-Mark, is that within our province to set business hours for a business? MR. PALING-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Nobody's proposing that you set business hours for a business. As I understand it, the issue is whether the Planning Board has any authority if the applicant seeks to chanqe the hours that were previously indicated, and the answer, I think, is yes, in the context of SEQR review, if nothing else. MR. PALING-But again, this is only to look at the procedure. MR. LEMERY-Yes. Let me make our position clear. We don't think the Planning Board has any jurisdiction with regard to. MR. PALING-Excuse me. Would you identify yourself, please. - 32 - -- --' .,,-.. ......." (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. LEMERY-My name is John Lemery, Counsel to Premier Parks, owner of the Great Escape. We don't think the Planning Board has any jurisdiction. We came to the meeting because Jim Martin called the General Manager and told him that you were going to discuss this. We don't intend to get involved with any kind of procedure. The only time the issue of lighting was ever a part of our transaction was back at the time the comment was discussed, and it was a comment, it wasn't part of the findings. The issue of lighting wasn't part of the findings, and every time that we've come before this Board, we've made it clear that the Great Escape intended to operate like any other business in the Town, and would be free to operate its business and conduct its hours of operation like any other business. So we don't want to, by being here tonight, give you any, or appear that we're submitting to any kind of procedure before this Board. You have what discussions you will have, but I think Mr. Collins is here to discuss what the plans are for the Great Escape and why the Great Escape intends to do what it intends to do, with respect to its hours of operation, so as to mitigate the traffic concerns, the parking issues that have come up relating to past issues, but we're not here to discuss any procedures for expanding our hours. MR. PALING-Statements were made, previously when you were here, that would have an influence on what the Board said in regard to the environmental review, and I believe I'm correct in stating, this is why it's being brought up. We're not trying to regulate anything. You're right. We can't regulate hours. However, when you set the mode and you tell us what the hours are going to be and that they won't be changed and we are doing a SEQR, then we're influenced by that. MR. LEMERY-Well, we told you at the time there was no present intention. Every single time we appeared here, we told you we were not going to make any statement to limit the hours at the Great Escape. There is not one discussion regarding the hours will be limited. They will not be extended. We kept our options open and it's not part of any of the findings, with respect to any attraction. The Great Escape has a right to operate its business, and you might want to hear from John Collins as to what he intends to do, but we don't intend to get into some procedural issue here. We don't intend to get involved in some supplemental environmental impact statement. We don't intend to get involved in some public hearing regarding expanded hours of The Great Escape. We just don't think that there's any jurisdiction and we don't think that it's appropriate. MR. PALING-Well, I think what would be fitting now, Mark, is would you comment on this to be sure that we understand, I think I understand what we're doing, but now it's being objected to, lets say strenuously. Would you care to comment at this point? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the Staff recommendation is sound. I think, my own opinion is that the Staff's recommendation is sound. I think the Staff's recommendation is based on the Staff's careful review of the administrative record of previous applications and approvals by the Great Escape. I think the Chairman has accurately characterized some of the previous approval activity, and the applicant, obviously, has the right to object, and even has the right to object, as you say, strenuously, but I think the Staff's recommendation is sound. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-In addition to my comments, I would like to read a letter to John Collins, dated February 11, 1997, from Jim Martin, who is the Executive Director and Zoning Administrator. It says "Dear John: I am writing this letter as a follow up to our telephone conversation of January 30th. I placed the call to you to inquire about the newspaper report concerning expanded hours of - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) operation at the Great Escape. As I indicated to you during our conversation, there may be cause for review of expanded hours. To date, two instances have been found where commitments or references were made not to expand the hours. Specifically, during the environmental review of the Comet roller coaster, the final environmental impact statement, in reference to questions raised about expanded hours, states that the hours will not be expanded. Therefore, any impact from expanded hours is a non-issue. Secondly, during the Planning Board deliberation on the recently approved Boomerang ride, questions were raised about expanded hours and indications were made that the hours would remain unchanged. In my opinion, after review of the above referenced instances, I believe expanded hours would require further environmental review by the Town Planning Board as the lead agent in the review of the Comet roller coaster and the Boomerang. Our conversation ended with an indication from you that you would be calling within a week to meet and discuss this matter further. In light of the time lapsed since our conversation and since I have not heard back from you I feel it is important to inform you of my opinion. By copy of this letter I will inform the Planning Board of this issue. It may be constructive to schedule a discussion of this issue with the Planning Board in an effort to reach a decision by the Board as lead agent. As an aside, the newspaper article made reference to a "Treehouse II water ride. We have no record of this ride receiving review by the Planning Board. If there are plans to install this ride, it is subject to site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. Let me state that my interest in sending this letter is to be proactive and responsive to questions posed about the basis, if any, for review of expanded hours. I feel it is better to discuss this issue early rather than after the fact. Thank you for your attention to this issue and I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, James M. Martin, AICP Executive Director Community Development" MR. PALING-I'd just add to that, before we continue, that then there was an informal meeting held with Mr. Collins, Jim Martin, and myself, in which we explained where the Town was coming from, why we were doing it, and I thought we had a tacit agreement then to proceed, the way we were going and just get the procedure in line. Evidentally, not. So I guess I'll just turn it back over now and we'll see, and go ahead. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-John Collins, General Manager of the Great Escape, and I also have Brad Paul here, Executive Regional Vice President with Premier Parks. Bob, I'm not really sure if that's the case. First of all, I want to, for my purposes, understand what we're discussing. Are you asking us to set a procedure on the discussion of the extended hours? Your original statement that you read, you're looking to us to say, come up with a procedure? MR. PALING-No. MR. HILTON-No. We're saying that, in our opinion as Staff, the procedure would be a modification of site plan approval, and it was our understanding that that was, in a sense, agreed by all parties, and we are looking to just discuss that procedure. MR. LEMERY-A modification of which site plan approval, the roller coaster? MR. HILTON-I think that the roller coaster at least, if not others. MR. LEMERY-Well, I guess I will take exception with Jim's letter, but with respect to the finality of the conclusions that he raised, the Response A to the Final Environmental Impact Statement in 1991 - 34 - '-- ./ ~ '---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) said that with the exception of a few infrequent instances, and this was in 1991, the Great Escape is not open, and has no plans to lengthen its hours of operation. That was a statement. They had no plans to lengthen the hours of operation. It didn't say it wouldn't. It didn't say never happen, and it wasn't a condition of the permit, to the granting of the site plan review for the Coaster, and I will tell you that in the Boomerang, I was here for the Boomerang. I wasn't part of the process in 1991 for this, but when the Boomerang was discussed, I was here and made it very clear that the hours of operation were not an issue, and we were not going to make it an issue. So we're not sure why we're here. We were invited to come up, but we're not sure, if it was in the paper and you had an inquiry and you think you have to deal with it, that's certainly appropriate from the Planning Board's perspective, but we don't know why we were invited to participate, other than I think John has agreed to tell you what they have in mind, but we don't want to get, by going into meetings, to get involved in some process. MR. PALING-All right. Excuse me. George, go ahead. MR. STARK-Could we just hear from Mr. Collins what he thinks he wants to do? MR. COLLINS-Yes. Brad Paul is going to make a statement. BRAD PAUL MR. PAUL-Yes. I just would like to, and again, I'm very, very pleased I was able to come here tonight. I haven't had the opportunity, as far as to come to the Planning Board. I try to make it to Great Escape, at least once or twice a month, and I haven't had the pleasure to come here as yet. I think it's really, really important, and maybe I'm a little confused, too, as far as being here tonight. I understand from John that the Board wanted to discuss and Mr. Paling, as far as you had gotten together with John and this is great, and I want to, first of all, say that we are new owners of Great Escape, and Great Escape and Charlie Woods go back, and I'm sure all of you know Charlie very, very well, and it goes back for a lot, a lot of years, and as new owners, what we should do is we want to be a very beneficial business to the community, all right. We want to be a part of the community. We want to be good neighbors, and we want to work with the community, and we feel that that is very, very important, and in reference to specifically the subject you're bringing up, hours, this is, again, new owners. I will say that as far as in our industry, I probably can't think of another park in our industry that operates until six o'clock at night. It's just, it's unheard of. So I guess that is a little bit unusual, but I think that, you know, it's important that we discuss, as far as with the Board, some of the thinking and John and I have talked about this. We talked about it as far as with our corporation, and some of the powers to be, and again, this property just changed hands in December. We've only had a few months here, as far as that we are looking into the programs and passed programs at Great Escape and coming up with some new ideas and some new plans. As you're all well aware, making a fairly major capital investment, as far as in the facility, that should draw some people from outside of the area, and again, you know, improve the economy locally, but with that investment, certainly comes some demands as far as payback on that investment, and so we are looking at all areas of the facility, and what we can do in order to make it more of a profitable facility, if you will, and a better facility, not only for the community, but for our customers, and again, as you narrow the window down on your operating hours, you certainly are limiting the value of your facility to your customers. So, you know, a lot of this has gone into the process, and as I said, it's been a very short window, a very narrow process here, and we're just getting through that process on some of the - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) things that we feel improvements should be made and changes to the facility. So having said that, the fellow that you're very, very familiar with here and have met with is John, and I just think it would be probably appropriate for him to address the Board and be able to give you, as far as some of the ideas on our hours, why we feel that it's going to be beneficial, not only to the Park, which we feel it certainly will be, but also that it will improve, overall, some of the problems and such that John has explained have occurred in the past, and so with that, John, why don't you just kind of walk through. MR. PALING-Okay. Before John begins, you realize that tonight we're not here to judge on hours. We don't have a right to judge on hours, but we're not here to approach it from that angle. We're here rather as a procedural thing, and I think as you may have sensed already, you are in an amusement area, but you're also close to areas of environmental concern, and a lot of things that are done at the Great Escape are the concern of the neighbors there, as is this, and the reasons Jim Martin's letter stated, he's trying to be proactive with this and come up with a procedure whereby we can address it and hopefully take care of it, whichever it comes. MR. COLLINS-Right. MR. PALING-And this is why we're here tonight, not to judge or. MR. COLLINS-And, Bob, that's why we're here tonight is to be proactive in our discussions, and maybe this is where I have a question as far as procedures you want to come up with, but I'm just going to tell you the situation and why the decision to proceed or to try to proceed with extended hours was made, is we're in budgets. I mean, when it's all said and done, the bottom line is the bottom line. You have two ways to get there. You cut expenses, and I think this area knows what can happen when companies cut expenses, or you look at ways to increase your revenues. Two things, I found out, as soon as I started here, was a problem or a problem with the Park was, Number One, everyone told me, traffic, traffic, traffic. We're at the Board meetings and they said, you guys don't have enough parking. There is a traffic problem. The second one was my number one guest complaint who, in my opinion, is the person I want to look out for, is, you guys close at six 0' clock. Okay. So with those two things in mind, how do we address traffic? Well, one of the ways you address it is you look at the fact that you're throwing out 85% of your attendance onto the roads at the single worst time of day to do that, six o'clock in the evening, which is the dinner rush hour. If you went to an eight o'clock close, you can spread out that exit, if you will, of those guests over a time period that will make that impact on the traffic a lot less. So that's a positive environmental impact if you ask me. Second of all is with the extended hours, you have the potential to have turnover. You can pick up a guest that wouldn't have come to your Park at two to three o'clock in the afternoon because you close in three hours. That's when you start having your first visitors who arrived at nine o'clock starting to depart the Park. You can build attendance that way, with the limited parking capacity or the parking constraints that you have. So I looked at that, and having the community in mind was also a reason we looked at our extended hours, and how we did it. We're proposing an eight o'clock close on weekends in the early season, which is June. Six o'clock Monday through Friday while school is still in session. Not until the Fourth of July weekend are we proposing an eight o'clock close Sunday through Thursday. Yes, we're looking at a ten o'clock close, but that's on Friday and Saturday nights, where it would have the least impact on the residents, as far as people who have to work the next day, and Sunday is a tough enough sell as it is. You go to a group outing, you tell them that, okay, a lot of your people aren't going to get to the Park until 12 o'clock. They've got to go to church, and - 36 - ~ ',---,,-..-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) then you're going to get a less of a benefit than those companies that choose Saturday. So right then and there we're thinking of the community. So we didn't go about this, you know, looking at these hours, without the impact in mind. We certainly did that, and talked to you and Jim about that in our meeting the other day. Now as far as Jim's letter, I moved up here two weeks ago. So, you know, I apologize to him for the extra time it took to get back in touch with him, but I'm a part of this community now. So I'm going to take into account the fact that we are part of this community, and I certainly want to be proactive, but as John was talking, what are we looking for? I mean, was there a stipulation on the fact that said, this approval is contingent on the hours of operation? I'm at a loss, and I have to rely on John as to exactly what the purpose is that we are having these discussions today, but we want to, as Bob said, be proactive and bring in more people to this area, and we want to do that in the best way possible, taking into account what everybody else around us is experiencing as well. MR. PALING-I think one of the things that we're saying is we didn' t take this route, other things would happen, perhaps would be not as well organized, or whatever you'd say, about what we're proposing now, and I don't know. that if and it want to MR. STARK-Could you expound about the Treehouse, whatever they were talking about? MR. COLLINS-Well, see then once again, I had asked you guys to do a little bit of research. That was according to everything I've got on our plans, when we originally proposed that as an activity Lagoon. It wasn't specifically named, but to my knowledge, that was on the original proposal that was approved. It was listed as an SES Unit. We bought it in a Bromsfeld Unit. It's just a different manufacturer, but it's basically the unit that was listed there, and everything I've got has approved it, the Wave Pool. MR. HILTON-Well, without the benefit of having the plan in front of me right now, and looking at it, I can only say that we have a letter here from Jim Martin, who is the Zoning Administrator, and he has deemed that it would require a site plan modification, and coming in to this meeting tonight, that was our position, and we were here to just discuss procedure, as to what you would have to do in order to initiate such an application. Anything about the merits of increasing hours of operation or discussing the content of this letter, I'm really not in the best position to do that. As I can say, the only thing that I can say, really, is that our position is any increased hours of operation or lighting would require site plan modification. MR. LEMERY-Site Plan modification to what? MR. HILTON-As I said, previous site plans. That may be a Zoning Administrator call, but it could be one site plan. It may be all of them. MR. PALING-Mark, you want to comment on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, only that I think we should perhaps be careful in our labeling. In all likelihood, a component of Site Plan modification and perhaps another label you could attach to this would be, reconsideration of the SEQR Environmental Impact Statements, but I don't know. When you say Site Plan modification, I don't want that to be viewed too narrowly. I think the issue here really relates, principally, to SEQR review. MR. PALING-This is what George and I went through this afternoon on this. If I can put it in the way I understand it is certain statements were volunteered, made by the applicant, in regard to operating hours, and we were doing the SEQR, and this caused us to make certain decisions when going through the SEQR, that if they - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) had told us different operating hours, then we might have made a different decision. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but, Bob, in that regard, I don't think that should be construed as suggesting that the applicant was disingenuous in any way at that time. MR. PALING-No, I'm not saying that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's clear. MR. PALING-I'm only saying what's in the record. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. It's pretty clear, under SEQR law, that if components of a project change at some time in the future, and I'm speaking generically now, that a SEQR lead agency has the right to look at those components to see if they have any impact on the prior SEQR review, and that's pretty simple and pretty clear cut, and they mayor may not have an impact, but the lead agency has the right to make that inquiry. MR. LEMERY-We don't want to get in this dialogue. We're not going to be part of this dialogue. If you want to have this dialogue with yourselves, and I don't mean to be argumentative about it, but the one thing we don't want to get into, we don't want to get into a dialogue where it appears that we're submitting to some jurisdiction and we're in some situation here where we're going to participate in some SEQR modification. There was a site plan for these attractions, and the Great Escape is zoned RC-15. It's an amusement park. We made it clear in everyone of these items, as I said before, that if there was no present intention, that doesn't meant that it might not happen. As far as the Treehouse is concerned, that was on the plans. It was right on the plans. So I think what we'd rather do is tell you what the Great Escape has in mind and try to be proactive and discuss those kinds of things without getting into who's got what rights, because I don't think that's where we want to be tonight. MR. STARK-This is for the Board mostly. LaFontaine over there, Roger, his kid came in and he had a site plan review for that hamburger stand, and, you know, that's open until 10 o'clock at night, and driving by there many nights at 10 o'clock, you know, there's still a line out there. If he wanted to stay open until 10:30 or 11 o'clock, you know, the hours of operation didn't come up for his site plan, when we opened up the hot dog stand and the hamburger stand, so if he wanted to increase his hours of operation, nobody would complain. As far as I'm concerned, the Board has no business hearing this or having anything to do with the Great Escape now for their hours of operation, that's my feeling, and I think you ought to poll the Board so we can cut it off right here maybe, maybe not. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good idea. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-Your comment is well taken, George, but I think, if you remember when we did the SEQR, there was a lot of conversation to certain aspects of that as far as lighting. If they were to stay open until 10 o'clock at night, it's a given they're going to have to put lights. Doesn' t that effect your determination on that question on a SEQR? MR. STARK-Not. at all. MR. BREWER-Well, mine it does. I mean, it has an effect. You're talking about a hot dog stand versus a how many acres of light you're going to have with the Great Escape. - 38 - '-- '" '--, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. WEST-Plus noise after hours. I think it has a biq impact, and I think we should review it. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the Board should be careful not to jump the gun. I don't think it's appropriate, tonight, for any Board members to express any opinions as to whether proposed extended hours of operation will or won't have any additional or new or different environmental impact. Number One, I don't think I heard a specific proposal from the applicant to extend hours of operation, and I'm not suggesting we should have heard that, and the applicant may not have that proposal yet or may never have that proposal, but in addition, I think, in light of Staff's position, and I agree with Staff's position, it's not incumbent on this Board tonight to express its opinion as to whether there will or won't be new or different environmental impacts. I think all we're indicating is, to the applicant, or all you, as a Board, are indicating to the applicant, at least some of you, is that you feel that it's incumbent upon you to make that determination if they do seek to extend their operating hours. I didn't mean to make that as convoluted as it came out. MR. LEMERY-But you're saying, if they seek. If they seek. We don't think that the Great Escape needs to seek anything. We think the Great Escape can open up and put an ad in the paper that it's hours are now 9:30 until 8 o'clock, just as John has described. We don't think that the Great Escape needs to come here and get your permission and seek to expand its hours. I think that's the critical point here. We don't think we need to do that. That doesn't mean to say that John Collins and Brad don't want to sit here and make sure and try to make you comfortable with what they've got in mind and how it works. John didn't mention it, but the closing just took place yesterday. The Great Escape has just acquired the Animal Land property, so that there will be excess land there for parking. They've made a six million dollar commitment in the Park over the past winter, to try to increase the traffic and change the mix of the rides, and so they were sensitive to the traffic issues and the parking issues and have gone out and, at no considerable expense, and acquired this extra land, but we don't think we need to come here and get your permission to extend the hours. MR. PALING-I wish that we had the minutes of the two, I didn't bring them, but there were two situations in which we're quoting, and a lot of this is based on. Do you have them, George? MR. HILTON-We have the minutes, and we can certainly provide you with them. MR. PALING-I mean, now? MR. HILTON-Not right now, I don't have them. I'm saying that in the event of any review by the Planning Board, we would provide you with those minutes. MR. PALING-To me, that's part of the basis for why we're here. If those didn't exist, we couldn't be here. MR. HILTON-Right. It was my opinion, I came in to this meeting tonight. I didn't provide any minutes of past meetings or any information on past issues for meetings because I felt that we weren't going to discuss any of the issues. I felt that that would be at a later time. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Keeping in mind, there's no application before the Board at this point, and to that extent, I mean, I'm sensitive to the applicant's comments. The applicant says they don't want, they don't know why they're here, or perhaps they don't want to be here or stay here. I mean, they don't have to. It's nice that they - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) are, but. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, what ~ don't understand is, from the Planning Staff it states, the applicant is scheduled to appear before our Board to discuss what procedures should be taken if the Great Escape decides to extend its hours of operation. Now, these three gentlemen have made the statement, they don't know why they're here. Now, I just am wondering what's going on here, and as long as everybody else is given a little bit of an opinion here, I think that, one thing before we discuss anything, we should take this into consideration. Tourism is our most viable industry in this County, and we are losing jobs left and right, and I hope that everybody on this Board keeps that into consideration, also the Planning Staff, because I'd hate to lose something else, too. MR. HILTON~Okay. The only comment that I have in response to that is that there was a meeting between Mr. Collins, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Paling. Out of that meeting came the understanding that Mr. Collins would appear before this Board this evening. Having not been involved in that meeting, I can't comment on what was said. However, here we are this evening. The applicant agreed to show up and discuss, procedurally, what will be done, and that's where we stand. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. COLLINS-And that didn't come out of the meeting, was that we weren't going to talk about how this was going to, procedurally, be handled, and I guess going back to what Cathy was saying, that's my question. I mean, are you asking me to come up with a procedure on how to proceed about looking at this issue? MR. PALING-No, we're not asking that. MR. COLLINS-And I asked Bob this a couple of times. What are we trying to do here? I mean, I've given you the reasons why we're looking to extend the hours. Are we going back and saying, okay, your approval was based on statements that were made, or I don't understand. Just clarify this for me. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, what I'm saying is, we haven't even started to discuss what we're supposed to be discussing. We've now spent almost 45 minutes on nothing here, and maybe this should go back to Staff and have things clarified and then brought back to us in the future. MR. LEMERY-The Staff needs to, when it addresses something in a letter, we weren't scheduled to be here tonight. We found out that Jim Martin decided to put this on the agenda, a discussion of the expanded hours of the Great Escape because we understood that when the article appeared in the paper, a letter or two came in and a couple of calls were made to the Planning Staff about the Great Escape. So when John Collins and I talked, I said, well why are we going there. Well, Jim Martin said it was going to be on the agenda and we might want to be there. So we weren't scheduled to be here. We didn't schedule anything to be here. We didn' t ask to be here. We didn't ask you to talk to us about extended hours. I want to make it clear, from the Staff point of view, that, in their letter sometimes suggests positions that aren't so, and so we came to listen to find out what is it that you want to talk about, and John wanted to come up and tell you what he had in mind and why he had it in mind so there would be no misunderstanding, from the Great Escape's point of view, of what they intended to do this summer, and why, and why we thought that it would be acceptable, in terms of no great big problem, but we didn't want to get into any situation, participating in some process. MR. PALING-I think the thing to do is to proceed with what the - 40 - '"--,, -" ~ .......,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) meeting is set up for, and let us go through with it, you can comment and so on, but let us proceed with the meeting as it was set up, and then we'll see what the next step is going to be, and the only thing that we were supposed to do tonight is talk about the procedure in this to be, we're trying to be proactive in avoiding, I think, but we're ending up in kind of a mish here. So lets proceed with the meeting as it was set up, and see where we go here. MR. RUEL-Yes. When you say a II procedure II that implies that the applicant then must make some sort of a request. MR. PALING-No. I'm not implying anything. We anticipate that this will, there'll be public comment, concern and action, and we're trying to get a way to work with the public, to work with the applicant and the Town and get it smoothed. MR. RUEL-Okay. We expect some static, noise levels, etc., perhaps from the neighbors, and this were to have an effect on the Planning Staff, the Planning Board, and how would we get these comments? You mean letters addressed to Town Board members, Planning Board members? MR. PALING-You keep jumping ahead. procedure, what we should do. We're here to discuss MR. MACEWAN-The way I see it, I think we've got two procedures here, if you want to even consider it. Number One, is it, during the SEQRA review for the Roller Coaster and any other site plans that we have reviewed for the Great Escape, any information that we may have interpreted or entertained from the SEQRA review process as to whether hours of operation would be expanded, did we take that into consideration, if at all? And if we did, did that weigh on a SEQRA consideration that may have persuaded us to vote another way? That's one procedure. The second procedure you could do is if it was that way, you could look at it and say, is there anything we can do about it now, and can we go back and say that the SEQRA findings were based on misinformation and (lost words)? There's even more. I mean, you can look at it from the standpoint of saying, we do anything about it now, but should they ever come in for another site plan approval or a modification of an existing site plan, you take it into consideration at that point and act on it at that point. MR. WEST-I think Craig summarized it very well. MR. PALING-Well, I agree with his point one. I'm not sure I'd go along with the second one. MR. MACEWAN-What are you going to do now? There's nothing you can do now. MR. RUEL-I would like to have Jim Martin here and hear what he has to say, why he wrote the letter. MR. PALING-I don't know. I was involved in it, and I think I know why, and maybe I'm not expressing it totally clearly. MR. RUEL-Well, tell me. MR. PALING-There was an article that appeared in the paper that called attention to what possible operating hours would be. This, we believe, got a lot of people's attention, and it could be that there will be objection or comment or what not in the future, and I think what we're trying to do is to come on in ahead of it and recognize that this situation will be that, and try to get a procedure where we can handle it. Now if it's a re-hearing. Now we do know, as a matter of fact, that there were two statements, we - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) didn't ask for them, that were made in regard to hours that it was stated, and we were doing a SEQRA at the time it was done, and I feel that, hey, if you tell me one thing and I'm doing SEQRA, then I'm going to base what you tell me on my decision, and if you chanqe the conditions, I say, now wait, maybe I would have said differently had you told me that at the time, but it wasn't. That wasn't the case. It was a case of where the hours would not be expanded, six o'clock was the limit and so on, and that's the way we based our opinion and vote. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, I don't think that any comments made by the Planning Board, like you say if you had told us then, we might have voted differently. I think that makes it sound like the applicant may have been disingenuous at the time. MR. PALING-No, absolutely not. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I don't think, somebody said some comment about having a re-hearing on the previous applications or on the previous statements, and I don't think any of that is legally appropriate. What's happened, as I understand it, is that the applicant may, and that's the only word I'm comfortable using, the applicant may be seeking to now, at this time or in the near future, change an element of its operation, different from how that element was during the prior SEQRA reviews, and all I said before, and all I'm going to reiterate is, it's very clear, under SEQRA law, that an applicant has the right to try to change an element of operation, and it's equally clear that a lead agency, which is what this Board was and is, has the right, if an applicant changes an element, operation, or seeks to change an element of operation, to consider whether changing that element has any impact on the decision and on the decision and on the environment, but I think I've already heard Board members expressing opinions, already I've heard Board members expressing or making statements that seem, at least to me, to indicate how they are likely to vote on a request for change in operations, and I don't that's appropriate. MR. PALING-There was no intent of disparagement on my part to any statement that was made prior to tonight to this. That doesn't enter into it at all. I'm trying to maintain a neutral position, and I'm agreeing with what you've just said. That's what I tried to express, but evidentally not well enough. MR. RUEL-I just want to add that we talked about the SEQRA review. It seems to me that SEQRA review is limited to Great Escape and Boomerang. SEQRA review and the hours of operation are not for the total Park. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Roger, says exactly the opposite of what you just said. MR. RUEL-Is that right? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-Instead of the big picture. MR. RUEL-For the whole Park? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act does not mention the Great Escape park specifically. My point is only, to use Tim's phrase, SEQRA law regulations and every case that's ever been decided on this issue says that you're supposed to look at the big picture in the context of SEQRA review, and in fairness to the applicant and its previous comments, not by any of the gentlemen that are here representing the applicant, but as I recall, and I was not Counsel to the Planning Board when this happened or involved in this, but as I recall just from reading - 42 - ""-, --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) things that people have shown me, the reference that the applicant volunteered to hours of operation was not limited to a particular ride or rides. In other words, I don't think the applicant said the Comet hours of operation will be A to B or will not be B to C or will not extend or whatever. I think that the applicant's comments were the hours of operation of the Park will not be extended, or whatever they were. I am certainly not quoting the applicant's comments. I don't know exactly what was stated. My point only is that, as I understand Staff's position, Staff's position is based largely on prior statements made by the applicant relative to the hours of operation of the entire Park. That's all I was trying to say. SEQRA clearly envisions that, as a legitimate area of inquiry. MR. LEMERY-Well, let me respond to that by saying that not in any minutes of any meeting regarding any of the site plan approval process for any of the attractions, nor in the Comet, was it ever made one of the findings that the hours of operation of the Great Escape were limited. If the Planning Board had attempted, at any time during anyone of those processes, to limit the hours of operation of the Park, it would have been a different situation. MR. PALING-We never did. MR. LEMERY -That's right, you never did. You never made ita finding, and the comments that were always made by Charles Wood were if there was not present intention at that point in time or particular point in time to expand the hours, but the option to expand the hours and to do what was necessary to operate his business was always reserved to the applicant, always understood, and I made it clear, I mean, I don't have the minutes of the Boomerang transaction either, but there was an issue that sort of popped up at that time, because the Park had changed hands, about whether you intended to expand it, and we made it pretty clear at that point that, and I think the Chairman of Premier was here, and the President, and we made it pretty clear that we weren't going to get into that dialogue, and the question of hours was an option that was going to be left open. So I think we'd like to cooperate, but we don't think we're part of the process. MR. STARK-Jim Martin and I had this conversation, three or four years ago, right here after one of the approvals that the Great Escape came in on, that, you know, he's tired of every time the Great Escape wants to do something, it's a great big production and everybody comes in from Twicwood and the Glen Lake Association and all whatever, and this is Jim's quote. It seemed to him like they're held to a greater standard than other people, okay, than other businesses in the Town, and everything. Granted they're a larger business and so on, and that it was his suggestion at that time that maybe we do one great big Environmental Impact Statement and that covers anything in the future for the Great Escape. They could put rides in, take rides out and it's not under our purview, and that was his recommendation. That's what we talked about at that time. We stood right here and did it. Now it seems to me like that's the case. Every time they want to do something, and, George, you're new in the area. I don't think you realize, yet, the impact the Great Escape has on this area, period. I know. The QBA will be down here, I'm sure, for the next meeting speaking in support of the Great Escape. All the business owners up and down Route 9 will be here speaking in support, okay, and that's my opinion right there. I mean, every time they want to do something, in they come. They've got to have this. They've got to have that. Tim, if your business wanted to expand until eight 0' clock at night, you don't have to come in for a site plan approval or modification or anything. MR. BREWER-No, I don't think anybody here is insinuating that they should, George. All we're saying, or Staff said, that if they do, there possibly could be an impact. Should we look at it? - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. STARK-We'll worry about it at that time. MR. BREWER-That's fine. That's all anybody's ever said. Nobody's saying that we should deny it. Nobody's saying that we should approve it. I'm just saying take a look. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think anyone's proposing that this Board take any action at this time. MR. STARK-Is that what Mr. Martin thought of, I mean, that we could possibly think of a potential course of action if this comes to take place or what? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that where Jim Martin was coming from was hoping to discuss with the Board and with the applicant, if the applicant wished, what process would be followed if the applicant sought to expand its hours of operation. My reading of this discussion is that the applicant does not agree with the Staff's position as to what process would be followed if the applicant seeks to expand its hours of operation, and if that's the case, then this battle may fought in some other context some other day, in some other forum, or it may not be, but quite frankly I think some of the comments are a little bit off base in that, Number One, I don't think this is a popularity contest. I don't think any Board members have said or any Staff people have said anything bad about or negative about or to the detriment of the Great Escape or any of its operations, and Number Two, I think that, in some of the comments that some people have made tonight, seem to indicate that it would be negative to a particular applicant to have to have something reviewed, and I think that presumes that there'll be a negative vote, and I don't think that's appropriate. All that Staff is saying, and in reference to some of the questions that have been posed earlier, I don't think Staff is picking on the Great Escape. I don't think Staff is making up this procedure just for the Great Escape. Somebody made reference, I believe it was an applicant's representative earlier, to the fact that the Great Escape has the right to reserve the option, I think was the phrase I heard, to try to expand its hours. The Great Escape has the right to try to add new rides. The Great Escape has the right to try to do any number of things, whatever it wants, really, with its existing operations. The question is, what of those things are subject to this Board's authority and what aren't? And Staff's position is that a modification of the operating hours by extending them is subject to further review by the Planning Board as SEQRA lead agency, in the context of the prior site plan reviews. That sounds like a pretty sound position to me. Evidentally, it does not meet with the applicant's agreement, and I think the Board members have some disagreement on it, which is fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, then, now what do we do? You've just summed up everything. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don't think anybody was proposing that this Board take any action on anything tonight, because I don't think you have anything in front of you to act upon. I think that this was listed, as I understand it, as a discussion item, to have just the sort of discussion that we've had. Obviously, I assume, speaking on Jim Martin's behalf, and George is here to do that also, he probably hoped that there would be agreement between the Staff, the Board and the applicant on the process to be followed. I don't hear agreement here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-But I don't think there's any action to be taken. I think we've had the discussion. That's all that this was on for. So be it. - 44 - '-' -- ,-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-And can we close the discussion? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. MR. PALING-Well, okay, I think that as is the practice of this Board, whatever the meeting is, if people are here to talk, we let them come up and have their say. This is not a public hearing, and there's no notification that's been sent out, and we don't have them, unless there is proper notice and public meetings are called, but I would, with the consent of the Board, I would ask if anyone has come here tonight and wishes to talk about it, we let them come up and have whatever say, but I would also caution them, please listen to what Mark just said, and let that, please let that influence what you have to say, because if you're trying to tell us we should or shouldn't do something in regard to operating hours, it's like the other night, that's not what we're here for tonight, and if there would be a public hearing in that regard, you would be invited to it. No, go ahead, did you want to comment? I'm sorry. MR. COLLINS-No. I just wanted to, I don't want to keep re-hashing this, but in my discussions with Bob and with Jim was to come here and discuss it. So maybe there wasn't some forum, that's kind of why I was caught by surprise, that we're talking, well, lets come up with a procedure. I was invited here to get ahead of the game and discuss a proposed change in operational hours, and for what it's worth, I don't take any offense to anything that's been said, and I appreciate the feedback that we've had, because that's what I came here for was not to come up with some procedure, because, you know, that's something that's out of illY realm, but was to discuss our decision to look at extending our hours, and I have no problem with that. MR. PALING-In that regard, there's been an honest misunderstanding as to what we felt and what you understood. MR. COLLINS-And Bob, in all honesty, I did have to call three or four times to find out if I was even on the agenda. So, you know, that would have been nice if I didn't have to actively pursue that. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we'll take it from here then, and bearing in mind the limitation on tonight's meeting, would anyone care to comment on this that's here, for or against, it doesn't make any difference. Well, we're not asking you for or against tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, Bob, and I have to reiterate, you know, if you want to let people speak, that's fine, but clearly any statements made by anybody in favor or against of expanded hours of operation are not things that the Board should be considering. MR. PALING- It's not appropriate. Right, absolutely not appropriate. That's not why we're here tonight. All right. Then if that's the case, then I guess what we're saying is we're going to, this discussion is over. KEVIN KANE MR. KANE-I Glen Lake. there's no, summer? have a question. I'm Kevin Kane. I happen to live on So if they decide to extend their hours this year, they can just go ahead and extend their hours this MR. PALING-Normally that's what would happen, but now I don't know what we're going to do, if anything. I have no idea what's going to happen. We're just going to have to go back and review the whole thing and then probably contact the applicant and discuss it - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) with him again and see what we can come up with. MR. RUEL-No more questions. MR. PALING-All right. We'll call this meeting over. The Board is in agreement with it, and we've had a discussion. We understand where each other's coming from, and we'll just have to review it and be in touch with the applicant. MR. STARK-Wasn't Marylee Gosline going to speak tonight or something? MR. PALING-No. She was here for a totally different reason. MR. STARK-I know that. I'm talking about for the clustering and so on. MR. PALING-We'll get to that as a separate item. Okay. Any other questions on the Great Escape situation? MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that the author of a letter such as we got this evening should be present at the next meeting, if we have it. He should have been here. MR. PALING-Correct. I agree. MRS. LABOMBARD-Good suggestion, Rog. MR. MACEWAN-For Staff, the biggest hang up I've got about this whole discussion tonight is that, what do you call that ride, the Treehouse? Could you just research that and see if that was part of the Wave Pool when we made that approval for that site plan for me, please? MR. PALING-Good question. MR. HILTON-Evidentally it's been researched by Mr. Martin, but we will research it further. MR. MACEWAN-They say it's on the plan. I want to know whether it's there. MR. HILTON-We will. MR. PALING-Okay. The Great Escape discussion meeting is over. All right. Thank you gentlemen. MR. RUEL-What's next? MR. PALING-All right. I have two things to discuss with the Board. George will cover one of them. Let me just cover one of them. Do we have another subject tonight? MR. BREWER-No. Board" . I think that's an "Any Other Business Before the MR. PALING-Yes. Does anyone have any other business for the Board here tonight? Okay. MR. BREWER-That one letter that this fellow here wrote? MR. PALING-Okay. Lets do that now, yes. All right. I have a letter, and the author is in the audience. It has to do with Indian Ridge, and he's requested that it be read into the record, okay, which I would like to do. It's from Mr. Douglas Irish. Okay. Now, I'll read it. It was, "Dear Mr. Martin: I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize to you and the members of the", have we got a problem? - 46 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. May I speak on that at all, before you read it in? MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't ~ take a stab at this, if that's okay with you? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. PALING-Good. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you talking about this February 21st letter from Mr. Mullshine? MR. PALING-No, I'm not. MR. RUEL-That's a different letter. MR. PALING-No. That's a letter to the Editor. MRS. LABOMBARD-This one's not even dated. MR. PALING-What's the problem? We're under any other items that come before the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I'm Mike O'Connor, for the purposes of your record. I represent the applicant of the development known as Indian Ridge. I obj ect to the Board entering items into the record, as opposed to simply them being filed with Staff and then at a regular called meeting them being made part of the record at a time when we can participate. Now by chance I happened to be here tonight. I stayed here on purpose because there was a contingent from the other group here. Normally, I wouldn't be here if I don't have something on the agenda, and it bothers me, if this is a precedent, that you're going to do this in a regular course, as you go along, because generally when you enter something into the record, it will often bring about a little bit of discussion which I won't be present at. I would like to be able to have a fair, level playing field on the application. MR. PALING-I'm going to talk to Mark on this one. This is under the subject of anything else that comes before the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm operating on something of a loss here, Bob, since I haven't the faintest idea what letter we're talking about, but I have to say that, in general, I would advise the Board that if a letter is submitted about a particular matter that's pending before you, the appropriate time for that letter to be read in to the record is during the Board's discussion or consideration of that item. MR. PALING-All right. I didn't realize that. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know what the content of the letter is. MR. PALING-I have not read it myself. MR. BREWER-Bob, can I make comment to that? I think, Mike, if you let him read it, the substance of the letter the gentleman wrote was at the meeting the other night, and I think more or less it's an apology to what he said to us, nothing more, nothing less. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no idea of the contents of it, Mr. Brewer. I am talking about the precedent that you're setting. I just think it's a poor way to operate. MR. RUEL-The content of the letter has no bearing on it. - 47 - ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. WEST-I don't think the content of the letter means anything. MR. PALING- I'm going to go by what Mark says. If that's the procedure, yes. MR. STARK-I don't think we're setting a precedent, because it's been the history of the Board that if anybody's here who wants to speak, and this gentleman if he's here can come up and speak, read the letter himself. Be my guest. MR. BREWER-Yes. I agree. MR. STARK-I don't think we're setting a precedent, and I don't think that's going to influence anybody. MR. BREWER-I don't think we're going to have a discussion about it. MR. SCHACHNER-See, this is news to me, and I've been to all but three Planning Board meetings since April 19, 1994, and what I'm understanding now is that the Planning Board has what I call open forum where, for example, at Town Board meetings, literally, anybody that wants to can get up and say anything they want about any pending matter. I'm not aware of the Planning Board really having what I call open forum, where anybody can get up and speak about anything they want. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the other side would object to it as much as myself. MR. PALING-The last item on our agenda, any further business that may come before the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. PALING-That was the route I was taking to read this. However, you're bringing up something that refers to the specific situation, Indian Ridge. MR. SCHACHNER-No. Actually, I'm speaking generically. Any time a matter, I would have the exact same advice on any matter that's pending before the Board. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-If it's not a matter pending before the Board, I have no problem at all with somebody reading a letter or making a statement or doing wbatever they want, but if it's a matter pending before the Board, as Indian Ridge is, then I have to say, I think I essentially agree with the applicant's Counsel. If it's a matter about a pending matter that an applicant has a right to hear when that's read in, and arguably, an applicant wouldn't even know it was being read in, and I think this is regardless of the content of the letter, as Mr. West says. This letter may be commending the applicant's Counsel for his superb presentation, and he may love this letter. MR. BREWER-Whatever you do, it doesn't make any difference to me, but what if that letter was mailed to our homes, like it has been many times? MR. O'CONNOR-It's not part of the public record. MR. PALING-It still couldn't be done. MR. SCHACHNER-And it's not read at a Planning Board meeting. MR. BREWER-Whatever. - 48 - '-' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-With that, I apologize to Mr. Irish for accepting it in the way that I did, which we won't read it. I'd like to keep it, submit it to Staff and let it get put into the file that way, but not read it tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no objection. My point is, I don't think they would like me to come here on a night that they aren't here, and present some matter to you, either orally or in writing. It's not the manner which an application is processed. Ex-party communication also has a little bit of a problem. Once it's pending, if you receive something, it should go to the Staff, so it's part of the record. It's no different than me catching you out some place and trying to bend your ear. I should stay away from that, and I think typically when you get to substance, most people that are in the business try to, individuals might not. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We have another gentleman who'd like to speak. MICHAEL STERN MR. STERN-My name's Michael Stern. I am a member of the Citizens for Queensbury. I'm here tonight because at the special meeting last week I heard that submissions were going to be made by Mr. 0' Connor regarding certain issues, and that's why I'm here. I agree with his point. It's not fair to have. MR. PALING-Well, it's not going to be done anyway. MR. STERN-No. I understand. So I'm just agreeing with him in that regard. MR. PALING-We won't even listen to you. MR. STERN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-When we say submissions to be made, we make them to Staff. Staff will put them as part of the file and circulate them to the Board. I know that I am under the obligation to make certain submissions I agreed to. Those submissions go to Staff and they get circulated. MR. PALING-Are we okay? MR. STERN-I believe we're okay, and there were other discussions about letters and issues that would be drafted, and I thought discussed this evening, at the special meeting. MR. PALING-No. They were not on the agenda. It's pending before the Board, and I will abide by legal Counsel's council. MR. MACEWAN-I thought we were going to discuss it tonight? MR. BREWER-Yes. I did, too. MR. PALING-But you thought we were going to discuss what? MR. BREWER-The letter you were going to write. MR. PALING-How could you think that? We just got it tonight. MR. BREWER-Because you said that last Thursday night that you were going to form a letter and we were going to discuss it tonight, what was the content of the letter. MR. RUEL-Your letter. MR. PALING-Okay, illY letter, not Mr. Irish's letter. - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. RUEL-About access and. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's a different matter, because that's a letter from the Planning Board, and that's something that you certainly can discuss, if you wish. It's very likely that that's why Mr. Stern is here. It's very likely that's why other people are here. It mayor may not be why Mr. O'Connor is here. It is why Mr. O'Connor is here. MR. PALING-Now we're getting squared away. MR. STERN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-All right, Bob, then why don't I suggest you give that letter to Staff, and let them circulate it or whatever. It's probably my fault. I didn't think there was any harm in it. MR. PALING-I'll take care of the letter. Lets, George, do you want to read the letter? DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-Mr. Paling, can I just address the letter that I wrote to you? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. IRISH-I don't care if that ever gets read into the record. Doug Irish from Citizens for Queensbury. I don't care if you ever read it into the record or if it ever gets in the minutes. I wrote that letter after I got home and thought about what I had said at the meeting the other night, and I wasn't all that sure that, as I was speaking, that I might have antagonized somebody or maybe somebody took something personal in the way that I said it, and that wasn't my intent. That letter is nothing more than a letter of apology. If you do nothing more with it than make copies and circulate it among the members, that's fine with me, and any further than that, I don't think there's any need for it to be read into the record. MR. PALING-Good enough. No offense was taken by anybody about anything. We're in fine shape. MR. STARK-Before these gentlemen possibly leave, I have a comment to address to the gentleman sitting to the right of Mr. Irish. ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-Roger Boor. MR. STARK-I forgot your name. The other night, you had a comment and you came up and Bob said, no, sorry, no dialogue, no dialogue. You're sitting down, rather incredulously saying, what do you mean, no dialogue? You probably remember this. MR. BOOR-Right. MR. STARK-Okay. The way the Board runs is that any question that you come up and raise during public hearing, anybody, you know, we write all those questions down, and they're answered by the applicant or by the Staff, at the end of the public comment period. We're not cutting off the dialogue. I mean, if you raise a question about anything Indian Ridge, that would have been addressed after everybody's done talking, we're writing everything down, you know, 50 questions, and then we go over them one at a time. It's not that we're cutting you off. MR. BOOR-I understand that now. - 50 - '-.- '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. STARK-Okay. MR. BOOR-Yes. MR. STARK-Because you were all upset about it, and I didn't want you to. MR. BOOR-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. May we proceed to the letter? All right. I'll read it in. Now, as we agreed at the Indian Ridge meeting, Jim Martin and I would sit down and write a letter to the applicant and tell them what was needed from them, so that we could proceed to the next meeting, and you want me to read it? All right, and this is to Michael Vasiliou, care of Michael 0' Connor. "Per the discussion held with the Planning Board during their review of the preliminary site plan for the proposed Indian Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) this letter is provided to summarize the list of outstanding information needed by the Board to adequately continue its review. The list is as follows: 1. Access. In consideration of 179-58 B(l) (a) the Board needs further information relating to the adequacy of the access through Farr Lane. You stated that information will be provided which will provide details regarding your interpretation of the nature and extent of access to the project and your position regarding the Board's authority on this issue. The Board will then review the information as it relates to the internal access points within the project as well as the access to Farr Lane and Fox Farm Road. 2. Wells/Groundwater Analysis. In consideration of § 179-58 B (1) (h) the Board requests that a comprehensive list of items be developed relating to further analysis of groundwater, elevation and flow. This effort should include consideration of relevant comments received during the hearing of February 20th. The Board also requests new readings be taken at the three existing wells as well as at a new fourth well to be drilled in the area of lot #82. To that end the Board intends to retain an expert, who will be a Hydrogeologist, third party firm/individual to assist in the development of a comprehensive scope of analysis and to review the findings from the data gathered. This firm/individual will be totally involved in the planning and all phases of this project. The final written report will be presented by the hydrogeologist to the Planning Board. It is understood that costs incurred for the work outlined will be the responsibility of the applicant. You will be advised of exact costs before any commitments are made. 3 . The Town Highway Superintendent upon completion of his review relating to road design will furnish written comments relating to adequacy of the design for the Board's review. 4. The Town Water Superintendent upon completion of his review relating to water system design will furnish written comments relating to adequacy of the design for the Board's review. As a related comment the Fire Marshal in concurrence with the fire district Chief suggests an additional hydrant be placed along with the project road in front of the proposed senior housing lot. The separation distance between hydrants through this area is in excess of 1200 linear feet. 5. A rendering of the entrance sign is to be presented for review. 6. The design sheets will be corrected to show septic system location in the front yard. 7. Details regarding foot path and school access design, and timing of installation shall be presented for review. Sincerely, Robert F. Paling Chairman, Queensbury Planning Board" MR. RUEL-One thing I see missing here is as time schedule for completion of these items. MR. BREWER-Let them take as long as they want. MR. RUEL-There should be some limitation. - 51 - ----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. MACEWAN-I thought we left it open. We didn't know how long it was going to take. MR. PALING-I think that's the applicant's. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you asking about a time frame for these things? MR. PALING-Yes, the question is being raised. MR. SCHACHNER-As to whether the Board should impose a limitation on the applicant, is that the question? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, that is the question. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think it's appropriate. I mean, if the Board wants to make a suggestion or something. I think it's really up to the applicant. MR. PALING-I think that it's incumbent upon the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, the applicant can do it in a day, a week, a month, but I don't think it's really appropriate for the Board to impose a deadline. MR. RUEL-There were only two items for the applicant, right? MR. WEST-Bob, I just had a question on Item Number Two. You say the Board also requests new readings be taken at the three existing wells, as well as at a new fourth well to be drilled in the area of Lot 82, and then you make the comment that the Board intends to retain an expert to participate in the development of a comprehensive scope and analysis to review the findings. Are you saying that the expert would be engaged to participate in the development of the scope of work prior to it being done? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. WEST-The statement makes it sound like they'll do the work and then. You want the third party involved up front. MR. PALING-Prior to, that's right. MR. SCHACHNER-And, you know, that makes me take back a tiny portion of what I said. In that light, I think it's incumbent upon the Board to do its part in the foreseeable, near, immediate future. In other words, I don' t think it would be appropria te to any applicant for the Board to say, okay, now we'll take a long time to engage that consultant and then slow up the process. MR. MACEWAN-No. As a matter of fact, after the meeting the other night, the marching orders to Rist-Frost was to get to work on that hastily to hire the necessary person or get a name or whatever. MR. PALING-Yes, and this letter was written Monday morning, whenever it was, the day after, whenever. There's been no delay and there won't be, either. MR. SCHACHNER-I know. applicant. MR. BREWER-Bob, I have a question on Number One. I just was saying it's not all up to the MR. PALING-All right. MR. BREWER-"You stated that information will be provided which will provide details regarding your interpretation of the nature and extent of access to the project". They're going to give us their interpretation of our authority? - 52 - '---' '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. PALING-Well, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Mr. O'Connor, in response to questions that the Board was asking about that, he specifically made the offer, I'll characterize it as he said he wanted to submit materials for us, I think principally me, to consider relative to the Board's authority on that issue. That's how ~ understood the discussion, and I said at that meeting, and I would stand by this, that he's the applicant's representative and we should take him up on that offer, and he has. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you're going to interpret that? MR. PALING-Well, yes, and discuss it. MR. SCHACHNER-We have to see what he submits, whether it's a legal thing or something else, but whoever should review it will review it. MR. BREWER-I guess the only thing I'm hesitant about is the applicant telling us what we can review. MR. PALING-No. MR. WEST-Whether we agree with his interpretation is an entirely different matter. MR. SCHACHNER-That's exactly right. whatever pitch he wants to make. He has the right to make MR. PALING-Sure. MR. RUEL-Was this letter sent out? MR. PALING-No, this letter has not been sent out. We're soliciting your comments tonight. MR. WEST-I guess the only comment that ~ would make is to make sure that wording is clear in Item Number Two, that the third party (lost words) will be engaged in the development of the scope. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. I'll take care of that. MR. BREWER-We're talking about all of our comments that we want in this letter? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-There was discussion about, I don't know how relevant it is, the enforcement of the restrictions in the back of a no cut lot? MR. PALING-Well, there was quite a discussion about that in regard to deed restriction, that kind of thing, yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I guess there was question as to how are we ever going to enforce it? MR. SCHACHNER-I thought we addressed that. I don't remember that as being an open issue. I think the purpose of this letter, as ~ understood it, was. MR. BREWER-Stuff they have to get. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I don't remember that as being an open issue. MR. PALING-I agree. - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. O'CONNOR-As to your Item Number Two, I think you were also going to give us an estimate of what this cost was going to be. MR. PALING-Okay. We were going to get that? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's part of what Rist-Frost was to provide, correct. MR. PALING-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you want, your wording may be that you want us to agree in advance that we will pay the expense, and you obviously have to provide us with an estimate for us to agree to it. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. I'll take care of that. Okay. Now, I repeat, in case anybody hasn't heard, this is a draft, as it says, and it has not gone out, and it will not go out until we're over, you know, I have your comments, and Jim and I will get back together. MR. STARK-Over and above this letter, Mark, the Town Ordinance states that an applicant spends up to $1,000 for any outside engineering work performed, you know, that the Town has performed for them. What happens when it goes over $1,000? MR. PALING-It will be over $1,000? MR. STARK-If they've already hit $1,000, does the Town eat the cost? MR. PALING-No, the applicant has been requested to pay for it. The applicant has told us, how much is it going to be? And then a decision will be made, later on by the applicant, as to whether they're going to pay for it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I think part of what Rist-Frost was asked to do was to get an estimate from the consultant. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding of that regulation is maybe what Mr. Stark's understanding is, that we will pay YR to $1,000. MR. PALING-Without the applicant being notified that it's going over. MR. O'CONNOR-I also would simply say that I'm not trying to be combative. Lets find out what we're talking about, okay. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There are other provisions, probably, under SEQRA, that we could also discuss, maybe more expansive than the Town regula t ion. Al though SEQRA' s done, so I guess, I don't know. Lets find out what we're talking about. Again, my whole problem with the issue was we went through this line, by line, by line, once before, answering the same questions that were posed to you the other night, and there's a cut off point. That was all part of SEQRA. If you went back and you looked at the minutes in the Town Board, you would see the same questions. You would see much of the same answers, and we're going to go back and we're going to draw the same picture again, but we're going to have a different player. I've just got to know where we decide it's reasonable and unreasonable. If we decide it's unreasonable, we will come back and tell you that we think it's unreasonable. MR. MACEWAN-Could you back up for just a second? Is it your interpretation that you said you think you're only obligated up to $1,000? - 54 - ./ --.... -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. 0' CONNOR-I believe so. MacEwan. We're outside of SEQRA now, Mr. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, I would like to add the site plan application PUD Number to that letter. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-At the top. MR. PALING-All right. Now, are there any other questions at all about this letter, omissions or changes? Pretty much what we discussed. I went over my notes. MR. MACEWAN-I would ask that you make those revisions as to what Dave wanted to do regarding making sure that was clarified, in reference to Item Number Two, Dave's suggestion and wanting to change that around so that the consultant to hire, and also written estimates supplied to these folks prior to. MR. PALING-Yes. That'll be done. MR. RUEL-There is no carbon copy to the Planning Board members? MR. PALING-You will get a copy of this. You got a copy of the draft, and you will get a copy of the final item. MR. MACEWAN-We don't need to keep this letter? We'll get a new one? MR. PALING-Yes. This is a draft. It will be changed. Now, are there any other legal, staff, Board, applicants, anybody in the audience? DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-Doug Miller. I think that it might be necessary to add to the letter that the third party be a Hydrogeologist, rather than just a P.E. who may think he's qualified because I think we've gotten to this point. I thought that was clear. I don't know if it was that clear. MR. WEST-I thought it was. MR. MILLER-Not having the letter in front of me, I can't. MR. STARK-I thought we agreed, at the end of the meeting, that we were going to get a P.E., but a Hydrologist, you know, specialized. MR. MILLER-I think that was the intent earlier in the meeting, but as we got toward the end of the meeting, a comment was made that they left it up to Mr. Levandowski to determine what mayor may not be needed. MRS. LABOMBARD- I thought Mr. Levandowski was going to find a certified Hydrologist. MR. PALING-I think he is. MR. RUEL-You could add a couple of words in there. MR. WEST-Say a registered geologist or a certified hydrogeologist. MR. MILLER-I think that's just how we've gotten to this point, because we've got somebody who's reviewed it who is not qualified, and he so stated the other night. MR. PALING-The individual who does it has got to be qualified, and - 55 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) I assume that makes him a hydrogeologist, if he's going to be involved. MR. RUEL-Well, lets just say so in the letter. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not an expert in that area, but he very well might not be. He might be somebody who has a bibliography and an experience that would be satisfactory to this Board and to Rist- Frost, who may have an exemption, like many surveyors have exemptions under the Education Law and everything else. I thought you left it to your engineering consultant to find a satisfactory expert that would give advice to the Board? I don't mean to pick on that. MR. BREWER-I thought we just, Dave just said something about a licensed or registered or whatever hydrologist. MR. PALING-Well, let me take the comments, and go ahead. If we run into trouble in that regard, I'll face it then, but I'm hoping that whoever it is is a hydrogeologist. MR. WEST-There is certainly plenty of them around. There's not a shortage of consulting firms to get that information from. I mean, I know that for a fact. MR. MILLER-You can get the names of a number of them from the USGS Society out of Albany. MRS. LABOMBARD-C.T. Male in Latham, John Munsey. He's a real good guy. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what I thought you had done. MR. MILLER-I was just saying that USGS Society in Albany has a long list. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think we'll leave it up to Bill Levandowski, and hopefully he will be taking that route, but it will go in the letter. MR. MACEWAN-Ultimately, with them have second choice of footing the bill for it, ultimately it's going to be our decision, and if he comes back with a couple of names and outfits, and we don't feel comfortable with the person's expertise, we can always say to them, we want someone else. It's ultimately going to be our choice. MR. BREWER-Is it going to come back to us like that? MR. O'CONNOR-I would hope that you would have the understanding that perhaps the Chairman, with the Zoning Administrator and Mr. Levandowski, could review the credentials of whoever they select and if we agree to pay for it, that we go forward with it, that we not have to come back to a formal meeting of the Board to approve that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think I'm qualified to say who's the expert. MR. BREWER-Why don't we just let our engineer settle the dispute. MR. WEST-I'm qualified to determine whether or not somebody's a geologist or hydrogeologist, or a professional engineer. I deal with them every day in my profession. MR. STARK-Why don't you attend the meeting with Levandowski, Jim and Bob, and give your input? MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. - 56 - .- '---' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. WEST-If that helps. MR. PALING-All right. Lets see what we run into in that regard. I hope we don't run into a crazy glitch here. MR. VASILIOU-One other comment, if I may. The determination of using Lot 82, if I'm not mistaken, was a determination that was made by this Board last week. MR. PALING-It's in the area that we asked for, yes. MR. VASILIOU-Yes. If it is the determination of the hydrogeologist, whoever the expert is that's selected, that that's not an appropriate site, I hope you'll leave me the option open to use the suggestions of the hydrogeologist. MR. RUEL-We can say, in the area of MR. VASILIOU-One well may not be sufficient. MR. WEST-That was exactly my point of getting the person involved up front. MR. O'CONNOR-For the Board's information, I hope to submit to Staff shortly an area which would show areas that would be open, that wouldn't require a lot of tree cutting or clearing, and hopefully in those areas, as they're highlighted, whoever you choose would be able to select something. MR. MACEWAN-(Lost words) put my stock in an expert who's going to say if one of your areas that had to be cleared is an area he wants to put a hole, I want to go where he wants to put it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we're trying to micromanage something. MR. VASILIOU-Yes. I think, let the hydrogeologist select the site, because well number two is in a densely wooded area where I think the only way it was ever done was with a tripod to begin with. MR. PALING-Well, I think getting the person involved from the beginning is going to take care of a lot what we're saying now. He's not going to let something be bored that he doesn't even think is going to be significant. All right. Any additional comment by anybody, anywhere? All right. We can't go home yet because we've got wonderful words of wit and wisdom from George. MR. HILTON-Well, we've got a couple of things, actually. We've got a discussion of the attached resolutions that are in your application now. I'm not going to say too much about that. I was just, you know, they're there for your review. They're meant to summarize things, make it easier for you. If everything meets your approval, you can certainly just approve an item, based on that resolution. You can amend it, add things to it. It's really there to make things easier for you, make sure that everything is summarized. MR. RUEL-I'd like to suggest on these resolutions, however, that you put a date on them, so when we make a reference to it, we say resolution as written, dated such and such, or a document number. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. BREWER-Put the application number on there. MR. SCHACHNER-I wasn't aware of this, but I have two concerns about the pre-prepared resolutions. I think it's a great idea, and if the Board wants to do it and Staff wants to do it. My two concerns, one's of serious concern. One's a very minor concern. - 57 - --.... (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) The serious concern I have is when there's a previously prepared resolution, and then the motion, and it's a page and a half, and the motion is to approve as written, if it's a matter that anybody spoke at a public hearing about, they don't know what's in the resolution of approval. So I think that if it's a matter that anyone has spoken at a public hearing about, I think then whoever's going to make the motion to approve should read the pre-prepared resolution. MR. HILTON-And these motions aren't prepared with the assumption that you're going to be approving something. They're just resolutions that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that's my second comment. My second comment is that, and this is the one that's a little technical, but the pre- prepared resolutions always say, approved, deny, or approve with conditions, and you often make a motion to approve the resolution as written, and the way it's written, it has all three things in it. So, technical, I'd be a little more comfortable if you said, I'd like to move the resolution and strike the words deny or whatever, just make it clear that you're moving the resolution as approval, denial or whatever. I think you generally do say, to approve. So I don't have a problem with that. MR. RUEL-Do you think it would be better if they were read? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, imagine yourself as a member of the public who came forward to speak about a particular project, and they had a concern, and then there's a page and a half resolution as there was tonight. Now there was nobody in the public, so I didn't care, but there's a page and a half resolution to approve, and somebody says, move to approve as written, and somebody seconds it, somebody votes it. That member of the public doesn't know what's in that resolution of approval. Maybe there's something in that resolution of approval that they love. Maybe there's something in it that they hate. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred there's nothing in it that they care about. MR. PALING-So you're saying that if this happens, and we make note of lets say the four discussion items, and then we ask for approval of the resolution, not as written, but including those four items, we're okay, but if there's no discussion at all, and we could go as written. MR. RUEL-Well, it doesn't make much sense to me because you could have a meeting one night where you have three or four applicants, and only one you read the whole thing because you thought that somebody had to hear, but on the other ones, you just tell them, as written. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, right. MR. RUEL-Is that the way we would go? How would we select that? MR. SCHACHNER-The way you're generally doing it is you're just saying, as written, without reading them ever, and if you want to, this is up to the Board. I'm not telling you you have to do it a certain way, but the answer to your, Roger, of how would you know which ones to read and which ones not to read is, as I said earlier, if somebody spoke at the public hearing. MR. RUEL-There might be some borderline cases, though. MR. BREWER-Whether they did or they didn't. MR. SCHACHNER - Ei ther they spoke or they didn' t , right. Ei ther somebody spoke at the public hearing or they didn't speak at the public hearing. What I'm suggesting, and it's up to the Board, is - 58 - --- /" '--" '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) if anybody spoke at the public hearing, I would prefer you read the resolution. If nobody spoke at the public hearing, I don't care if you read the resolution or not. MR. RUEL-AIl right. MR. PALING-And that would include all whereas' and everything, right? It would have to. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess you could just go with the approval part if you'd rather, because I know you want to shorten it up, and I agree. MR. HILTON-And the prepared resolution can also serve as an outline. You can look at it and say, well, we have listed these things as being included, Page One of a Site Plan or some additional studies or whatever. You can just read down the list on your prepared resolution, add in that there was public comment and that it was heard, and then vote accordingly. You can treat it as an outline or you can approve as submitted, whichever you feel comfortable with. MR. PALING-Well, then the very routine cases where there is no public comment at all we can go as written. Otherwise, we better go back and. MR. SCHACHNER-It's just a suggestion. It's up to the Board. MR. RUEL-Do you think it's possible we could use an english word instead of "Whereas"? MR. SCHACHNER-Are you looking at me? I don't write this. MR. RUEL-No, I know, but you're the whereas guy. MR. SCHACHNER-No, that's not the case. I'm allergic to legalese. So don't call me the whereas guy. MR. RUEL-Then give me a good word. MR. SCHACHNER-Where, in resolutions? Don't use the word. write the sentence without the "Whereas". Just MR. RUEL-You don't need it at all, do you? MR. WEST-It's redundant. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Paul Dusek was the best for them "Whereas". MR. PALING-All right. I have one item, if you would, please, and this is in the form of a complaint, and it was aimed at three members of the Board, myself, Cathy and Craig. I agree totally with the complaint. Craig, you're talking to me and I can hear every word you say. You're three feet from that mike, and nobody in the audience can hear you. They complained about the three of us especially, because what we do, is this. Now the Staff can hear us, we all can hear us, but not people in the audience, and they're right. They're absolutely correct. When you're back, sitting like that, nobody out there can hear you. MRS. LABOMBARD-I said one thing that night, one thing I said and some people didn't hear me. They were all waiting for me to say it and they missed it. MR. PALING-That's right. They were waiting to hear from you. - 59 - ~~ '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/25/97) MR. MACEWAN-I didn't say anything the other night. MR. BREWER-Yes, you did. MR. PALING-Yes, you did. All we're saying is, and I say it to myself, is move up to the mike, because if you're like you are, they can't hear you, and they need to. They want to hear you. MR. MACEWAN-Because I'm like I am. I resent that remark. MR. WEST-Was there any other complaints, Bob, or was that the only one? MR. PALING-Well, that wasn't the only one. MR. WEST-I just wanted to make sure I didn't get any complaints. MRS. LABOMBARD-I want you to know that I got a call, after they watched it on Channel 9 or Channel 8 or whatever, from Dennis Brower, and he thought we were wonderful. He thought we did a great job. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 60 -