Loading...
1997-06-24 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 33-94 Modification Craig Seeley/Charles Tax Map No. 135-2-2.1 1. Site Plan No. 14-90 MODIFICATION The Great Escape Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1 11. 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 6/24/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK LARRY RINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JOHN GORALSKI TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING- Is there anyone here that has business besides the Seeley application and The Great Escape application? Okay. Good. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 CRAIG SEELEY/CHARLES SEELEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-IA LOCATION: 75 BIG BOOM ROAD MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION INCLUDES REVISION 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 CHARLIE SCUDDER & WILLIAM NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-There were public hearings this past February 25th, March 25th, it was tabled; May 22nd, and tonight there is a public hearing. MR. PALING-John? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-94 Modification, Craig Seeley/Charles Seeley, Meeting Date: June 24, 1997 "The applicant proposes to modify a previously approved Site Plan for Craig and Charles Seeley on Big Boom Road. The new plan indicates a new grading plan for the southern and eastern portion of the property. The applicant also states that the buffer zone surrounding this property will not be violated. The applicant's modified plan shows regrading of the site only. Any additional buildings planned for construction will need a separate site plan review before they can be built. This property contains a SO foot buffer around the property which separates residential zoning to the south and east. This buffer is meant to be a natural separation between zones and should not be altered or filled in any way. Another concern of Staff's would be the stabilization of the property which will be regraded and filled. Revegetation of this area would help stabilize the area and would limit erosion and runoff onto adjacent properties. Staff recommends that the Planning Board include stipulations stating that the buffer zone will not be altered and that the area to be regraded and filled will be revegetated in order to stabilize this land." MR. PALING-John, in asking for stabilization and all, the print grading, drainage and so on, does that answer a lot of the questions in that regard? I'm looking at this other one. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. NEALON-My name is William Nealon, and I'm an attorney in Glens - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) Falls representing Mr. Seeley. MR. SCUDDER-I'm Charlie Scudder, Consulting Engineer, representing Mr. Seeley. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. same one. I have a plan here, I don't know if it's the MR. PALING-May of '97. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. It looks like the same detail. If the straw anchoring is undertaken, if the tracking and the contour furrows are completed, I'm not sure there's a detail for haybale, straw bale dike. It doesn't show a location of that, but if the straw bale dike is constructed on the down slope side, I would say that those. MR. PALING-Now the under drain and stabilization, are we okay there? MR. GORALSKI-Assuming that's all installed, but it doesn't show on the plan where any of that's going to be installed. As long as we know where that's going to be installed, yes, that would be sufficient to stabilize this site. MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't we turn it over to the applicant, then, those questions are raised, and whatever else you'd like to pass on to us about it. MR. SCUDDER-I had prepared a brief report, which you should have, Mr. Chairman, and in that I speak to erosion control, at the bottom of the first sheet, and I state in there that the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, what we call the Blue Book, will be the basis for our design, the methodology for erosion control and sediment transport, and haybale dikes and all these methods are set out in great detail in that book. MR. PALING-Okay. Where you say "as necessary", do we know what you mean by that? MR. SCUDDER-Well, each of these sites, as I understand it, is going to have a separate site plan review. MR. PALING-Okay, for the sites, yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but right now there's a significant area that's been disturbed and needs to be stabilized, basically immediately, because of the danger of erosion. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, but what Mr. Seeley wants to do is to do some grading there before he does the stabilization. In other words, you know, he wants to shut the soil down. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Absolutely. My point is that when the grading is completed, right now you have exposed soil that needs to be stabilized. These are all acceptable methods of stabilization, but I just need to know on the plan where you're going to do that, where you're going to put your hay bale dikes, where you're going to put your straw anchoring, where you're going to put your tracking, all those things. MR. SCUDDER-Fair enough, but what we're looking for is approval of the concept. MR. BREWER-Well, we would be approving the whole plan, not a concept. Wouldn't we? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, but I'm talking about the concept of the separate - 2 - -- '--" , -.../ "---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) sites. MR. PALING-Well, the separate site plans would come along later. Right now we're looking at the whole layout that you have on this print, and that should include grading and stabilization. MR. BREWER-Before you build any of the sites, we should have some sort of a plan showing how you're going to stabilize it and control everything. MR. GORALSKI-I guess my point, just to clarify, Staff has no problem with this grading plan, except for the fact that some of these contour lines have to be adjusted so they're not encroaching on the 50 foot buffer zone, okay. In addition, the condition of the site right now is such that there's a potential for erosion problems. If Mr. Seeley's going to go out and do some grading, obviously, he can't stabilize while he's grading, but once that grading is completed, or at any point if there's going to be a lapse of time between grading work and any other development, that the area needs to be stabilized at that time. MR. PALING-Right, and that's what we're looking for. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. NEALON-John, I might add, I think Mr. Seeley is very sensitive to your concerns, as the contours set forth in the plan would indicate. Right now there is not sufficient fill material currently available to do all of this work that is laid out. It's going to take some months, or longer, to develop all those resources that are necessary to ultimately result in these contours. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. NEALON-Certainly we can assure the Board that as fill material becomes available, the tow of the slope will be stabilized with hay bales and appropriate erosion control measures. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. NEALON-That's to Mr. Seeley's benefit. He doesn't want to incur any issues with either the Town or the Department of Environmental Conservation or anyone else. So I think we can certainly represent to this Board that as the fill material becomes available, the tow of the slope or some reasonable distance beyond that tow of the slope will be anchored with appropriate hay bale dikes during the development. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. What about the, like for example, right now, there's a large, flat, exposed area. Can we get some temporary seeding and haying on there, because at this point, it looks like there's a flat area up here. On the plan it would be at least Area Number Two that looks like that's basically been graded, and that's going to remain as is, as you bring in more fill. So there's no reason why we can't have some type of stabilization take place there until such time as they're ready to develop the site. MR. NEALON-That certainly is a very fair recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Nealon, are we looking at any kind of time line that you think it would be before he gets all this accomplished? I know you said something about months, waiting for fill and stuff to come in, but do you have an idea about how long it will take? MR. NEALON-I wouldn't be able to give you a firm estimate, Mr. MacEwan. Basically, the availability of fill is not something that is in his immediate control. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. PALING-I'd like to see the detail of the baling or whatever they're going to use to prevent erosion, and it can be on a condition of improvement, but that it would be submitted to Planning Staff, that we know what they're doing, because right now they're saying, "where appropriate" and all of that, and I don't think that's a good way to leave it. MR. BREWER-I would agree. MR. GORALSKI-I would prefer something a little more specific. For example, something like the perimeter of the fill area will be at all times maintained with a hay bale dike, which means, if you corne in, you bring some fill in, at the end of the day, you're going to reconstruct your hay bale dike, so that, as you move along, that dike will continue to move back. MR. NEALON-You're referring on the down slope side? MR. GORALSKI -Right, and then any areas where grading has been completed would be, you would provide the temporary seeding and haying, so that those exposed areas would be stabilized until such time as development occurs. MR. PALING-But we need it on a print. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I'd like to see that. MR. PALING-With explanation and layout. MR. GORALSKI-Noted on this plan, with a note and a letter from Mr. Scudder laying that out. MR. PALING-You were going to say something? MR. SCUDDER-We have nothing. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, did you stamp this print, Mr. Scudder? MR. SCUDDER-No. MR. PALING-But your name is on it? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Who did it? MR. SCUDDER-I did. MR. PALING-Is there any reason you didn't stamp it? MR. SCUDDER-Well, this doesn't purport to be a final plan. This is a, as X see it, a concept master plan, and that's what we're interested in. We're interested in getting the Board's approval of the idea that we can develop these sites as we've indicated on here, have a new grading plan to accomplish that. MR. PALING-I don/t think concept describes it correctly. MR. BREWER-We want to have a site plan. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think we're calling it that. It's a site plan modification that we're looking at tonight. So it's not a concept. It's a site plan. MR. GORALSKI-It's a modification to the previously approved site plan now. MR. PALING-That's right. - 4 - '~ --- "--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. GORALSKI-There's nothing in our Ordinance that says it has to be stamped by an engineer. MR. BREWER-But shouldn't we have a final plan as to what he's going to do, John? That's, I think, what Bob's indicating. MR. GORALSKI-I would say, if you're approving this grading plan, then this is the grading plan that they should construct. MR. NEALON-This is the grading plan we intend to construct. MR. PALING-Except as it impinges upon the buffer. That's got to be corrected. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. NEALON-I had a query for Staff on that. As I read the Ordinance, a buffer is a buffer. It is not a forever wild zone. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. NEALON-And to limit the manner in which that buffer is maintained as a forever wild with brambles and bushes and so on, is not, as X understand my reading of that provisions of the Statute, what the Ordinance contemplates. It contemplates that it will not be developed, but certainly if Mr. Seeley intends to have a well maintained area, we would not contemplate that the edge of that well maintained area would look like a jungle. MR. PALING-I think that, when this was brought up, it had to do with the visual concerns of the neighbors, and I notice that in Staff notes that it says the buffer zone will not be altered. To me that would mean it would be left in its vegetated state, or as it is now. MR. NEALON-But that is not what is in the Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-There's two sections. One is the definition says "an unpaved, natural area without buildings designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact from land, water", and so on and so forth. A natural area, in my opinion, would mean that you're not going to go in there and do any grading or removal of vegetation. MR. NEALON-The vegetation that is there mayor may not be appropriate to the vegetation that would be anticipated on the balance of the site. In keeping with the concept that it is intended to be a visual screen, as is not necessarily, and I would submit to this panel that it is not appropriate to indicate that it is a wild brambles. MR. GORALSKI-Well, if that's the case, there's certainly language here, "when not inhabited by natural, woody plants, i.e. trees and shrubs, sufficient visual screening adjoining uses or zones, such buffer area shall be planted, regraded and/or fenced". So I would submit, if you're going to disturb that buffer area, we need a plan showing how you're going to re-vegetate it, grade it, and so on and so forth. So I would like to see. MR. NEALON-Well, I think that's a fair statement. Certainly, we have no immediate plans to do anvthinq with the buffer, but that is not to say that the buffer cannot be in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance to maintain a visual screen, and you have to have that visual screen be appropriate for the balance of the site. MR. PALING-I guess I'll repeat myself, but with all due respect, I think I would disagree with you to this degree, that the reason that the sensitivity of the buffer is being brought up, one of the main reasons, was the comments of the neighbors, and if it's going - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) to be other than left alone, then I think that ought to be part of a public hearing, too. MR. GORALSKI-You have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. MR. PALING-But we don't have a plan for what it's going to be. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-If it's going to be changed from its original current state, then I think there should be a public hearing on the subject. MR. GORALSKI-My recommendation would be, if this plan is going to stand, with this grading within the buffer area, which would result in some type of removal of vegetation and filling, then I would submit that you also need a landscaping plan that shows how that buffer and visual screening is going to be maintained. MR. BREWER-Well, might I ask, what is the problem with leaving the trees as they are, in that buffer zone? MR. NEALON-I don't have any problems leaving the trees that are healthy and well and appropriate for the site as they are. We do not intend to go in there and remove the trees. If trees are diseased or down, we're not going to leave them diseased and down. MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely not. MR. BREWER-Well, that's a given that nobody would ever do that, but I mean, as far as. MR. NEALON-Well, that's what forever wild is all about. I just don't want to be constrained by not disturbing language being in the Board's notes. MR. GORALSKI-Nobody said forever wild. You did. MR. BREWER-Yes. We didn't say it. We said undisturbed. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, to be honest with you, I spoke to Mr. Seeley about this, and if there are dead trees in there that he wants to remove, he can certainly do that. What I'm talking about is you've got contour lines, proposed contour lines that show grading within that buffer zone. If you're going to do this grading, you're going to remove healthy vegetation. MR. NEALON-There are places where there is very little vegetation. MR. GORALSKI-And if you're going to remove healthy vegetation, and I would submit that based on this grading plan you're going to have to remove healthy vegetation or fill around it, and therefore kill it, and that you'd need a landscaping plan to show what you're going to do. I don't see why you can just move these lines so that you're not grading within the buffer zone at this time. MR. STARK-I think we're killing this. All we need is a final plan, you know, showing the buffer, the final grading, how he's going to stabilize it, with the haybales at the end, you know, and keep moving them, what vegetation is going to be introduced to stabilize it, and then, you know, I don't think it would be a problem. I think you're trying to look into, it's not that big a deal. MR. NEALON-Well, I would hope it wouldn't be. MR. STARK-Well, don't make it one. up the front of it really nice. everything. It's a machine shop. I mean, Mrs. Seeley, they fixed It looks really nice and Great. You're making it more - 6 - '- "--- '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) than it is. Charlie, all he has to say is I'll draw the final plan, stamp it, you know, we show all the lines on it, and show it to John before it's okayed and agree to the vegetation and that's the end of it. MR. PALING-Yes. Some kind of a statement in regard to the existing vegetation. MR. STARK-The front looks pretty good now. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I would like to see a complete plan before we give it any kind of approval. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. MR. MACEWAN-What does the two, three, four and five represent on the plan? MR. SCUDDER-Future building sites. MR. MACEWAN-Future building sites. MR. SCUDDER-We don't know what the buildings are going to be. We don't know who will occupy them. We're just going to have those sites prepared. MR. PALING-It's really superfluous for tonight's meeting, I would assume. MR. STARK-Okay. You said you wanted to see a final plan. MR. BREWER-Well, if I'm looking at a site plan to approve it, George, my opinion is that we ought to see a complete plan. MR. STARK-I'm not disagreeing with you. Okay. Fine. We'll see if Charlie can draw up a final plan, introduce it to us. We'll look at it, and if it meets everything, I think it will be fine. MR. BREWER-That's okay. MR. PALING-We'd be willing to let this plan be submitted to the Planning Staff, and if they approve it with our, you want to see it. MR. BREWER-I'd like to see it, just the way we see every other site plan, Bob. MR. STARK-I agree with Tim. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-We can do that. We'll do that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-We really are looking for the sense of the Planning Board. MR. STARK-But you know what we're looking for. MR. PALING-We'll detail it. MR. SCUDDER-I know exactly what you're looking for. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I had one other question. As far as the fill, it says in the report that you had, in some places, up to 15 feet. If - 7 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) those are going to be sites for building, is that, is there any standards for compaction or anything? MR. GORALSKI-At the time the building is constructed, there will be, there would be requirements, any engineer or architect that designed the building would require compaction for footings, yes. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that would be a structural fill. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand. I just was curious. MR. MACEWAN-Are we really in any position where we want to talk about any future expansion of the site? MR. BREWER-No. I just was curious, that's all. MR. PALING-I don't think so. MR. STARK-Bob, if you're going to table it, why don't you open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I've got to do now. All right. Why don't we go to the public hearing, and then we'll corne back and finalize it. Okay. The public hearing is opened on the Craig Seeley/Charles Seeley application. Is there anyone here that cares to speak about it, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. GORALSKI-I have two letters. MR. PALING-Okay, two letters, if you would. MR. GORALSKI-"Dear Mr. Martin and Members of the Planning Board: We are writing in response to the Notice of Public Hearing we recently received regarding Site Plan No. 33-94 - Modification. In an effort to avoid conflict with the applicants, we will not be attending the public hearing in this case. We have no desire to create difficulties for the applicants. We do, however, respectfully ask that the Board give careful consideration to this matter and take into account that this parcel of land is directly adjacent to several private residences. We would ask that the Board implement and enforce appropriate buffers in order to protect property values of the residents in this community. We would also ask that careful consideration be given to the effects that any grading and drainage modification might have on the Hudson River and its tributaries. One of the tributaries lies very close to the property in question and actually enters the river on our property. The first time that the property in question was excavated (2 or 3 years ago) the shoreline where this stream enters the river was significantly altered by sediment which was carried down in the stream. It is our opinion that this sediment came from fill used on the applicant's property. We hope that this would not happen again. Once again, we are not trying to prevent the applicants from using or increasing the value of their property. We are only asking that it is not at the expense of the neighbors. We invite any member of the Planning Board to visit our property to get a first hand look at how their decisions will affect us, the neighbors and the river. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Starlett Cook, Michael WYnnll "Dear Mr. Goralski and Planning Board Members: Regarding the latest in a series of notices I received indicating that the Queensbury Planning Board will be reviewing an application from Craig and Charles Seeley (Site Plan No. 33-94). The fact that an accurate plan and description of Mr. Seeley's intentions has only been available for viewing since 6-23-97 is the reason I ask that you refrain from making any decisions on this matter until I and other people, whose property might be affected have had an opportunity to - 8 - - ~ --../ "---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) study these plans. In the brief time I had to view the plans today, I saw that Mr. Seeley intends to create a sub-division for the purpose of a seven acre Industrial Park. If ever a project needed an environmental impact study, this one certainly does. Especially considering that the applicant intends to raise the grade by some 15 feet above bordering residential property, and considering that soil conditions are not conducive to proper septic drainage, as the low areas already have standing water. ENCON certainly should be part of your decision making, as all drainage will be into N.Y. State Protected Stream # H-336, and I expect you are already aware that a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit is required. The proposed buffer would not be adequate, especially considering that the grade will be raised some 15 feet in certain areas. Thank you for your consideration, David W. Cook" And that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Leave the public hearing open. MR. PALING-Yes. Because we're going to table this, we will leave the public hearing open. Now do we need a resolution on this, or just commentary? We're going to table it. We've got to communicate clearly with the applicant as to what it is we want them to do. MR. STARK-Don't forget the first meeting is the 15th. MR. PALING-Does this have to be in the form of a resolution, is what I'm getting at. MR. GORALSKI-Tabling it doesn't, but you might want to pass a resolution tabling it and laying out the things that you'd like from the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. NEALON-May we ask that this layout also indicate whether or not the Board is in conceptual agreement with the plan that has been presented? MR. PALING-I have trouble with the word "conceptual". In agreement with the modified site plan, I'd rather answer that question. If I can detail what we ask of you tonight correctly, and you respond to it, my personal opinion would be, it looks okay to me. Does anybody have any comment on that? MR. MACEWAN-I won't say anything until I see the plan. MR. BREWER-No comment. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Well, we've got to see the plan, and it's got to comply with what we're asking it to comply with. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 CRAIG SEELEY/CHARLES SEELEY, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until July 15, 1997, with the following stipulations: That a new plan be submitted with details regarding the following, complete detail on contour lines, none of these contour lines will encroach on the buffer. Number Two, the detail will also show the location of bales and fencing to prevent erosion. Number Three, that there will be no impignment on the buffer. However, natural maintenance of this vegetated area would apply, in other words removal of dead trees or something like that. That if there is impignment on the buffer, that it will be shown in a detailed landscaping plan. That any plan you give or any action that you take in the future should - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) consider the aesthetic appeal from the neighbor's standpoint. In other words, we're trying to keep that buffer as bushy as you can make it, so that they don't look at buildings. Hopefully, they'll look at trees. Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: MR. SCUDDER-Suppose we want to plant some trees in there? MR. PALING-Fine. MR. SCUDDER-That's what we're really talking about is improving that. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, based on our discussion, certainly the other thing you can say is if there is going to be encroachment, an appropriate landscaping plan needs to be provided to satisfy the Board regarding visual screening. MR. BREWER-Submit a landscaping plan, if that's what you intend to do. MR. GORALSKI-Either keep the grading out of the 50 foot buffer, or if you're qoinq to encroach on the SO foot buffer, provide a landscaping plan to show how you're going to provide the visual screening. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI -Okay. There's one other thing that we need to address, and that is that the deadline for July submissions is this Wednesday. I'm going to assume that Mr. Scudder's not going to make that. Is that correct? MR. SCUDDER-That's a fair assumption. MR. BREWER-Two weeks? Is two weeks enough? MR. GORALSKI-If we get it by the 7th of July, which would be a Monday. Would that be possible? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. PALING-Then it can go on the 22nd? MR. GORALSKI-Right. No, the 15th. MR. PALING-Still on the 15th. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If we get it by the 7th, we'll have time to review it and distribute it to the Board for the 15th. MR. PALING-And we can look at it at site visit time. Fine. MR. GORALSKI-And you'll have it for your site visits. MR. PALING-We'll leave the date alone, then. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel - 10 - ""- '---' '-" ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 MODIFICATION THE GREAT ESCAPE OWNER: PREMIER PARKS ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY HOURS OF OPERATION FROM THOSE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED IN THE F.E.I.S. PREPARED FOR THE COMET ROLLER COASTER. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/11/97 JON LAP PER , JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have Staff comments, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-90 - Modification, The Great Escape, Meeting Date: June 24, 1997 "The applicant is seeking to modify Site Plan 14-90 in order to expand the hours of operation for a ride within the Great Escape amusement park. This proposal would allow the Comet to operate later than was previously discussed during the SEQRA review and Site Plan review for this application in 1993. The impact on the surrounding neighborhood that an expansion of the hours of operation may have can only be discussed if further information is submitted to the Planning Board by the applicant. Some impacts may be increased traffic, noise, and light emittance/views from surrounding properties. The Planning Board should receive such information before any vote or action on this site plan modification takes place." MR. GORALSKI -This was sent to the Warren County Planning Board because it was a modification of something that they had previously reviewed, and there was no quorum, so no action was taken. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please, for the record. MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is John Lemery, Lemery & Reid, counsel to Premier Park, the owner of the Great Escape. John Collins is here, who's the General Manager, and my partner Jon Lapper, and we have representatives from the LA Group and the Galston Group who will speak relative to the issues that the expansion of the roller coaster hours. MR. PALING-Okay. We'd like to just turn it right back to you and ask you to detail your proposal, your application, and tell us what it is you expect of the Board. MR. LEMERY-Well, this is kind of an unusual situation that has evolved. In 1993, the former owner of the Great Escape, Charles Wood, had a Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted in relation to the Site Plan and approval for the erection of the Cornet Roller Coaster, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement that was accepted by the Planning Board took comments from the public relative to the roller coaster itself, and there was a comment regarding hours of operation, and there was a response by the applicant at that time, if you'll look on Page 23 of that Final Environmental Impact Statement, which in effect said that the Park has been open only for special events on a few infrequent occasions, and that the number of times that the Park has been open on this basis in the past year has been less than five times in an operating season. The Park has no plans for any extensive evening hour operations. Your Planning Staff took the position that if the Great Escape is going to keep the Comet Roller Coaster open longer than what was the six o'clock hour operated by the former owners, it would require a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement, to that issue. There was some discussion about that, and the Great Escape agreed that it would corne to the Planning Board with a specific issue relating to the expansion of the hours of the Comet, and that this meeting, with all due respect to jurisdiction, would be limited to the question of the expansion of the hours of the Comet Coaster itself, and the supplement to the - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) Environmental Impact Statement. We don't look at this as a site plan review modification, because there are no modifications to the Site Plan for the Coaster. We view this as a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. So what we're prepared to do tonight is discuss issues relating to the Coaster, relative to operating the coaster beyond what was then the six o'clock time. The Great Escape announced this spring that it was going to expand its hours of operation. During the week, during the July and August period, from six o'clock to eight o'clock, and that weekends it was going to extend its hours of operation to 10 o'clock. Just to keep things in perspective, we're talking about approximately 101 days of operation of the Coaster. We're talking about keeping the Coaster operating until 10 o'clock 18 days. In the Environmental Impact Statement that was submitted and approved by this Board back in 1993, there was a comment made that the Park was open and the Comet was operated or would be operated four or five nights a year beyond the six 0' clock closing time. So we're talking an extension of roughly 12 or 13 days over what was the comment made in the Environmental Impact Statement. The eight o'clock hours of the Coaster would be operated really during July and August daylight hours, and so the question then becomes what consequence is there to extending the operations of this Roller Coaster from six o'clock to eight o'clock during the summer days of during the week, and from six o'clock to ten o'clock during 18 days that make up the weekends that the Great Escape is open. We have with us tonight Dean Long and Jeff Anthony of the LA Group, that are consultants to the Park, and also Scott Manchester of the Galston Group, who did some noise studies for Premier relative to the Coaster and the effect that the extended hours of operation the Coaster would have. We provided you with those, with the analysis of that information, including the areas around the Park where the noise test was taken. I don't know what much else we can do. I guess what we're asking you tonight, or what You'll have to do if you decide to deal with this this evening would be to accept the modification to the Environmental Impact Statement. As I said, it's not a modification to a site plan, because we're not doing anything to the site plan. Everybody knows that the Park is zoned as an amusement park, and Mr. Collins will speak to what his Corporation has done with respect to the Park in the last several months that they owned it, the positive effect he believes has taken place with the traffic and other issues. So, that's our position. MR. PALING-Well, I think that what we might do is I think the sensitive areas that we'll be looking at, whatever route we take, will be the traffic, the noise and the light, if we can possibly interfere with the neighborhoods, and with the concurrence of the Board, we might ask you to go ahead and let your folks explain the noise study or whatever it is they'd like to explain in regard to those items. MR. LAPPER-We would like to have John do a quick overview, from Premier's perspective, just to bring you up to speed. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Thank you. As John had mentioned, it was approximately in March when we pretty much hit crunch time and we knew we had invested six million dollars into the Park, and obviously every business wants a return on its investment, and when I originally carne here in November, a few of the issues that were brought up were traffic and parking, and the ability to handle any expansion that an investment of that magnitude would create. Obviously, with that type of investment, you want to see the Park grow, but could it grow within the confines of what we currently had existing, the parking and also the traffic that is created. So we sat down and reviewed everything, and one of the things we did was we purchased the Zoo property, which we, right now, anticipate using as overflow - 12 - -- ~' '.~ "--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) parking, for all intents and purposes, relocating our employees six hundred plus cars, or 400, 600 cars, and on busy weekends, so we can open that up to the general public. The second thing we looked at doing was, how do you increase business, if you do have limited parking, and how can you do that, and one way to do it, and a great way to do it, is to have turnover in the parking lot, where you have guests coming in, replacing spots for guests that are leaving. The problem with that on a six 0' clock close is that doesn't happen. People do not come to the Park after four o'clock, or they do not come to the Park after three o'clock, and I've found out, from personal experience, they don't corne to the Park after one o'clock. They pretty much come in the morning, and then they'll leave en masse at six o'clock when we shut the gates. That is the main reason for the traffic problem was the mass exit of all the Park guests at one time. I've witnessed it first hand. I anticipated that was probably a problem, but saw it first hand Memorial Day weekend and the second weekend we were open and pretty much on weekends, or week days, when we've had a pretty decent crowd. You tell everyone to leave at six o'clock and the traffic backs up. You're unloading them onto the roads at the dinner hour, and it just creates a major traffic jam. What helps that is by spreading out your attendance and a later close will do that. We've been open until eight o'clock on weekends for the past three weekends. Saturday we had probably the busiest day, or actually the busiest day we've had this season, possibly the busiest June day we've had in quite some time, and we had probably the smoothest traffic exiting of the, you know, since we've been open. We lose about 35% of our attendance at six o'clock. They've been there since 9: 30. Then we lose another third who leave around seven o'clock, and that leaves us with about a third of our attendance when we close at eight. I had more than one employee tell me that it took 45 minutes for them to get out of the parking lot after work, under the old system. Since now they leave at 8: 15, and they can get out of the Park in two and a half minutes. If you've been able to drive up and down Route 9 during that transition the past three weekends, you'll see what I'm saying is true. There is, obviously, any time you have a lot of people leaving at one time, it backs up, especially with the lights and things, but it's probably the smoothest transition I've seen. Very happy with the results, and anticipate, with the tourist season starting, and the word getting out about our extended hours, the first part of it helping out, and that's getting people to corne in after one o'clock. So far, we've pretty much had local people that are used to corning at 9:30, and we haven't yet seen the entrance at one o'clock and so on to increase the business, but anticipate that down the road. So those were really two main reasons. The third thing I ran into was more of a guest complaint, and that was the fact we closed at six 0' clock. Well, we've replaced that complaint with a complaint that says, you shut the Cornet at six o'clock. We agreed to come in front of the Board and operated at an eight o'clock close the past three weekends, but closed the Comet at six, and that's the Number One complaint I've gotten from my guests is that you're shutting down the Number One Roller Coaster in the world at six o'clock, and I've explained it to them, the situation. Grudgingly, some of them have agreed to it, or at least understood. I've given a lot of free tickets away as well because they don't understand it. So I've told them to corne back and ride it another time. So those were some of the main reasons as to why we looked at extending the hours. Obviously, the Cornet is a maj or portion of our mix. It is the Number One rated Coaster in the world. It's a high profile attraction. Having it closed at six didn't have any difference, as far as what X could tell, in noise levels at the Park. So whether we're looking at what impact that would have on the difference between staying closed or open, I couldn't notice any difference, and then as far as lighting, I'll let these guys address those issues. So that was pretty much from a Company perspective, the reasons for the extension of the hours. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. PALING-John, if you're going to stay open these hours, is your lighting adequate? MR. COLLINS-We are installing lights. We've got about $100,000 worth of investment that's got to happen between now and the Fourth of July. I've contracted out to have lights installed inside the Park. We have some areas of the Park that are qood lighting. Some areas that are not, but we're going to end up having to close attractions just because it can't be all done at one time. Our Splashwater Kingdom will close at six o'clock. It's a water area. We don't want people swimming after dark anyway. MR. PALING-What permits are required to do a lighting, re-lighting, or whatever? MR. GORALSKI-They would need an electrical inspector to do an electrical inspection. MR. PALING-But they don't have to corne to us with a site plan or anything like that? MR. GORALSKI-Based on the information I have right now, my answer would be no. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I would have to reserve a final decision on that, because I don't know what it involves. MR. COLLINS-The information my construction guys got from your Building Department is that we don't. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, it mayor may not be a factor tonight. So lets just push it aside for the moment and not worry about it. Okay. Did you want to comment on your noise study? MR. COLLINS-Yes. John just mentioned. As far as the investment, if you haven't been out to the Park, six million dollars worth of investment is just not rides thrown up. They're well themed. They're well thought out. They're well landscaped. So whenever we do anything, as a Company, Premier Parks puts money behind it, they just don't do it, and do it, you know, without fully understanding the overall look and impact of each individual attraction, and the same would go for our decision to go open late nights. John mentioned weekends, which is true, but it's Friday and Saturday. Sunday is a tough sell for groups, because people work the next day, but we're not opening until 10 o'clock on Sunday, we're staying open until 8 o'clock because we know the impact people have to work the next day. I'm not going to sit here and say it's not going to change. However, we took into account the fact of the impact that these hours might have on the community, and open until six o'clock when school's in session, eight o'clock on weekends in June, but not until after the second weekend in June, when a lot of people were starting to get out of school, and stayed open until 10 o'clock only on Friday and Saturday night, thus, people that have to work the next day, hopefully lowering any impact that that might have on them. So we've taken a lot into consideration when thinking about these extensions. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LEMERY-With your permission, we'll ask Jeff Anthony or Dean Long to speak to the traffic issues relating to the Comet Roller Coaster and what effect that might have. DEAN LONG MR. LONG-I can keep this real brief. John has pretty well already - 14 - -- '--'" "~ '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) given you the quick story on traffic and parking and all that. The 1996 numbers give you a typical day, throughout the Park, Park operation. The problem always was, as John said, that the Park emptied out at six p.m., which of course is the tail end of the pm late afternoon peak hour travel hour on Route 9. So what you have is you have the combined (lost word) of everybody trying to leave the park at the same time. As John just earlier discussed, is that very recently they had a very strong Saturday where they had about 8300 tickets sold, and that is basically how the Park emptied out is in approximate thirds during the period of time. So there will be a very, very significant reduction in the amount of traffic coming out onto Route 9. In 1991, of course, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzed specifically the impact that the Roller Coaster was going to have on overall attendance, and in that document, as it is today, the Roller Coaster only contributes, you know, about three to five percent, any day, as far as extra tickets sold or people coming specifically to enjoy that attraction. So basically, looking at all this, is that this spreading out of the closure time will dramatically reduce the congestion on Route 9, and improve the traffic flow throughout the area. Level of Services that were proj ected in '91 and '93 certainly aren't going to be any worse with this type of operation. Any questions concerning the traffic? MR. PALING-Okay. Will you cover parking, too? How's your parking holding up under, you've got a big increase from '96 to '97, in the number of cars in total. MR. LONG-Right. actual number of numbers. Well, these are tickets. So, you know, your cars is about a third to a quarter of those MR. PALING-Okay, and you've moved the employees, I understand that. MR. LONG-Right. MR. PALING-Are you coming out pretty good on it? MR. COLLINS-The Saturday, last Saturday, we did 8300. I didn't anticipate that many people. So we did not move our employees, and we parked all 8300 within, I guess it's the west lot, plus the lot next to the Outfitters, that little parcel right there, and that took all 8300, that was with our employees in the existing lot, that was not put down. We do have a shuttle bus that we will use to shuttle the people, our employees, from the Zoo parking lot when we actually do that. So, no, I don't anticipate a parking problem, based on what I saw here. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. COLLINS-I also, this is a little off the subject here, but still very much on the subj ect of the impact of what this additional hours, is the emploYment this is going to create. We have to hire a second shift, which we've never done before. So, if you've got anybody looking for a job, we're looking for them, but it's obviously increased our total emploYment base, seasonal emploYment base, because of the extended hours, as well as all the impact that those taxes tend to contribute. MR. PALING-Okay. further? Do you have anything else you'd like to add MR. LEMERY-Yes. I'd like to call on Scott Manchester who will speak to the issue of the studies that were taken relative to the noise impact of the extended hours of the Park. SCOTT MANCHESTER - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. MANCHESTER-I think you have the analysis that we did in front of you. I worked on the original sound level measurements that were conducted for this Roller Coaster back in the early 90's, and worked on that original assessment, and that was in the impact statement. I also worked on this assessment we did, that you have in front of you, which basically looks at the estimated sound levels from the (lost word) Coaster at the most sensitive residences nearby, and assesses what those sound levels will, the impact those will have on the most nearest residences. MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one question to that? The overall rank, C, G, B, E, C, what do those letters mean? MR. MANCHESTER-Those are the overall rank, the rating or the initial, the uppercase letters of this analysis. MR. PALING-What page are you on? MR. BREWER-Page 8/20. I just was curious, A being the best going up? MR. MANCHESTER-Okay. The noise, that's on Table 2? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MANCHESTER-Okay. The noise rating which goes up to A through G, H, are readings which assess the level of, or response, that's community response from the noise. MR. PALING-Well, is A louder than H? MR. MANCHESTER-An nA" is the minimal response, the lowest, no level of impacts, no response from the community, and G, H would be increasingly high levels of community response, and if you look at, actually the last page of that report indicates a graph of all those ratings, with the response from this noise rating procedure. In general, the community noise rating is a way to predict community response and has, based on a number of past history cases that have been studied, and they evaluate it and come up with letters for the noise, letters which rank the level of the noise, and then they found out what the community response is to that increase in sound level, and found out average community responses to that noise increase, and based on that they developed a curve, which compares the letters response from the analysis to the community reaction, which goes from A, which is no reaction, to all the way up to I, which is vigorous action, complaints and vigorous action, legal action. So "I" is the worst response, the worst impact. nA" is no impact or the least amount of impact from the noise. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is this like a distribution thing? In other words, where you have that vertical arrow, with the double arrow, in the center? MR. MANCHESTER-Yes, that's a range of the responses which from all of their studies (lost words) responses. MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, is that the mean or the median? MR. MANCHESTER-The average response is the center line. The top and the bottom lines are the range of responses for the studies. MRS. LABOMBARD-And those are average. MR. MANCHESTER-So the average is the average of the center line. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, to me, when I read this, the range looks like it's between, it's in the complaint range, but yet your Table 2, on - 16 - '- j "--' '-.../ '-.,/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) page 8/20, says there's only, out of five receptors, four of them show no reaction and only one says complaints, but yet I don't think1that that's the correct ,interpretation of that graph. See, I'm having a tough time. MR. GORALSKI-The graph does not represent what they found. The graph is just showing you what these letters. MR. MANCHESTER-That's a generic plotting table for all of the studies that they've done and what they've come up with. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I misunderstood you there. MR. MANCHESTER-We've come up with a community response from the noise and compared it to what the estimated response will be, and the average response. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MANCHESTER-So, in general, what we found, based on this analysis, is what we looked at with all the nearest receptors, which are listed in Table 1. If the noise from these receptors is acceptable, the noise from other receptors would be lower. It would be less of an impact. We looked at, and Figure One indicates where each receptor is around the Roller Coaster. So we've chosen receptors that are the nearest and also in different directions in different communities to evaluate north, south, and also to the east, where the nearest receptors would lie. MR. MACEWAN-All this data that you've compiled was from the original sound studies of the Roller Coaster? MR. MANCHESTER-Yes. What we've done was we've compiled the data from the original sound study, and we took that data and essentially, there's no change with the original sound study. However, what we did for this is we took the minimum background sound levels, as close to the initial study, we took the lowest ambient sound levels, background sound levels, and the worst case scenario, to compare this with. MR. MACEWAN-Which is like giving you the same sound that would be in, if it was in the evening? MR. MANCHESTER-Which, to compare this, the sound that would be in the evening. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. MANCHESTER-And Table 2 indicates what we found is we found that all those nearest receptors had a response of E or less, which is an acceptable level of noise. MR. PALING-All right. You have a meter, an instrument, that if there were no other background noise, like a lawnmower, automobile or talking, just as quiet as you can be, and the Roller Coaster were operating, it's going to pick up that noise on the meter? MR. MANCHESTER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, or a scream from the Roller Coaster would pick that up and give you a number to go by. Okay. MR. MANCHESTER-And for each of these receptors either indicate that there would be no reaction, there'd be no sound level increase from the Roller Coaster or they're able to hear the Roller Coaster at all, there'd be a minimal reaction from the community. MR. PALING-Decibels you're measuring it in, or tones? What's the - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) unit of measure you're using? MR. MANCHESTER-Decibels, and we measure different, this procedure uses, separates the sound into different octaves, to analyze, look at the different frequencies of the noise, take all that into consideration. This analysis is what's generally used when you're trying to estimate community reaction to the noise, because it uses all of the information that we really could gather as far as octaves and that type of thing, and response from the community. MR. LEMERY-I'd like to make a comment that the natural buffers that were in place in 1993, when the Comet was built, have not been changed. So nothing has been changed. The hill is still there. All of the barriers to sound are all there. So, in effect, the data that's in the Final Environmental Impact Statement is still the same data. All we're talking about is keeping the thing open a little longer. So the data doesn't change, really, because there has been no change to the site plan. That's the whole problem with sort of coming back and talking about an amendment to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The hill is still there. The buffers surrounding, as far as the Round Pond Road, are all there. Really, we went out and we measured this at the time we came back in here, back in '93. It was impossible, it was virtually impossible, when you stood on Round Pond Road and a car went by, that raised the decibel level way up, to try to differentiate that, for example, or people talking or bicyclists going back and forth on the bike trail, it's virtually impossible to sort of try to decipher other than, in some very technical basis, which we felt, all right, we have to come up and provide some technical data to the Planning Board, as sort of absurd as that may sound, that's all that's available. So I just wanted to point out that there hasn't been any change to the site plan at all, and when you first reviewed this, these issues about buffering the sound were all there. MR. LONG-What Scott and John have both been talking about is the relationship of this year's noise studies versus that one that was done in 1990 and 1991, and supplemented in '93 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. If you go back through and you compare both the new evaluation that Scott has just provided to the Board with that that was done in '91, what you basically get down to is that the noise environment is not going to change, and the reason it's not going to change is just as John Lemery explained to you, is that the overall terrain obstructions and vegetation obstructions that substantially muted the sound transmission from the Comet are still all in place. The conservative assumption that's been added this year into the noise study is that Scott went back in and took the very minimal sound levels, the lowest sound levels that he measured, in '91 and '93, and used that as a starting point, so that he corrected for the gradual quieting that happens in the evening hours as traffic, as the traffic on the Northway and everything quiets down. So we've already made the conservative assumption here, and what we're showing to you is that, using the community noise response, is that the same level of community responses that you folks have heard about over the last four years of the operation of the Comet during the day is going to be the same type of response that you're going to get with the extended evening hours of operation. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions, comments so far? Okay. The floor's still yours. Okay. Do you want to conclude for the moment? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. PALING-All right. Then if that's the case, we'll open the - 18 - '-- '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) public hearing. If anyone cares to speak on the Great Escape matter, pro or con, please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID STARK MR. D. STARK-My name's David Stark, and I live in Twicwood, 31 Twicwood Lane, and I can't hear the Roller Coaster at all. There's no noise whatsoever. MR. PALING-You live on Twicwood. MR. D. STARK-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. D. STARK-And the traffic, there's a lot less traffic, because I go to work at night, and it used to take me 40 minutes to go to work, and I only work about three miles from where I live, and now I can get there in under 15 minutes. So there's a lot less traffic, being open later hours. MR. MACEWAN-Do you hear any other noises from the Park, other than the Roller Coaster? MR. D. STARK-Actually, if the weather is just right, like the wind's blowing from north to south, you might be able to hear something very faint, like a child scream, but there's so many kids in the neighborhood, people mowing their yards, you hear that much more than anything at the Great Escape. MR. MACEWAN-Since they've had evening hours instead, have you heard any noises from the Park? MR. D. STARK-No. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who's next? CHARLES MCNULTY MR. MCNULTY-I'm Charles McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. I think there's several factors to be considered. The gentleman was saying that the noise hasn't changed and won't change from day to night. Maybe, maybe not. A lot of times sound will travel further in calm night area. So to say that what they found was acceptable, at 3 pm, for instance, on a day, mayor may not be the same at 7 pm on quiet time. Frankly, I think their new Coaster is a lot louder than the Comet. Traffic is still heavy there. It may move a little faster, but I travel back and forth from Twicwood to Lake George almost every day, and you still go creepy crawl past the Great Escape. If anything, I believe they've created a traffic hazard with their new Coaster because, in fact, we've already had at least one major rear end collision there because somebody was watching the Coaster instead of where he was going. I think part of, to put it in prospective, too, the Great Escape, if they want to be a good neighbor, has to consider the whole picture. I understand what they're saying that the only obligation they have is to consider the noise from the Comet, but overall noise levels, what needs to be considered if you're going to have happy neighbors, and you can hear the new Coaster when it cranks the train up both slopes. You can also hear the people screaming on it. From the Board's point of view, looking to the future, the new go kart track is probably worse than anything else. Those go karts are loud at night, compared to the mini go karts that are across at Skateland, that you almost never hear, but that's part of the - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) problem, I think, that you're getting more people complaining about Great Escape, now, the cumulative noise effect from that whole corridor. I don't know if I have a solution. I agree with the Great Escape, a logical conclusion, like I said back three or four years ago when we were talking about this, is to extend their hours into night, if they're going to have a business expansion. MR. MACEWAN-Mr. McNulty, did you say you lived in Twicwood as well? MR. MCNULTY-Yes, 14 Twicwood Lane. It's almost directly cross lots from Skateland, up on Twicwood Lane. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who is next? LAURIE GRAVES MS. GRAVES-My name is Laurie Graves, and I'm a resident on Ash Drive, which is on Glen Lake, and I really have no problem with the noise levels. Actually, I hear more of the lions than I do the Roller Coaster. I can't really comment as far as what the noise level would be at night. We do have the mountain between where I live and the Great Escape, which does help. I have walked the bike path, over toward Birdsall Road, and the noise level is a little bit higher. I won't say it's intolerable, though. I do think the traffic on Route 9 has been better with the extended hours. I corne from Glens Falls at five o'clock out of work, and when they close at six o'clock, it's seven o'clock some times before I get home, and one of the other problems, corning off Glen Lake Road, taking a left on Route 9 at six o'clock, the only way we can get out is to cut through the Municipal Center and use the red light, because people won't stop to let you out, but with the extended hours until eight o'clock, it's been much, much better. MR. STARK-Ash Drive, that's the road that goes, here's Glen Lake, and that's the first right that goes down? MS. GRAVES-That's Ash Drive, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-You live right on the lake? MS. GRAVES-Yes. MR. STARK-At night you don't hear anything else? travel more at night. I know sounds MS. GRAVES-Yes, they do, but it's nothing that's not tolerable. I mean, it's not constant, it's nothing that makes me sit there and shake my head and say, I can't stand this. We very rarely hear the noise at night, when they're open until eight o'clock. MR. STARK-Thank you. MS. GRAVES-I mean, we hear more noise, at that hour of the night, sometimes from the boats and the jet skis on the lake. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-My name is Lorraine Stein. I also live on Ash Drive, and I just have a question for the people. I was wondering, the Zoo property, can they access that from behind the businesses on Route 9, or do they have to access it from Route 9 itself, the Lake George Zoo that they just purchased? - 20 - ',,-- '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. PALING-All right. I'm sure we'll have that answered for you. MS. STEIN-That's all I wanted. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. BETSY RABIDA MRS. RABIDA-My name is Betsy Rabida, and I live on 29 Cedarwood Drive, and I do hear the Roller Coaster, and I do hear the screams, and especially when they're open at night. When we moved into the house, there was no Cornet. It was wonderful, very peaceful in the evening, and all day. It was very peaceful. In 1993, I was in this room, heard this study being done, heard the comments, and the noise level was not going to increase. Well, I do hear the Roller Coaster, and I do not know how studies can be done, so that you get the sound of screaming people on a Roller Coaster, and how that can, I don't understand how you can get studies with that without having somebody be right there, at my house, when it happens. I find it very distressful also that I don't believe that the Great Escape wants to be a good neighbor. I think if they do, that they would take more, I mean, they, 1993, they said the Cornet would close at six o'clock, and now they corne back and they want it (lost words) . MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If there is no one else, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-It can be re-opened. We'll at least close it for now. Would the applicant care to comment on any of the things that have been said? MR. STARK-The lady had a question about access. MR. PALING-I've got at least two listed. MR. COLLINS-No, we don't have access. knowledge, comes back to the Northway. then Martha's is there and the Zoo. So off Route 9. Martha owns back, to my So we own to Martha's, and any access would have to be MR. PALING-Okay. Then the other one I know about is the, I think there was a misunderstanding regarding how you interpret night noise, that you don't, that you do recognize that there is night noise and compensate for it in your testing. If X heard you right, and I think this gentleman back here, from what he asked, I think he didn't understand what was said, but they do compensate for it in their testing, is the idea. All right. Otherwise. MR. LAPPER-Just to summarize, we're very pleased with the public hearing, because what this shows is that out of the five people that spoke, most people, especially, Ash Drive, I just want to point out, is what our noise expert said was most impacted, and that was the area that was the D on the level, and the people on Ash Drive are saying that it's not a problem. So that's very significant. Also, the traffic that people that live there acknowledge that the traffic has been much improved. That's a significant change. After all these years, the Great Escape was a grandfathered use. Route 9 is however wide it is. Those are all existing conditions. This is the first time that something's been done that's helped that traffic problem, and that's something significant that's going to help all residents of the Town that drive in that area. MR. PALING-Okay. Then what we'll do is close off communication with the public and with the applicant, okay, and we may have to - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) call on either to ask questions, and if it's necessary to re-open anything, we'll re-open it, but not just for one, for all. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry, I have two letters here. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. Then, I'll re-open the public hearing, officially, so we can hear the letters. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. GORALSKI-liAs the property owner adjacent to the Great Escape, I object to any extension of the hours of operation of the Comet, or of the Great Escape itself. The existing hours of operation of the Comet were specified in the F.E.I.S. prepared for the Cornet in the SEQRA and Site Plan reviews in 1993, and should not be extended. The surrounding neighborhoods are subjected to enough noise already from the Great Escape. Sincerely, John Whalen" MR. STARK-Have you got an address on that? MR. GORALSKI-RD 3 Box 3252 Lake George. MR. BREWER-He owns property on Round Pond Road. MR. GORALSKI-On Round Pond or Birdsall Road, I'm not sure. MR. BREWER-Birdsall Road, in that area. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "We're writing to object to the Great Escape remaining open until 10:00 PM any day of the week. The noise and traffic created by this "neighbor" are sufficiently bothersome with their current operating hours. Extending their hours beyond 8:00 PM is an unreasonable request of their neighbors. We have not objected to any of the prior expansions of The Great Escape because whatever additional noise, traffic, etc. that would be created by these added amusements would be limited to the prior operating time. Now they want to change the ground rules. The additional noise and traffic will be an annoyance or a longer period of time. Their suggestion that prolonged operating hours will alleviate some of the current traffic congestion is disingenuous. As long as The Great Escape charges a flat daily rate, people will tend to stay as long as possible. If, as they suggest, prolonged hours will alleviate the current unacceptable traffic congestion, why not allow them to remain open until 8:00 PM and assess the reduction in traffic before prolonging this congestion until 10:00 PM? 10:00 PM is too late. Thank you for hearing our opinion. Best Regards, Greg Long, Sue Long" MR. STARK-Where do they live? MR. GORALSKI-24 Nelson Road. I believe that's Courthouse Estates. MR. PALING-Do you have anything further, John? MR. GORALSKI-That's it. That's all I have. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-The comment is for the whole Board itself. Tim, remember when you and I walked, three or four years ago, where Guido was going to put in his little, and it's in there now. Bob and I went out yesterday, and we drove up there, shut the engine off on the car, got out, just listened, we heard very, very little, and that's probably the closest point, I think, we didn't get out and walk to the hill where we went that time. - 22 - "--/ ''"-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. BREWER-No. We walked up the hill and then back down. MR. STARK-I know, and then we walked back down the other side and everything else, but I'm saying, have you been up the road, where the cul-de-sac is and everything? Very, very little. We went over to Twicwood and drove down to where Roger LaFontaine lives, and he and his kid live probably closest to the Great Escape of anybody else in Twicwood, and Roger was there, and we got out and we talked to him and he said he very, very rarely, might hear a scream or something like that, but a car going down the road, he would hear more. We then went up by Courthouse Estates, just to listen, and, you know, this was, I think it was at one o'clock or one thirty, something like that, and yesterday's crowd wasn't as great as Saturday's crowd and everything, but we just didn't hear any noise that would be obtrusive at all. I just wanted to bring that to the Board's attention. MR. PALING-All right. Let me interject, before we have further discussions. I think we've got to understand what we're doing and where we're going. We're here tonight to judge or act upon the request for extended operating hours for the Comet, and I hope the Board is in agreement with that is the basic reason we're here. Now, there is a disagreement between legal people, I guess I can say, as to the route that this should take, but the route that X see us going on is that we're looking at the modification of the site plan. In doing so, then we would entertain a motion in regard to comments on SEQRA, and then we would have a motion in that regard whether there was or was not a significant effect on SEQRA. If we say that there is a significant effect on SEQRA, then that would carry us into getting a modified EIS from the applicant. If we say that there is not enough effect, not significant effect, on that motion, that would pass as a separate motion, and we would enter into a second motion that would approve the application of the modified site plan. If we would go the way that the applicant requests, there would only be one motion, and that would be as a modification to the EIS. Now my thinking is that we should go the way that Staff recommends, and cover it in two motions. First of all, discuss the SEQRA, and the significant parts of SEQRA that we're talking here, and determine, as a Board, if there is significant effect to require a modified, a supplemental EIS. MR. STARK-Bob, excuse me for a second. John, I understand what Bob's saying. I mean, yOU made the recommendation or the Staff made the recommendation to get into the SEQRA? I mean, I think we're making too much of this. MR. GORALSKI-No. Don't read too much into this. This is just like any other site plan modification that you do. You'll remember that any time you do a modification to a previously approved site plan, part of your motion includes whether or not you feel there is any significant impacts related to the modification that would change your previous SEQRA determination. MR. STARK-Why don't we just make a motion on that effect? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Yes, but then the question is, do we then have a second motion on the application as a modified site plan? MR. BREWER-We can do it as one motion. MR. STARK-Just make one motion, Bob. MR. GORALSKI-Either way is fine. You can either make two separate motions or you can include them all in one motion. MR. PALING-All right, but I'd like to hear from Jeff before we move - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) ahead. MR. FRIEDLAND-I think that's right. What John has said is right. You can do it either altogether in one motion or you can do SEQRA first with one motion and then, assuming that the SEQRA motion and , , J.t's completely up to the Board, but assuming, for example, if the SEQRA motion is that there is no significant adverse environmental impacts, then you can go on to a motion on the modification of the site plan. MR. PALING-Okay, but you're still suggesting two motions. MR. FRIEDLAND-You could do it together. MR. PALING-You can do it and cover both points, within the motion. All right. I have no problem with that. MR. STARK-Jeff, when Mark was here, he just used the comment all the time, and now we do it as a matter of course. A guy comes in for a modification, and say we pass it, and then he always has us add this little tailor to it, this will not substantially effect your. MR. BREWER-Determination on SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Right. MR. STARK-And that's the little tailor that we put into it. Now why can't we just do that? MR. PALING-Then we'll have a motion with two parts. MR. STARK-You just add that to the end of the motion, Bob. MR. PALING-All right. I'm calling it two parts. MR. FRIEDLAND-You can do it either way. I mean, the simplest way is to do it in two motions. Okay. You can do it either way. If you want to break it down into its components, you can do one motion on SEQRA, and then you can get to the second one, but you can do them both together if you want, however you feel most comfortable. MR. PALING- If we're accomplishing the same thing, I could care less. As long as it's got the both components in it, fine. MR. FRIEDLAND-It's completely up to you. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets proceed with the discussion. MR. STARK-That's the end of the discussion. MR. BREWER-Make a motion to approve the modification of the site plan, with no adverse impacts to the SEQRA determination. That's a motion. MR. PALING-All right. Now recognize what you're doing, that they have stated the Coaster will be open 18 days until 10 o'clock, and during the week and on Sundays. MR. BREWER-That's my motion as it stands. second it, we'll second it and vote on it. If somebody wants to MR. MACEWAN-Weren't we going to ask about lighting for this thing at night, if they were going to light it? MR. PALING-Okay. Now, that's what I'm saying. What other items do we have to discuss? Go ahead. - 24 - ""'-" --.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. MACEWAN-Well, we're only dealing with the Coaster. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-And that's my question. MR. GORALSKI-Can I just make a procedural point, here? Is there a motion on the table right now? MR. PALING-No. MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. BREWER-Yes. Yes, there is. I made a motion. MR. MACEWAN-You did? MR. PALING-Okay. I don't think we recognized it. MR. STARK-I'll second the motion. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. MR. GORALSKI-After a motion is made and seconded, you can have discussion. MR. PALING-Excuse me. I've called for discussion prior to any motion. Now we're going to get there, but does anyone want to discuss it before we get to the motion? That's the point I've been trying to make since I started talking. MR. BREWER-I'm all done with the discussion that X had. MR. PALING-Did you want to talk about lighting? MR. MACEWAN-I just wanted to ask the question. proposed lighting for the Roller Coaster? Is there any MR. COLLINS - It would all be safety lighting. It's operated at night, you're going to have to have lights and a few, but the ride itself won't be lit. MR. PALING-All right. What about the possibility of asking that the hours be limited, not necessarily the Park hours, but other hours on the Comet only? MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, and I don't think you can say 18, because this year it might be 18 days, next year it might be 20 days because there's more weeks in the summer. I mean, you know, it's just the way it breaks. MR. GORALSKI-I just want to clarify. I think what you're talking about is extending the operating hours until 10 o'clock at night. Is that correct? MR. STARK-Of the Comet. MR. BREWER-On weekends. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I don't know if you're talking about weekends or. MR. COLLINS-That's the present intention. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. BREWER-Okay. If consider coming back? that intention would change, would you I'm just asking. You can say yes or no. MR. STARK-Are you talking about all week, Tim, like until 10 or something? MR. BREWER-Well, then that may change the overall view. MR. COLLINS-If it changes significantly. MR. BREWER-I mean, if you're going to keep everything open until 10 o'clock seven nights a week, then that may change. MR. STARK-That's a different story. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. LEMERY-I guess we view this as a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. I think you're right. I think if it changes again in any significant way, it's a further amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement as relates to the Comet. We'd have to come back. MR. BREWER-But this particular modification means, to me, that we are approving, or that's my motion, that, on the weekends in the summer, it'll be open until 10 o'clock. During the week eight o'clock. If that should change significantly, I mean, if you have a party or something one night, that doesn't change it. On a routine basis, you'll corne back to this Board. MR. LEMERY-There are the usual four or five nights a year, people come in, charitable events. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean. the usual four or five parties that you have a year, change, you'll corne back. Other than if things MR. LEMERY-Right, and that was all covered in the original Environmental Impact Statement. MR. FRIEDLAND-Just for the record, I think we need to clarify something. This is not a modification or a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. FRIEDLAND- If this was a supplement to your Environmental Impact Statement, you'd need to have a supplemental, a Draft Supplemental Impact Statement submitted. You'd need to consider it. You'd need to notice it. You'd need to have a 30 day public comment period. So we're not doing that. I just wanted to make that clear. MR. GORALSKI-This is simply a modification to the Site Plan approval, and you have to determine, when you make that modification, whether you approve or disapprove that modification, whether or not there's any significant impacts that would change your previous SEQRA determination. MR. BREWER-No. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. STARK-Make the motion. MR. BREWER-I did. It still stands. I can make it again. MR. GORALSKI-Make it again so we have this clear. - 26 - , , "--'> ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/24/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Tim, would you please repeat your motion. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 MODIFICATION TO THE GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Premier Parks. To modify hours of operation for those previously indicated in the F.E.I.S. prepared for the Comet rollercoaster to 10 o'clock on the weekends, 8 o'clock during the week, with the following stipulations, that there's no significant impact to the SEQRA determination that would require a change in the SEQRA determination. Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Before we go, I want to address Jeff. We had, Bob and I, and a couple of the other Board members, have made comments about, when we voted, we voted for Schachner to represent the Board, be Counsel to the Planning Board, okay, and Mark, I had a conversation with Mark this afternoon for about a half hour, which I hope he doesn't bill me for today, but he said, well, no, you hired the law firm, and I say, gee, I don't really think that's the way the Board felt. I think we hired him and his expertise. So now when Jeff comes, and, Jeff doesn't have Mark's expertise, but Mark straightened me out today, in that he had complete faith in Jeff, and Jeff does a lot of Planning Board, he represents other Planning Boards, and has the experience, and blah, blah, blah, and reassured me, personally, that Jeff is totally competent and all that, and I just wanted to tell him that. So Mark straightened me out. So I have complete confidence in whatever the hell you do. Just don't bill me. That's on the record, because we had talked about it before, and I just wanted to straighten that out. That's all. Okay. After talking to Mark, he reassured me, and I have complete confidence in Jeff, and that's the only thing X had. MR. PALING-Okay. Just so everybody knows, in July, at the moment, site visits on the 10th, at four o'clock in the afternoon, Thursday the 10th, and then the meetings are on the 15th and the 22nd, if we have two meetings. On motion, meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 27 -