Loading...
2001-06-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 21, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI GREAT ESCAPE FGEIS JACK LEBOWITZ, JOHN LEMERY, JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what we’ll do is if you have anything to open up, you want to make a brief statement, comments? Nothing? Okay. Staff, do you have anything you want to say? MR. ROUND-Stu, we touched on the changes, I think at the last meeting, you folks received a highlighted copy that had all the black lines marked up. If you want to ask some questions about it, we can ask some questions, and respond to those. MR. VOLLARO-Are we talking the Findings now? MR. ROUND-No, we’re talking, the first order of business, I’m sorry, the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted. We have, Staff, Stu Mesinger, applicant, have met several times. We’ve proposed revisions to that. We had discussed those revisions with revisions with you. They have been documented. They’re in the document, and the first order of business is acceptance of the Final GEIS as complete. Once that is accepted as complete, you could entertain Findings as soon as 10 days after this document is filed, and what we wanted to do tonight was answer any questions on the GEIS, entertain a motion to accept that, and then we do have draft Findings that really pull everything together that we can discuss those and Stu would hand those out to you after we get through that first step. Once Findings are adopted, I know Craig, you’ve talked to the applicant. We’ve scheduled a July 9 date which is a Monday night, which is also a conflict th night with our, there’s a Town Board meeting next door. So we’ll be meeting again, in smaller quarters. I apologize, there is a meeting going on next door. The senior citizens have a function going on. July 9, we’re going to entertain Findings, and also Findings closes the SEQRA process. th You could entertain, what has been on the table for several months is a new amusement, the Sky Coaster. At that point, you could also, at that same meeting, entertain Site Plan Review and approval of that particular amusement. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Who goes first? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Section 4.3 on the Visual Analysis, now there’s no mention in Section 4.3 of lighting of rides among the tree line. John, we spoke, I guess you and I had some dialogue on that the last time around, and what I was looking for is some statements in there that other than emergency lighting, obviously, that we would have no lighting above the tree line, and I don’t see that mentioned in 4.3. MR. MESINGER-We have added that to the Findings, a specific Finding giving you the right to review the lighting in the top 20 feet of any ride that’s within one of those three districts. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. MESINGER-I know what you’re about to say. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you do. Do you want to say it or do you want me to say it? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MESINGER-Mark is about to say that he’s concerned that the EIS provide a basis for that Finding, and so that I think that it makes sense for us to touch on it in some way if it’s not touched on already because we’re going to have to have a basis to make that Finding, and that seems like a relatively simple and straightforward change. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MESINGER-And just thinking ahead to process, maybe what we do is we make that list if you choose to adopt tonight, that you can adopt contingent on just making those changes. Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s no such thing as conditioned acceptance of an FEIS, but there’s no magic in form. So if you want to, you know, we can write things tonight. MR. ROUND-We can edit that document. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s right. You can literally write things tonight, and that’s fine, but Stu very, very accurately predicted what I was going to say, which is only that a statement that appears, obviously you’re not adopting Findings tonight, but to the extent you feel that the issue, for example, you just mentioned is something that you’re going to want to see in Findings, and to the extent that your fellow Board members agree with you, it’s important that it not be pulled, so to speak, out of thin air, but that it be based on something that’s stated in the Environmental Impact Statement itself, which is exactly what Stu just said in different words. So I think the way he put it was it should be touched on somewhere in the document. I agree with that wholeheartedly, and it’s entirely, I don’t care really much how that happens, just so that it happens. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When you say “touched on in the document”, it’s got to be a modification of this document that talks to that subject? Is that what we’re saying? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. LEBOWITZ-What I’d suggest is, rather than put it in Section 4.3, I know there are a lot of comments and responses that refer to visual analysis, and views from the east, and I think all we have to do is put a sentence in one of those responses that basically says the applicant has agreed that there won’t be lighting. MR. ROUND-Visibility will be further reduced by the absence of lighting. MR. LEBOWITZ-Except for emergency lighting. I’m sure we could word that sentence out there. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. The only thing I’m going to say, just so everybody’s clear on this, is it shouldn’t be left for the future. Somebody should write a sentence. MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes, we’ll do that, because we’ve got to take this book and have it printed tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On Page Two of the Executive Summary, I’m just, this is an underlining, it says, this goes for Section Two, and it says, where the applicant and the Lead Agency or its consultant have not agreed on the response to, the differing positions are both provided, does that come out of the Findings Statement? This goes to the Executive Summary. MR. ROUND-I could read straight from it. It says, where the applicant and the Lead Agency and/or its consultant have not agreed on the response, the differing positions are both provided. MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, what’s your question? MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t find them, I guess. MR. MESINGER-There were several, we were able to reach closure on almost everything. MR. SCHACHNER-You couldn’t find examples of that, is what you’re saying? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MESINGER-Yes, there are. An example would be the applicant’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance which they believe allows them to do festival parking under the current Ordinance, and we give the applicant’s position and we give the Staff’s position that that’s not the case. That would be an example of that. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s in the text. MR. MESINGER-That’s in the text. MR. VOLLARO-That’s in the text, and so all of these, not disparities, but differences are in the text? MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Which (lost words) there are many of, but that’s perfectly appropriate, just so you know. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Because I couldn’t find them and I thought I’d ask the question. MR. MESINGER-Could I just back up, because I fear us getting, I want to reach closure on each of these things. May I suggest that we change comment and response 544 to take into account the last concern? I think I found the place where it goes, which is about lighting on rides, and it says if lights on a ride were proposed as part of a specific site plan review application, the Town Planning Board would review the potential visual impact of such ride and determine whether it might be significant and need further mitigation or study. The Planning Board anticipates making a Finding to this effect We’ve covered it. MR. ROUND-It’s already included, that language is included. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, that’s fine. That gives the Planning Board more discretion than what you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about the top 20 feet being exposed above the tree line, that’s what I (lost word). MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m not speaking up after the applicant, but one would think the applicant would rather it be pinned down than give that kind of discretion to the Planning Board in the future. MR. MESINGER-How about we say the Planning Board anticipates making a finding. MR. SCHACHNER-I would say, in addition, something along the lines of what Mr. Lebowitz said, something, the applicant has agreed that no lighting, other than emergency lighting, this is not meant for me to be the author here, no lighting other than emergency lighting will be visible above tree line. MR. VOLLARO-Above tree line. MR. COLLINS-Yes, Stu, just for clarification, you’re top 20 feet was a separate topic. MR. MESINGER-Yes, I was trying to combine them. MR. STROUGH-Actually, better worded. MR. COLLINS-I have no problem with that wording. MR. STROUGH-Than limiting us to 20 feet, the way it was worded really gives us a little bit bigger view. MR. SCHACHNER-No pun intended, but yes. MR. MESINGER-Yes, they’re separate issues, though. This is the lighting (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-My concern really was this, so that you understand why (lost words). MR. SCHACHNER-Right, this is lighting. MR. MESINGER-Right, and the other point on the top 20 feet relates to color of the rides. MR. VOLLARO-In looking at the rides above 20 feet, I look at them, from my past life, as a thing called signal to noise ratio. The trees are the noise and the ride is the signal, and without color or lights, the rides become, get down in what we call the noise area, can’t see them really unless you 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) have a filter to pick them out. Once you light them up, essentially the noise goes way down and the signal goes way up. MR. STROUGH-But the way Stu had worded that originally, really did cover all your concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not so concerned about the lights below the tree line. MR. STROUGH-But the way Stu worded it, it covered all your concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re right about that. It would have covered the concern I had. MR. STROUGH-And any unforeseen things. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ve got it covered. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So we have an actual sentence now that is appearing at that location? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And has the Board heard the sentence? MR. MAC EWAN-Read it back, would you, Stu? MR. MESINGER-In addition, the applicant has agreed that no lighting other than emergency lighting will be visible above the tree line. The Planning Board anticipates making a finding to this effect. We’ll change the finding, but that’s for later. MR. VOLLARO-As long as I’ve got the floor for a minute here, Mr. Chairman, what was the significance of this? I read it and was fascinated with it. MR. MESINGER-Some, one of the members asked me, I think John asked me, if I would make a copy of that. MR. MAC EWAN-That was the one copy that he had, the brochure that he passed around. We all looked at it that night. So he just made copies for everyone. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good, because is this catch basin storm filter what you’re selecting? MR. MESINGER-The kind of thing that we’re thinking about. MR. VOLLARO-It’s interesting. I just was wondering what the delta cost up would be to install that. MR. MESINGER-Me, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ve got the same question. It’s a pretty neat gadget, but it’s, you know, I don’t know whether you folks agreed to put that kind of a. MR. COLLINS- We were the ones that proposed that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So then I guess they basically agree. MR. VOLLARO-Hats off there John. In looking at these, I didn’t see much difference, and these are the, you know, the view sheds that go along with V-1, and I really didn’t see much difference in putting these charts out on the table, on my counter, I didn’t see a whole lot of difference between any one of these. My eyes did a quick (lost words) between the elevation of line versus the elevation of the other. So I don’t know, if you go to V-1 and then you look at these, A, B, and C, very, very difficult. MR. MAC EWAN-Which one are you on, V-1? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, V-1 you’ve got to go into the visual analysis to get to V-1, and you work V-1 against, and I guess, correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re working V-1 against V-A, B, C. MR. MESINGER-No, not really. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m trying to get the correlation between these two. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. LEBOWITZ-Okay. V-1 is strictly from views from the east. V-1 is a much more refined analysis than what we did in the DEIS, because the people came to the hearing. They said we’re concerned about the views from Glen Lake, the Country Club and the bike trail. So what we did in V-1 is we went back for the sector that’s blacked out on the new maps, on A, B, and C, that we didn’t even put that information in because we want you to look at V-1 because we’re using. MR. VOLLARO-It says there, and I looked at that area subject to more detailed analysis results in figure V-1. So you take us back to V-1 when you look at this chart. MR. LEBOWITZ-Just for the views to the east. The new charts were generated based on the Planning Board’s comments a couple of meetings ago where they said, that’s fine, you’ve taken care of views from the east. We understand how that would work. We want you to go back and just check that, to re-run the broader screening analysis from views from the west, that is views out Aviation Road, views from the vicinity above Queensbury High School, and so forth. So we went back and re-ran the much cruder screening model, just to make sure that views from the west weren’t going to be a problem, but there we didn’t need to go to the degree of definition that we have in V-1, where we’re down to 10 foot contour intervals, where we’ve checked it with dozens of balloons that are flown on that site where each of the black dots is, and so forth. We’re just going back to make sure that when we do the analysis per the 115 and 165 and the different height zones that we had, instead of the 150 and 200 or whatever it was in the DEIS, that analysis still basically works from the western views. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt on your time, but I was one of the people that specifically asked for that map, and really the only reason why I asked for it was because we had the older map that had the big circles and, you know, V-1 shows the Park boundaries with the height limitations, the rides, so I’d ask for that just mostly for comparison purposes, more than anything else. Also to sort of satisfy my curiosity that the figure V-1 was an accurate representation, based on the other analysis. I mean, I certainly got out of it what I was looking for. MR. LEBOWITZ-Good, I’m glad, because you can’t really go back and check V-1 with these other maps because they’re just not, it’s a different screening analysis. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I did want to get into. MR. MAC EWAN-If anybody’s got questions along the lines of, on a topic, jump in. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I really have on views. I don’t have anything else, in looking at V, at 4.3. I do have, what I did is I really spent a lot of time reading and trying to analyze 4.12. It’s a fairly good, well written document. This is DEC’s noise impact. It was, I thought, reasonably well written and understandable. It was well done. Who wrote that? MR. MESINGER-Not me. MR. VOLLARO-In just looking at that, I would like to get some feel for what we’re putting together, and I don’t know if this is the right forum to talk about this, but there’s got to be some sort of a specification that talks about how we monitor fine db above ambient and percent ambient at L- 90, and some words as to how that is actually to be achieved, and how it’s to be monitored, and what do we use, the perimeter of the Park for that and so on, and that’s just a question I had. MR. MESINGER-No, that’s the right question to ask because it’s really what we’ve been wrestling with for the last week or so, and you’ll see when we pass out the draft findings, they’re significant from what we gave to you a couple of weeks ago as a first draft, and really, the problem we were having with what we gave you a couple of weeks ago with trying to come up with some kind of a rolling average of sound levels, it just didn’t work because sound may increase over time, and there’s really a need to fix the time and say, these are the sound levels. They’re okay now because that’s what the science seems to say, that other than the Bobsled they’re okay now, and we don’t want you going over five decibels over what’s okay now, and the second element is where is it okay now, and the where is there’s three monitoring locations at which we have a fair amount of data over time, that seem to be good monitoring locations and they’re in Twicwood, the Glen Lake site, and Courthouse Estates site, an then the final thing, the third thing is the when, and what seems to be important with when is daytime and nighttime, because there’s differences there, and then finally, what is it that we’re monitoring? And what we’ve really settled on and are proposing to you in the Findings Statements is the use of the L-90 data. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. VOLLARO-It seems to be L-90’s recommended in here a couple of times. MR. MESINGER-Yes, it really seems to be what the sound guys think that we should be using, and incidentally, the L-90’s are quite a bit lower than the Leq’s. MR. VOLLARO-They are? MR. MESINGER-Yes, they are. So when you see the Findings Statement, you’ll see that we are proposing to fix in time, based on the actual measurement data at three locations, a daytime and a nighttime L-90, which the applicant may not exceed by more than five db. MR. VOLLARO-And they talk about how to arrive at that. MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Daytime and nighttime approaches. MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Which is a fairly simple way of looking at it, I thought. MR. MESINGER-Yes, and we may, you’ll see, I mean, we’ve really been working hard on this. You’ll see when I (lost words) Findings that I actually have an insert page that contains the latest and greatest updates, and I would not be surprised if we add some additional technical detail between now and when you adopt. So that we can just pin it down as tightly as we can. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So maybe I can hold these until we get some Findings because I’ve got some other questions on it and they probably all have to do with this topic. Is it appropriate to talk about it now? MR. MESINGER-I don’t know what your questions are. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. One of my questions, Page 13 talks about property line as being, the most conservative approach utilizes the property line. This is talking about receptor locations. MR. MESINGER-Well, we propose receptor locations because that’s where the impact is and that’s where the data is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you would propose, the Twicwood? MR. MESINGER-The specific three locations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, those locations as opposed to perimeter locations? MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And those locations in the EIS itself? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now, staying on the same subject, have we made baselines for early a.m.? Because, as you know, Larry and I expressed concern about the hours, and so we didn’t have broad Planning Board support on a limitation of those hours, but there did seem to be a concern, especially on Larry’s behalf, that noise at certain hours of the night, the middle of the night, early morning hours, people would be more sensitive to noises, even though they were relatively low db. So, have we set, to get back to my original question, have we set a baseline, say one a.m., two a.m., something there, so that if they do extend the hours, we have another baseline to say, okay, well, this is what it’s been like. This is the average noise level for that time period, and you still can’t exceed that five decibel level for that? MR. MESINGER-Yes. The answer to your question is yes. What we’ve done is divided it into two, a day and a night, okay, where the day goes to, I think, six p.m. and then the night is after six p.m., and we’ve made a monitoring requirement that says that they’re going to have to annually monitor, on a week day and a weekend , in the June to August time period, day, evening and night sound level. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well my question is I don’t remember reading it in the literature. Of course there’s so much here I may have missed it. I don’t remember reading a one a.m. or two a.m. decibel reading, in any of the locations. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MESINGER-They may have. I don’t know why they would have taken those because they’re not open. MR. STROUGH-Well, what I’m saying is let’s say the Great Escape wants to stay open until two a.m. MR. MESINGER-Then these nighttime readings would apply. MR. STROUGH-What I’m saying is, well that’s fine, as long as they don’t exceed what they’ve already agreed to, not exceed the five decibel limit over the threshold, but I don’t think we’ve established that early a.m. threshold. That’s what I’m saying. MR. ROUND-John, I’m sorry. I think when you see the monitoring levels that are proposed on those evening hours, your question would be answered, rather than talk (lost words). MR. MESINGER-They’re pretty darn low, John. The L-90 at Glen Lake is 38. The L-90, these are the nighttime L-90’s, at Twicwood is 42 and Courthouse is 45. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s well below the 65. MR. MESINGER-They’re pretty low levels. MR. RINGER-What you’re saying in recap, though, is as evening hours fall, the levels from the Escape and the go carts increase because the other levels go, and they become more of an annoyance. MR. MESINGER-Right. That’s why we have a daytime and a nighttime level in here. You’ll see when I pass out the table that the L-90, there’s a daytime L-90 that they have to meet and then a nighttime L-90 that they have to meet. MR. ROUND-And the evening L-90 is lower than the daytime. MR. VOLLARO-Than the daytime. MR. SCHACHNER-And while you’re on this topic, are you proposing to include this table in the EIS as well as the Findings? MR. MESINGER-No, the data is all in the EIS. So this is simply extracted from the EIS. I always anticipated that question. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to let somebody else go, and I can come back to some of this stuff. Because when we get into that, I’ll be talking about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Coming in late, I don’t know what I’ve missed. MR. MAC EWAN-Just questions regarding anything to do with the latest submissions that we’re talking about, so we can try to move things on. MR. RINGER-Other than the previous comments that I’ve brought up, I don’t have anything new to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I still have concerns about the hours of operation and the noise levels. I really don’t necessarily agree with all that Stu says, but I don’t have any other questions, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had was regarding the porous pavement material and how that stuff works? Because it’s a product (lost word) familiar with. Can you comment on that? MR. MESINGER-Yes. We collected some information, I didn’t bring it with me. My recollection is that it’s, MR. ROUND-There’s a cut sheet from EPA in Section Two. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. ROUND-414 is the Stormwater Report Summary, and then you’ll see the second green sheet is EPA Pavement Fact Sheet, and Stu can summarize this information. It is in there, describes the advantages, the applicability, engineering feasibility application, appropriateness for certain land uses. For instance, this says it’s not good for heavy truck travel use because you’re going to diminish the porosity of, basically it’s pavement without the fines in it. Usually you have, an aggregate is just that. It’s a range of sizes, and so this is like single sized stone, with limited cohesive properties to it, compactibility, and the way it’s constructed is you have to put a significant portion of porous stone, crushed stone, beneath it, so that that could act as chamber for a conduit for stormwater flow, so that, Stu, I don’t know what. MR. MESINGER-The way my engineers explained it to me was, think of it as the base coat on a road. You have the base coat and then you have the binder coat. (lost words) the base coat. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s a lot rougher? MR. MESINGER-It’s rougher. It’s the big stones, kind of, that are tacked together, if you will. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you know, reading the EPA sheets where, you know, it talks about advantages and disadvantages and things like that, it doesn’t really help you to understand what it looks like. MR. MESINGER-Right. I had the same problem (lost words), I said explain it to me simply, and they said think of the base coat of asphalt. MR. ROUND-I have a question. It is a specialty application. Have you investigated whether there is a paver constructed, that’s available locally or you probably haven’t gotten to that point. That’s an engineering kind of issue. Because it does take a special. MR. COLLINS-No. I guarantee you, we go out there with it, someone will do it. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. COLLINS-O’Connors will probably be able to do it. MR. STROUGH-Well, the Town classifies even crushed stone as non-permeable, but this is basically just a single sized stone that’s just really, it’s going to appear like pavement. How porous is it, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s the question. MR. MESINGER-Yes. We’ve had some figures. It’s more porous than I expected it to be, and I cannot recall the exact number, but it was significantly more porous than I thought it would be, more than 50%. MR. STROUGH-Well, is it as porous as crushed stone? MR. MESINGER-I don’t think it’s as porous as crushed stone. MR. MAC EWAN-And the significance of using this versus just crushed stone is its compactibility? Over the years, it won’t compact like a mixed aggregate would? MR. MESINGER-That’s right, and I think from their point of view it’s the ability to stripe is what they’re looking for, if I’m not mistaken, that that’s the real difference for them, between this and crushed stone, is they want to be able to stripe. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? John? MR. STROUGH-Well, one thing, you know, I did not have time to go through all the material. I tried to do what I could, and I don’t see how any human being that’s got a full time job and a family and everything else can get through it, but I did spend many, many hours on it, and that’s one of the reasons why, you know, I wanted to propose until I felt comfortable with this whole Study, a parallel study. I’d like to see that Sky Coaster just go up. Okay. It’s 175. Structurally, it’s not a big structure. It’s basically a couple of poles. I tried to take a look at it. I’ve already started reviewing that, and so I drew up a profile of the Sky Coaster and the terrain in the area, and I put 25 foot as representing a house, and so. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me, John, I don’t mean to interrupt, but we’re not talking about the Sky Coaster, right? MR. STROUGH-No, but can you stay with me until I finish? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll give you a little leeway. MR. STROUGH-All right. Thank you. Now, there’s so much in this, okay, that I wanted to see the Sky Coaster go up to see, it would be like a check on the reliability of the visual impacts that they say the experts say. Okay. This would be an opportunity, and we’re looking at a structure like this, that it’s not that imposing, and you’re talking about three people on the ride. So if it was ever an opportunity to see what the height, what the visual impact is going to be, what the noise possibility is going to be, it would be with this ride. I mean, if we do the EIS, and accept everything, you can’t go back and add to it. Whereas if you allowed the ride to take place, it might give you a little bit more experience, a little bit more latitude, a little bit more room to see what’s going on, and I added in my notes, that we would condition such approval that the ride would be subject to all EIS agreements. So, in other words, you know, that would be a condition of the ride’s approval, but I’m looking at the ride as an opportunity for us to get better handle, a better understanding of what’s going on in this EIS, in terms of visual impacts and noise impacts and etc. MR. VOLLARO-You’re looking at it as a proof vehicle. That’s what you’re really saying. MR. STROUGH-As a test case. It’s an excellent opportunity that they’re presented us. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if there’s any reliability to what we’ve done, in other words, they have to pass the test of the various envelopes we create under the EIS anyway, and you’re just trying to see whether, on the first pass, whether it would pass the test or not. MR. STROUGH-Yes. We could look at the lighting issues. I mean, it would really be a hands on way of looking at this EIS and the possible impacts that, in the future, we’re imposing. MR. VOLLARO-So are you saying that while we’re doing this we ought to be examining the Sky Coaster (lost words)? MR. STROUGH-Exactly. When I started examining the Sky Coaster, and looking at the potential impacts, I found it to be relatively innocuous, but it also presented itself as an opportunity to see what 175 feet is really going to look like, because the balloon doesn’t get them, we didn’t get any computer representations. It really gives us an opportunity to see, get in the Twicwood area and see if it has a visual impact. I mean, three people on the unit is going to create some sound, but I don’t think a lot, but it would give us an opportunity to see if there’s, you know, it would give us a hands on feel, I thought, for this EIS. Do you see where I’m going now, Mark? MR. MAC EWAN-Honestly, it seems to me just like another hurdle that. MR. SCHACHNER-I saw where you were going from the beginning, but I think you’re taking steps backward in time. It seems counterproductive to me. I’m sorry, but this is my legal opinion. What you’re suggesting I don’t believe is appropriate legally. Okay. I understand what you’re saying, that you’d like to have a test case, a guinea pig, and you’d like that guinea pig to be the Sky Coaster. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-What I’m telling you is that, two things. My legal opinion is that it’s not appropriate to discuss the new ride in light of this Board’s previous SEQRA determinations, and the second thing I guess I’m telling you is that it strikes me as we’re going, you’re advocating that we go back in time and reexamine this Board’s earlier determination, and that seems counterproductive. MR. STROUGH-Well, no. We keep moving forward. That’s your call and those are your words. My words would be, Mark, that we keep moving forward with this EIS, but it would give me and maybe some of the other Planning Board member and Stu and maybe somebody else, a little bit more time to feel a little bit more comfortable. I mean, if anybody read 1600 pages in the last two weeks, and feel comfortable that everything in that is okay with them. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just interject. It’s not just 1600 pages and all the other pages that we’ve reviewed as a Planning Board. You have to have a certain amount of faith in the consultants that we have available to us, Stu and Staff and our legal advisor, to help us get through this. We’re lay people. MR. STROUGH-Well, I do. I do have, but I just saw this as an opportunity to reinforce what Stu and the others are telling us. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s just another hurdle that’s being put up, and I don’t think it’s right and I don’t think it’s fair at this stage of the game. We left here two weeks ago, and the applicants asked us, the night we tabled this thing to get this additional information, were there any other 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) concerns that need to be put on the table so that it could be addressed, and we all said in unison, no. Just get this information, let us review it and we’ll be ready to move on. MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t say no. I gave them the concerns that I was aware of at that time. MR. ROUND-I just want to make sure that the record’s clear, though, that this 1600 page document was submitted in April, and that the changes that have been highlighted are generally the changes to the response to comments, and so that there’s not, this thing has been around for a long time. So I just want make sure you know that, Number One, that everybody’s hearing the same thing, and, Number Two, I think when you hear about, our draft findings do include, when you conduct site plan review for a new ride, that you will have the ability, if you feel a threshold has been exceeded, to examine those items. So, for instance, you put the Sky Coaster up and the Sky Coaster is at a target height and in your judgement, and jump in any time, Stu, it’s visible from areas that weren’t identified in the EIS, is it fair to say you could reexamine the visual impacts of that particular (lost word)? MR. SCHACHNER-Not necessarily. Not if it’s, I think you said if it’s visible from areas that were not identified in the EIS. I mean, obviously we’re operating, we have some cart ahead of horse issues here, because we’re talking about Findings as if they’ve been adopted, and they haven’t been adopted, but if I’m understanding the hypothetical situation, if the Planning Board accepts the Final Environmental Impact Statement, tonight or soon, and if the Planning Board then adopts Findings Statements that approve the Environmental Impact Statement, understand that Findings Statements can approve and say that, on balance, all the environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated and the benefits of the project, which there certainly are some of, outweigh the potential environmental impacts taking the mitigation measures into account. You’re not obligated to make that finding. There’s a flip side finding you could make, although I don’t think you’re likely to, but just so everybody understands, the law provides either option, but if you make what I will call positive SEQRA Findings, meaning you approve the Environmental Impact Statement, you approve the project, you approve the mitigation measures, then if a ride is constructed within the threshold, then you would not have the ability, and doesn’t exceed the threshold, you would not have the ability to conduct further SEQRA review. You have site plan review authority over a new ride or attraction, which includes some of the other elements, but you would not be able to do a new SEQRA review of that particular project. That’s one of the principle purposes of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement process. Now, I’m very, very concerned. I need to point out two principles of law here that I’ve said before, but I need to repeat them again, and, John, I’d prefer, as your Counsel, as the Board’s Counsel, I’d prefer you not speculate as to the ability of your fellow Board members to have reviewed or not reviewed or not reviewed the document and to comfortable or not comfortable with the document. If you haven’t reviewed the document, and you’re not comfortable with the document, then as your Counsel, I’m concerned, because in order to accept the document, a majority of you need to have reviewed it and be comfortable with it. I’m not picking on you. If you haven’t been able to, that’s fine, but I would suggest that you not speculate as to your fellow Board members’ ability to have done so. I think some of your fellow Board members have managed to do what they feel is necessary to do to become familiar with the document, and if a majority of them are comfortable with it, then I’m going to be very comfortable as your Counsel. MR. STROUGH-Again, Mark, that’s your call. MR. SCHACHNER-No, it’s not my call. MR. STROUGH-Yes, it is. I was suggesting that others may feel the way I do, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-But it’s not my call. MR. STROUGH-No, but you twisted it a certain way. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move on. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not trying to. MR. VOLLARO-Look, the way I look at this review, John, is as an esoteric function. We are never going to get completely there. Do you know what I mean by esoteric function? You’ve done some, you understand we’re never going to get totally there on this, in this review, 100%. That line’s never going to touch the base. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me just say, I only mentioned one principle of law, and that principle of law is that the Board members, a majority of the Board members, need to be able to say that they’ve reviewed the document and are comfortable with the document. The second principle of law, although somebody, I can’t remember who, it might even have been me, said, of course, you can also look to your consultants and Staff for advice, and that’s true. There’s a very clearly articulated principle of law that you cannot delegate the responsibility for accepting the document to Staff or to 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) consultants. So we look to Staff and consultants for advice, but you all, or at least the majority of you, need to be comfortable with the document. Now comfortable with the document does not mean you have to be able to recite chapter and verse and does not mean you’ll be quizzed or tested on it, but it does mean you have to have reviewed the document and be comfortable with it in order to accept it as complete. Not every single one of you needs to have that level of comfort, but a majority of you do. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m still bothered by the Bobsled. So I have a suggestion, that we allow the Great Escape, what I have written here, is a two year period to try and mitigate the sounds, and what we want to try and achieve is get the sound of the Bobsled down to the five decibel limit, but I thought that we should do a C weighted, as opposed to A weighted, db level. Now, I wanted to run that by you, Stu. MR. MESINGER-You don’t have any basis for doing that in the FGEIS. MR. STROUGH-No, but you know why I wanted to go to C weighted, it gives a little bit more, pays a little bit more attention to your lower frequencies than A weighted. MR. VOLLARO-Well, A weighted goes to the same level as the ear is capable of, 20 to 20,000, that’s where the A weight goes. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know, but the C, it’s just a matter of what frequency, it pays a little bit more attention. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this thing between that’s on your head doesn’t even hear in a logarithmic fashion. That’s what the A weight is really all about. It tries to mimic the ear. MR. MESINGER-The reason you use A weight is it is the, it most accurately reflects what human beings hear. So if you use the C weighted as the standard, you’d be using a standard that was not as accurate, in terms of how the human ear hears. So I don’t know why you would do that. MR. STROUGH-Well, I was just thinking, because the Bobsled has a unique sound characteristic to it, and it’s in the lower frequency. MR. MESINGER-And the human ear hears that uniquely, and that’s reflected in the A weighted measurements that they gave us. I mean, it shows up. You see it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s above 20. MR. MESINGER-It’s like 175, 125. MR. VOLLARO-But if I look at all the data, I would sympathize with John’s position on some of them. When I look at the data, if the Bobsled was eliminated, packed up and moved to another Six Flags site, 99% of your problems, John, would go away, noise wise. MR. COLLINS-Today. MR. VOLLARO-Today. I understand that. MR. MESINGER-We’ve had some recent conversations about the Bobsled. I don’t know if you want to let the Board, if you want to talk about that or not. It’s up to you. MR. LEMERY-The Bobsled is under a continuing mitigation. MR. COLLINS-We’ll see what the new wheels do and we’ll have that data available. MR. LEMERY-Hopefully this weekend. MR. COLLINS-There is a difference between what we’re running on the wheels now, about five dbs, five to six dbs between the soft wheel we’re running and the current hard wheels. There’s a distinct difference between the two of them. We need to put wheels on all the cars and re-test it at that time. Operationally, there’s no difference between the wheels, so there’s not an issue there like there had been in the past. We’ve got five dbs, but at the same time, there may be other factors that have contributed to that that we have to do further testing. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MESINGER-I think, from the SEQRA point of view, the EIS says that the applicant has agreed to continue to undertake efforts to mitigate. They clearly are. The Finding requires them to continue to undertake measures over the next year. MR. STROUGH-Well, I was just suggesting, if, in a two year period, we haven’t really mitigated the problem, then I would suggest that something a little bit more serious be done. That’s all. I mean, two years, I thought, was reasonable, and you’re right, Bob, that is a big problem, and if you read the concerns of members of the community, that comes up again and again, and again and again. Well, anyhow, and then on the stormwater plan, again, I’m going to repeat myself here. I don’t know, with the storm filter, I don’t know, you know, what their maintenance plan is going to be, the number of units they’re going to have, the size, the capacity, the location, the storm filter concrete vaults, what agency will represent the Town as the receiver of the storm filter certificates, what type of filter media will be used and the types of contaminants it removes. Also, it should be shown what additional contaminants this most recent proposal will remove as opposed to the original stormwater plan, and for example, the phosphorus loading, with the previous stormwater plan, reduced it to a little over one pound. This would probably do better, but we should have that documented in here or conditions documented anyway, right? And will oil and water separators be used? I mean, all these stormwater questions, and I mentioned this last time. I do like to review the stormwater plan. I really haven’t been able to, and it’s not because I didn’t go over the documents. It’s the documents I have are not readable, not legible. MR. MESINGER-You have a problem with the plans. The initial plans these guys submitted in the Final EIS weren’t legible. So I took the step of picking up the phone and calling them up and getting some. So that’s how I came to read them, and I’d invite any of you that had that problem to do the same. I mean, that seemed like a solution there. What the FEIS says, with respect to stormwater, is that because of your great concern and attention for the Fen, and the Lake, that you’d think that extraordinary measures are needed to control stormwater here, and that those measures may include, but not be limited to, devices such as a stormwater filter, oil water separators, or, I forget the term for the third one. It’s, I want to say cyclonic. (The correct term was given. Wasn’t able to pick it up from tape). MR. MESINGER-The details of where you will put them and which you will put them is left to site plan review, and I think you can appropriately do that. MR. SCHACHNER-And it explicitly says that. MR. MESINGER-And it explicitly says that, and a finding would follow that through, so that all your questions about where they go and how often they’re maintained and who gets that certificate. MR. STROUGH-That was merely a misunderstanding on my behalf. I thought I understood that we wouldn’t be able to take a look and change and alter those during site plan review. MR. MESINGER-You very clearly have the ability, that’s the way it’s written out, to specify where and what, with respect to those facilities. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lemery? MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me just read what the applicant and the Staff and your consultant have agreed to in the Findings relative to Mr. Strough’s question. The Planning Board finds that the success of the stormwater management system shall be subject to verification by monitoring. The Planning Board reserves to itself, during site plan review, the right to specify the location, frequency and parameters of the stormwater discharge monitoring system. Monitoring is intended to provide information on changes, if any, in the water quality of the Rush Pond outlet and provide information on whether the stormwater management system is functioning at its design standards. At least three monitoring points will be provided. Mitigation shall be required if monitoring shows that the system is not meeting design standards, if the Planning Board finds that the applicant will be required to prepare and submit for approval during site plan review and plan for the maintenance and cleaning of the parking lots and the stormwater management system. So I think that pretty much answers all your questions. MR. STROUGH-Well, thank you, John, and I appreciate that. MR. MESINGER-All of those phrases are in the FEIS. MR. COLLINS-Yes, they are. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. LEMERY-I think that, and maybe it doesn’t. MR. STROUGH-Well, it does, it does, and I just want to explain that. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m answering Mr. Vollaro’s question, and Stu just assured us, and I think he’s right, that all that verbiage also appears in the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now, in the Findings we talked about the buffer zone, and then John and I had a conversation about that, and I mentioned to John the unlikeliness of the convention center not being built, and that, you know, I suggested, on my behalf, as a tradeoff of accepting festival parking, because there was a lot of community concern about the festival parking, the lack of vegetation and things like that that goes with the Town proposed type of parking, would be an extra buffer zone. Now I suggested to John, I think if I remember right, 20, and John returned with I think 10 or 15. Okay. That was in addition to the buffer that’s already there. MR. LEMERY-No, it was 10. We agreed to extend it to 15. MR. MESINGER-That was what I heard as well. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s not the way I understood it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I think they said at the last meeting. MR. MESINGER-Yes, that is what they said. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, the reason why I would like that buffer. MR. LEMERY-If I might, I think that we said that any more than that has a serious impact on the parking. We can’t do it. MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s what I’m trying to, and we might be able to achieve both of these, John, is I’m trying to get that hill along Route 9 to remain in appearance just about like it is, have the parking lot on the other side. No one’s the wiser. MR. LEBOWITZ-From the Route 9 side you mean? MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Is the rest of the Board comfortable with what’s been proposed? MR. MESINGER-You don’t even have to get there because, John, the way that, and it took me a long time to understand this, too. I had problems with this, but I got there. What happens on Route 9 north of the Coachhouse is the hill on the Route 9 side stays intact because the right of way goes to the top of the hill. They’re proposing to leave the hill on that side, do all the grading on the other side of the hill, and build a retaining line. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I was just trying to give a little bit more insurance from. MR. MESINGER-Yes, but I believe you end up with more than 15 feet, if I’m not mistaken, and you guys need to tell me if I’m wrong about that, as a practical matter, on that portion. MR. LEMERY-On the hill? Sure. MR. MESINGER-The 15 feet really applies to the area on top. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s where I’m trying to get at, and the fence will not be, for the most part, viewable from Route 9, either, because it’ll be. MR. MESINGER-The plot on the fence is that the fence should extend from where the hill begins, because then it’s not, the purpose of the fence, remember, is to keep people from (lost words), so that goes to the base of the hill, and then south, I think to the point that’s opposite Round Pond Road, is what we’ve agreed on. MR. STROUGH-So the fence is going to go on State property? MR. MESINGER-No. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. STROUGH-No, the fence is going to go on their property, which means it has to go up on the top of that hill. MR. MESINGER-We would not extend the fence up there because it doesn’t need to be extended up there. Because of the grade change in the retaining wall, unless they’re rock climbers, they’re not going to be able to climb over the hill there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Also, we did change the lighting plan. They put the lighting, in terms of the Town Code, and I suppose that’ll be a site plan review thing. The archeology. When we do get site plans, can we get the Holtz Terrace site outlined where it is located, the sensitive area? Until it is in. MR. LEBOWITZ-We have to check on that, because there are requirements. Usually that information, for cultural resources, is confidential, because they don’t want people to go out there and do. We’ll check on whether it’s okay to do a (lost words) and if it can be provided in a way, it’s going to be recovered anyway. So it’s not going to be an issue with. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not going to be recovered this year or next year. In the meantime what I’m saying is, I just want to make sure that it’s protected. MR. LEBOWITZ-Right, and what we may have to do is work out arrangements with Mr. Schachner to protect it in a way that it’s not in a public file, and you could see. MR. LEMERY-Before any site work went on up there, they’d remove it. MR. COLLINS-I think, if I’m not mistaken, John doesn’t want anyone to disturb it until we do something about it. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. COLLINS-But at the same time, we have to legally, we’re not going to make that public record. MR. STROUGH-Well, as long as somebody knows the parameters of where it is and that it is (lost words) until it is taken care of. MR. LEBOWITZ-It’s in our reports, and that information, in the reports that have been provided to Shippo, has not be been put, the locational identification information was purposely not put in these documents for that reason. MR. STROUGH-It’s not a big secret (lost word) Holtz Terrace. MR. VOLLARO-John, before you get off that topic, I’d like to just ask you a question. This is dialogue amongst the Town Planning Board for a minute. We talked about the 25 foot poles as being something that is covered in the Town Code. I don’t believe it’s covered in the Town Code. MR. MESINGER-No, it’s not. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the proposed change, and I’m sensitive to having things in here that say, it is in accordance with the proposed Town Code. As long as they agree, that’s fine, but I want to make sure that that agreement is not based on some Town Code, because it’s not. It’s based on their agreement to use 25 foot cones. MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. There’s no mention of the Town Code, and the basis is that’s the height of the existing poles. MR. LEMERY-That is the mitigation we offered. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that, but I thought I heard something about the Town Code. MR. LEMERY-Yes, that was John Strough. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And the document says something to the effect that the applicant has agreed to limit. MR. STROUGH-All right. Now the wastewater plan, I’m not a big fan of doing the on-site treatment center, and I do really want to see the municipal sewage hooked up, and I think we’re all in general agreement on this, but who knows, the Great Escape could, theoretically, be sold next week, I mean, to somebody else, and then we’ve got this plan where they could build an on-site sewage 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) treatment plant. I would like to see, possibly, a timeframe. Let’s say three years, I mean, just to throw something out. You’ll refrain from building the on-site system and give the Town say three years to get that municipal sewage system up to you. MR. COLLINS-Could I make a comment? This is what we talked about two weeks ago. These are the type of concerns that I think I was referring to, that, let’s get them on the table, because if you want us to delay until the sewer line gets in, I think that was something very important that we need to get on the table. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not my feelings. MR. VOLLARO-Not mine, either. MR. COLLINS-I mean, am I wrong? See, these are the type of topics I thought we would discuss two weeks ago. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to throw something out on the table, and it has absolutely nothing to do, sorry about that, Mark, but it’ll take five seconds. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-I have a document at home that happens to be a homeowners document, an offering plan that talks specifically about sewers becoming available for a certain community 15 years ago, and it still hasn’t become available. So, you know, my position is, you’re in much better, this is just my position, in much better shape putting that, a really good septic system in now, that’s connectable, if and when the Town ever makes up its mind how it’s going to handle sewer projects. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what the engineering (lost words). MR. MESINGER-And in fact the Finding is written in just the opposite way. The Finding says, you must do this within three years, or we’re not going to approve anything else. Because it’s a benefit, and practically, since they want the sewer, too, I imagine what they’ll do is they’ll sit around for about a year, or eighteen months and say, do we really have to spend the money to build this thing, because they don’t want to have to spend the money to build this thing either if the sewer’s going to come, and if it appears that it’s not going to happen, they’re going to get busy, because they don’t get anymore rides. I mean, that’s what’ll happen. MR. ROUND-In the event that it is imminent, and there’s language to this effect, that the sewer’s going to be here in. MR. LEMERY-Well, there are SPDES Permit issues, too, that effect this. So we’re going to be limited. MR. ROUND-In the event that it is here in 2003, they won’t build that plant if it’s not needed. MR. COLLINS-We have to do the internal piping, if you will, to get it to one location or two locations, whatever it has to be. So we have to do that internally. Believe me, John, I want, sewer line is great. MR. STROUGH-I know you do, John, but I’m saying. MR. COLLINS-If we can avoid that one, two million plant charge within that three years, that’s great. However, I think the way we’ve got it worded is, you’ve got the best of both worlds here. MR. STROUGH-Well, my concern was that if you sold it next week and the other people see the EIS, because it would apply to them as well, we can go do the on-site sewer treatment, to heck with the Municipal Center. We can do it because it says we can do it. We’ll go ahead and do it right now. I’m not a big fan of that, and so I had a little concern there. So that’s why I was asking, well, eighteen months, well, three years, I mean. MR. LEMERY-We have no way to control that at all, what happens. MR. MESINGER-But, John, if the sewer doesn’t come up, why wouldn’t you want them to build it, because it’s better than the existing situation? MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t want them, what I’m saying is. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t want them to build the plant, then the sewer comes along, if there was new owners say, to heck with it. We’re not hooking into the municipal sewer. We’re sticking with the plant which we have. MR. STROUGH-Exactly. MR. MESINGER-But why would they conceivably do that? Because that would be an expense to them. MR. STROUGH-Who knows? I’m just trying to make re-assurances. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then, John, then what would you propose, then? Would you want to put some kind of a clause in the motion that if they were going to sell it within the time that? MR. STROUGH-Well, them or any owner. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, we could sit here and name all kinds of hypothetical situations that could arise if Premier Parks decides to sell. I mean, we could be here all night talking about that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and I can intercede in that regard, is you should not be taking into account who the owner is. I mean, the owner happens to be whoever it is now, and he’s absolutely right. Tomorrow the owner could be different, and you’re absolutely right. The document rides with the premises and I don’t think it’s appropriate, legally, to say, well, if it’s owned by Entity A, then we say this, but if it’s sold to Entity B, then that changes. I don’t think that’s appropriate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’d like to know, where we’re going with this. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m saying it’s not appropriate to have (lost words) be applicable to different owners. MR. STROUGH-I’m suggesting this, that the Great Escape will at least give the Town eighteen months to enable the municipality, and if it gets up there within eighteen months, they have to connect. They cannot build an on-site sewer system, previous to eighteen months. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So in other words, then, you want the Great Escape to keep the status quo right now for the next eighteen months? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you have the support there. MR. STROUGH-Well, then I’ll move on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Emergency services review. I did talk to some emergency services people. I didn’t get a hold of Dick Jones, although I tried several times. I just didn’t know if they had taken a close look. I did see the hearsay that somebody had called them and gotten the approval, but I haven’t seen the documentation from them that they did look at the potential impact, a million five attendees, and 200 foot rides and being able to do emergency procedures at those elevations. I’ve had some of the emergency people say, well, we really haven’t sat down and looked at that specifically, and they did say the Great Escape’s always been good to us, but I just, I thought maybe a little harder look at that would be something I’d be more comfortable with. MR. LEBOWITZ-Could I just speak to that? Because that’s one issue where, that’s one of the few things I think in the FEIS that, in the FEIS that didn’t get commented on in the DE, that was dealt with in the DEIS. We’ve met with emergency service providers. They have a continuing relationship with the Great Escape, because they do training and drills and the normal coordination sorts of things. All that stuff is extensively dealt with in the DEIS, and I think the only comment that came up in the FEIS was somebody was saying, well, you know, where is there correspondence from the Sheriff or something, and, you know, we responded that we discussed it with the Sheriff. They didn’t want to have a separate meeting. MR. MESINGER-I think you want to go to the DEIS for that documentation. MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t see it. Are you saying it’s there? MR. MESINGER-There are letters and there are records of telephone conversations in the DEIS 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, then I’ll move on. Thank you. All right. Just make sure I understand that the Great Escape originally was proposing two height levels for each of those three locations. I mean, one location was a 200 foot height level, and that’s standard. That doesn’t change, but I think I understand John to say that, in the 115 and 135 foot level area, that they’re going to go with just 115 max. I’m just seeing if I understood that. MR. MESINGER-Well, there’s three height zones. MR. STROUGH-Right, but two of them were variable. They had gone from what to what. MR. MESINGER-I thought that we had agreed on the lower number. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I thought. I’m just getting confirmation. Is that right? MR. COLLINS-115, 175 and 200. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I wanted. Thank you. I also wondered, and I think this is probably going to go over like a lead balloon, the convention center, if it’s not a likelihood, then why are we giving it consideration and approval if it’s not a likelihood? I mean, I think that, down the road, with all the changes occurring, that the convention center, which isn’t a likelihood at least in the near future, that’s my call, I guess. Why don’t we consider that separately, down the road, when it comes to us, when we’ll have a better handle on traffic and other issues? I just didn’t see why the convention center’s here. MR. SCHACHNER-I can give you a legal answer to that, if you want. MR. ROUND-When the project started, it was contemplated to be at this location. The environmental impacts of a convention center, I think, have been addressed in the EIS, and traffic being one of those things, and probably one of the more significant things, and contrary to this whole process is to look at things in segmented fashion. The whole idea behind this was to look at things comprehensively, quantify those impacts, and then address mitigation measures to deal with those things. So traffic, from that standpoint, has been addressed. The likelihood of another amusement ride ever being constructed at the Park, we’ve contemplated those impacts. So you have to, you can’t go back. MR. STROUGH-Well, I can see that reasoning, Chris. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to jump in here? MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s exactly right. I mean, the short answer is because it was initially identified as a scope of (lost words). MR. STROUGH-I could agree with him more than I originally was thinking. Park Area B, we are going to get documentation that the School and other interested parties are going to get access to that Park Area B. Right? MR. ROUND-There’s a Finding that reiterates. MR. STROUGH-Some of these things I’m just double checking on. MR. ROUND-Yes. No, there’s a Finding that reiterates that a conservation easement has been offered by the Premier Parks/Great Escape, and I can give you an aside, is that both our Environmental Committee and our Queensbury Land Conservancy have identified other adjacent properties that are now available for tax sale that are directly adjacent to this property, and that they are pursuing acquisition of those lands, and they will be sitting down with Premier Parks to negotiate a conservation easement. MR. LEMERY-Well, I want to point out that when we were, with your permission, we were talking about the Findings. One of the things we said was this grant by the Park to public access to the Rush Pond area was sort of discounted, and wasn’t, when I said to your advisors, I think this has to be a separate point in the Findings because this is a significant ecological gift by the Park to the Town, to the extent that the Town will have conservation easements, if we can work out the details, and have public access for the schools and for others to use that. As part of what’s going on here, that’s an important recognition on the part of the Park, that the Park is doing this, and so far it hasn’t even been mentioned by anybody. MR. SCHACHNER-But, Stu? MR. MESINGER-It’s in the document. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. SCHACHNER-It’s in the document. MR. LEMERY-I understand, but it’s an important gift. It’s all part of what the Park is doing to try to be a good neighbor, be a good citizen, make this all work for everybody. MR. STROUGH-Well, John, it certainly gained that, when I mentioned it to some key people in the School, they were very enthusiastic, and excited about this information, and I just, you know, one of the first things they discussed is, will we be able to go over there and actually do, plant some vegetation and develop the type of habitat that fosters the Karner blue. MR. LEMERY-They could put some screening in right along the Northway over there. MR. STROUGH-Well, but that is in the realm of what we were talking about, is that they would be able to develop a habitat for the Karner blue butterfly. Okay. The Park area, it’s not in the Hudson River Watershed, it’s in the Lake Champlain Watershed, I believe, that was listed. Okay. Now, the traffic thing that you had noticed in the mining that Shelly was going to respond to something, Stu? MR. MESINGER-That’s set in the Finding, and you’ll see that in the Findings we’ve got. MR. STROUGH-In the updated Findings, and how about those ramps going over Glen Lake. That’s going to disturb some people. MR. MESINGER-They tried to correct that as well. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. ROUND-Just so everybody knows. There was a reference to Glen Lake. It should have been Glen Lake Brook. MR. STROUGH-It was a typo. MR. ROUND-It was a typo. MR. MESINGER-But see, John, you have read it carefully. MR. STROUGH-You’re right. I never feel fully satisfied. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I’m getting the impression you have read it carefully, which is making me more comfortable. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m kind of anal about this. MR. MESINGER-That, by the way, is translated as very careful. MR. STROUGH-Is New York State even considering re-doing the Exit 20 ramp design? SHELLY JOHNSTON MS. JOHNSTON-Not at this time. MR. STROUGH-Not at this time, and you’re Shelly? MS. JOHNSTON-Yes, sir. MR. ROUND-There’s no project identified on our TIP. So that’s what would be identified on our TIP. MR. VOLLARO-John, let me just jump in here for just a second with you on the same subject. I think that I had asked Shelly that same question in the last review, and her comment was going to check that, was that you felt that the driving surface, as it was today, was adequate. I think that was your answer, at the time I asked the question. Well, I’m also concerned about that bridge and what’s going to be done in the future, and it seems like none of us really know that. I feel, with the added traffic there, and with the site distances there on the, particularly on the southbound lane, the southbound exit, is extremely difficult, and I don’t know whether DOT’s going to look at that or not, but there’s always a question in my mind whether or not that, you feel confident that the driving surface is not an impedance to the traffic load that the Great Escape will present to that bridge. Is that a fair statement? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MS. JOHNSTON-That’s a fair statement. May I also expand on that? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MS. JOHNSTON-Thank you. It’s another issue that’s been brought up specifically in the draft Findings Statement that gives the Planning Board the additional latitude to work with the Department of Transportation, specifically about that southbound ramp and it’s intersection with Gurney Lane. The question that was before us a minute ago was about the whole interchange. That interchange is what we call split interchange. So that one ramp is just one component of that, the intersection of the southbound ramp with Gurney Lane. If FHWA and DOT were to look at that whole interchange, they would look at it comprehensively and probably try to bring it together, so that the whole interchange is at one location, versus this split that you have now, and as Chris said, there’s no plans to do that at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I see that, in the letter, the Department of New York, Department of Transportation from Holland Avenue, the closing paragraph in here talks about the monitoring, they talk about the monitoring plan based on the combined threshold volume of traffic in the southbound through lane, and the eastbound right turn lane at either Route 9 or the 20 northbound ramp or the Route 9/Gurney Lane intersection is acceptable, and monitoring efforts should be closely coordinated with the Department to include the count date necessarily for a complete traffic signal warrant analysis for purposes of north and south access road intersections. So, it sounds like, a little bit like the Department of Transportation is going to get involved with it, even if it’s just to check the warrants out, as to whether or not these lights are required. MS. JOHNSTON-They would definitely, even if you didn’t have that in a Findings Statement, in order for us to be able to put a traffic signal out on Route 9, DOT necessarily reviews the traffic volumes that we present, or that anyone presents, the Town may present them to the Department if you wish, but they review traffic volume thresholds, compare them to the specific warrants that they’re required by the traffic, you know, vehicle and traffic law. So we have to get permits from the Department of Transportation where we’d have to submit engineering design plans. So it’s reviewed very, very carefully, absent this process almost (lost word) town. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to stay along with what John had to say. MR. ROUND- I don’t know that Shelly did justice to what’s going to occur, what’s in the draft Findings about the additional monitoring that might occur at Gurney and 9. I mean, there will be an ongoing monitoring program. In other words, the Board has identified a long term concern with that. The traffic impact analysis said that there isn’t currently a negative impact forecasted, but if monitoring identifies a potential, identifies a negative impact in that mitigation, if mitigation is required by DOT, Great Escape would have to pay its fair share assessment of that mitigation. MS. JOHNSTON-At the Gurney Lane southbound intersection. MR. ROUND-Right. MS. JOHNSTON-Specifically that intersection, yes. MR. LEMERY-That’s exactly what the Findings Statement proposes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I had no problem with that. I read that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re defeating your own argument, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, no. MR. VOLLARO-No, I meant about reading it. MR. STROUGH-Well, Stu put wording in there that there was. MR. VOLLARO-That was meant to be a joke. MR. STROUGH-I’ll tell you. Plans for the Trading Post property. MR. COLLINS-It’s not ours. You’d have to ask the Lathams. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not theirs either, actually. MR. STROUGH-Okay. What’s a “T2”, John? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. COLLINS-What’s a “T2”? A ride, or the name? MR. STROUGH-The ride. It must be a ride, because I got in this chat room, I’m trying to see what the kids are saying. MR. COLLINS-“T2” stands for “Terror to the Second Power”, and it’s an inverted roller coaster. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’ve got a lot of people hoping that you get one of those in, in the chat rooms. MR. COLLINS-They’re good rides. MR. STROUGH-But I didn’t know what a “T2” was. MR. COLLINS-It stands for “Terror to the Second Power”. Thank you for asking. MR. STROUGH-Well, thank you for answering. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got an idea for a neat ride. Put a real good landing strip out there. Rent an F- 16 from somebody and take all of the equipment out of the back seat and take somebody for a ride in that vehicle, and you’ll really give them a ride. MR. COLLINS-An F-16? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, just one thing, and I don’t know if it’s warranted, but there will be a demand for, if the attendance levels are realized, there will be a demand for 900 jobs, and what I’m seeing with the kids in school and everything else is they’re picking and choosing their jobs. So it seems to me that we’ve reached a certain level, at least in our area, especially during the summer season, where I don’t know where you’re going to get the employable people from at this point in time, if the area is fairly saturated. So if they do come from the outside, I just have some concerns about those impacts, but I’m not sure if it’s warranted or not, but that was the last issue that I had concern with. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-What could be left? No, I’m fine. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d like to know, I wasn’t here last week, and when I, or two weeks ago, and I was a little taken aback to read in the paper about extended hours of operation. I didn’t know that was an issue, during this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Where did I miss that? How come that was brought up? MR. RINGER-I brought it up at the meeting that you weren’t at. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it was brought up, but under what context? Was it at, I mean, I thought I did a pretty good job looking at, looking over all the statements in the original draft. MR. RINGER-There were questions that came up in the comment section regarding hours of operation. I didn’t feel that the answers that the Great Escape gave were satisfactory, and I thought that there may be some, I felt that the Great Escape perhaps would, down the road, be expanding their hours. I was concerned, with the expansion of hours, how it would be, how the noise would affect the neighborhoods. So, what I was looking to do, or wanted to do, was to put limits, so to speak, or at least limit the Great Escape to their current hours of operation. That way, the only time we could do that is in an EIS, because there’s no Town Code, no Town ordinance or anything that controls hours of operation. So we could possibly do that in an EIS concept. If we did put that in and the Great Escape did want to change their hours, then they could come back for a modification, at which time we could reevaluate the noise items and see how they work. The only time I felt that we could do it is now, and that’s why it was brought up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that was one of the issues that Jack had talked about and John had talked about, as far as bringing those at the table two weeks ago. Was that ever addressed tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you have to tell the punch line. I think, correct me if I’m wrong, but the punch line was Larry brought that issue up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s fair to say that John agreed with Larry on that issue. I think it’s fair to say that they did not have support from the other Planning Board members present on that issue. Is that a fair statement? MR. RINGER-That’s a fair statement. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that was two weeks ago, but then when Larry walked in tonight late, he, when it was his turn to express his comments, you alluded to something about that, but I didn’t quite catch it all. MR. RINGER-All I said was I still had the same concerns tonight that I had two weeks ago, that the only time we’re going to get to do that noise thing is, or hours of operation I should say, is under an EIS. MR. STROUGH-Larry, are you still concerned? MR. RINGER-Even more so, because the more I read the comments, it seems like noise has, later, a specific noise becomes more pronounced later in the evening. MR. STROUGH-I know, but Stu said some of the levels are set at 38. You know, the average talking, when we’re talking, that’s 70 decibels. A vacuum cleaner is 80 decibels. Okay. Thirty-eight decibels is pretty darn quiet, and what we’re saying is that they still can’t exceed a five decibel extension beyond that 38. That’s pretty quiet, Larry. MR. RINGER-But even in Stu’s comments here he says as evening falls, overall environmental sound levels diminish, making the sources above which are the roller coaster and the go carts, stand out even more. So that noise would be the dominant noise and be more disturbing. It’s not my intent to say the Great Escape can’t operate beyond a certain hour. My intent is only, if they did go beyond those hours, then to get sound readings before, you know, and they could do that with a modification. MR. STROUGH-And I think, well, Stu, you were going to respond to this? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no point in responding because when this issue was brought up two weeks ago, he didn’t have support from a majority of the Board. So there’s no point in pursuing it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. RINGER-Or I could ask for how the Board feels and if there is support. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If there wasn’t any support back then, then it wasn’t an issue that was addressed by the applicant in this two week period. MR. MESINGER-It has been addressed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, but it wasn’t anything that was, all right, it was addressed. There wasn’t any decision made. MR. MESINGER-I’ll say this for your edification. The theory on noise mitigation here is not to limit hours. It’s to limit noise, because that’s what the problem is, and so what we try to do is adopt a standard, a threshold, that maintains the status quo, plus five dba, and we talked about why the five was the number, because it’s tied in to DEC standards, and so on and so forth, and so, in theory, it shouldn’t matter when they’re operating particularly because these are the thresholds. I just wanted to respond to one thing. What you’re reading is from our noise study long ago. What we heard later in the hour, the go cart noises and not the Great Escape noises, other than the Bobsled. MR. RINGER-Right, it was the go carts, but your statement said that making the above noises more noticeable. So some of those included the Bobsled run as well as the. MR. MESINGER-The Bobsled I would agree to, yes. MR. RINGER-My main concern is this is the only opportunity we’re going to get to do it. If we didn’t do it then, we just, if they’re open at two in the morning, and that noise then becomes predominant or offensive or whatever, then we can’t do anything about it. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, I was close in my thinking, at the time Larry brought that up, to go with Larry. My only problem with that was that I thought that limiting them to any kind of hours of operation is essentially unfair, because I’d go for a level playing field throughout the Town, but not 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) to pick out the big gorilla and say, you’re the big noise maker, you’re going to suffer for it, because in effect Skateland is probably noisier than they are, when you get right down to it. MR. RINGER-It wasn’t that we were going to make them suffer, only that let them stay status quo and then come back if they want to expand, so we could get another look at it. I don’t want to penalize the Great Escape either, or anyone else for that matter either. MR. VOLLARO-I think this is a Town wide issue, as opposed to, that’s my opinion. MR. RINGER-And I respect that very much, Bob. I respect that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine with everything, to tell you the truth. MR. MAC EWAN-Last dibs. Anything else from members? Bob, did you have more? MR. VOLLARO-No. I was anxious to get a look at Findings when they’re handed out. That’s about the only thing. Are they going to be handed out for us to look at tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I really think the first order of business is to decide whether you want to accept the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement as complete. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get to that point, anything that the applicants want to add? MR. COLLINS-No. I know Larry’s got a concern with the hours of operation. This will reinforce what we’ve done, by limiting the noise, if we decide to stay open to midnight, we would have to decide that we weren’t going to operate A, B, and C, in order to live within the noise envelope that’s out there now. So noise becomes the determining factors of hours of operation, not the hours themselves. MR. VOLLARO-Besides, you’re going to look at how many people are there after 10 o’clock, whether (lost words). MR. COLLINS-The hours work for us the way they are now, but we cannot commit to that, you know, in the future, I mean, we actually shortened the hours this year. MR. LEMERY-We’re always going to be able to monitor the noise coming from the Park at those three receptor locations, and we’ve even defined signs that will be used in the monitoring devices that will be used so that one of the things the Park can do to separate its noise, as it does this monitoring. I think the challenge for the Planning Board here is that there’s a bar which has been set now, and as that Route 9 corridor is developed, because either a sewer line comes up there or this Park grows and attracts other business which are satellites to the Park or whatever else, your challenge is going to be looking at every single site plan review issue, visa vi noise, and how that noise could impact these standards which have now been set because we’ll be there looking at all that, in every one of these meetings, and I think that’s something that the businesses in the community have to be mindful. If there’s a Town wide noise ordinance in effect, then that’s one way to take care of a lot of things, but until then, this is the best standard, and I think Larry, it answers your question. MR. RINGER-I agree with you, too, John. I’m just, we put safeguards in everywhere along with traffic. We put safeguards in for stormwater. We put safeguards in for wastewater, and I really don’t feel we necessarily have got a safeguard for extended hours, and that’s what I was trying to get at, and I’m having difficulty with it. I appreciate all the comments, but in my mind it’s still an issue. MR. LEMERY-I think it’s important, you know, when we attended the Town’s noise, the Town Board discussed the noise ordinance, and the go cart folks were there, and it doesn’t get busy until the Park closes, and the Park closes currently at 10, and then they get busy. MR. MAC EWAN-John, can I interrupt just for a second? MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Keep in mind, guys, we’re taping this thing. We don’t have microphones. MR. LEMERY-So, I mean, that’s an issue we’re going to just have to be mindful of. MR. HUNSINGER-So currently the go cart operation stays open later than the Park. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. COLLINS-I think they’re at midnight. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Stu? Anything else? Chris? MR. ROUND-No. I think, the (lost words) you’re looking at accepting the Final GEIS as modified, the one comment, 544. MR. SCHACHNER-And one sentence added to one of the responses. MR. ROUND-One of the responses, that it is complete, and allow us to file a SEQRA notice of completion of a Final GEIS. MR. SCHACHNER-And that would be something that, if you’re prepared to take that step, that would be a formal step taken by a formal motion, second, vote, as any other formal decision. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I hear someone introduce that motion? MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FROM THE GREAT ESCAPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAST DRAFT DATED JUNE 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: And the comment in Comment 544, additional language has been added, and is complete. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 2001, by the following vote: MR. RINGER-No, I’m going to qualify it. I think they did a super job, but my vote is no. I can’t get over this one obstacle, but, all in all, I think the thing is a great project that you’ve done. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next step. MR. ROUND-Stuart has draft Findings. MR. MESINGER-Can you guys just talk a little about the mechanics of these things being printed, the notice and distribution and nature? MR. LEBOWITZ-What we’re planning on doing is the Staff has reviewed a proposed SEQRA notice, which is pretty similar to the notice of DEIS completion. We’re going to take these documents to be printed tomorrow, and the notice, we anticipate the notice and the documents will be available on Monday, to be distributed to Planning Board members, be put in Crandall Library, be sent to the DEC, all the things you have to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MESINGER-Okay. Jack just said, I hope you all heard, they have to now print the document. There’s going to be a notice issued, and it should be available on Monday in various public places. I don’t think that you guys need another copy because, other than the changes in 544, your copy will be the same. It won’t use the line through and crossout. I can’t see killing that many trees just to give you. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s certainly not required that the Planning Board members themselves receive final copies. That’s not a requirement. MR. MESINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It is, obviously the Planning Board, as an entity, has to receive one final copy. MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, Chris, just let me know what you need. MR. ROUND-All right, we’ll do. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t send any to me, please. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want any either. MR. MESINGER-Let me just briefly comment on what you have. Two weeks ago, we gave you a first draft, and we have since been working pretty diligently through a second and that was actually a third draft. You didn’t see the internal draft. We’ve used the line through tool to track changes. So everything new is underlined. Everything that has gone is crossed out, from the first draft. So you’re seeing everything straight from the first draft. You’ll notice that the, in particular the traffic and noise sections have been substantially revised. We’ve tried very hard to get out numbers and places and how we’re going to do this, and we’ve already talked about the use of the L-90. There is additional information on enforcement, per discussions with Mark Schachner, tried to come up with mechanisms so that we can be sure that what is said in these Findings are held to. There’s a new force masur section, and I know Laura is going to shoot me, I do my best, in the event that things happen that are beyond the applicant’s control, and there’s a lot of details. A lot, we’ve tried very, very hard, and you’ll notice how Mark constantly said to me, was that reflected in the FEIS, and we tried very, very hard to make sure that anything that was a decision or an important fact, particularly where there might have been dispute to it, was reflected in this document. So a lot of work has gone into this. It’s your document now, and you have to all, just as you all as a majority had to agree on adopting the FEIS now have to agree on adopting these Findings. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, some Findings. MR. MESINGER-Or some Findings. Thank you very much. You may adopt some other Findings. So, again, you need to review this carefully, and when we next convene, we will discuss this document and hopefully will act on it or some version of it. Any questions about it? MR. SCHACHNER-Could I add to that? MR. MAC EWAN-Please do. MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I want to add to that is I want to make sure the Planning Board understands that, up until now, your principle role has been to make sure that the things you identified way back when we went through the Scoping process are discussed, and are discussed at a level of information and a level of detail that you’re comfortable with, and if you’ll remember at the beginning of this meeting it was pointed out that some of the things in the document are not necessarily things that each and every Planning Board member agrees with. In some instances, there were things in the document, not major things, but some things that a majority of the Planning Board didn’t agree with, and therefore the document points out, the applicant has a position, the Planning Board has a position. This SEQRA Findings Statement or some SEQRA Findings Statement, is the conclusion of the SEQRA review process. It’s the punch line, so to speak, and it’s the final decision on this GEIS and all the potential environmental impacts on all the mitigation measures, and the extent to which the environmental impacts are mitigated to your satisfaction, and the point I’m going to make is that when push comes to shove and it’s time to make your decision on the SEQRA Findings, you’re no longer in the mode of making sure that adequate levels of information are presented. You actually have to agree with whatever the Findings, you have to make Findings that state what your decision is, what you agree with. Again, a majority of you, obviously. That’s not to suggest you can’t have disagreements. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Board disagree? I don’t think so. MR. VOLLARO-Just a quick questions. The 604 draft, this one here, I can compare this against that. That’s what we’re talking about? MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I want to know. Thank you. MR. MESINGER-Now, I anticipate that there may be some other changes, probably not terribly significant at this point, between now and when we next convene. Mark has give me a couple that I need to incorporate. I know I’m still wrangling with the applicant about a couple of things, but I think the substance is in front of you, and we’d certainly make you aware of anything else. MR. LEMERY-There are a couple of issues in here which, if they ended up in the last draft, they’re not acceptable to the applicant. MR. MESINGER-I understand that. MR. LEMERY-So they’ll have to be resolved. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. VOLLARO-Are they of any, in other words, is it noticed in here that we should know that, or not? MR. MESINGER-I think we can tell you what they are. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to know about it now. I don’t want to get to this next meeting and have another hurdle to jump. MR. COLLINS-That’s our point. If you’ve got a copy of some of the ones that we don’t agree with, we want to at least point those out so you guys know. MR. MESINGER-I understand there to be two. MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. MESINGER-And let me tell you what I think they are and you can tell me if I’m right. One is on Page Five. MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. MESINGER-It’s the last sentence of the paragraph at the top, beginning with “Failure”. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. Beginning with the word “Failure” at the top of Page Five, the paragraph that’s all underlined, the last full sentence starts “Failure of the Great Escape”, that’s a provision that the applicant does not agree with. MR. LEMERY-We won’t accept it if it’s in there. It’s not that we won’t agree with it. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and understand that it’s not up to the applicant. It’s up to the Planning Board. You can state that as strongly as you like. MR. LEMERY-Well, just so you know. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, the applicant’s position is it not only disagrees with that, but it won’t accept it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the finality of it, “won’t accept”. MR. SCHACHNER-The point I’m making is that it’s up to the Planning Board. MR. LEMERY-We find it to be demeaning and we find it to be. MR. MAC EWAN-Demeaning? MR. LEMERY-Demeaning, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Demeaning in what sense? MR. LEMERY-The idea that you have to put something in a statement (TAPE ONE ENDED) We had asked Stu Mesinger this afternoon to delete that. We have spent a considerable amount of time, day after day after day, with Stu and Chris working out what we believe to be a fair, reasonable and appropriate Findings Statement that reflects what was in the Impact Statement and reflects the concerns. The idea of putting something like this in the Findings Statement, with this Company, after all the things it has done, by submitting to the process and providing this Impact Statement, we find it to be insulting that someone here would insist that it be put in there, and we’re going to ask you to remove it. Everybody has their remedies, and if the Park does not do what it is required to do, as a result of this entire process, then the Town has its remedy, just as the Park has its remedy, if the Town acts in some fashion, in an arbitrary or capricious manner, relative to the environmental issues which have been addressed at the site plan process. So, as far as we’re concerned, this doesn’t need to be in here and I’ll defer to John. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. What would you suggest in lieu of that statement in there? MR. LEMERY-That it be deleted. MR. COLLINS-Just basically stop it where you’ve got. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. MAC EWAN-So what recourse or what safety net does the Town have if something is not fulfilled or agreed to and the Town needs to take action to remedy a situation that we’ve agreed to, or potentially have agreed to, in this Environmental Impact Statement? What recourse do we have? MR. SCHACHNER-Could I answer that question? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-The applicant’s response seems to be, for lack of a better way to put it, a very hurt, in the applicant’s own words, is that the applicant’s representative finds that proposed finding. MR. LEMERY-I find it demeaning. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, actually demeaning and insulting, and I think we need to come back to something that Mr. Strough said earlier, and obviously we’re not going to decide this issue tonight, but it’s healthy to debate it. As Mr. Strough said earlier, just like any other real property or any other viable business, it could be sold tomorrow. So to the extent that the Planning Board is swayed by the applicant’s cries of demeaning and insulting because it’s such a wonderful Company, none of which I have any basis, nor does anyone else, to dispute, understand that your determinations here are not specific to Mr. Collins, Mr. Lemery, Mr. Lebowitz, or anybody else. Your Findings relate to a project, a facility, if you will, a property. So I’m not saying keep it. I’m not saying take it out. I don’t think you should decide that tonight in any event. I just want to Counsel the Board that, to the extent that the applicant’s objection is that it’s demeaning and insulting because of the applicant’s sensational track record, the applicant may have an absolutely terrific track record. It may be sensational. It may be any other adjective you want to provide, but your Finding is not, I mean, not just this Finding, none of your Findings are applicant specific. MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes. I wouldn’t disagree with anything that Mark said. I would just point our that our main objection is that this provision is overkill. There’s plenty of stuff in this agreement that lays down the thresholds, that says that the thresholds are not met, you don’t get what you want on site plan review or you have to do additiional environmental study, or if the thresholds get violated later, on monitoring, you have to submit some kind of mitigation plan. You have to say how you’re going to get back within the thresholds. This takes it a step further, and what you’re saying here, and I’ve seen provisions like this, but usually they’re sort of things where, you know, somebody’s operating a landfill. MR. LEMERY-A junkyard. MR. LEBOWITZ-A junkyard, and they’re worried that they’ll take off in the middle of the night and leave all these old tires or old cars there, and then the Town can come in and clean up the old tires and the old the old cars. I mean, clearly, nobody here is thinking that. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me play the Devil’s Advocate for a minute. Let’s suppose, and everything’s hypothetical, we approve a major site plan for you up there, part of the site plan approval is certain conditions had to be met, well, you started it and you came back and asked the Planning Board, over the period of a year or so, for a couple of extensions to the site plan approval while you continued to work out the conditions of approval. Within that period, the Park gets sold, the new owner takes over, they come in and say, we’re not going to fulfill the obligation that the previous owner said they would do for site plan approval. So then what do we do? MR. LEMERY-I guess you deny site plan approval, don’t you? MR. MAC EWAN-How can you, it’s already been approved. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve already granted, it’s a granted site plan approval. MR. COLLINS-My problem, like Jack said, is overkill. I mean, if you read the sentence before that, okay, it says “If the excess cannot be mitigated, either on the Park’s own action or pursuant to the submitted mitigation plan, the Planning Board may require that the source be removed or cease operation”. Period. What’s wrong with that? Why do you need to go into and say, if you don’t do that, we’re going to sue you? That’s your right. I mean, that’s what we’re talking about tone. I have a problem with the tone on that. I mean, here we’ve done everything in our power to try to mitigate what we can, and then you come in and you say, we’re going to ask you to mitigate it, and if you can’t, we’re going to ask you to fix it, and if you don’t, we’re going to slap you. That’s what I have a problem with, the slapping. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-word it? MR. COLLINS-You want to work on the verbiage, I don’t have a problem. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. SCHACHNER-For what it’s worth, just so you know, neither I nor anyone connected with me is the author of this language. MR. COLLINS-I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-But for what it’s worth, I don’t read it as slapping the applicant, as Mr. Collins described. I read it as, using his train of thought, that it says, as he points out correctly, they have to do certain things. If they don’t do those things, we can require them to remove things or cease things, is what it says, and he’s right there, too, and then, this type of provision which is very, very common, but certainly not required, and nobody’s suggesting it’s an absolute requirement, this type of provision doesn’t really slap an unwilling or an uncooperative applicant. What is does is it enables a Lead Agency to act in the stead of an applicant, if an applicant stops doing or refuses to do that which the applicant has obligated him or herself or itself to do. That’s the type of provision it is. I don’t think it’s slapping anybody, but we can talk about it as a group. MR. LEMERY-I think in the spirit of the way this has been approached by the Great Escape, one of the largest significant employers in the community, the largest recreational entity in the entire community, spending over a million dollars to try to address concerns of the three neighborhoods that surround the Park, deal with issues, try to put a document together, it’s something that, it’s not in the spirit of what we hope will be, on a going forward basis, a way that this Company, and any successor Company, will behave with the Town. MR. COLLINS-So can we just say that we just disagree with the language. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Point taken. MR. COLLINS-The point, if you need to put something in, is fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll end it on this, on this topic, ask the Board members to think about it until we meet next. I’ll ask Staff to re-word the language. How’s that? MR. LEMERY-We have the same issue, Mr. Chairman, on Page Number Eight. MR. MAC EWAN-Page Number Eight. MR. LEMERY-The last sentence of Roman Numeral Three. MR. MAC EWAN-Roman Numeral Three, “Such mitigation may include…”? MR. LEMERY-Yes, “Such mitigation may include closure of parking lot”. You don’t have to say it. MR. COLLINS-Yes, it’s another one of those. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I ask a question on that? What is the remedy that you think the Town has, that you refer to? You say the Town has its other remedies. What remedy are you referring to? MR. LEBOWITZ-In terms of the noise issue? MR. LEMERY-If it doesn’t mitigate, according to the design standards, I assume you don’t, if it’s not monitored, we’re not going to get future site plan permits if we come in here. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s not your strongest argument. MR. MESINGER-That’s not what we want, though. MR. SCHACHNER-See, if that’s the best you can come up with, you’re giving a lot of ammunition to the need for this type of condition because understand, before you shake your head, hear me out, okay? Understand that the problem, the hypothetical problem that these types of conditions envision, generically, forget about Great Escape, forget about, you know, pick any project. The hypothetical problem that these types of conditions address is an existing failure to comply with a requirement, and to say to us as a Planning Board, not me but the Planning Board members, that the remedy you have, the reason that this type of remedy is not necessary is because the remedy that they have is don’t approve future projects, that doesn’t do it. MR. LEMERY-I haven’t finished, because that’s not the only remedy. You have whatever remedies you have that you have against any other business or property in the Town that doesn’t conform to. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, but your answer is the generic “any remedy”. Okay. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. LEMERY-You have whatever remedy we have to go and stop it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Speaking for myself, being on this Board for almost nine years, maybe it’s probably eight years too long, but nine years anyway, I have seen a significant amount of previous site plans that this Board has approved with conditions that aren’t complied with and become a very difficult thing to bring into compliance, and I’m thinking of one great one over on Big Boom Road that comes right to mind, and it’s difficult. While I don’t ever expect that’s going to happen with you guys, I think that, from a standpoint of the Town having the ability to not only monitor but to ensure that this over a year long period’s worth of work is going to be adhered to and followed, we have to look at protecting the interest of the Town, and that’s our job. So that being said, we’ll take it along the last comments that, I understand your comments, I’ll ask Staff to re-work the language, but I’m not supportive of taking it out. I’ll tell you that right now. MR. LEMERY-You’re talking about the second item? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking about both of your objections. I’m not in a position where, as a member of this Board, I’d want to see those taken out. I think it’s too important. This whole document is way too important not to be able to ensure that we’re going to cross every “T” and dot every “I”, which we’ve done up to this point. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask a question, along those lines of what we just said, and the example you used, who’s name will go nameless here, but does the Town have a remedy against a Big Boom Road situation today, if we wanted to exercise that remedy? It does not, obviously. You’re saying that we have no remedy at all against that situation. MR. RINGER-You have court. MR. ROUND-You’re talking about failure to complete a condition as identified by the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-There are, the answer to your question, Bob, is there are a number of potentially available remedies for situations of noncompliance. One of a standard, not a legally required, but a very common, I mean, the applicant’s legal counsel feels, appeals to feel insulted, demeaned, singled out, picked on and all the rest of that. MR. LEMERY-I didn’t say that. MR. SCHACHNER-But for what it’s worth, that just doesn’t strike me as realistic. This is, you know, whether you decide to impose these sorts of conditions in Finding language or not is totally up to you, but it’s very common to do it, as, basically, a self-effectuating enforcement provision, because the other types of potentially available remedies are typically very, very difficult to pursue. They’re very time consuming. They’re very expensive. They’re especially time consuming, and quite frankly they’re not always effective. MR. MAC EWAN-We know from experience. MR. VOLLARO-See, I wanted to find out, if, for example, in my deliberation or reviewing and decision process, that I said, well, I view that we take that out because, and you’re giving me the becauses, essentially. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, I had nothing to balance that statement against, not having watched anything take place or know exactly what remedies the Town has, in order for me to make an educated decision on this, I’d have to know both sides of this thing. This is a balancing act, the way I look at it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fair. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues, questions, comments? Members, Staff? Digest it by the 9. th MR. ROUND-July 9 is the next scheduled meeting date. It’s a 7 p.m. meeting date. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Here? MR. MAC EWAN-Right here in this room I’m guessing, or nearby. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. SCHACHNER-I won’t be free as Counsel. There’s a Town Board meeting that night. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do it the next night, Tuesday night. MRS. LA BOMBARD-July 10. th MR. MAC EWAN-Is that doable for you? MR. SCHACHNER-Go one more night and you’ve got me. MR. STROUGH-How about the Thursday? MR. SCHACHNER-Wednesday the 11. th MR. MAC EWAN-Wednesday the 11 okay with everybody? Wednesday the 11 okay with you thth guys over there in the corner? That’s the quickest we can put it together. MR. COLLINS-Are you guys okay with the 11? th MR. MAC EWAN-We’re okay with the 11. th MR. COLLINS-We’re fine with the 11. th MR. LEMERY-And we understand that you’ll take a look at the Sky Coaster that night also, if you adopt the Findings? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have any problem with that. MR. RINGER-We’ll have to have a public hearing on that. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not going to decide the Sky Coaster that night. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but on Wednesday we’ll be over there in that room. MR. RINGER-You’re going to have to have a public hearing on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Prior to the decision. MR. RINGER-It’s going to have to be announced. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. RINGER-Even if we discuss it, it’s going to have to be. MR. LEBOWITZ-It’s been noticed and tabled. MR. LEMERY-It’s already noticed and tabled. MR. SCHACHNER-The public hearing has been opened? MR. RINGER-No, I never opened it. MR. MAC EWAN-You never opened the public hearing? MR. RINGER-I didn’t want to open it. MR. SCHACHNER-So. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s got to be noticed. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-It has to be noticed, which there’s time to do at this time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Where’s the meeting on the 11? th MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to be over here in the Activity Center. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/21/01) MR. STROUGH-Are you sure that’s available on the 11? th MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a ZBA night. MR. ROUND-If there are other events scheduled there, we’ll clear it. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll make it. MR. ROUND-The goal is, on the 11, to adopt Findings. So do we expect that everybody is going th to have digested this given us feedback before the 11? th MR. MESINGER-That would certainly be helpful. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want feedback by e-mail? Is that how you do that? MR. ROUND-Can you transmit it to us that Friday before that? MR. MESINGER-That will be fine, and I, in turn, will probably have several minor revisions, potentially softening of language. We were directed to do that, prior to that. MR. SCHACHNER-The Chairman said to re-work the language. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody who’s got comments that they want to contribute to this, and I’m just trying to think of a timeline here, if you can get them to Staff by close of business on the fifth, that at least gives you Friday to put things together. MR. MESINGER-That’s fine, and get a revised set to us on Monday. Is that doable? Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other issues? Meeting adjourned. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 30