Loading...
1989-01-24 ---- QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting: Tuesday, January 24, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier Hilda Mann, Secretary Keith Jablonski Victor Macri Lee York, Sr. Planner John Goralski, Planner Quentin Kestner, Town Designated Consultant/Engineer Tim O'Byrne, Kestner Engineers, P.C. Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Absent: Paul Dusek, Counsel (Attending Town Board Meeting) Frank DeSantis Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes from previous meetings were reviewed. December 12, 1988: PUD No.3; West Mountain Pg. 8, Para. 1: Sentence: "Going to the site ...is another 20'" is correct as stated; conversation per Messrs. Krzys and DeSantis. Letter from Village of Corinth will be attached to the Minutes as Exhibit B. December IS, 1988: Subdivision No. 14-1988; Hickory Acres Pg. 2, Para. 3: .. plan will necessitate a preliminary.. sib will be necessary at a .. Pg. 4, Para. 4: .. sandy, silky soil.. sib .. sandy, silty soil plan Site Plan No. 48-88, Charles and patricia Mouzalas Pg. 3, Para. 4: Bill Blass sib Bill Glass December 20, 1988: Site Plan No. 68-88, Story town U.S.A. Within the report ·plantar· sib ·planter.· Pages 6, 7, 8 out of order; original corrected. Site Plan No. 71-88 Pg. 8, Para. 4: .. 2500 square feet .. sib .. 25 square feet .. Site Plan No. 72-88; Mohican Motel Pg. 10, Para. 4: .. Well #2. sib septic system. Site Plan No. 73-88, John Ellis Pg. 12, Para. 8: .. leach field, s/b.. well, .. Pg. 13: Mr. Culotti sib Colotti Mr. Roberts stated that the above-noted minutes are approved as amended, December 19, 1988 was approved as stated. 1 OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 71-88 The Whole Donut, Inc. The lunch is the proposal is for a fastfood facility; a Donut and Coffee Shop with a menu on Quaker Road between King Fuel and Taco Tom's, HC-1A. This location of the former Dairy Queen. (Tax Map No. 107-1-55.2, 55.3) Mr. Roberts noted that the application was previously Tabled by the Planning Board and a Variance was received from the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the required l05 parking spaces. Richard Morse, Morse Engineering, represented the project along with Bill Corbin of The Whole Donut, Inc. Other than the parking spaces, other issues raised were the propane storage tank, which is now in conformance with the NFDA stand- ards. Lights have been added off the back corner of the building. Staff spots at which Mr. lighting, that the building. comments included a notation the southeast corner seemed Kestner was concerned, namely, have been addressed. Some project is a good improvement that the two new employee parking to be tight. The two items about the propane tanks and the outside Board members were of the opinion and a reasonable recycling of the Public Hearing: no comment. Mr. Cartier reviewed with the Planning Board the Environmental Assess- ment Form, Part II; there was no negative impact. Resolution No. 71-88 is affixed to the Minutes. Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL Inc.. The Application is in have been made in accordance subject to the recommendations by of Site Plan No. 71-88, The Whole Donut, compliance with the Ordinance and changes with the Town Engineer. The Approval is the Queensbury Beautification Committee. The Town Planning Board reviewed 5.070, A through E (see Addendum X). Minutes. the Town Zoning Ordinance, Section Resolution 71-88 is affixed to the Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously NEW BUSINESS 2 SITE PLAN NO. 3-89 D. Brooks Teele The proposal is to remodel the single family home and build a 28 ft. x 22 ft. addition on Kattskill Bay Road, WR-1A. (Tax Map No. 19-1-32.1). D. Brooks Teele represented the application and stated that the purpose of the addition is to improve the property and that the present home is inadequate for his family. Because of the addition, an Area Variance was received from the Zoning Board of Appeals. About l2~' of the site will be disrupted, because of the addition of 674 square feet; the lot is 37,840 square feet. Raymond Buckley, Engineer, has been hired to design an appro- priate holding tank system; after installation of the holding tank, the old system will be obsolete. One bathroom is being added; however, there will be no change in the number of bedrooms. The dwelling is a year-round home. The present septic system has worked very well for l5 years, but Mr. Buckley advised the applicant that it is very hard to determine what is there, and there would be no guarantee of satisfactory performance with additional use. The present system borders on being 100 feet from the lake; the tank is about 75 feet back and the distribution box is another 10 feet. The ground material appears to be sandy soil. The problem with putting a septic system towards Kattskill Bay Road is because of the lOca- tions of the neighboring wells. Mrs. York noted to the Board that the application is Type I action, because it is within 500 feet of Lake George, thus necessitating the SEQR process which means the determination of a Lead Agency. In addition, if the Board wishes, Mr. Kestner will review the drawings which were sub- mitted after the cutoff date, January 24, 1989. Regarding holding tanks replacing present septic systems, Mr. Kestner's general opinion on any Site Plan is that the increased usage is based on bedrooms. Standards must be set regarding these types of septic problems, especially in the Lake George area. Mr. Roberts stated that the Board's philosophy is that any increase in size or usage of a building would re- quire the applicant to come up to code or to put in a holding tank. Since there is an increase in size to the subject dwelling, he would like to see a holding tank installed. Mr. Teele advised the Board that the contractor responsible for the construction will place a hay bale fence around the excavation, so no silt will wash into the lake. Public Hearing. leave open until SEQR has been satisfied. Mr. Roberts TABLED Site Plan No. 3-89, D. Brooks Teele, by Consensus of 3 the Town bury Town agencies. arrangement. Planning Board, and REQUESTED Lead Agency status for the Queens- Planning Board. Mrs. York is to notify all other involved He also suggested that the Engineers agree on the holding tank SITE PLAN NO. 4-89 Story town U.S.A., Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape The application is for a Water Park on Route 9, approximately 25 yards north of the intersection with Round Pond Road, RC-15. Mr. Roberts advised that the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereafter DEC) refused Lead Agency status; therefore, at this meeting the Town Planning Board will request Lead Agency status. The Department of Transportation (hereafter DOT) and the New York Statement Department of Health (hereafter DOH) will be notified. A Workshop Meeting with the applicant was held prior to this meeting, and Mr. Roberts suggested another Workshop Meeting early in February for the purpose of the SEQR review and other pertinent matters. Robert Stewart, Esq., represented the applicant. Mrs. York read a letter from Tom Hall of DEC recommending the Queensbury Town Planning Board as Lead Agency (Exhibit A), and Mr. Stewart requested that this status be determined as quickly as possible. The applicant has had intro- ductory meetings with DEC, DOH, and DOT and, so far, the agencies have found no significant problem with the proposal; however, the project is in an early stage. The departments have been requested to notify the appli- cant immediately of any problems that might arise. Mr. Stewart John Whalen. site, expressed seeks to develop immediate answer, mentioned that he talked to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Whalen, who owns 40 acres to the east of the proposed concern about the impact of the noise on the land that he as a subdivision. Mr. Stewart explained that there is no but the problem will be faced during the SEQR review. Mrs. York read into the record five letters from residents in opposi- tion to the project (Exhibit Bl-5). The chief complaints submitted were: increased traffic flow and parking problems1 encroachment on the wetlands; heights of the new rides (Mrs. York agreed with Mr. Roberts that the height of the rides are not pertinent to this application); the existing park has outgrown its space and should not be allowed to expand; high level of noise that the rides will generate (persons screaming/laughing); and, reduction of neighboring property value. In addition, reference was made to the Zoning Ordinance Section 5.070 E.7 regarding landscaping and screening between the applicant and the adjoining land; and, Section 5.071, Item 4, regarding noise levels. Mr. Whalen specifically requested a 300 foot wide noise buffer between his property line and the proposed 4 water slide. Mr. Stewart clarified that the applicant's property is situ- ated in two zones: RC - residential commercial, and LC42 - Land Conserva- tion 42 acres. Mrs. York read Staff comments (Exhibit C) which reported that the total proposed facility is 39.l acres and will be used for commercial use. This is a Type I action and a Long Environmental Assessment Form has been sub- mitted. Lead Agency status should be established at this meeting. Regarding the residents' comments about expansion of the park and the new rides, Mr. Stewart stated that the park does an enormous amount of repeat business, as can be verified by local restaurants, hotel/motel owners, etc.. The families that do come often stay for a number of days or weeks, just to visit the park, the business is not necessarily new people. The repeat business necessitates constant upgrading of the rides and new concepts and ideas. In order to construct the best water park possible, Mr. Wood consulted with appropriate concerns throughout the country on the engineering aspect. Morse Engineering has been retained as the local engineering firm to absorb and coordinate the necessary information. Mr. Stewart intro- duced Richard Morse, President, Nick Sciartelli, Traffic Consultant; and Jim Hutchins, responsible for the technical status of the rides. Mr. Cartier referred to the New York State Wetlands Ordinance, Section 5, Page 5, Permits, regarding activities in a wetland and adjacent to the wetland. -No person shall conduct a regulated activity on any freshwater wetland or the adjacent area, unless such person has obtained a permit.- It is important that everyone involved be aware of that section of the Ordinance, and that the law applies to the proposed application. Richard Morse: Engineering Mr. Morse reviewed the application and noted that the proposed entrance for the facility will be adjacent to the main entrance for the Red Coach Restaurant; there is a handicapped entrance north of the main entrance. A right/left entrance can be made from the northbound and southbound lanes for patrons' vehicles and service vehicles. Service vehicles would have access to The Great Escape Fun Park and the Water Park for the purpose of bringing food in and taking food out of the facility. Parking for the Water Park commences at the access point across from the Red Coach and extends north to the cul-de-sac. Patrons would be picked up by trams and dropped off at the entrance building, the trams would swing back through the existing parking lot in front of the existing facility. Islands have been designed for the pedestrians, who are to be transferred to and from the facility. Mr. Morse noted that the proposed facility is not in the wetlands, which have been tagged by DEC and have been labeled as -edge of wetlands,- not necessarily edge of water, but edge of the vegetative cover that is specified as wetlands. 5 Tickets can be purchased for the Water Park or for The Great Escape; in addition, transfer tickets may be secured. After entering the Water Park, patrons would have access to a building with lockers and changing areas. Various features were reviewed. Lazy River Ride: A large trough about 15 ft. diameter x 3 ft. deep; fil- tered water is picked up and reinjected into the trough to create a current; people rent tubes to float in the river. The Lazy River Ride surrounds water features such as shallow wading pools for children, hot tubs, and adult pools. (2) Wave this is period. into a people. Pools: l) Boogie Board Pool, where surf boards can be rented; meant for teens and young adults; there is a wave generation 2) ·Classic· Wave Pool that allows for body surfing and breaks shallow pool area; this is meant more for children and younger Water Slides: The water slides were placed in an area to take adequate use of the natural grades, so that structures would not have to be constructed for elevation. Colorado River Ride: This is a nonwater, contact ride; patrons would be taken to the top of a hill on a ski lift, enter into inflatable boats and ride down the river. It is an at-grade facility, construc- tion is basically gunite or poured concrete reinforced, with two inches of foam sprayed on top. Water is reinjected at the top of the ride. Tube Slides: (Half or full tube). Patrons take off at combined launch- ing areas, and each slide discharges into a splash-down pool. There are (2) Aqua Tube Slides; (3) Giant Slides in one cluster, and (2) Continuous Tube Run Slides and (2) Aquatube Slide in another cluster. High Speed Slide: This requires a large drop at one point, where the individual goes into a ·0· water trough, then pitches up slightly. Children's Area: There are a number of slides similar to the adult slides, which use the same techniques but are smaller and have less pitch. There is a kidde lazy river and some small pools. Mr. Morse also reviewed major concerns for the proposed park. (1) Potential for contamination of the wetland, the ·Fen:· Contact has been made with the DEC Wildlife Habitat Research Center in Delmar. The Center expressed concern about the growths in the Fen, because of the turnover rate of water. The parking area, access road and service area road will be reshaped so that any stormwater that falls on the facilities will be retained within the parking area, which will be of a natural gravel turf. The seasonal occupancy of the water park plus the potential that the water 6 -' park will not receive intensive use during wet water, will lend itself to the proposed usage. (2) Area around the existing equipment storage building, which has been used for overflow parking: This will be regraded, resurfaced and the storm discharge will be retained to a designed storm of 50 years within the parking lot. The concept used for storm water within the park itself is that there is a collection system which would receive, intercept and discharge the storm water within perforated pipes within the storm water retention system, and then discharge the stormwater to the recharge basin that is located approximately 80 feet from the wetland, at its closest point. The facility has been sized to handle in excess of a 50 year return period storm, prior to any water entering the wetland. (3) Chlorinated effluent from the pool: DOH requires that the water be chlorinated and the filters will be backwashed. The filtered water will be discharged to a large holding vessel, which will be sized at 1.5 times the maximum backwash rate. The effluent will be aerated until the chlor- ine in the water has dropped to ·0.- Then the sediment will drop to the bottom of the tank, which will be discharged into dry wells. There are clusters of filtration points around the facility. On occasion, there will be a requirement to empty one or all of the pools for seasonal clean- ing. If there is chlorine residual in the pool, it will be continuously filtered without the addition of chlorine, until the residual has been eliminated and the water would be adjusted to a neutral pH. At that point, the water would be discharged to either the dry wells or storm water collection system. The entire facility is able to handle the amount of flow. (4) Three existing bathhouse facilities which handle the RV Park: The bathhouses have been evaluated along with the proposed facilities, and DEC is of the opinion that the present system is currently adequate to handle the facility. The SPDES Permit will be amended solely to reflect the change in operation of the facility from the RV Campground to the Water Park. Miscellaneous questions from the Board were answered by Mr. Morse. The Raging River is a 30 foot side lot setback from the property line. Sea- sonal shutdown would require that water be left in the pool; it would be dropped approximately one foot below the gutter. There would be no chance of chlorine residual to remain in the water during the winter. The hours of operation are 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Traffic has been evaluated around the Water Park traffic and peak volumes on Route 9, and a Level of Service A has been retained; that level is currently in existence at 40 m.p.h.. 62,000 from two site, and gallons of water per day will be used; this number was obtained different water park suppliers. Tom Flaherty has reviewed the one requirement is the installation of a meter pit on the main 7 eight inch feed. A written report from Mr. Flaherty will be requested. Nick Sciartelli addressed the traffic exiting and entering the 450 car proposed parking lot, and DOT was in agreement with the assumptions made regarding the traffic flow. It was assumed that the traffic using the park would enter during a two-hour period, 200 cars/hour; 70% of the cars would enter from the north, about 20% would enter from the south. Upon exiting from the park, all vehicles would have to proceed north on Route 9. The existing traffic on Route 9 was obtained from recent traffic counts made by Department of Public Works/Warren County, which were at the intersections of Glen Lake Road/Route 9 and Round Pond Road/Route 9. The traffic was evaluated as it passed the entrance to the park, which was annual, average-day traffic. That number was increased by 20%, which would be representative of seasonal traffic. Added to that traffic was the traffic that enters/exits through the proposed entrance. It was noted that the peak hours for the Water Park and Route 9 do not coincide; how- ever, the numbers were coupled to determine the level of service on Route 9 at this intersection. The result of the calculations was a Level of Service A. Mrs. Mann disagreed with the determination of Level of Service A, and read from the Traffic Handbook. -No vehicle waits longer than one red indication, typically the approach appears quite open, turning movements are equally made and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. The only deterrent being the chance the light will be red or turn red when approached.- She emphasized the importance to further discuss the traffic in the future workshop session. Mr. Sciartelli reiterated that the Level of Service A was at the access intersection only and not the entire road. The reasons for the right-only turn were 1) to direct vehicles to the two Northway entrances to the north and 2) that the majority of traffic would originate from the north. He further stated that the peak hour traffic figures on Route 9 did take into consideration the Municipal Center traf- fic moving south and the traffic exiting to the north from the two parking areas by the existing red lights. Mr. Morse noted that the present railroad trestle will be relocated, in order to facilitate vehicular movement to traffic lights located at the existing parking lots (for a right or left turn), or to the proposed parking lot (mandatory right turn). The berm between the wetland and the facility is at a level of 202 and 204 elevation. The floor of the recharge basin would be at 200; the floor had to be dropped to get the hydraulics to drain out. Regarding bathroom facilities, the current permit is for approximately 350 campers, and the projected permit usage is for 2,230 persons, includ- ing employees. The septic systems will be able to handle the increase. An overnight camper in an RV park uses approximately 150 gallons of water per hookup/day (showers, toilet facilities, lavatories, washing machines), whereas a day patron uses approximately 10 gallons of water per patron 8 per day. DEC figures are used for the generation. The location of the RV tank dump facility on the high ground will be reserved for a future sewage disposal system, which is a new requirement by DEC. If an RV camper was self-contained, the camper was able to use dump station. Mr. Morse pointed out that the presently-approved SPDES Permit has never been fully executed on the site. Currently in use are five dis- charge points that were constructed, nine points were permitted. DEC would accept the application rate. A presentation was made to those per- sons involved with Regulatory Affairs, Wetlands and the SPDES Permit and, at that point, they seemed to be satisfied with the methods and techniques of reuse of existing facilities. Applications are in the process of being made. The backwash facilities will be noted but not permitted. The wet- lands have been surveyed and there is an infringement within the 100 foot buffer of the wetlands; therefore a permit has been submitted for that purpose. There is also a stream disturbance at the road crossing. Public Hearing Mark Pellegrino, Esq. (Albany law firm representing Queensbury citi- zens) Mr. Pellegrino was of the opinion that the Site Plan Review must be Tabled, because the project is within the SEQR process and the EAF is not complete because of unanswered questions. All of the environmental, social and economic factors must be taken into consideration. Further, he made a formal request that the Town reconsider its position regarding re- questing Lead Agency status and noted that he will approach DEC on this subject. His reason for the objection is that the site is a Type I wet- land and there are rare occurrences with respect to vegetation and the basin that serves Glen Lake. Mr. Pellegrino was advised by the Board that a request had been made to DEC regarding Lead Agency status, and DEC denied the request. In addi- tion, the Board advised that the Public Hearing will be extended, because the Site Plan Review cannot begin until Lead Agency status has been deter- mined, SEQR must be satisfied first. In addition, Mr. Pellegrino feels that the application for the new rides and the Water Park should be considered together under SEQR, because it is under the same ownership, within the same amusement park, and there can be no segmentation under SEQR. Mr. Macri noted that that subject will probably be addressed during the SEQR process. In addition, the application appeared to be incomplete with respect to impact on the zones. Mr. Dusek start in the of the SEQR commented that the Board acknowledges that review process for the Water Park and that the process, which will taken place in a workshop. this is only a Board is aware As far as the 9 DEC involvement is concerned, it is up to the Town Planning Board as to how the Lead Agency status is to be handled, if the agencies involved cannot agree upon a Lead Agency, then the Commissioner will act upon that position. There are no regulations restricting meetings that the Planning Board wishes to have on the application. Mr. Dusek's concern is that the consultant employed by the Town be on hand and have sufficient time to review the plans, in order to be able to participate in the workshop. Robert Canterbury: Canterbury Drive at Glen Lake. Mr. Canterbury's major concern is the 62,000 gallons of water used/day. He asked what will happen in regards to any seepage that might occur and what effects it would have on Glen Lake. The main source of his water supply is from Glen Lake. Mr. Canterbury is thinking of the future and the things that may happen to destroy the quality of the lake itself. He is not opposed to improvement, as long as the improvement does not have any impact on the lake and DEC extends its approval. Another concern is the traffic at Glen Lake Road and Route 9, especially if the traffic from the northern exit of the park is directed in a northerly direction. Michael O'Connor, Esq.: resident of Glen Lake and representative of the Glen Lake Protective Association. Mr. O'Connor was of the opinion that inadequate data has been presented at this meeting and that the decision to request Lead Agency status is premature. More information is needed regarding the existing park, as well as the new rides and features, when considering the enchancement and improvement of the attractiveness of the existing park. Since the park will be more attractive, Mr. O'Connor questioned if 450 cars is a realis- tic number. The total impact on the area and Glen Lake must be con- sidered. Mr. O'Connor noted that there has been no admission by the applicant that a major portion of the traffic pattern is in an LC42 acre zone which, he feels, is not a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Morse concurred that somewhere in the parking area there is an intersection with the LC42 zone, Mr. O'Connor requested that an overlay be developed showing the LC42 zone. He also questioned if the applicant should continue with the Site Plan Review presentation, since no application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance and no Application has been made to the Town Board for rezoning of the areas in question. The main objection from the Glen Lake residents is that, although the proposed construction may not be within the flagged wetlands, the proposal is to build close enough that there will be an impact. Mr. O'Connor noted that correspondence he had from DEC stated that the area will have to be closely watched because of future impact on the wetland, the wetland is a significant habitat. The main inlet to the lake is through the subject site from Rush Pond. 10 Regarding the proposed northern parking area, Mr. O'Connor questioned if it could be eliminated; perhaps there would be less opposition, as there would be less expansion and less commercial area along the wetlands. If there is to be mutual gating for both parks, he suggested using the main gates. Were alternative parking sites reviewed? It is necessary to know the total number of patrons for both sites and the total number of parking spots. He questioned the engineers' numbers of 2,300 people:450 cars. Does the applicant own other holdings in the area and, if there is land, what will be done with it? Mr. O'Connor also noted that there is no information on the flood plain which, he believes, runs through the recharge basin to the west side of the highway. Mr. Morse acknowledged that the maps presented show both pre- sent and proposed contours. The elevation of the existing grade of the recharge basin is 208 and the floor of the recharge basin is 200. He affirmed to Mr. O'Connor that, to his knowledge, there has been no work done that is not reflected on the contours presented at the meeting. Mr. O'Connor reiterated that all of the applicant's land holdings must be considered, and not each part individually. He requested to reserve the right on behalf of the Glen Lake Protective Association to raise com- ments as to the substance of the application, once the application is completed. Bartley J. Costello, III, Esq.: represented Queensbury residents. Mr. Costello agreed with previous concerns regarding traffic flow. He presented a letter to the Board dated 1/24/89 (Exhibit D). Ron Bryant: Courthouse I resident. Mr. Bryant's major concern is the traffic on Route 9 and that it is pro- posed to be directed to the north, where the Miracle Half Mile is located. Mr. Bryant was informed that the reason the engineers stated that the patrons would be coming from the north is because of the probability that the vehicles would use the Northway Exit 20 and then proceed south to the amusement park. Mr. Macri noted to Mr. Roberts comments about which he is concerned, and requested that they be addressed in future workshOps. l) The method of stormwater discharge and the fact that 65,000 gallons of water per day will be used, even though there is evaporation and some loss due to back- washing. The majority of water that will be splashed will be onsite and will be contaminated with chlorine. He asked why an aeration system was not being proposed for the entire stormwater system. 2) There should be a traffic from Exit 19 to for the survey, because and other circumstances. more elaborate traffic study which would include Exit 20. He questions the noted peak hours used the hours could change according to the weather 11 '- Frank DuCrese(sp?)a resident of Courthouse Drive Mr. DuCrese noted that for three months of the year the outdoors are not used because of the noise pollution that comes from The Great Escape. For the past month, one acre of trees has been removed along Glen Lake Road. This will add to the noise that drifts up to Courthouse. Public Hearinga To be held open. Mr. Morse confirmed to the Planning Board that his firm would welcome the opportunity to make a presentation to the Town Consultant, in order to facilitate movement of the application. Board members were concerned about the status of the time clock, in respect to SEQR, Lead Agency status and Tabling of the Application. Mrs. York explained that to Table an application means that there is an agree- ment between the applicant and the Planning Board to extend the time frame for however long it takes to satisfy the Board. If the applicant agrees to the Tabling, it is with that understanding. Mr. Roberts advised Mr. Stewart that letters would be sent promptly to other involved agencies regarding Lead Agency status. The Town of Queensbury Planning Board TABLED Site Plan No. 4-89, Story- town U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape, for more information. Robert Stewart, Esq., affirmed that the applicant will stipulate that there are no objections or that objections that the applicant might have are waived for the Planning Board to not make a final determination of the Site Plan Review until the SEQR process has been completed in all respects. Mr. Macri moved that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board request Lead Agency status for Site Plan No. 4-89, Story town U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape. Lee York, Sr. Planner, is to notify all involved agencies. Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously SITE PLAN NO. 5-89 Genesse Refrigeration David Dyminski The application is for the construction of a steel building to house an office and wholesale refrigeration supply distribution/warehouse on the south side of the Boulevard, LI-1A. (Tax Map No. 112-1-15.3) Mr. Goralski requested that read a letter from Mack Dean, Morse Engineering, which the application be Tabled until February 1989, due to the 12 inability of the representatives to be present at this meeting. The Queensbury Planning Board agreed Genesse Refrigeration, as requested in Agent, Mack Dean, Morse Engineering. to TABLE a letter Site Plan No. 5-89, from the Applicant's SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989; SKETCH PLAN Hughes Subdivision The application is for twelve (12) lots for Medical Professional Offices on 8.31 acres of land, located on the west side of Bay Road oppo- site Bayberry Drive, MR-5. (Tax Map No. 60-7-10, 11.1.) Tom McCormack represented the Applicant and noted a reduction of four lots to three lots in the northeastern corner of the subdivision. An attempt has been made to maintain 30% permeability. Drainage on Baywood Drive will be brought out of the subdivision via a drainage easement at the northeastern corner of the subdivision. A letter from Fred Austin ~~ stated that it is possible for the drainage to be connected to the County's 24-inch culverts on Bay Road. There would be another opening in the drop inlet, and the water would then continue east from the Hughes property for 200 to 300 feet to a swale, which connects to Old Maid's Brook flowing out of the Adirondack Community College property and through other properties to the south towards the golf course. There would be no interruption of the County system. Tim O'Byrne, Kestner Engineering, reviewed their letter dated l/24/89 (Exhibit F), with the following suggestions I l) completion of a Stormwater Management Report; 2) requirement of storm inlets every 300 ft. of surface flow; 3) submission of details for a raised bed system, due to the fact that soil tests show high groundwater - 19- and 34-, and, 4) each lot should have Site Plan Review. Mr. McCormack advised that, in this stage of the Sketch Plan and since the plan was submitted, plans have been developed for drop inlets. Mrs. York further stated that the applicant has to prove that the area is buildable and that the lot can carry the capacity. Further, Mr. Macri noted that there might be a problem with sanitary sewage on the site. In respect to that, Mr. McCormack said that the parcel is being treated as a subdivision and sewage disposal is being addressed as in any other subdivi- sion; iel size of the building and the activity in the building. Other concerns Mr. Macri noted were permeability, amount of land available for the sewerage disposal systems, parking requirements, etc.; whether or not the lots are too small, etc.. Mr. Goralski's that runs to the Staff comments expressed concern regarding the brook southwest of the property and its affect on Lots 6/7. 13 Mr. McCormack agreed that the runoff would be mitigated. Mr. Hughes noted that there are potential buyers for the upcoming years for Lots 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Parking for doctor's offices require one space for every l50 square feet of gross floor area. Mr. Kestner noted that the present sewer lines stop at the Crocodile Club. There will be a hearing in 30 to 60 days to extend the sewers to the Queensbury Town Hall (completion might be in a few years). Therefore, the applicant is advised to install on on-site system until such time as sewers are available. Mr. McCormack advised that the tile field is sized for the use to which the building will be put. Flow standards from the Dept. of Conservation are used, which incorporate the number of employees and square footage, since there are no standards from the Dept. of Health. Mr. Cartier re- quested information regarding medical waste. Dr. Roger Brassel: The medical waste issue recently has been addressed by the State of New York and, in regards to removal of waste from the site, the waste removal is only for infectious waste, ie: bandages, syringes, etc. Urinary substances and normal feces are not considered to be infectious waste and are discharged into the normal system. This is true for the entire State of New York, including the Hudson River. The buildings at the present site do not have trouble with sewage, Dr. Brassel's building has been located south of the subject site since 1977. Mr. Hughes also advised the Board that, for 20 years, the apartment project next door has had no problems with sewerage and the soil type is approximately the same as the sUbject site, during construction the exist- ing soil is removed and new-type soil is brought to the site. Mr. Macri reviewed Sections A through D, 1-1989 is affixed to the with the Board the Environmental Assessment Form, there were no negative impacts. Resolution No. Appendix. Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 1-1989, Hughes The Applicant is to incorporate the recommendations of Kestner Engineering. Subdivision. Tim O'Bryne, Seconded by Mr. Macri. Passed Unanimously SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE. 14 Brookview Acres John M. Hughes The request is for the adjustment of the boundaries of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Brookview Acre Subdivision; this would be a modification of an existing subdivision on the East side of Bay Road, south of Adirondack Community College, MR-5. (Tax Map No. 60-4-l). Tom McCormack, Coulter and McCormack Land Surveyors, represented the Applicant and advised that Lots 4 and 7 were being enlarged and the remain- ing portions of Lots 5 and 6 were being combined into one lot. All public utilities are presently in existence. Public Hearinga no comment Mrs. York recommended that the Board waive any further approvals by the Board, since the Application is for the modification of an existing sub- division and solely for the purpose of alterations to lot lines; no addi- tional lots are being created. Mr. Cartier reviewed with the Board the Environmental Assessment Form, A D; there were no negative impacts. Resolution No. 2-1989 is affixed to the Appendix. Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 2-1989, FINAL APPROVAL, Brookview Acres/John M. Hughes, based on Staff's recommendations that no new lots are being created; this is an adjustment to boundary lines. Seconded by Mr. Cartier. Passed Unanimously SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1989 Cranberry Lane This is an application for an eight (8) lot subdivision on 10.41 acres of land on the south side of Sherman Avenue, approximately .020 miles east of West Mountain Road, SR-1A. The subdivision is for residential use; there will be l,lOO± of new road. (Tax Map No. 121-1-19.1, 21.1). David Higgs represented the project and explained that the subdivision is for eight (8) lots, all one acre or larger; the cul-de-sac of l,lOO± feet will be off Sherman Avenue, 1,400 feet east of West Mountain Road. Nearby intersections include a Taylor on the north side of Sherman Avenue, which is just above the west boundary of the subdivision; and Algonquin, which is to the east of the east boundary of the subdivision. The road will be built to Town specifications, and the water line will be extended 15 into the site to provide water from a 12 inch main on Sherman Avenue. Staff's comments included the fact that wells and septic systems on adjacent properties were not shown on the Site Plan.J the Lands of Higgs & Crayford, Inc. are existing, pre-existing lotsJ the depth of the High Water Map and the depth of the Bed Rock Map indicate high development suit- ability; the Percolation Map indicates limited development suitabilitYJ and the Slope Map shows moderate suitabilitYJ and, the cul-de-sac is longer than the Zoning Ordinance Requirement. The Town Highway Department requested a more in-depth drainage system and a more detailed description of where the water is going from the property and where it will go in the future. Tim o 'Byrne, Kestner Engineering, reviewed the engineering comments (Exhibit H). Mr. Higgs said that the drainage issue will be presented at the Prelim- inary Approval level. The sUbject site rises up to the land of the Clendon Ridge Subdivision. The test holes showed evidence of sand and a small amount of gravel; there was no evidence of water having been on the site or run across the site. The terrain slopes very graduallYJ the dif- ference from the highest to the lowest level is about eight feet. Mr. Cartier was concerned that the site is in an aquifer recharge area. Mr. Macri informed Mr. Higgs that stipulations incorporated into other restrictive covenants include the following: no more than 60% of the land can be clearedJ and, no clearing shall take place within ten (10) feet of the side lot lines, except within forty-five (45) feet of the front lot line. Mr. Roberts requested that the above information be noted on the plat and incorporated into the deed restrictions. Regarding the new road with a cul-de-sac, which is proposed to measure 1,100± feet, Mr. Cartier felt that the distance should conform to Zoning standards of l,OOO feet. Mrs. York will review the situation with the Highway Department. Mr. Jablonski reviewed with the Board the Environmental Assessment Form, A-D. See Resolution No. 3-1989 in the Appendix. Mr. Jablonski moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 3-1989, SKETCH PLAN, Cranberry Lane. The motion is to include a letter from the Highway Depart- ment regarding the length of the road, change in the cul-de-sac and the 50 foot tangent between the reverse curves between Lots land 8. Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously 16 PLANRING BOARD BUSINESS By The following shall the Rules and Procedures for the conduct of business of the Planning Board. SECTION I - ORGANIZATIONs A. MEMBERSHIP The membership and terms of office shall be as specified in the Resolution establishing the Board as set forth in the Town Law. B. OFFICERS The Executive Officers of the Town Planning Board shall be the Chair- man, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Planning Board shall annually make a recommendation to the Town Board and the Town Board shall annu- ally designate a member of said Planning Board to act as Chairman there- of. The Planning Board shall annually elect a Vice-Chairman from its members, and other officers as it deems necessary. In case the Chair- man and Vice-Chairman are absent, the Board may appoint a Chairman pro-tempore. Officers for 1989 Presidents Richard Roberts Vice-Chairmans Frank DeSantis Secretarys Hilde Mann Mr. Roberts adjourned the meeting at lls30 p.m. Richard Roberts, Chairman Date ~ enographer d..¿.E? Da te / ~ References Site Plan Review No. 4-89 Storytwon U.S.A., Inc. For the purpose of the final transcription and upon the advice of Counsel, the wording of the Initial transcri of the above-referenced minutes, which were prepared per Mrs. or st, has not been changed; how- ever, spelling has been corrected. 17 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 5.070 REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW In order to approve any Type I and Type II Site Plan Review use, the Planning Board shall find that: A. The use complied with all other requirements of this Ordinance, includ- ing the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located, and B. The use would be in harmony with the general purpose of intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character, and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the pro- posed use, and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use, and C. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create pUblic hazards from traffic, traffic congestion, or the park- ing of automobiles or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town, and D) The project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made neces- sary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making this determination, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the devel- opment considerations set forth herein and in so doing, the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in Section 6.040 of this Article. E. The Planning Board review of the Site Plan shall include, as appropri- ate, but not limited to the following general standards: l. Location arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. 2. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circula- tion, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. ... continued ... 18 TOWN OF QUEENS BURY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 5.070 REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW PAGE 2 3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. 4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circu- lation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. 5. Adequacy of storm water drainage facilities. 6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. 7. Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance includ- ing replacement of dead or deceased plants. 8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. 9. Adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Rev.: 8/16/88 ADDENDUM X 19 RESOLU'l'ION WHEN DE'l'ERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 71-88 January 24 , 1988 Introduced by I Peter Cartier Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded bYI Joseph Dybas WHEREAS, there is for: Site Plan No. fastfood facility, and presently 71-88, The before Whole the Planning Board an application Donut, Inc., for renovation to a WHEREAS, this Planning and Planning Board action mental Quality Review Act, Board has determined that the proposed project is subject to review under the State Environ- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. No other agencies appear to be involved. 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli- cant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter- mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1988, by the following votel AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 I 20 RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 1-1989 January 24 , 1988 Introduced bYI Victor Macri Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded by I Hilde Mann WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application forI Subdivision No. 1-1989, SKETCH PLAN, Hughes Subdivision, for the construction of twelve (12) Medical Professional Offices; and WHEREAS, this Planning and Planning Board action mental Quality Review Act, Board has determined that the proposed project is subject to review under the State Environ- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. No other agencies appear to be involved. 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli- cant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter- mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1988, by the following vote: AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 I 21 RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 2-1989 January 24 , 1988 Introduced bYI Peter Cartier Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded bYI Keith Jablonski WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application for: Subdivision No. 2-1989, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, Brookview Acres, for boundary line adjustment of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, and WHEREAS, this Planning and Planning Board action mental Quality Review Act, Board has determined that the proposed project is subject to review under the State Environ- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: l. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. No other agencies appear to be involved. 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli- cant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter- mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1988, by the following vote: AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 J 22 RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 3-1989 January 24 , 1988 Introduced by: Keith Jablonski Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded by: Hilde Mann WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application for: Subdivision No. 3-1989, SKETCH PLAN, Cranberry Lane, for an eight (8) lot subdivision, and WHEREAS, this Planning and Planning Board action mental Quality Review Act, Board has determined that the proposed project is subject to review under the State Environ- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. No other agencies appear to be involved. 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli- cant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter- m~n~ng whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1988, by the following vote: AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 I 23 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 220, Hudson Street Warrensburg, New York 12885-0220 Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 688-5441 ~ ..., ~ Thomas C. Jorllng Commissioner January 19, 1989 Ms. Lee York Planning Department Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 Re: SEQR - Coordination of Review Tahitian Park at Great Escape Queensbury (T), Warren (Co.) Dear Ms. York: As a result of a recent meeting with Morse Engineering, who represents The Great Escape, our office has determined that the above-referenced project will require certain permits from the Department of Environmental Conservation. In addition, the project appears to be a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Since the Town of Queensbury also has jurisdiction over the project, I am writing to coordinate our review and to designate a lead agency pursuant to SEQR. On the basis of the information received to date, it is our recommendation that the Queensbury Town Planning Board be the lead agency for the Tahitian Park. This decision is based on our determination that the impacts associated with the park will be primarily of local significance. I would appreciate your confirmation of the Board's decision on this matter by February 20, 1989. Should you have any questions, please contact me at the Warrensburg office. Sincerely, J.- QAj , &~( Thomas W. Hall Associate Environmental Analyst TWH/cg cc: Al Koechlein Al Matrose /é'i 11-1181 T /J "1'" . I . t, __ .I( .~ ~_::.;- .~~ Karen Whitman RD #2 Box 309 West Mt. Rd. Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 January 23, 1989 ;\ , \ ~, ,,-j! "".""{"IJWJ· ..-~_., ". _M ,...~.. "I :\.J;.li't 1.'" \\. ~.' ij Ù" i Ju,' ,u ¡..._... I ".. \" ' ....~.,.I ç;,;;;. Mr. Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Planning Board Bay and Haviland Rd. Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 '""¡.,I'\.....II,.~ .. 4LON'NC nE~"ATMENT Dear Mr. Roberts and Planning Boards I am writing to voice my concerns pertaining to the Water ?ark proposed at or adjacent to the Great Escape Amusement Park. I am very concerned about the increase to an already :hazardous traffic problem and parking problem at the Great Escape. The applicant is proposing to do away with the existing Camp Ground and replace it with a park (water park). By eliminating the camp ground, they are eliminating approximately 300 plus spaces for parking, which campers probably left their vehicles parked attthe camp ground while they visited the Great Escape for the day. Therefore, he is eliminating 300 spaces and adding an additional amusement (water) park of 39.1 acres, which would increase hi~ustomer capacity by at least 50%. So, if he is increasing park .size by 50% and eliminating 300 spaces at the same time, I would calculate that he would need 300 spaces plus 50% of existing parking spaces, which I would calculate at 2000. Just from these figures, he would need approximately 1300 additional parking spaces to the spaces that he already has.. He has only proposed 450 parking spaces {and located on the wetlands) which is a totally ridiculous number. I feel that with the size expansion that has been proposed, he just does not have enough raom~fO'r such an expansion and certainly not enough for the parking to handle the additional business that the water park will create. I am sure that the applicant plans on having a substantial increase in his business, or why else put millions into such an immense project. If I wanted to build something on my property and there wasn't enough room, and the only land I had left was wetlands, you can bet that the Planning Board would tell me , no way. I would have to tear an existing structure down to make room for a new project if all the useable land had been depleted. I certainly would not be given the same considerations that Charles R. Wood, and his corpQrations have been given. If the parking is increased to the number of spaces that it should be(1300and more), than the traffic will increase to an unbearable degree. Please read this letter into the record at the Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 24, 1989. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, (OJuAuLU~l~ b~ \3~3Dq Q '-l 0 0 (\-s bu-"-<t- E'(#16Ir 131 '... '. ? ~ ' i I ; ;,1", J i' t.J<~J. ~ -',' \ , ....¡ c~· F C~ :..:.:... .~,.~" "" ~ ¡ .~- ~ ,-. \.... ..... j :.-l Town ~f Que~nsbury 'j ~.. ¡ &(Ç~UW[~~I " Plannlng Board, ¿ ~ Ii Bay and Haviland Rds.~ JAI'J 2d ·I~~~·~,U.' Glens Falls N.Y. 12801 - )LANNING & ZONINC nFlMRTMENT Board Members, I would like the planning board to review these issues in reference to the proposed "largest water park in N.Y. state", to be located at or near the Great Escape. I request the board to review the project, as it appears the project is located in a wetland area, with the parking located less than 5 feet from the wetlands, which I believe is a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law. Also this parking and part of the new park will be located in a zone that doesn't permit these uses, even under Site Plan Review. Another key concern is the amount of traffic increase which will occur because of such an expansion. If the parking is increased to accommodate the number of guests that this vast expansion will create, than the traffic problem will be increased by a>grèa£3 percentage. These are all real concerns that should be addressed, prior to any decisions by the Board. Concessions should not be made, as they were for the Bavarian Palace. If there is a threat to leave the area this time, let them go. The business is there, and someone will put another park in Queensbury before you even missed the old one. Thank you for your time. ~ìs Glehdl1kÞí) Q U<::etýJ:.75vRy /Ý j / Z ~C) I E't1l-161T ß~ · .rv~'V"'¡ OF QUEENS8URV I. ·liil~il~~" ~ JAIl¡ 2d. 1989 ~J ')LANNING & ZONINC tr"tF.PARTMENT .., ~_... ';"'~.... 11,_...,8 r 't \' , I W I..' John T. Whalen R.R. :fF3, Farm to Market Road Lake George, NY 12845 January 24, 1989 Queensbury Planning Board Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John Goralski, Planner Planning Department Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12845 Dear Planning Board, Mrs. York, Mr. Goralski, I would like to go on record at the January 24, 1989 Planning Board public hearing as objecting to the Story town U.S.A., Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape - Tahitian Tempest Water Park. As proposed on the Morse Engineering site plan drawings SPl and SP2, water slides will run along the southern boundary of my land for roughly 600 feet, being only 30 ft. to 150 feet away from my property line during most of this distance. My main concern is the high level of noise these rides will generate, the kids will be screaming at the top of their lungs the whole trip down the water slides. I feel these water slides as proposed will create a major noise level nuisance on my property which will drastically reduce its value. The issue of noise is addressed in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Section 5.070 - Requirements for Type I and Type II Site Plan Review under E. 7....."landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands II...., and in Section 5.071 - Development Consideration-Item 4. Noise. In view of the magnitude of the project and the noise it will generate, I am requesting a 300 foot wide noise buffer zone between my property line and the proposed water slides. Sincerely, A- V'·/· Mr. John T. Whalen EXH/{JI T 13 3 D J.tv311J. . N1NOZ '8 ~tI~CI;¡" r~ ÐNINNtl7r-., .~ll ~ f)RRL y 6 ~ll~/:i ~. ~tt;, r '~~fJ8S~~~M!) / .:iO t'¡ '. "'\ . :M~ Please address my followIng concerns of the expansIon . or enlargement of the Great Escape Park. As the Post Star stated, it is going to be the "largest water park in the state of N.Y.". The plans sound like another Wet and Wild. My most pressing concern is the amount of increased traffic that we will have to fight to and from work every day. One is not able to drive on the highway (Route 9) without being held up by traffic congestion and two traffic lights. It appears that the existing park has already out grown its space, and seems that it should not be allowed to expand further. Even though they are doing away with the camp ground, there is no way that they can compare that to an extensive water park. It would be like comparing the camp ground to the existing Great Escape--there is just no comparison to the number of people they attract and the amount of traffic they generate. These are my concerns and I thank you for your consideration. Queensbury Planning Board Town Offices Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Planning Board: Sincerely, lh cWlv r~Ju- - J~·f~~ ~)41 !1Y, Ex. Hi" I r iJ 'I '- 0,-' 1"'0\ ¡r.::¡;N"'BUBV '¡·DW~~~ - - ,,1..... OJ. .____, '(.,. ~... ,;.,1 ~~WWI Ii; , '\\)~! u \u J~\\¡?, ð \~ö., ,,,..,1 ,jlJ Town supervisor Town of Queensbury 'JU\NNING & ZONING nF.PARTMENT I am opposed to the projects that are being submitted as addi tions to the Great Escape (Storyto1¡\m). I anl angry about the town not restl·ict.i.!tt.; the lleights 0:[' :ci(~ (':-; at -[;)'8 j)ark. I have lived in the area for over 80 years and just can't believe that a 112 foot ride could ever be allowed in this scenic area. If these rides are allowed now, than I am sure that when that waterpark goes in, they will have slides just as high, or maybe even higher. I can remember driving on Route 9 years ago, when that area was just a swamp. Sven th;:it swa'ílp looked better than the rides that are located there now. I drive Rout(~ 9 to T.Jake George in the summer and I can't imagine if the traffic Vlere to get a:rl;}' worse than it is already. Thank you /1 1/ ,- (./ ~- --- ffi?-;?~ I t:?-C-/¿¿.Cé-.., FtH-//JJT ß~ - Jown 0/ Q/Æeen:Jbuf'1j h" H t,' 't'" G' ;¡ ¡ ,~, U ULtL.. {;; i;¡1¡ ~.~ ~V'· p. "'. 'J ~)J¡¡ . ·~I- --------.-------------- --.- - - - }~. "NOTE TO FILE" Planning and Zoning Department Jan. 9, 1989 LEE YORK , Senior Town Planner Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 4-89 Story town U.S.A., Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape Tahitian Tempest Water Park Applicant/Project Name: This proposal is for development of a separate Water Park facility on the site with the Great Escape Amusement Park. The total acerage of the project area is 39.1 acres (long EAF) and it will be for commercial use. This appears to be a Type I Action as stated in Section 617.12-6: liThe expansion of existing non residential facilities by more than 50 percent of any of the following thresholds: (i) a project or action which involves the physical alteration of 10 acres." A t this meeting the Board should make a preliminary classification of this action as Type I and establish Lead Agency Status. The Planning Department has already indicated that there is insufficient staff time and resources to be able to under take review of Type I Actions. We have requested a list of approved firms to do these reviews from the Town Board. Until an approved firm has agreed to do this review, and the applicant has agreed to bear the cost of the review!>. a scoping session or determination of significance of this action cannot be undertaken. The applicant has made a good faith attempt toward addressing the concerns of the Board with the submission of a fyl EAF. ~~; ~ ,. ~ .\il-- ....~....~~i~ :j·.¡~/'¡i \;~;~j: ;·~~n.~lin , .t,Q:O ',U" ~}·î~}i,!,,~t!~0.:~... 1Iií}, L I!! . ,.. , ,.... I '" .,o(,¡.)~ .,. f;" ·~~;.~~;:,J~i~}~:.~...~~ BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (5IB) 792-5832 SETTLED 17ó3... HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE £"iH/ß/r C!. -- ~' ,J. VANOEAelt.,.T STRAUS ALBERT .... MANNINO jOSIt~t4 eOOCHEVEA JOHN J, LVNCH HAROLD C. HANSON STEPHEN M. CLEARY .......""TLEy .J, COSTELLO, III PETItA 1... AUPI:I=tT PHILIP T. DUNNE- WILLIAM ,.. SHEEHAN "AUL M. COLLINS DAVID J. OAKLEY eAUCI: N. OVORY EVAN C. REQAL HINMAN, STRAUB, PIGORS & MANNING, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 121 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207-1622 EILEI:N M. KELLEY THOM..... 0 L....TIN SUSAN" GULLOTT." AM'S. LON13ST4EE'f AMY S. O'CONNOR CHAISTO..HEA C. BOOTH SE....N M. OOOLAN PI:TltA T. aUMAER WILLIA... P. GOLDER"""N TEL. 5Ie-43S-07SI FAX: 5Ie-43S-47SI sIEVERL'" COM!:N .....Ul,A I'ITZ ....TTISTE..· ·...OMITTI:C 'N NY & "'LA uADMITTI:D 'N PATENT .. TRACEM....,." O"''''CI: ·.....O"""ITTI:O IN N.Y. & ",ASS January 24, 1989 Richard Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Planning Board Queensbury Town Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York Dear Mr. Roberts: RE: story town USA, Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape Tahitian Tempest Waterpark Dear Mr. Roberts: We represent homeowners and residents in the Town of Queensbury who have environmental concerns regarding the above proposed project. We would like to take this opportunity to formally place our concerns before the Queensbury Planning Board. Due to the sheer magnitude of the project proposed, we urge the Planning Board to take a hard look at the potential effects of such expansion. Since the park presently comprises about 60 acres, the planned expansion of the amusement area along with the proposed waterpark will cause the park to be nearly doubled in size. Such exploding growth cannot avoid causing an enormous impact on the community, environmentally and otherwise. Specifically, we request that further investigation be performed regarding the following elements of the proposed project: 1) ZONING Upon information and belief, a portion of the waterpark and a portion of the parking area will be constructed in an LC42A zone, a land conservation area which does not permit either amusements or parking. /:C- 'IllIG f T () --.-/ HINMAN, STRAUB, PIGORS & MANNING. P. ç, DATE January 24, 1989 PAGE 2 2) OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY Upon information and belief, part of the waterpark will be constructed on lands assessed to the Warren-Washington Counties Industrial Development Agency rather than to Story town USA, Inc. This is contrary to the information supplied on the EAF and needs to be clarified. 3 ) PARKING If the waterpark and planned expansion of the amusements area of the park will nearly double the acreage of the park, it seems that parking will need to be doubled, rather than increased by merely 450 spaces. Upon information and belief, a 50' buffer zone is required between the shoulder of Route 9 and the beginning of the parking area. This required buffer area does not seem to be provided for on the schematic submitted to the Board. The schematic also seems to indicate that some of the proposed parking will come within 5' of the DEC wetlands boundary, rather than keeping at least 100' from the boundary as is required. Upon information and belief, portions of the proposed parking area are located in an aquifer recharge area and in a HUD Flood Prone Area. 4) TRAFFIC As with parking discussed earlier, increased traffic flow occasioned by the waterpark is grossly underestimated. If the applicant is estimating summer traffic to be only 20% more than November traffic figures, that estimate is unrealistic. It is apparent to anyone who drives on Route 9 past the project site that November is traditionally the slowest month, and that the park and tourist attractions are closed at that time of year. Generally, we are concerned that much of the EAF submitted by the applicant was left blank. The map submitted does not show zoning and does not clearly map out wetland or water body boundaries. Dimensions of structures, their uses, their exterior dimensions, and lot line and waterfront setbacks are all lacking. The major part of the engineering data submitted was compiled in 1982, and therefore does not reflect the enormous growth which the area has experienced since that time. The concerns detailed here are merely preliminary. It is our hope that the Queensbury Planning Board will require a full Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared, so that ¡ç y IIIIi IT ¡) '--' -' HINMAN, STRAUB, PIGORS & MANNING. P. C. DATE: January 24, 1989 PAGE 3 complete investigation of the proposed project will be undertaken, with the concerns noted above specifically addressed. We believe that only with full development of the necessary information can the environmental decisions be made that will be most beneficial to the long term well-being of the Town of Queensbury. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, t~..\ k\,,~ / Bart±ey J. Costello, III BJC:drw 24271 k '/.Ii 11.9 I T ¡) , ESTABLISHED IN l~S /~ frf; KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. c. CONSULTING ENGíNEERS JOSEPH A. KESTNER, JR., P.E., L.S. MARK L. KESTNER, P.E. QUENTIN T. KESTNER, P.E. ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S. ONE KESTNER LANE TROY. NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 FAX; 518-273-7583 JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E.T. January 24, 1989 ,; Ms. Lee York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 RE: Town of Queensbury (TE) Hughes Subdivision - Bay Road Dear Ms. York: This Office has received plans for the above referenced project dated December 27, 1988, submitted for Sketch Plan Review. The drawings have been reviewed by this Office as Consulting Engineers to the Town of Queensbury. For your benefit we have made the following observations: 1. A stormwater management report should be completed. This report should be in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations and show how increased stormwater flows onto adjacent properties will be mitigated. It should also show that the existing culverts are adequate. 2. Storm inlets are required every 300' of surface flow. 3. Soil tests show evidence of high groundwater ranging between 19" and 34". This would prohibit the use of conventional sanitary sewer systems and require a raised bed system. Details of such a system should be provided. 4. It should be noted that this will ultimately be an approval as a subdivision. Each lot should be reviewed individually for Site Plan Review. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER, SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPElINE INSPECTION, METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE k'ill¡IJI/ po Ms. Lee York Senior Planner J -2- ----./' - January 24, 1989 Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call this Office. Sincerely, .: KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C. LtW- D' Tim TLO/cp cc: Town Planning Board Members 1/ ~ -- ESTABLISHED IN 1955 KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOSEPH A. KESTNER, JR., P.E., L.S. MARK l. KESTNER, P.E. QUENTIN T. KESTNER, P.E. ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S. ONE KESTNER LANE TROY. NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 FAX; 518-273-7583 JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E.T. January 24, 1989 Ms. Lee York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 RE: Town of Queensbury (TE) Cranberry Lane Subdivision - Sherman Avenue Building Dear Ms. York: This Office has received plans for the above referenced project dated December 28, 1988, submitted for Sketch Plan Review. The drawings have been reviewed by this Office as Consulting Engineers to the Town of Queensbury. In general the plans are well prepared and meet the submittal requirements for Sketch Plan Review. For your benefit we have made the following observations: 1. Preliminary stormwater management appears satisfactory. Further reports should be prepared for the Preliminary Plat Submission to show that there will be no negative impacts on the adjacent propérties. This report should look at storms up to and including a SO-year/24-hour event. 2. Although the soils appear adequate for a conventional septic system, we would advise the board against granting Final approval until percolation tests have been conducted for each system to be approved. 3. A minimum 50' tangent between reverse curves is required by the Town. None is currently shown. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER,SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION, METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ¡¡ýfI-/I@IT (;. ,,/// //" .--.J ~ Ms. Lee York Senior Planner -2- January 24, 1989 4. A cul-de-sac pavement diameter of 110' is required by the Town. 100' is currently shown. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call this Office. Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C. ~O, TLO/cp cc: Town Planning Board Members