1989-05-02
'----'
. -----
"'.."""
~.-
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
MA Y 2nd, 1989
INDEX
Scoping Session
Story town U.S.A. Inc.,
d/b/a/ The Great Escape
Site Plan No. 32-89
Debbie and Steven Scheibel
Subdivision No. 10-1989
Clarence J. and Cara D. Beames
Site Plan No. 34-89
Gerald and Constance Jackson
Subdivision No. 1-1988
The Pines of Queensbury, Phase III
Resolution Setting Public
Hearing On Proposed Amendment
To Rules and Regulations Of The
Planning Board
Amendment to Rules and Procedures
of the Planning Board
--~
1.
15.
19.
21.
22.
22.
23.
'---'
1
"--
,--.
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2, 1989 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
HILDA MANN, SECRETARY
FRANK DESANTIS
VICTOR MACRI
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBAS
KEITH JABLONSKI
- "....,
- '-""
TOWN ATTORNEY - PAUL DUSEK
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
THOMAS NACE/ENGINEER CONSULTANT
PETER CONWAY/CLOUGH HARBOUR
SCOPING SESSION
SITE PLAN NO. 4-89, TYPE 1, RC-L5, STORYTOWN U.S.A. INC.,
D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE ROUTE 9, APPROX. 25 YARDS NORTH OF
INTERSECTION WITH ROUND POND ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
WATER PARK (TAHITIAN TEMPEST) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX
MAP NO. 36-2,3,4,7 SECTION 4.020 I,A
PETER CONWAY/CLOUGH HARBOUR PRESENT/THOM HALL DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WARRENSBURG/MIKE O'CONNOR FIRM OF
LITTLE AND O'CONNOR GLEN LAKE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION/DICK
MORSE, MORSE ENGINEERING
RICHARD ROBERTS-This scoping session is to make a list of
concerns that the Board, would like to see addressed in the
Environmental Impact Statement.
PETER CONWAY-List of things to be included in the
environmental impact statement; (1) Project description and
the purpose of the project should be addressed, (2) design
of the project and intent and purpose of the project, (3)
location of the project} types of facilities that the
project proposes} uses, hours of operation, (4) major issue
would be traffic, feel that existing traffic counts should
be taken in that area, trip generation, seasonal variations
in traffic, peak hours of traffic generations, entrance
alignment to Route 9" with any proposed appropriate
mitigation measures that would' be required to accomodate
this project} turning lanes, widening, and traffic signal,
(5) utilities (6) adequate supply to the sewer and water,
(7) storm water,on site storm water, what is being proposed,
what would be proposed to mitigate any impact on the
adjoining wetlands, (8) water quality, with respect to the
adjoining wetlands, (9) critical habitat in that area should
be addressed by ENCON, whatever mitigation measures are
being proposed to minimize disturbance} (10) community
services with respect to ability to provide adequate fire,
emergency protection, police protection} (11) historical and
archeological considerations, whether or not it has been
been identified as a sensitive area, (12) socially and
economic benefits, and other impacts the project may have on
the area, (13) the growth of use of impacts the project may
have, or may not have on the adjoining area, (14)
alternatives, the applicant should take a look at various
alternatives of this particular project, with respect to
use, whether or not another appropriate use could be
accomodated in this area, rather than the one that is being
propsoed, (15) possible alternative layouts, not necessarily
redesign, but alternative layouts with respect to minimizing
the impacts on adjoining wetlands, possibly minimizing
traffic related impacts, (16) overview of the potential
growth and use of impacts' resulting from the proposed
project, with respect to other projects that may be
"
"'----'
occuring in this particular area of town, (17) unavoidable --~
and adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided
with this project is implemented. These are most of the key
issues. We are proposing at the close of tonight's meeting
a formal scoping document would be prepared with all the
issues that are addressed here tonight and submitted to the
applicant, for his use in preparing an environmental impact
statement.
HILDA MANN-Asked
issues. Feels
in depth, such
if the applicants had a copy of these
that some of the issues were not touched on
as air quality, depth of the ground water.
PETER CONWAY-All of those issues will be included in our
formal scoping document that will be submitted, Noise,
would be primarily related impacts on the adjoining
properties. Air quality, we noted this to the Planning
Department, we took a second look at this and do not feel
that this would be a major issue.
INVOLVED AGENCIES
TOM HALL-Came to listen to the scoping session. Department
has two permits to issue; (1) a seepage permit, this is in
subject to any waste waters that the Tahitian Water Park,
would generate, (2) potential for a wetlands permit, that
would be required from our department,this is less clear
because we have received some preliminary contract on the
plan. It was our conslusion that there would be minimal
construction related impact on the wetland. I am here to
gather information, I want to make sure the plan that we
looked at several months ago is the same as the plan that is
being reviewed now. Based on the project we looked at there
does not appear to be encroachment in the way of hard fill
in the wetland. It is questionable whether or not a
wetlands permit is required from our department, but we
still have concerns as to wetland impacts that we might want
to emphasize for the purpsoe of this scoping session. Those
would be construction related impacts on the wetland, and
operational types of impacts on the wetland. By
construction, it would be any types on impacts that would be
created on the wetland by virtue of the construction
process. This could be from unstabilized fill that has
opened up on the site from construction that could result
from storm, water, and certainly its potential that could
simply be noise of construction that could effect some of
the critical habitats that our department has identified in
the wetland. Operational impacts on the wetland, would be
potentially things like, storm water. We have been advised
that the parking area that is proposed on the north end of
the site will not be paved. Any surface water originating
from the rain storm, etc., would perculate into ground. I
can certainly envision a day when that becomes paved,
soimply for maintenance reasons, that would presumably
result in at least a storm water discharege point to the
wetland, I like to get that flushed out, if it is really
going to be paved lets talk about it now. It may not be a
serious impact but never the less, I think the record should
be clear as to what kind of project we're talking about.
From the plans we saw several months ago, it seemed as
though there was a concerted effort by the sponsors of the
project to avoid the wetland. I think that's largely been
done, I'm not going to say there would be no impact of the
wetland, but certainly we appreciate the efforts to minimize
that impact.
HILDA MANN-There is tons of earth being moved now from that
area.
TOM HALL-Where?
HILDA MANN-On the north part, the area behind the
restaurant, behind Glen Lake Road, down towards that parking
area. Have you issued permits that are not in your domain,
3
"-
'--
what is the result
around there now?
of
all
of that,the dirt being moved
--~
TOM HALL-I, can't speak to the results of that dirt. First
of all I'm not clear where the property line is there. We
have been asked, is what going on jurisdictional to our
department. It does not appear to be a mining operation
that's jurisdictional, at least it hasn't exceeded the
threshold for requiring a mining permit, which is a 1,000
tons per year of gravel removal. It would seem to me if its
going on on the Great Escape property, and if its part of
the Water Park proposal, then its something that ought to be
considered by your Board in this environmental review
process.
HILDA MANN-I, don't know that its part of the Water Park
proposal. I'm asking you, this has been going on for quite
a while. Do you know the area I'm talking about?
TOM HALL-This is in back of the Trading Post.
HILDA MANN-That's correct. From there down to that parking
lot, there's tons of earth being moved, that's no bearing on
your jurisdiction?
TOM HALL-For years and years, of course, it will being
filled as basically a construction and demolition deposal
area, it was being filled without any permit being required
whatsoever. Now there is some fill being removed from
there, my understanding is that we have no jurisdiction over
that. If that work comes within 100 feet of the wetland it
may and probably will require a wetlands permit from our
department.
HILDA MANN-You haven't been down on that site to look at it?
TOM HALL-I have not.
HILDA MANN-I believe one of our wild life biologist has been
there.
JOSEPH DYBAS-How long before an unpaved area where there is
constant traffic becomes paved by itself, as far as
saturation of water and permeability, do you have any idea?
TOM HALL-Frankly, I don't know. My point is that its hard
for me to believe it's going to remain unpaved for very
long. I don't think too may people are going to want to
aprk there cars there and hop out basically into a mud
puddle. I can see it being paved, it that's the case, I
think that should be part of the project that's reviewed
now.
RICHARD ROBERTS-It's my understanding that the parking lot
is going to slope to the west back towards the road and
there is not going to be any immediate drainage into the
wetland, whether its paved or whether its packed down
gravel. Asked if he was right in remembering this?
TOM HALL-Yes.
RICHARD
rea 11 y
wetland
correct?
ROBERTS-Even
addressed.
and subject
if it does get paved that's being
It is going to be sloped away from the
to the soil back away from that,
TOM HALL-There is one more minor permit, I don't think it
deserves a lot of discussion in the scope of the impact
statement. I believe that there is still the need for a
stream crossing permit associated with an enlargement or
renovation of basically a culvert or bridge, crossing of a
small stream. In terms of scoping out the environmental
impacts that should be at least mentioned, although it
probably deserves only. ..treatment.
4
."--
-"
-~
DICK MORSE-The point that, Mr. Robert's brought forward, is
that the drainage in the parking area is proposed to tip
back towards the embankment. We are proposing at present to
have a gravel surface on those. I would lkie to point out,
for the record, that Mr. Wood's parking lot across the
street is also a natural surface parking lot and has been
for a number of years. During wet or water periods he does
not anticipate usage of this facility. I think we will be
addressing this in our draft environmental impact statement.
PETER CARTIER-I think there is also an issue here regarding
buffering of the wetland. We have been requiring for a
stream a 75 foot buffer.
DICK MORSE-We will be addressing that.
MIKE O'CONNOR-Glen Lake Protective Association. Persented
maps to the Board. What we've done is to take a section of
the County Sewer Map, for purposes of illustration, and
reduce the various sections of the project map into a mylar
map. I have put this as an overlay over the sewer map that
we have to give you to give you an idea of the total
project. This is the concerns that I have had from the very
beginning that will all of the various mapping it is rather
difficult to follow exactly what their doing. To give you
an overall view, I think that something like that would be
helpful and follow more in the applicant's interest to
maybe try and give us a total overall view of the total
site, which is mainly the same type presentation. If you
take a look at the heavy blue line that is underneath the
mylar, you will see the differentials between the zoning.
You will find that almost if not all of the parking and the
traffic areas that are shown for this project are located
not in these zones that permit it the LC-42 acre zone.
RICHARD ROBERTS-We recognize a variance will be required for
that. This is why the, Zoning Board of Appeals, is an
involved agency. This will be addressed at a future date.
MIKE o 'CONNOR-I think that should be of great concern to
this Board though, and maybe how it fits into all the
planning that this Board is doing, and the time and energy
that is going to be expended by this Board, as to the
likelihood of the applicant, his ability to obtain a use
variance that would permit this particular use particularly
that he will probably have to argue that he doesn't get a
reasonable return from his property as a bisis for that
application. We all know recently that some publicity as to
the sale of the property, we're talking about a new owner of
the property, I'm not sure how this also fits into your
applications. If there is any hardship it would be
self-created, as we would be talking about the new
applicatn, beyond that we would like to look at what was the
reasonable return of the properties. If we could just see
evidence of the reasonable return of the property. I raise
this as a concern that we're talking about a project that is
sited entirely in a zone, almost entirely in a zone that
doesn't permit it. The consultant spoke of the Board's
investigation or suggestion to the applicant that he
consider alternatives. I think that it would be one of the
high priorities that he might consider in his impact
statement. What alternatives would he have available to
permit this project to go forward, but to permit it to go
forward in the zone where it is a permitted use, as opposed
to where he seeks a variance to on its space that is going
to be very hard to obtain.
RICHARD
possible
rezoning,
ROBERTS-Is this the reason why the Town Board, is a
involved agency, because of the potential of the
because of what we were just talking about?
JOHN GORALSKI-That has never been brought up as a proposal,
no.
5
...
'-
---
MIKE O'CONNOR-They may be involved because they have an
overlay of an environmentally critical sensitive
preservation. I don't know that for a fact. Speaking other
than in general, or generic terms we do have some specific
concerns that we think should be addressed. The major one
would be, that we think that the existing wetland should be
set forth by survey, by agreement with D.E.C. The earlier
mapping that was shown was a 1982 survey, it was only a
portion of the boundaries, the later submittal did include
further survey information as to the wetland boundary along
the northerly portion of the property, and perhaps hasn't
addressed, we don't know if D.E.C. has been consulted or had
agreed to what they have shown on the latest submittal, or
the actual boundaries of the wetland. We would like to see
a total inventory of the wetland that we're speaking of. We
would like to see an inventory of the plant life within
there, the animal habitat, and we would like to see an
analysis of the uniqueness of what is there. I think we're
speaking about a life change which begins in this area, and
flows through Glen Lake, through Dream Lake, through Half
Way Brook, and eventually to Lake Champlain. Your talking
about the head waters of a complete watershed which would
flow in that direction. Unless we know what goes in the
wetland and what is in fact perhaps even down stream to the
wetland we're not going to know what effect this project is
going to have upon it. I certainly think your talking about
any direct dischage. As I understand the plans also are
attempting to show the nature of the direct discharge. I
think that Mr. Hall has indicated perhaps we should be
looking at what we prposed at being something that will will
be hard surfaced and if hard surfaced what will happen to it
as opposed to natural absorption. I have a particular
problem even with absorption if its not paved. We have a lot
of different regulations which add some basic requirements
of 100 feet between source of water that is used for
drinking and other activities. I'm wondering what we're
talking about for the non-point source of pollution. If your
going to put 450 cars within 3 to 5 feet of the wetland how
long does it take the drippings and what-not that comes off
those cars to saturate that ground or go through that ground
and into the wetland which is immediately adjacent to it.
There are buffer zones that are required in our Zoning
Ordinance, they seemed to be totally ignored by the
application. There is a requirement that you have no clear
cut, no removal of any vegetation within 35 feet. That you
have no filling within a 100 feet, if you take a visit to
the site, I can't envision that site being this project
without some filling and without some clear cut. It doesn't
seem to fall within their plans, particularly in the area
where the plans show that they go within 3 to 5 feet of the
actual wetland boundary. We would like an analysis of the
run off created by the project and by the up land areas that
adjoin the project. There has been a complete clear cut for
whatever reason on the north end of this project, I know
that there is a run off as far north as the County Center,
it comes across Glen Lake Road, down through the clear cut
area, to the wetland now because of all of the removal of
the vegetation and natural buffer that had been there in
existence. I think that the design of this is going to have
to be to accomodate the run off that is created by the clear
cut within the project outlines. Much of the area where the
water slide itself is right now it is a portion of land that
was to be used for camp sites. If they put the number of
attractions and facilities in there that they are talking
about and they put in the natural paving that goes along
with them, I can't envision how they're not going to take a
good portion of that acreage that is no longer going to be
permittable where is that water going to run. If you look
at the topographical features of the sewer map that we have
submitted, ther is a vast area that is now going to be part
of this watershed. This is just for the natural run off,
both south and north of the wetland. I think you are going
to have to be very careful in you analysis of the design of
"I
- -.---/"
'......
--
6
--.-/
..-
-__J
the ocntainment, the filtration system, whatever you have
that they due to design to accomodate that. It is a very
narrow strip that we are talking about along the wetland.
When you talk about noise, I would also like to see an in
debth analysis of the project, again, your talking about the
life change of Glen Lake, and if you have a natural habitat
which is the spawning ground for the nursery, or fisheries
of the lake, what is going to be the effect of putting
immediately adjacent to that a 450 car parking lot and the
impended traffic that goes with it. People walking up and
down that particular travel area, is that going to upset the
natural habitat of the spawning area and the animal habitat
of the wetland. Is it going to decrease the wetland by
tack as far as being a functioning wetland, is it going to
make it third less, what is it going to make, I think that
your going to have to have a very close and careful analysis
of that. On the same subject, that we go back to the other
side the southerly end of the park. What is going to be the
effect of a third porject that is going to accomodate all of
the rides, as far as the noise its going to filtrate from
the existing part. When we talked about impact here we're
going to have to think about impact of the total site, not
just impact of this 450 car parking lot or the water slide.
They are changing their facility, they are taking away
natural buffer, if you allow them to evalute their simply to
the water park property your going to miss half of the
impact. This is going to be true of parking, we've heard
two, or three presentations. We've heard that there is
going to be a gate that is going to allow people to go in
through the old facilities and the new facilities. We've
heard that possibly there is going to be some type of
interchange between the old and the new facility. I think
that to do a thorough job on this your going to have to have
an impact statement from the Northway east to the wetland.
Your going to have to take a look at the total parking, the
total facility use, I don't know how you can look at it and
actually make a judgement as to what the impact is going to
be on the wetland. As to the question of noise, I would
like to see an analysis as to the capacities of the various
rides that we have and an analysis of the number of people
that might be on those in the worst scenario not one or two
people coming down from a ride in an afternoon, or one or
two people coming down a ride at a time, but if they were
full to capacity and you had whatever there might be, I have
no idea what there might be, whether there might be a 100,
or 200, or 300 people coming down enjoying themselves fully
on a raging river, or whatnot, what is going to be the noise
that is going to be generated by the actual maximum use of
the facilites that are going to be installed, and what
impact they will have out into the wetland. I would also
like to see a close analysis as to the chemicals that will
be sued during the operation of the project. What chemicals
are going to be used to maintain water purity in the water
rides or water facilities. What chemicals are going to be
used for dust control, on roadways, walkways, in this area,
what chemicals are going to be used for insect control, is
that going to effect the insects that are going to be within
the wetland, that are part of the life chain of the wetland.
What chemicals are going to be used for vegetation control,
I recall seeing part of the impact statement of Hiland Park,
the in depth study that was made as to chemicals that were
used on such a benign use as a golf course, without having
an active wetland immediately adjacent. I think we're
talking about the smae thing here, I think that is going to
have to also be considered when you talk about your run off
design. Is there a saturation point, that you reach after a
period of time whether it be six months, a year, whatever,
if your going to continually have this type chemical go to
the retention facility, and stay in your retention facility,
how long do they stay there? We have been told that this
is onoly a summer activity, I would make some comments on
that; (1) I think the important period of the wetland is
also the same identical period, I don't think you can
minimize the effect it is going to have by saying that its a
7
-'
'--
-
.,
-,~
ten week operation, or a three month operation. That is
when it is most effective, that is when the wetland is
probably at its highest point. I think that you have to
look at it as though it were there for a full year. (2) I
also question whether or not part of the facilites would
have to be kept open or have access during the winter time
for safety protection, or other reasons. If so, what is
going to be the chemicals that are going to be used for ice
control on the roadways? When they open this entire area
for the project, I think they open their entire land
holding for review. What effect has all of this clear
cutting and grading on the north end of the property have as
far as the run off of Glen Lake Road, directing the wetland
if they in fact, have accomodated by their clear cut. We
woud also like to see an indepth analysis of the facilities
that are going to be provided to hold the chemically treated
water that is going to be used into the facilities. As I
understand it, it was someplace in the nature of a daily use
of 65,000 gallons that is actual use. I think, that was not
what was being re-circulated and put back into the rides
that their going to have there. I question, and would ask,
that you do or have them provide you with specific
information. Is the usage that is I presume a good
portion of which will go into the ground and into the ground
water and into the wetland as to the ... is that going to
have any effect upon the quality of the wetland, is that
going to change the biological makeup fo the wetland,
because we are going to be introducing treated water into
that ground water at that volume, whatever that volume is.
I don't think the water, and I understand their source of
water is from the Town of Queensbury, water plant. I don't
think that's the same water that nature has put in that
water main. By changing that are we going to change and
have an impact upon the wetland. The same is true as to
the chlorine water, as I understand it and I can be
corrected right now, there are a couple direct discharges
into the wetland, one being a sluce way that comes off the
diving platform, one being an overflow pipe on the log ride.
I think your going to have to take a look at the cumulative
impact of the total property, are their existing discharges
directly into the wetland, are there existing discharges
into streams? I can only report to you what people have
told me, I cannot go on about these and make that type
study. I think the applicant has opened himself to that and
is something the Board should consider, again as to the
cumulative impact of the total project. We've heard very
little as to the number of people that this would generate.
Again, I think we need an indepth study of that. What is
going to be the maximum capacity of it? Is it also going to
increase the traffic in the existing faciltiy, what is the
parking capacity of the existing facility and this together,
will they be able to accomodate in total the traffic that
will be generated here, or are we talking about Phase I,
with a need for Phase II later, for further expansion,
again, in the LC-42 zone. I think that we can be sure that
what you are allowing them to build and function properly
without over burdening the outside of this particular
property. I think your going to have to ask for historical
figures, as to parking of the existing facilites, the
present capacity. I have a question as a layperson as to
what can be the compacting effect of all this traffic and
weight if you will, upon the fill that has been placed along
the wetland. By an affidavit that was filed by the
applicant that indicated that type constructed this, I think
in 1982, it has been used very rarely since then, but if
they put the type use that they plan on putting there what
will be the compacting effect on it, will it go down into
the wetland or not? Waht will be the vibrations effect
again, upon the wild habitat, by introducing the amount of
traffic that their going to introduce immediately adjacent
to the wetland. I have a particular concern, I have written
to David Hatin, with regard to present activities there. I'm
not sure if that's within the purview of this Board, but I
question how this Board is going to be able to judge what
8
',-
--..
should or should not take place if in fact much of it has
taken place already. You seem to be going back down the
trail of the Bavarian Palace. If you take a look at the
overlay that I have presented and if your familiar with the
project at all you will have seen in recent weeks filling
along this particular areal filling of approximate depth
probably 4 to 6 feet. Mr. Hatin's initial reaction was that
it was not within 30 feet of a wetlandl so he was not
concerned with it. I wrote and said that was not the reason
I raised it they have argued that it is a nonconforming
usel I look upon it as being an expansion of a
non-conforming use or an alteration of a non-conforming use I
and as such, it in of itself requires site plan review. Part
of my argument to him was that if the application is
correct and this is proved to be a pre-existing
non-conforming parking lot, then his present activity would
be illegal under Section 9.010 fo the Zoning Ordinance,
which prohibits the alteration and enlargement or extension
of any non-conforming structure or use as of the date of the
Ordinance, except by site plan review of the Planning
Board. I know of no particular application to this Planning
Board for that activity. There is also some fillingl I
understand that has been removed I but again, we have a
question as to where we're going I and that filling as I
understand it was in this area herel (refers to map) that
has been removed within the last 10 to 15 days. That was
also put in within the last month and a half. I think that
some direction should be given to the application that
until the Board has a chance to complete its reviewl that
this area should be left intactl or your're going to be
faced with the same thingl or at least the applicant is
going to be faced with the same thing I something constructed
and perhaps not constructed with the wishes and desires to
the Board. I did copy, Mr. Robert's with a copy of that
letter, of April 20thl 1989 to Mr. Hatin. I would ask the
applicant to review all the letters in part of the file not
just the comments that are made tonight as to questions and
concerns that have been raised. I think we're talking about
highlights tonight we're not talking about total review. If
there is a concern that has been raised and is of recordl I
would preserve our right to continue our concern and I would
not want to be proofing position that some...that we object
to statements that are impact statements that we're filed
later that they don't address them. It think the burden
here is on the applicant and what we're simply doing is
raising the points of our most concerns. I find that we
give a complete laundry list for the entire project.
RICHARD ROBERTS-I think that we can agree with you on that,
but we hope this will be pretty complete tonight we are
going to reserve the right if other things can be addressed
if they should surface along the way.
MIKE O'CONNOR-The other thing that might be addressed up
front is who is the owner of the project, who is the
applicant. If you will look on the map that we have set
forth for the sewer districtl as I see itl as you can see by
the overlay over it there are three separate components at
least of record at the County Clerk's Office. The most
northerly piece of it is owned by Meadow Run Development
Corporation, a good part of it is owned by Attractions Land
Corporationl Inc., then the most southerly portion of it is
owned by the Warren I Washington County Industrial
Development Agency. More of that is disclosed in the
applicationl I've raised that issue before, but I think its
an important issue that should actually be addressed.
Another question and concern that I have is that we heardl
Mr. Wood speak of having a prior dump using a portion of
this area that is now going to be develop into a parking lot
as a dump facility of some nature for his prior project. If
that is SOl I question whether or not it is going to come
under some requirement for special review for closure. I
know that the portion that is on the north end of the
property...has indicated it to be C&D Construction and
./
~.
- --/
9
~/
.",--
Demolition Dump, is under its own particular closure
requirement, maybe the Board wants to consider those also.
Maybe there will be run off from them that is new
r?gulations that came out, as I understnad them, as of the
flrst of the year, that effects all of those, I'm not sure
if the applicant is under orders to seize and assist the use
of that at present, but if he was in the process of closing
that I think that would remain to you. In addition, to all
of the comments that have been made of record, I would also
ask that the application to be sure to look at all of the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. We seem to be going a
great deal with ignoring, as I understand that you said
there are variances required but there are a lot of
sections that even present variance applications pending are
not addressed. I'm not sure what your intent is as to those
particular provisions. Buffer zones have not been addressed
at all, buffer zones from the wetland or from the open bogs
of water which I think in terms of...the buffer zone between
the two zones, the lakeshore and wetland setback
requirements for structure or items that have become into
this structures. I think that you have retaining walls in
excess of 18 inches in height, they are deemed to be
structures. A good number of questions that you have is you
seem to be looking at a project that is totally, it is
designed for what is desired not designed for what is
permitted. Wonder where we are going with it.
FRANK DESANTIS- Was this map and this overlay that you just
presented to us tonight, was this presented to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, at their March 22, 1989 meeting to your
knowledge?
MIKE O'CONNOR-No. There has never been a presentation as to
the substance of the varinace application and interpretation
application before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
FRANK DESANTIS-I understand that there was no presentation
as to substance, but what brings this up, Mr. Chairman, is
in reviewing the minutes of the meeting of March 22, 1989,
whereby the Zoning Board of Appeals, adopted a resolution
giving us, the Planning Board, lead agency status, I note
that they state that the review belongs with the Planning
Board because of there total review of the project, and this
Board is only going to be looking at "one small aspect of
it". I guess I'm impressed as to the amount that this
overlay shows to be taking place in the zone for which the
variance requires. I'm wondering whether or not the Zoning
Board of Appeals was aware of that when they made this
determination just by looking at this impact, this is why I
ask that question. That's a question I would like staff or
someone to relay to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I know
they are sitting back waiting for us to review this. I
guess when we get all done we're going to sit back and ask
them to look at what they preceive to be one small aspect of
the project. I think if this overlay is accurate, I have no
way of evaluating whether it is or isn't, but it apparently
shows a great deal of this project to be within this LC-42A
zone, and that varies with what they said in their minutes
of that meeting.
MIKE o 'CONNOR-I think that because of the size of the
project its hard to present. When it was presented on a
mulitple number of sheets it was hard to confirm exactly
where the zoning lines fell, if you had an understanding or
not. I have never appeared before the Zoning Board of
Appeals on this matter because I never understood it to be
on their agenda for discussion. They were reacting to a
letter from this Board saying this Board wanted to be lead
agency, and I also think that we had...pertaining lead
agency status so that there would be a review here as to the
site plan review and a review there as to the two SEQRA's
(Gave map to the Board as part of their record)
FRANK DESANTIS-Part of the question wasn't answered by the
'"
...-'.
-/
10
-'
---..-
fact of whether or not this map was actually presented to
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
RICHARD ROBERTS-I guess we're under advise that we should
proceed with SEQRA at this time.
PAUL DUSEK-It wouod be impossible for the applicant to get
the variance until SEQRA has been completed. Someone has to
be lead agency and complete the SEQRA process, I guess the
Zoning Board felt that this would be the best agency. Once
the SEQRA is approved and before this Board goes on with its
own approval you may want to get the variance at that point.
The SEQRA before anything else can be done has to be
completed.
-'
--.-/
VICTOR MACRI-You have to do both because of the impacts on
everything?
PAUL DUSEK-That's the other part of the problem, your kind
of locked in with going hand and hand with the SEQRA and
the site plan until the SEQRA is over with.
TAPE TURNED
VICTOR MACRI-I'm not recommending that we do this, maybe
what should be done is that there are two SEQRA reviews.
One that's specific to the variance that addresses all those
issues which may overlap some water issues but I think there
are a lot of issues that are going to require the
applicant to address and to make a variance at all and
before they get to the expense of addressing those issues,
maybe the variance should be reviewed within..
RICHARD ROBERTS-Your suggesting two SEQRA reviews?
PAUL DUSEK-SEQRA has a process that brings in
everyones'concerns. Mr. Hall concerns on the behalf of
D.E.C. are being brought in and his permit will probably
come down at some point in the future. Everybody's
concerns are being brought in together. The applicant at
this point is taking somewhat of a chance that he is going
to get all of these permits, I do think this is the
appropriate way to proceed. To have two SEQRA process is
probably going to make it a bit confusing, and may cause
some probelms with two segmentations.
VICTOR MACRI-I understand what your saying. I think the
applicant should be aware of whether he would be going to
the expense and then find out the variance would not be
granted.
PETER CARTIER-I think we're looking at a minor revision of
the application.
MIKE O'CONNOR-I'm not suggesting the prior application can
be determined before the SEQRA is...but again I try to
envision the fact of the significance of the required
variance and my own feeling the likelihood of success there
is not going to be great. We maybe extending our wheels,
that is something the applicant has to determine in
reviewing the risk.
VICTOR MACRI-Are we dealing with some legal issues here as
far as ownership should they be addressed before anything is
addressed.
PAUL DUSEK-I'm not really quite sure, I guess at this
point. The application indicates one thing, Mr. O'Connor, he
is saying something else. Perhaps the applicant would be
in the best position to clear up these issues.
FRANK DESANTIS-What particularly concerns me is that if, Mr.
O'Connor is correct then we have ownership even if its
alleged technically under some financing arrangement.
II
..I
.~
--.-/.-/
Warren Washington County I.D.A., they haven't been listed
as a part to anything. They weren't listed on the agency
list. I don't know who owns the land. I have just taken a
long look at the site plan application, the name that is on
the site plan application wasn't mentioned by Mr. O'Connor,
as any of the land owners. Story town U.S.A., Inc., the site
plan application is in the name of someone who according to
Mr. O'Connor, doesn't own any of the property involved.
This raises a question in my mind.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Unless we missed an involved agency can
these matters be corrected?
PAUL DUSEK-The ownership issue, the applicant should shed
some light on what we have here. This may alleviate a lot
of these questions.
CHARLES WOOD-I would like to clear up the application of
Story town U.S.A., who has a lease from Attractions Land.
They lease all the land owned by Attractions Land and will
pay for all the improvements. Attractions Lands will not
pay any money for the improvements, Story town will pay for
the improvements and Attractions Land, is owned fully by
stock by Meadow Run Development. Its just that way and
there is nothing illegal and Story town is the one who is
going to make the application and their going to pay for
everything and they pay for the lease.
FRANK DESANTIS-The other name that was mentioned by Mr.
O'Connor, was the Warren Washington Development.
CHARLES WOOD-They have a loan on the RV Park, which is going
to be paid off in two weeks time. They have title to the
land until the loan is paid off.
RICHARD ROBERTS-It sounds like at the time of the D.E.I.S.
these matters can be cleared up. Is everyone satisfied?
FRANK DESANTIS-Just to make sure that they are I think that
whatever these transactions are that are going to take place
that they clearly states who the owner is should be filed
with Paul, you should look at this to make sure we're
dealing with the right people. On the application the owner
is listed as Attractions Land, and Mr. Wood, told us that
Meadow Run they own stock in Meadow Run, even though Meadow
Run may own the land, they own part of the land and they
lease it to Story town. Warren Washington I.D.A. owns it at
the time of the application they are going to be paid off
and I presume they are going to convey to somebody to who we
don't know yet.
RICHARD ROBERTS-I will expect Mr. Stewart to solve this
problem.
JOHN WHALEN-Farm to Market Road. Submitted letter, dated
May 2nd. 1989 to the Planning Board, opposing The Great
Escape, Tahitian Tempest Water Park, (on file)
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if Mr. Whalen, if from what he heard
so far that our review is going to cover many of the things
he covered?
JOHN WHALEN- No. I want the letter to go into the record.
(See Attached) What concerns me most, of course, is the fact
that almost all these rides butt right up to my property.
The Colorado River Ride is only 30 feet to 85 feet from my
property line. The Lazy River Ride is 48 feet from my
property line. The 5th Water Slide is 155 feet from my
property line. Most of the rides are butted right up to the
side of my land. I am concerned as I spelled out in the
letter, the noise that these rides are going to generate,
how they are going to affect the value of the land, I am
also concerned that in the future the park may not close at
7:00 p.m.. ..these rides might be lite and might go on to all
12
'--- -.....-
hours of the night so that in the future we may be faced
with the problem with not only noise, but also a lot of
objectionable lighting. I can visualize the Colorado
River Ride being lite up like a night Baseball Park,
operating to midnight. Other items of concern I have is the
view of the chair lift with the 5 towers, 6 towers, form my
property, also possible chlorine smell from the chlorine
evaporating from the turbulent water. I have requested
further on in the letter I be given a 300 foot buffer zone
between my property and the Water Slide. That summarizes
my concerns.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked the Board if they had any comments
that they like to add?
ROBERT STEWART-Lawyer speaking on behalf of Mr. Wood, and
his organization the applicant. As you know, the scoping
session this is where the applicant sits back and listens
and takes notes as to the concerns to the various involved
parties one after one investigated and that we've done, so I
have really very little to say just a couple of points of
clarification. (1) The ownership. At the present time, if
I'm correct and I really believe I am, all of the land is
owned by Attractions Land, which is one of Mr. Wood's
organizations. With the exception of some land in the rear
which was financed to the Industrial Development Agency,
three, four, five years ago. As you may know, that is
almost like having a mortgage with the Bank, only when you
go through I.D.A. Offices they take title to the land and
they become legal owner, you are beneficial owner the day
the mortgage is paid off for $1.00, they deed you back the
land. It is a mechanism of financing. The balance on that
load is very small at this point and we anticipate paying it
off in a couple of weeks, where upon the title to that will
come to Attractions Land, and that should not be a source of
concern. (2) The question about double SEQRA Review,
should their be a double SEQRA Review, the law simply does
not allow it. The State Law, I didn't write it, and you
didn't write it, we all have to work with it, says that
there will be one SEQRA Review and you notify as you have
delinquently done any agency that you can think of that
might have an interest in this and they all show up and they
say look at this and that, and that's exactly what you have
done tonight. You can't have a double review the law
doesn't allow it. (3) The next question was brought up
would it be wise for the applicant to get whatever variances
he might require first and then come back and complete this
study. The SEQRA Law does not allow it. SEQRA says for
example, that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot grant us a
variance no matter what we might ask them to do until you
have finished the SEQRA and are satisfied with the project.
That does not necessarily mean finish your site plan and
review. The subject says that you go along SEQRA and you
review almost the same you duplicate the answer you get for
one are answers that you have for the other, there is a lot
of duplication. Nevertheless, technically one is separate
from the other and you can finish the SEQRA and then you
still may say fine we've satisfied ourselves as
to the aspects, but we still have some hard questions we
want to ask about some other aspects. Your site plan review
is somewhat different then SEQRA. I cannot ask, I can file
my application, and I really did just to notify everyone
that we might have to go to the Zoning Board. I can't go
and ask the Zoning Board to grant the application until
after the SEQRA, the law prohibits it. It is also a
practical matter it seems to me as you go through your SEQRA
Review and you review this project, you listed the
consultants, you listed the labors, I can see a situation
where you say we like this part of it, we are not
particularly happy over that part of it, and we would
suggest that you make some changes. Re-adjust you parking a
little bit, or do a little bit of this and that, that is
what the SEQRA Review is really all about. In the process
of doing that, that might require that I would have to go
-I'
---.,/
13
~~
..-r"~
back to the Zoning Board and ask for a variance for
permission to do what you've suggsted that you would of
wanted us to do. As a particular matter it doesn't make
much sense to ask the Zoning Board to decide what variance
they would be willing'to grant until they have some idea of
what this Board might want done as part of the project. In
any event they can't grant the variance until after you have
finished the SEQRA Review.
PETER CARTIER-I'm confused. It sounds that your describing
that we do something that we have not done in the past and
that is to act on a "project" prior to it having received a
variance. Is that what your asking?
ROBERT STEWART-Yes. You did it for me last year with the
Queensbury Factory Outlet. You approved this project and I
needed a variance for a new building up in the northwest
corner. You approved and you knew I had to get the
variance, you and the County Planning Board both approved it
in advance subject to obtaining a variance. I'm not even
saying that you do that. I am saying as you get through the
SEQRA phase of your review which is not the final phase of
your review. In the SEQRA phase you may come to us and say,
we make some strong recommendations here that you make some
changes. Thsoe changes might require the approval of the
Zoning Board, I don't know as I speak here tonight. Then I
have to come back in front of you to get your final approval
as a Planning Board which is separate from the state Law
SEQRA. At that point, you may say don't come back for the
final review until you have gotten your variance. I can't
get the variance until you review this proceeding. We have
one final request. I would ask that you have heard
everybody, you've heard the comments, we're going to be
getting a formal written letter as to what it is. I would
request that as to the issues that we are to address that
the record be closed. What I'm asking for here is I don't
want to come back two or three months from now having spent
a vast sum of money and be told that really wasn't something
that we wanted you to look into. Tell me do we have our
direction, do we understand or will we when we get your
consultant's advise where we're to go and what we're to
report back to on.
RICHARD ROBERTS-I'm not sure we can be that definitive. We
can be definitive enough in the sense that we give a guide
having what the major issues are that have to be addressed.
That is not to say that during the 30 day comment period
that an issue was raised of important concern that may have
been over looked that had to be addressed.
ROBERT STEWART-My point is, and I officially request that
the record be closed on the issue of scoping. This is what
exactly what the statue requries. The applicant cannot
stand and wait forever. This has been on file since
December. We are entitled to direction and this is the
night under the statue when we are to get it and not be told
go and spend a lot of money and study and then come back and
will tell you maybe we want more.
PETER CONWAY-I think we're going to be giving very clear
direction on what's required. What I'm saying is that I
don't think we can be 100% certain that during the public
comment period that an issue made and raised may have been
overlooked that is of importance that has to be addressed.
I believe we've addressed all the issues here tonight.
JOSEPH DYBAS-You've stated that this has been on file since
December. That is probably correct, however, there was very
little mentioned of a variance that was needed at the time.
JOHN GORALSKI-Its January when this went on file.
JOSEPH DYBAS-When we keep on talking more issues come up,
14
-"
'-'--'
----' ,--'
through no fault of ours.
HILDA MANN-I have a request for our consultant to review.
On Ash Drive, which is to the rear or to the east of this
property, and you park near the foot bridge that is the
bicycle path, and you look at the west towards Rush Pond,
there is a magnificent vista that is undistrubed at this
time. I would like to see that addressed and what effects
this is going to have particularly on the hills on the
southern portion that comes from Round Pond Road. To answer
your question, West Mountain went through all kinds of
review and an impact statements and what happened frequently
the more we dug the more we found to dig, particularly in
traffic.
ROBERT STEWART-My point is to at least give us direction on
the categories the areas we are to study. Obviously 11m
not saying your going to accept what answers we might come
back with. I just want to put the request on the record
that we know that we have the direction that we need.
FRANK DESANTIS-I would like to ask the Board to consider in
regard to Mr. Stewart's request, that the record be closed
on scoping. I would like an opportunity to review that
document that we're going to seek to adopt as the scoping
document and review in my own mind with what has the
completeness of what we've heard tonight from the
applicant and the various other parties before we adopt
that. I don't want to close it tonight and not be in
agreement with the scoping document.
HILDA MANN-I want to ask you one more time, I realize our
correspondence from Clough Harbour to us concerning the
topic for Scoping Session this is basically for our review.
I want to be sure that they are going to be incorporated in
your reveiw, particularly water resources, the discussions
of the depths of water, in depth they are going to be
required of that applicant, is that correct?
PETER CONWAY-That's correct.
RICHARD ROBERTS-The next step that thye suggested we take
tonight in sort of a workshop format is to try for all of us
to determine which items need to be addressed in depth.
PETER CONWAY-I
the next part
prepared. For
types of areas
can detail this
of what we would
believe we did all the major issues, I think
would be that the formal scoping document is
example, traffic we can say exactly what
were looking for in traffic. I believe we
item by item in various categories in depth
want the issues to be addressed.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Perhaps go over that and agree to that
document for our next meeting.
PETER CONWAY-Do I understand that we prepare the scoping
document, send it to all the Board Members, as well as the
applicant for review and comment prior to formally adopting
the scoping.
RICHARD ROBERTS-This will go on the agenda for our next
meeting.
PETER CONWAY-We can have that ready by then.
JOSEPH DYBAS-Would your study incorporate all the property
even the parking lot across the street from Story town , as
far as the run off and environment, and pollution?
PETER CONWAY-As part of the environmental impact we have to
address existing conditions. Whatever impacts are
associated with this project have to be addressed. Impacts,
existing conditions mayor may not effect this partiocular
porject. To answer your question specifically we would be
'-.--
~
~
)5
-~
looking at the storm water problems that are related to this particular project. Storm water
problems that may. be generated by an adjancet project not impact on this project we will
not look at. TraffIc on Route 9, existing conditions, existing traffic concerns us it will be
related to the adjoining project that would be . . . to this project.
JOSEPH ~YBASS-My only concern was that there is a certain amount of the pollution from
that parkIng lot across the street. What we're doing is adding dribbles and dribbles of pollutants
to that stream. Someplace along the line there has to be a number.
PETER CONWA Y-I think that is addressed in the existing conditions of that particular area.
They have to address what the existing conditions are.
MIK~ O'CONNOR-Would like to receive a copy in advance to the meeting of your proposed
SCOpIng.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Wondered if this should go to all involved agencies.
PETER CONWA Y-Has no problem with that its up to the Board.
TOM HALL-I really don't care to see it because I really think its a prerogative of you as a
lead agency to develop that scope. I am comfortable with hearing what I heard tonight that
our issues are going to be addressed. I see it now as your prerogative to set the scope require
that it be provided in the draft D.I.S., I don't care to see it.
MIKE O'CONNOR-My understanding is that the scoping was to highlight the concerns but still
it was the burden of the applicant to put forth a complete statement of all impact not simply
those that we have listed upon a list. We're being lead into a different direction though as
far as feeling of limitation.
RICHARD ROBERTS-We haven't agreed with Mr. Stewart as to the limitation of closing the
hearing. Any further comments.
NO VOTE
NEW BUSINESS .5/J..8~
SITE PLAN NO. 32-89, WR-3A, TYPE N/A RECOMMENDATION ONLY DEBBIE AND STEVEN
SCHEIBEL DARK BA Y ASSOCIATION DRIVE, APPROX. 0.80 OF A MILE WEST OF BAY ROAD
ON ROUTE 9L, DRIVE IS ACROSS THE ROAD FROM BOAT COVER BUSINESS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCE. AT PRESENT IT IS
VACANT WITH AN EXISTING DOCK AND STORAGE SHED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 2-1-6.8 SECTION N/A LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES
MARK BOMBARD D.L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES AGENT/STEVEN SCHEIBEL PRESENT
MR. DURANTE
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
MARK BOMBARD-Debbie and Steve Scheibel are proposing to put a building single family
residence on this Lot #4, Dark Bay Association. This is a preexisting nonconforming lot approved
through the Town of Queensbury in 1969, and the Department of Health. We have gone through
two changes that no longer conform and it has created an unusable lot by your standards.
The Zoning Board, has asked you to look at it for completeness and ability to build on it. The
original plans in the subdivision show the septic system to be installed on the lot with the house
and that was unfeasible. We have moved the septic to the other side of the road and hopefully
alleviating the problem to the closeness to the lake.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if this has another proposed house?
MARK BOMBARD-The reason we're not here to review the house and the septic on this lot
it is to show that it can all work in a bigger scheme.
PETER CARTIER-Asked who owned the larger lot that is proposed?
MARK BOMBARD-They're all owned under separate deed and they are under the Scheibel's,
the Durante's, and the association. They are all separate individual family members.
HILDA MANN-Asked if they we're all part of the same family?
STEVE SCHEIBEL-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
~
"-----
.4-6
--
Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if Mark had documentation about the well?
MARK BOMBARD-The well is shown on the map. The other wells on the adjoining lots have
been shown.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas N ace, See attached.
DISCUSSION HELD
THOMAS NACE-Refers to #a of his report. If you looked at the plan is show a measurement
. of 210 feet, however, that is not to the closet end of Lake George. If you swing the arc a
little to the north it measures 190 feet. Comment #B, leaching fields constructed on steep
slopes shows 12t %. I think the maximum is 15% they come close. Our concern is with the
underlying bedrock their may be future operational problems with the soil underneath the mound
becoming saturated and seeping out along the bedrock and getting down to the point where
it may seep out somewhere along the access road. At that access road down along about where
the water main easement crosses their is considerable outcropping of bedrock.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if he could verify the septic systems neighboring lots as to location?
MARK BOMBARD-The time of mapping no.
JOSEPH DYBASS-Asked what was the depth of the soil where you put your. . .
MARK BOMBARD-We had 64 inches.
JOSEPH DYBASS-Asked what kind of room does he have for backup? If this is bedrock the
only place to go is down hill?
RICHARD ROBERTS-This is a lot that would not be designed this way today, we have gone
through two re-zonings since this was done and subdivisions of this nature are suppose to be
reviewed every three years. Three years time, I think that they've used their nonconforming
abilities to be built on. Asked John Goralski, if he was right?
JOHN GORALSKI-This is no longer grandfathered under our Ordinance.
PAUL DUSEK-I persume your referring to the section that says our properties will be joined
that are side by side. If this was in existence prior to this Ordinance then the other Ordinance
would have also had the same provision it would have to be joined their would be no
grandfathering.
HILDA MANN-This was all in the same ownership until how long ago?
MARK BOMBARD-They are not under the same ownership.
HILDA MANN-Asked if they we're all members of the same family?
MARK BOMBARD-Yes.
PAUL DUSEK-If their not in the same ownership then they wouldn't be joined, you have to
be in the same ownership.
JOHN GORALSKI-Under Section 8.011 which covers preexisting nonconforming lots in a
subdivision, a subdivision is grandfathered for three years. This lost its grandfathering two
ordinances ago.
HILDA MANN-This is not grandfathered, asked how long ago did these lots became separated,
was this ever owned by one individual?
MR. DURANTE-Their is a misconception here. Deveron Associates owns the lot in question,
this is a building company, real estate. The other lot behind it is owned by my son. These
lots were never owned by any individuals jointly.
HILDA MANN-Asked if they were owned by one company?
MR. DURNATE-This is a development called Barrons, Durante, and Rice, they sold the lots.
These lots were sold back in the 70's.
-----_..,-~
/7
-...-".~
MARK BOMBARD-It was February 4th, 1971.
MR. DURANTE-The tax assessment now is $200,000 based on the lot being grandfathered.
PAUL DUSEK-These lots are not contiguous.
FRANK DESANTIS-These are separate lots, the question is whether or not he can build on
it.
RICHARD ROBERTS-This lot already has some usage on it. It has a dock and small building
assuming the dock has been used by Lot # 3. '
HILDA MANN-Thought a dock was an accessory use not a principal use. Asked why we could
have a dock and not a house?
MR. DURANTE-We are talking about a one acre lot that the septic tank is set up in if you
can'~ adjust what is necessary your faced with the problem with where your going to put the
septIc system on. We have a 4 minute percolation on this.
PETER CARTIER-Asked him to define excellent percolation?
MR. DURANTE-i minute would be perfect, 20 to 25 minutes is not to good, but acceptable.
PETER CARTIER-Things have changes now particularly on this close proximity to the lake.
MR. DURANTE-This lot was approved for existing conditions at the time we have made
adjustments rather than make an issue of it.
JOSEPH DYBASS-Asked how many years ago it was approved?
MR. DURNATE-1959.
PETER CARTIER-I can't see having a house in there on a piece of property that isn't large
enough to take its own septic system.
MR. DURANTE-When the first application was made I was under the assumption that standards
and procedures have change.
FRANK DESANTIS-The variance for the setback is not our purview. Lot #8 is my concern.
It would be fine if you want to use it for the septic system for Lot #4, but you also propose
to use it for another house and another septic system. That's where you run out of space on
a lot that would seem to solve your problem on Lot #4. Apparently if they didn't have the
house they have enough land to put another septic system on this lot. If they use Lot #8 as
a septic area then we're getting into an area that is not us, which is whether or not you can
build a house 30 feet from Lake George that is the Zoning Board of Appeals area. This well
(refers to map) has to be 100 feet from this septic system we don't know where it is. This septic
system needs to be 100 feet from this well, plus the house on Lot #4 given all the facts that
have been brought up needs not only first a septic system, but an area in case that one fails.
You don't have enough area for a third septic system, two for Lot #4, and one for Lot #8.
JOSEPH DYBASS-What you are looking at is that you should have six acres of land if you want
to put up two homes and two septic systems. Your're running about Ii acres so you are short
4 i acres of land.
MR. DURANTE-The Town has created an impossible situation by setting up standards like
that.
FRANK DESANTIS-You have a proposal here that is on two lots one proposal is not in front
of us.
JOSEPH DYBASS-Our engineer made an error it is not Ii acres, it is less than 1 acre, so your
shy over 5 acres of land.
RICHARD ROBERTS-We're losing control of this meeting, can one person speak at a time.
STEVE SCHEIBEL-I am the original applicant for a building permit that I applied for last August,
and September at the Town Hall. My feeling at each step along the way we have been without
any clarification on what can be done. Instead their has been great concern about septic which
I shared. We went to the meeting, we hired an engineer to resolve the question and put it
in the appropriate distance from the lake to work with the Town to come up with a plan. I
felt that we had submitted a septic plan that was in conformance with current standards.
We we're also encouraged by the Town to draw up specific and detail drawings of the house
'---~
- /18
----
that would show elevations and appearance, so we hired an architect and did that. I hear no
willingness of the Board to approve this , I ask to remove my application.
HILDA MANN-Asked if he received the engineer letter. Thinks that he should have a copy
knowing the concerns.
LEE YOR.K-I sent a letter stating what all the concerns were that the Zoning Board asked
the PlannIng Board to look at. I then sat down with Mr. Bombard, on two occasions and we
talked through exactly what the concerns were so you could address them on your plan.
HILDA MANN-Asked if he spent many years on the lake and was he familiar with the lake?
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if it could be clarified. Do we have a preexisting nonconforming
buildable lot or not?
PAUL DUSEK-There are two lots which are separated. If we take the one lot if your looking
on building next to the lake that is a lot nothing can be changed about that. The only thing
that the Ordinance does is after two years it will no longer be deemed conforming, after three
years they lose that. What now has happened is that they've lost that and have to go to the
Zoning Board for a variance to get those proper setback requirements waived so he can build
his house. If he gets that from them then it will be once again a conforming lot. The Zoning
Board needs input from this Board whether this will be a suitable site plan arrangement based
upon the septic system, and drainage.
MR. DURANTE-I have a letter from my Attorney, I don't have it with me. He said the
assessment holds at $200,000, but the lot is grandfathered.
PETER CARTIER-That still does not address the issue of the actual physical layout of the
lot.
HILDA MANN-Asked Thomas Nace, whether or not this piece of property instead of holding
tank is a option as opposed to using all this other land.
THOMAS NACE-This is one of those particular instances that I would recommend this be
considered. My concern is it is a better overall solution if you look at Lot #4 to pump the
sewage up the hill and get rid of it from away from the lake. When you bring in the consideration
and development of Lot #8 then I think your better advised to look at a holding tank on Lot
#4, and develop Lot #8 in a logical manner that is allowed.
RICHARD ROBERTS-With the holding tank do we feel this is a buildable lot?
JOSEPH DYBASS-Asked what the size of the actual house is?
STEVE SCHEIBEL-The original print was 24 ft. by 52 ft. The actual architect plan is 24 ft.
by 40 ft., If we haven't satisfied the septic problem I would prefer not to solicit a vote. Asked
to have his application tabled.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if something could be gained by this from an engineering standpoint?
THOMAS NACE-From an engineering standpoint I think their are ways of working out the
differences. This is probably on of those instances where a holding tank is required. I would
make this recommendation to the applicant.
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked where the holding tank would be placed?
THOMAS NACE-Lot #4.
LEE YORK-Pointed out to the applicant that Lake George was designated environmentally
sensitive area. You are also going to have to satisfy the Lake George Park Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN DUCHARME-Law firm of Shanley Sweeney & Reilly, P.C., representing Linda and Victor
Gush properties in this subdivision. My comment is basically contained in the letter to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, dated March 23, 1989. (See attached) All the issues have basically
been addressed except for one. That is that the property owners in that subdivision all have
right to that road which lies ingress and egress to their property. One of the rights is that
the road will not be interrupted by any of the residences. If you are going to run a pipe
underneath that road it is going to require that you dig the road up. This violates all the property
owners in their rights, in their deeds to the ingree and egres to there properties. My client
believes this will be a violation of their rights. In order to do that you would have to receive
consent from all of the property owners in that subdivision which has no t bee done.
~'
"- --
¡J
.~
BEVERL Y WHINNERY-Member of Dark Bay Association. My lot is adjance to Lot #8. I have
a questrion as to the septic system. They say they are going under the road is that correct?
RICHARD ROBERTS-Originally we're getting away from that.
BEVERLY WHINNERY-Where would you go under the road? There is a wall and a wall. The
property next to Lot #4 belongs to the Dark Bay Association members for their use of the
land. (Brief discussion among Board members and Mrs. Whinnery) There is a wall coming down
and a wall opposite this Lot #4. I don't see how their going to get the road there.
PETER CARTIER-I don't think that is going to be an issue anymore. We're talking about a
holding tank, the holding tank stays on Lot #4 their will be no need for anything under the
road.
BEVERL Y WHINNERY -I believe the house is going to be to close to the lake. You say you
I' going to preserve our lake. I think it is to close to save and preserve out lake, to me it would
be the closest newly built piece of property on the lake.
PETER CARTIER-This Board cannot do anything about the closeness.
RICHARD ROBERTS-The point was made about leaving access to this roadway, does that
mean that other people have access to the stairs and the large dock.
MARK BOMBARD-Just the roadway their is a common easement for lots they ingress LP-:rld
egress down the raodway. I would like to make a recommendation to hold it here at the Planning
Board and not go back to the Zoning Board, now that we have defined things that need to be
done from Tom and Lee, that we can address and make the changes on the plat. Now that
I understand what you see as a problem and what the ZBA sees as a problem we can see how
many of these we can rectify and then bring back a better and more complete plan.
KEITH JABLONSKI-Do we agree that a holding tank would be the best solution?
RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if everyone was in agreement?
BOARD-Agreed to this.
HILDA MANN-I assume your coming back before we make any recommendation to the Zoning
Board?
MARK BOMBARD-Yes.
BOARD-Agreed to this.
PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPENED
TABLED SITE PLAN NO. 32-89, DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL, BY REQUEST OF THE
APPLICANT
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A, CLARENCE
J. AND CARA D. BEAMES L600 ± FT. NORTH OF LUZERNE ROAD ON EAST SIDE OF
TUTmLL ROAD TO SELL EXISTING HOUSE AND BUILD A SINGLE F AMIL Y HOUSE FOR
SELF. TO SUBDIVIDE THE 12.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS TAX MAP NO. 123-1-40.3 LOT
SIZE: 12.6 ACRES
MARK BOMBARD D.L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING CLARENCE AND CARA
BEAMES
MARK BOMBARD-Their is one existing residence on this. I have entered a request for a wavier
of the 2 foot contour interval. It is a little on the rolling side. A two lot subdivision of this
nature didn't seem imperative to have 2 foot contour intervals there.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, (See attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, See attached.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
-/
~o
"
'---. --
-----
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, CLARENCE J.
AND CARA D. BEAMES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Hilda Mann:
To approve with the request regarding the 2 foot contour interval granted with the stipulation
that the final plan application address the concerns of the Senior Planner regarding construction
on blocking drainage ways and the concerns made by the Town Engineer also be addressed.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 34-89 TYPE ß, WR-lA, GERALD AND CONSTANCE JACKSON OFF BAY
ROAD ON THE HUDSON RIVER, GO DOWN BIG BAY ROAD ALMOST TO PALMER
DRIVE-THERE IS A PRIVATE ROAD TO THE LEFT-GO TO END OF PRIVATE ROAD-RUNS
INTO VACANT PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RAMP AND DOCK ON AN
UNDERSIZED LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 144-1-39 SECTION 4.020
D LOT SIZE 8,300 SQ. FT. (SITE AREA)
GERALD JACKSON PRESENT
GERALD JACKSON-Propose to put a floating dock on this property.
RICHARD ROBERTS-I don't see a problem with this.
HILDA MANN-Asked if this was just for family use your not dividing this?
GERALD JACKSON-Just for family use, we're not dividing this.
LEE YORK-Asked if he planned on putting in a boat ramp?
GERALD JACKSON-Later on.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROBERT HILLIS-My camp is right near where this property is. This lot here belongs ,to M:.
Reynolds he sold his to an older couple. They had a ramp where they back there boat In, thIs
is nothing new for there.
FRANK DESANTIS-You live next door to this property?
ROBERT HILLIS-Three camps from it.
FRANK DESANTIS-Do you have any objections to this?
ROBERT HILLIS-Absolutley not.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached, Warren County Planning Board approved.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-89, GERALD AND CONSTANCE JACKSON,
Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybass:
To approve based on the fact their is no impact.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
'-
'.
').1
tt1
'------' -
--"
ABSENT:N one
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1988, FINAL STAGE, SFR-lA, THE PINES OF QUEENSBURY, PHASE
ill WEST SIDE OF THE PINE OF QUEENSBURY, PHASE L &: LL, EAST OF PINE HOLLOW
SUBDIVISION AVIATION ROAD TO POTTER ROAD TO PINION PINE TO WILLOW ROAD.
FOR 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 20.61 ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 90-8-999
TED BIGELOW PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS-Believes we're done as far as the engineering details. Asked engineer
is he was satisfied with the plans?
THOMAS N ACE- Yes.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, See attached.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached.
MOTION TO APPROVE S1!BDIVISION NO. 1-1988, F~NAL ST~GE, THE PINES OF QUEENSBURY,
PHASE DI,lntroduced by HIlda Mann who moved for Its adoptIOn, seconded by Victor Macri:
To grant their request for a wavier from the .35 minimum "C" value for runoff calculations
based on the solid present on site, in as much as, they have satisfied our Engineer and the Board.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
FURTHER BUSINESS
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 1, 1989,lntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Frank DeSantis:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has adopted Local Law No.3 for the
year 1989, which Local Law provides for the suspension, on a temporary basis and for the period
that the said Law, which requires the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to hold a public
hearing with 45 days of the receipt of an application for site plan approval or an application
for subdivision plat approval and which further requires that the Planning Board file its decision
with 45 days of said public hearing, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Local Law No.3, 1989, the Planning Board must, within 60 days
of the effective date of said Local Law, adopt such rules and regulations after a public hearing
by the Planning Board and subject to the approval of the Town Board, regarding the procedures
applicable upon receipt of applications for site plan approval and applications for preliminary
or final plat approval regarding the time within which a public hearing is to be schedules, if
at all, and further, regarding the time within which the Planning Board is to make its decision,
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Local Law No.3, 1989, the said rules and regulations to be
promulgated by the Planning Board shall be consistent with the intent of Town Law Sections
274 (a) and 276 to the extent that a clear and consistent time frame shall be established to
review said applications and make decisions thereon, and
WHEREAS, a proposed draft of an amendment to the rules and procedures of the Planning
Board titles "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to Applications for Site Plan Approval or
Preliminary or Final Approval" has been presented to this meeting, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Planning
Board may adopt rules and regulations in respect to procedure before it and in respect to any
'-'
.?- ;)-
d
'--.-
~
subject matter over which is had jurisdiction under Article 16 of the Town Law of the State
of New York or any other stature after public hearing by the Planning Board and subject to
the approval of the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOL VED, that a public hearing be held on the proposed amendment to the rules and procedures
of the Planning Board presented to this meeting and titled "Special Temporary Rules Applicable
to Applications for Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final Plat Approval" on May 16, 1989
at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center Meeting room, Bay at Haviland road,
Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Susan Davidson of the Planning Department, is hereby authorized and directed
to arrange for publication in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury of notice of
the aforesaid meeting and proposed rules and regulations as set forth in the proposed notice
of public hearing presented at this meeting.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
AMENDMENT TO RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL
TEMPORARY RULES APPLICABLE TO APPLICATIONS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OR
SKETCH PLAN, PRELIMINARY OR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
A. DEFINITION OF AGENDAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY PLANNING BOARD:
L Ready Agenda; The agenda, maintained by the Planning Department, of all matters for
which complete applications have been lawfully submitted to the Planning Board. Matters
shall appear on the ready agenda in the order in which complete applications for said matters
have been received by the Planning Board.
2. Meeting Agenda; There shall be a meeting agenda maintained by the Planning Department,
of all matters for which public hearing have been advertised or for which no public hearing
is necessary, and which are scheduled for consideration at the Planning Board Meeting scheduled
for the next following month. The meeting agenda shall be comprised of five categories titled,
"Old Business, New Commercial/Industrial Site Plans, and New Residential Site Plans," and
include a total of 16 matters allotted to the extent possible to the various categories as follows:
There shall be a maximum of 2 matters set for considerations of the Planning Board under
each category, except the Old Business category, which shall be limited to a maximum of 8
matters. The matters so set forth on the said agenda shall be those which have been contained
on the ready agenda for the longest period of time.
In event that there are not enough matters of a particular type on the ready agenda to
fill a particular category on the meeting agenda, the Planing Board shall still attempt to create
an agenda with 16 matters contained thereon as follows: First, if any subdivision categories
shall be used to fill the category or use up the 2 matter allotment. A like procedure shall
be used for the site plan category. In no event, however, shall there be more than a total of
4 new subdivision matters and 4 new site plan matters on the agenda for any month. Second,
in the event after employing the above-procedure, the subdivisions or site plan categories
are still not filled for the month, the Planning Department shall add either site plan matters
or subdivision matters on the meeting agenda from the ready agenda such that those contained
on the ready agenda for the longest period of time are considered at that month's meeting.
In no event, however, shall there be more than 8 new matters on the meeting agenda. Third,
if after employing the above-procedure any of the new mattered categories are still not
completely filled for the month, the Planning Board shall increase the number of matters to
be considered as old business by the number of unused allotments or openings in the new matter
categories of subdivision and site plan to attempt to create a meeting agenda of 16 matters.
The old business matters that will be added to the agenda pursuant to this paragraph shall
be those matters that have been on the ready agenda for the longest period of time, regardless
of whether they are subdivision or site plan matters. In other words, the matter shall be placed
onto the old business agenda from the ready agenda in the order in which they appear on the
ready agenda. Once again, however, there shall not be anymore than 16 matters on the meeting
agenda for any given month.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Any matter for which a public hearing is required by law or by determination of the Planning
Board shall be advertised for public hearing upon its addition to the meeting agenda.
-'--
.-
'--- --
-.7
~~
c. DECISION:
Decisions on matters on the meeting agenda for which public hearings have been held and
concluded, or for which no public hearing is required, shall be made at the earliest possible
time after the conclusion of the public hearing if one is held, or after the meeting of the
Planning Board at which matter was considered if no public hearing was held, with due
consideration for the size and complexity of the matter, the extent to which the input of other
municipal officers or agencies is required and similar considerations. The Planning Board shall
make its decisions on a matter within six (6) months from the conclusion of the public hearing
on the matter, or within six (6) months after the conclusion of the Planning Board Meeting
at which the matter was considered if no public hearing was held.
D. VARIANCE FROM THESE RULES AND PROCEDURES:
The Planning Board retains the right and authority to vary the terms and application of
these rules when an applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that
practical difficulties would result from their strict application.
E. EFFECTIVE DATES:
The rules enacted herein pursuant to Local Law No.3, 1989, shall be effective immediately
upon the approval of the Town Board and shall expire, be void and no effect upon the expiration
of Local Law No. of 1989, Nothing contained herein shall preclude the reenactment of these
rules upon the reenactment of the aforesaid Local Law.
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Richard Roberts, Chairman
\
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
FILE COL-/
April 24, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE YORK, PLANNER
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 32-89
Application/Project Name:
Debbie and Steven Scheibel
The Zoning Board of Appeals has requested a recommendation
from the Planning Board because of the environmental considera-
tion regarding building on this lot. The project is before the
Zoning Board of Appeals because the applicant cannot meet the
minimum setbacks required in the ordinance.
The ZBA has requested that the Planning Board review the
submission regarding the following considerations:
I.) Runoff into Lake George, 2.) placement of the septic
system, 3.) placement of the well, 4.) visual impact, and
5.) slope conditions.
The lot in question is part of a 1969 subdivision on Dark Bay.
Lot #4 is the smallest lot in the subdivision being 15,500 sq.
ft. The original subdivision indicates the lot is 70 feet from
Lake front to the back 'lot line. (The map submitted by Dickenson
shows it at 79')
It also contains a stairway and u-shaped dock
on the property and an existing building.
The Scheibel's havé submitted a plan which shows a proposed
home on the property with the septic system located on lot #8.
There is not sufficient property for a septic system on lot #4.
In order to get the sewage to lot #8 a p.v.c. pressure line and
a pumping station will be installed. This will cross the access
road. The map indicates that a water line exists which goes
from Lake George to the back lots, and the proposed septic line
would cross it. This is not permitted. The applicant says
that this water line was never installed.
I have requested that
documentation to that effect be submitted.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
""\...
'---
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
-/
The application indicates that a well will be drilled on
lot #4, but the map does not indicate this. The property is
extremely steep going from an elevation of 320 at the lake to
346 at the back boundary.
The lot is 70' or 79' wide depending
on which map is used and this is a difference of 26 feet. It
is difficult to determine if drilling equipment could get on
the property.
The ZBA raised the question of runoff into Lake George.
With the steepness of the slope of the property any construction
taking place would require filli~ in close proximity to a
critical environmental ar~~~t~e ~^ttlicant will have to address
how they intend to mitigate or reduce siltation and runoff into
the lake.
This has not been done on the application.
The ZBA also requested an analysis of the visual impact. I
have suggested that a house plan and elevations be presented to
you.
Further, I have asked that Mark Bombard indicate the
four corners with stakes.
The slope is such that it is very
questionable whether a house could be placed on the lot. The
proposed house on the map measures 52 x 24 but does not indicate
the height of the unit.
There is a 14' difference in elevation
shown between the front of the house and the back.
The use of lot #8 for two septic systems, a well, and
24 x 52 house also brings into question the over use of that lot.
LY/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
,..
!,~
"-. . ASOOCIATES. P,C,
COf; sULTlNG ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALlS. NY
12801
518·793-4141
...
"--'
~
--/
May 2, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Town of Queensbury Office 'Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: Debbie & Steven Scheibel
Site Plan No. 89-32
Dear Ms. York:
We have revi ewed the proposed site plan for the development of two
residential lots in the Dark Bay Association area of Lake George and
offer the following observations:
1. According to the site plan, the proposed residence on Lot #4
will be located 30/ away from the lake shore. From a brief
inspection of the site, it appears that the lake shore may be
somewhat closer to the proposed building site than shown.
Since this is a relatively steep building site requiring
considerable excavation, there should be some consideration
for providing very stringent control of erosion and
sedimentation during construction. As noted by the setback
requ i rements in your current zon i ng ord i nance, it is
quest ionabl e whether constructi on thi s close to the 1 ake
shoul d be permitted. We understand that the app 1 i cant has
applied for a variance for this requirement.
2. An off-site sewage disposal system has been proposed for Lot
#4 due to the fact that the entire lot is within 100/ of the
1 ake shore. The site plan shows a septic tank and pump
station to be constructed on Lot #4 and a force main to convey
effl uent to a 1 each bed to be located on Lot #8. Th is
proposal has several deficiencies as follows:
a. The leaching field for Lot #4 is a mounded bed and does
not have the required 200/ separation distance from Lake
George.
b. Both leaching fields for Lot #4 and Lot #8 are
constructed on relatively steep slopes and could present
future operational problems because of the slopes and
the shallow depth of the native soils.
$ GLENS FALLS. NY, LACONIA, NH
-.../
~
~-
./
'--.....,1..../
Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Page 2
May 2, 1989
RFA #89-5000
c. Both the Health Department and NYSDEC sept i c system
regulations recommend that an area be set aside for
future repair or replacement of the leach fields. Due
to the site constraints, there does not appear to be any
reserve area available on Lot #8.
d. In order to achieve necessary separation distances, the
proposed well s for Lots #4 and #8 have been shown
extremely close to the property 1 ines. It should be
veri fi ed that there are not any exi st i ng or proposed
septic systems on adjacent lots which would be within
the requi red setback di stance from these proposed well s.
e. A permanent easement woul d be requi red a 11 owi ng the
owner of Lot #4 to operate and ma i nta in a sewage
disposal bed on Lot #8.
3. The proposed force main between the pump station on Lot #4 and
the leach field on Lot #8 traverses an area of exposed bedrock
along the west side of the access road. This will make
construction extremely difficulty.
4. The proposed sewage force main crosses an existing 10' wide
water line easement. If there is in fact a water line located
here, it should be shown on the plan and provisions should be
made to provide the necessary cl earances and construction
details for the crossing between the water line and sewage
force main.
We have no other comments regarding the proposed site plan.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
--J~~ '-" w· Jc-
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN/mai
cc: Planning Board Members
--......'
."'-- -
SHANLEY, SWEENEY & REILLY, P.G.
ATTORNEYS AND CoCNSELORS AT LAW
./
--.. ....-'--'
THE CASTLE AT TEN THT;RLOW TERRACE
MIC.....I!:L P. S.....NLI!:Y
ROSI!:RT L. SWEENEY
J. STE.....EN REILLY
JO"'N L. ALLEN
FR"NK P. M,L..NO
GREGORY D. F"UC"'ERt
J. M,C.....EL N"UG"'TON
JE~~REY p, ROGAN
MARK R. M..RCANTANO't
T"'OM"S A. SANTACROSE
JO"'N 8, DUC"'ARME
JOSI!:..... M. CATALANO
LUCINDA L. HOLLERMAN
Ar.nA:-IY, NEW Yor{K 1~~0:1
(518) 463-1415
FAX (518) 463-3210
SARATOGA OF"F"ICE
480 BRO"OWAY
SAR"TOGA SPF!INGS, N.Y. 12866
45181583-0777
o~ COUNSEL
W,LLIAM H. KISSEL
March 23, 1989
-ALSO AOMITTE:O IN CONNECTICUT
tAlSO AOMITTED IN FLORIDA
*AL90 AOMtT"Tt:O IN D.C.
Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals
Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 12801
Re: Application of Debbie Schievel, Dark Bay Route 9-L
Gentlemen:
I am writing on behalf of my clients, Victor and Linda Gush,
with respect to the Application of Debbie Schievel for the
installation of a septic tank on her property adjacent to Route
9-L in the Town of Queensbury, New York. For many reasons, we
believe that her application should be denied.
First, the Lot itself is too small to support a septic
system, especially in view of the type of soils in the area.
Second, we believe that the system would be located too
close to the stream which runs directly into Lake George.
Pollution from the system would, therefore, run directly into
Lake George. This is a serious environmental problem and it
appears to fly in the face of the moratorium covering the Lake
George Basin. Moreover, the Gushes' well is located down stream
from the proposed septic system. Any leakage from the system
would pollute their drinking water.
Lastly, I would note that any additional houses in the area
would add to the traffic congestion.
I understand that installation of this system would also
require ripping up of the road leading from Route 9-L to the
Gushes' home. I believe that such a course of conduct, without
the Gushes' permission, is violative of the Deed Restrictions
contained in the various deeds affecting the property.
.
'-.
_../
'--
'-
"'HANLEY, SWEENEY & REILLY, PC.
I would appreciate being kept informed of any further
meetings at which Ms. Schievel's application is being considered.
Thank you for your cooperation.
JSR/ljb
cc: Queensbury Planning Board
.
Very truly yours,
jSHANLEY$ SWEENEY & REILLY, P.C.
. .../~/£~,c···æ«/ ...
J. Stephen Reilly ~
,I
-~
, \....-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
fiLE L-.1
April 18, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 10-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Clarence J. and Cara D. Beames
PRELIMINARY STAGE
The request is for preliminary subdivision approval for a two lot division on Tuthill
Road. The zoning classification is RR-SA. Both lots will be over five acres. The access
to the second lot will be 100 ft. along Tuthill Road.
The owner has requested a waiver of the requirement for the 2 ft. contour intervals.
The reasoning given is the large lot size.
Of concern to the Planning Staff is the natural drainage way across the back lot.
It appears to drain an adjacent property also. The drainage way appears to become a
small brook that runs through the proposed driveway. The Board may wish to ~equire
mitigation measures to insure that construction does not block the drainage way. This
could cause flooding on both lots, but primarily on the one to be sold.
LA Y /sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
.
~
\,. ASSOCIATES, PC
....
~LTING ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518·793·4141
. ',~ t.....-· ~"
.,)
, ---..-/
.. . l',
~
~)~ÊaW[~1 f:~'
\~ APR 2S191J9 ~~ April 24, 1989
RFA #89-5000
.' .-'--...
PLANNING & ZONINC
DEPARTMENT
Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Town of Queensbury Office
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Building
Re: Clarence & Cara Beames
Subdivision No. 10-1989
Preliminary Plans
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project, and have the following
comments:
1. A percolation test must be done as a basis for design of the
septic system. Septic tank and absorption field design
details should be shown.
2. Drainage calculations have been provided and we concur that
the increase in runoff will be minimal on this large lot.
However, a grading and erosion control plan should be shown
for the long access driveway. Culverts should be shown where
the drive crosses the two drainage ways. Width of driveway
and typical section should be shown. Erosion control should
be place~ to protect the existing intermittent drainage
course.
3. Indicate the extent of clearing for the new house, driveway
and septic system.
4. The septic system of the existing house should be shown.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST P.C.
M/ /
·~Û f ~ (
Wayn . Gannett, P.E.
Mana ing Project Engineer
WG/mai
cc: Planning Board Members
$ GLENS FALLS, NY' LACONIA, NH
~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
FILE ~J{
May Z, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 34-89
Applicant/Project Name: Gerald and Constance Jackson
This is a preexisting nonconforming lot of record. Under Section 8.010 no Variance
is required to use this lot. This is an extremely small lot and any use of this property
will have some effect on the character of the neighborhood.
The applicant wishes to put a floating dock in the Hudson River and access the dock
from this lot. If the dock will only be used by the owners for personal use, the impact
should be minimal. The impact will be directly proportional to the number of people and
boats using the property.
This proposal should have little impact on public facilities and services. There will
also be little if any impact on the scenic, aesthetic, or ecological value of the Hudson
River.
J G / sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
WARREN COUNTY
""~fI ,
t' "
~:: ..rt
~ '; r ..-i
ð& .... ~ ..- -...I "
-
""--'--
Warren County Municipal Center
Lake George, New York 12845
PLANNING BOAJt.nJ~Jj~1
í98~ ~ ;.) ,
Telephone 518,761·6410
~:: ~l 0 r.j i
·~'!'~~P'
DATE: April 13, 1989
RE:
Gerald & Constance Jackson
TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning
Office
Town Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Que~nsbury, NY 12804
Gentlemen/Ladies:
private road off Big Bay Road
SPR II 34-89
At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th
day of April
, the above application for a site plan review to put in
a dock on vacant land.
was reviewed,
( .~ Approve
r!ornrn~n t s :
and the following action was taken. Recommendation to:
( ) Disapproval ( ) Modify with Conditions ( Return
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the
procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M, with
regard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported ~hereon.
The following are procedural requirements that must be adhered to: '
1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the
referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such
actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon
time, the municipal agency may act without such report.
2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification
thereof, the'municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action
except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof
and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons
for such contrary actions.
3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency
having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval
of a referred matter, such municipality agency shall file a report with
the Warren County Planning Board on the nèc~&s~~ ~~r~ -('
OR \ (I
//
Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman
WARREN COUNTY
../
-......,/
"'-..--
PLANNING BOARD
Warren County Municipal Center
Lake George, New York 12845
Telephone 518·761-6410
PLANNING AND ZONING REFERRAL REPORT FORM
TOWN: QUEENSBURY
DATE: APRIL 13
19 89
RE: GERALD & CONSTANCE JACKSON
PRIVATE ROAD OFF BIG BAY RD.
SPR II 34-89
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE REQUEST FOR:
( ) VARIANCE
( ) SPECIAL PE~~IT
( ) SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND HAVE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:
( APPROVE
( DISAPPROVE
( MODIFY WITH CONDITIONS
COMMENTS:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/PLANNING BD. CHAIRMAN
Please return signed copy of this report
form within SEVEN(7) days of action to:
Warren County Planning Board
Warren County Municipal Center
Lake George, New York 12845
~
..
~,
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
fiLE C(,-~
April 19, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 1-1988
Applicant/Project Name: The Pines of Queensbury, Phase III
FINAL STAGE
This application was originally denied a place on the agenda because the submission
lacked proposed tax map numbers (page 14 - Subdivision Regulations). The reasoning for
this regulation is to assure that there will be no modifications to the mylar between the
time the Chairman signs it and the time it is filed with the County.
The intent was to provide the Planning Board with greater assurances that what
is filed is the final approved design.
Unfortunately, there is a typographical error which stated, "Proposed block and
lot numbers as approved by the Town Assessor". It should have read the County Assessor.
In fairness to the developer I made an agreement that if the project representatives
brought in an affidavit from the Town Assessor stating that they attempted to get the
tax map information they could be placed on an agenda. I am in receipt of the attached
memo from Darleen Dougher, Town Clerk. It is my understanding that the developers
engineers was referred to Darleen.
Because of the fact that I have no latitude in walvlng any requirements, and the
application was incomplete, I am presenting this to the Board. I have told the developers
representatives that the proposed tax map numbers have to appear on the mylar and be
presented to the Board for review. The decision as to whether to accept this submission
for review will have to be made by the Board.
LA Y /sed
Attachment
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
.L- / ...¡./ L' ,
¡,,{ '>.~'-'- l..£..;:! ~
-,,' .--..'.. ~ '-_. ~ t~ '.-"" ~/. -"[ ~
J...._,'-...~
65 Bay Street
PO, Box 533
Glens Falls, New York 12801
(518) 793-7802
Engineering
Surveying
Architecture
Landscape Architecture
Laboratory Services
Computer Services
..-' ''-1',
_-./
April 18, 1989
Mrs. Lee A. York, Planner
Town of Queensbury
Queensbury Town Office Building
Ray @ Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12801
Û*.'i '- ,
Æ~~!'
P~~'a ZONI~G)~-~=:''',
~RTMENT, >.'; , .' -'
Re: pines III Subdivision
fILE COpy
We appreciate the assistance that you and Darlene Dougher
provided in mediating a solution to a sticky problem. We
were all in a tough position.
Dear Lee:
The solution reached seems fair to all involved~ I hope that
it satisfies your needs as it does our client's. We have
re-learned the lesson, based on hindsight, that attention to
detail is paramount.
Most important, we regret any misunderstandings that may
have developed as a result of this situation. We did not
intend to suggest that any person(s) or offices had been
uncooperative. On the contrary, everyone we dealt with was
courteous and helpful. Please accept our apology for that
confusion.
We are now in the process of obtaining remaining required
information, and will be in touch with your office when
ready. If I can be of any help in this matter, please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
C.T. MALE A~S¿;CjrES'
~/+, . '
.....Y'V (.. v
H. ~h~mas
Prol ect._.
P.C.
P.E.
HTJ:cp
cc: D. Dougher, Town Clerk
H. LaRose, Town Assessor
S. Borgos, Town Supervisor
T. Bigelow, Woodbury Development Group
Offices in Latham, NY . Greenfield, MA . Littleton, NH . Brattleboro, VT . Ipswich, MA . Keene, NH
-.
1----. '----__
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12801-9725 - 518-792-5832
-~
April 17, 1989
Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Dear Lee,
On April 17 ,1989 at 4:00 P.M. as you know, you, Mr. Harold LaRose and myself met with
representatives of The Pines of Queensbury Subdivision Phase III to discuss their subdivision
application proposed to come before the Planning Board.
There appears to be some confusion as to information that was given to the representatives
of The Pines of Queensbury Subdivision Phase III from my department, at this time I would
like to reiterate the questions and Ilnswers that were given to this organization.
On approximately April 4th, 1989 Ms. Lynn Sherman a representative of The Pines of
Queensbury Phase III contacted my office by Phone, noting that she had called the Assessors
Office, The Building and Codes Dept. and then was told to call the Town Clerk's Office.
The following questions were asked:
1. Ms. Sherman asked about the proposed name for a road
2. Questioned who was responsible for house numbers
3. Questioned who was responsible for tax map numbers on a subdivision map.
The following answers were given:
1. Road names are usually proposed by the developer and the developer calls the Town
Clerk to see if there is any conflict, such as duplication of names or names too closely
related. The Town Clerk's Office reviews the proposal and notes if there are the
possibility of any conflicts.
2. In regard to house numbers, I suggested that the post office be contacted to give
out the box numbers for the houses.
3. When asked about tax map numbers, I noted that the Town does not give out tax map
numbers and that the subdivision map should be taken to Warren County for the issuance
of such numbers.
I hope this will clarify the information that was given out, if there are any further information
that is needed please feel free to call on this office.
Respectfully,
/
(
~',~ ..-:.¿\..... Cl ,.', " ~ /
/
\....,....-.. (
: -------
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . ,A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
'-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
fiLE Cf1.-y~
April 19, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 1-1988
Applicant/Project Name: The Pines of Queensbury, Phase III
FIN AL STAGE
This application was originally denied a place on the agenda because the submission
lacked proposed tax map numbers (page 14 - Subdivision Regulations). The reasoning for
this regulation is to assure that there will be no modifications to the mylar between the
time the Chairman signs it and the time it is filed with the County.
The intent was to provide the Planning Board with greater assurances that what
is filed is the final approved design.
Unfortunately, there is a typographical error which stated, "Proposed block and
lot numbers as approved by the Town Assessor". It should have read the County Assessor.
In fairness to the developer I made an agreement that if the project representatives
brought in an affidavit from the Town Assessor stating that they attempted to get the
tax map information they could be placed on an agenda. I am in receipt of the attached
memo from Darleen Dougher, Town Clerk. It is my understanding that the developers
engineers was referred to Dar1een.
Because of the fact that I have no latitude in waIvmg any requirements, and the
application was incomplete, I am presenting this to the Board. I have told the developers
representatives that the proposed tax map numbers have to appear on the mylar and be
presented to the Board for review. The decision as to whether to accept this submission
for review will have to be made by the Board.
LA Y /sed
Attachment
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
·~ ',-~-
~.
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, QueenSbury, NY 12801-9725 - 518-792-5832
April 17 , 1989
Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Dear Lee,
On April 17 , 1989 at 4:00 P.M. as you know, you, Mr. Harold LaRose and myself met with
representatives of The Pines of Queensbury Subdivision Phase III to discuss their subdivision
application proposed to come before the Planning Board.
There appears to be some confusion as to information that was given to the representatives
of The Pines of Queensbury Subdivision Phase III from my department, at this time I would
like to reiterate the questions and ¡:mswers that were given to this organization.
On approximately April 4th, 1989 Ms. Lynn Sherman a representative of The Pines of
Queensbury Phase III contacted my office by Phone, noting that she had called the Assessors
Office, The Building and Codes Dept. and then was told to call the Town Clerk's Office.
The following questions were asked:
1. Ms. Sherman asked about the proposed name for a road
2. Questioned who was responsible for house numbers
3. Questioned who was responsible for tax map numbers on a subdivision map.
The following answers were given:
1. Road names are usually proposed by the developer and the developer calls the Town
Clerk to see if there is any conflict, such as duplication of names or names too closely
related. The Town Clerk's Office reviews the proposal and notes if there are the
possibility of any conflicts.
2. In regard to house numbers, I suggested that the post office be contacted to give
out the box numbers for the houses.
. '
3. When asked about tax map numbers, I noted that the Town does not give out tax map
numbers and that the subdivision map should be taken to Warren County for the issuance
of such numbers.
I hope this will clarify the information that was given out, if there are any further information
that is needed please feel free to call on this office.
Respectfully,
~
tl . t
......... ',- c.... _~.. '- /
",', ~...
/-
L,-,- 'J ~
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, , . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
.-'~
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518·793-4141
l ì.r1.(~· ,,-.......
, I ¡;¡¡ I \".1 r;:4-:
\ \ if:, >",~!.rlW)~~t I L E
~' APR 2 Ii 79B!:! ~J
)tANN1NG
Ir)EÞ4R1'~,,:Z~IN(
:""\~:-1Y
~ ., ;, ~ "...;,.
uw~
~
:íSOCIATES, pc.
0___ ~~ING ENGINEERS
April 24, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: The Pine of Queensbury
Subdivision No. 1-88
Final Plans
Dear Ms. York:
The following are review comments on the above-referenced project:
1. The comments of our March 15, 1989 letter have been
satisfactorily addressed.
2. The applicant has requested a waiver from the .35 minimum "c"
value for runoff calculations based on the soils present on
sHe; we concur.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST AS~CIATES, P.C.
t?1}/ ¡
Æ(n%nn:tt. p. E.
Man~~; Project Engineer
WG/ma i
cc: Planning Board Memoers
e GLENS FALLS, NY·L.ACONIA. NH
.-- ',- ~--
row!' or aU¿CNSeUAY
I J~ilWr~fI,'
,~ MAY-2~~
Ç)LANNING .. ZONING
DEPARTMENT
Queensbury Planning Board
Town of Queensbury
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, New York 12804
Queensbury Planning Board,
f\E~\ ~ ?L£M'1 rJo. +~
~
John T. Whalen
R.R. #3, Farm to Market Road
Lake George, New York 12845
May 2, 1989
FILE COpy
I would like to go on record at the May 2, 1989 Planning Board Scoping Session Meeting
as objecting to the Story town USA, Inc. d/b/a The Great Escape - Tahitian Tempest Water
Park.
I own 40 acres of land bordered by the Great Escape. I believe I have the most to
lose of anyone in Queensbury if the Great Escape Water Park is constructed as proposed.
Mr. Wood plans to build his main attraction, the Colorado River Ride only 30 feet away
from my property line. The Colorado River Ride would zigzag for 900 feet along the
southern boundary of my land, being only 30 feet to 85 feet away from my property line
for most of this distance. On this ride the customers will be taken to the top of the
Colorado River Ride in an aerial chairlift, then get into rafts to ride down the river.
Obviously, as the kids raft down the rapids and bends of this river ride, they will
be yelling and screaming at the top of their lungs, creating a major noise level nuisance
on my property located only 30 feet to 85 feet away. I feel that the high level of noise
these rides would create, running from morning until 7 p.m. all summer long would destroy
the versatility of my property for quiet Recreation Commercial or residential uses, and
drastically reduce its value. The issue of noise is addressed in the Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance Section 5.071 Development Consideration - Item 4 Noise.
In addition to noise, I am also concerned that in the future The Great Escape may
decide to operate the Colorado River Ride at night, and install a lighting system along
the length of the ride comparable to that at a night baseball park, thus in the future I
could be faced with both nuisance noise levels and objectional lighting far into the night.
This would further reduce the value of my property.
Other items which concern me are the view from my property of the chairlift with
its 5 towers and a possible chlorine smell from the water in the Colorado River Ride.
My land is zoned both RC-15 and WR-1A (Glen Lake), with my WR-1A zoning starting
only 600 feet from the proposed Water Park. My property bordering the proposed Colorado
River Ride is zoned RC-15. As you know, single family homes are a permitted use in
RC-15 zones, and it further states in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance (page 47) Section
4.020-1 Recreation Commercial RC-15 under Purpose: "Residential uses (seasonal included)
are considered compatible with RC zones."
Obviously nuisance noise or lighting levels, which would render my RC-15 zoned
land undesirable or unsuitable for residential use or quiet Recreation Commercial uses,
1
"-"0-'
-------
would be clearly against the purpose, permitted uses, and intent of the Queensbury RC-15
Zoning Ordinance and would drastically reduce the value of my property.
In review of the magnitude of the proposed Water Park, and the concerns I have
previously statEill, I am requesting a 300 FOOT WIDE BUFFER ZONE between my property
line and the proposed water slides and chairlift. In addition, a high security fence is needed
to prevent access to my property by Great Escape customers.
A map should also be provided by the Great Escape to the Planning Board which
shows the exact location of each proposed Water Park ride in relation to the adjacent
property owners land. A map scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet is suggested.
Mr. Wood has not realistically addressed the noise issue. A 1980 noise study done
on a Silver Springs, Florida, water park was included in his addendum to the Full
Environmental Assessment Form. Little information on the Florida park was given; however
it was noted as having:
3 Waterslides
1 Wavepool
The Great Escape Water Park as proposed would include:
8 Waterslides (noted A thru H on Dwg SP1)
2 Waterslides - Speedslides
2 Waterslides - Kiddie Cannon Ball
2 Waterslides - Kiddie River Ride
2 Waterslides - Surf Ride
1 Wave Pool
1 Surf Pool
1 Surf Hill
1 Tube Hill
1 Lazy River Ride
1 900 foot Colorado River Ride
Judging from the number of rides, it appears that the sound study submitted to the
Town of Queensbury by Mr. Wood is for a water slide facility approximately only one fifth
(1/5) as large as the Great Escape is proposing to build. Obviously this is not a valid study,
and contains nothing comparable to the 900 foot Colorado River Ride. Other excerpts
from the sound study showed that short-duration, high-pitched shouts or screams were
not measured, and noted, concerning the wavepool machinery, that IIThis noise is considered
mildly objectionable for a residential area. II Accurate sound studies are needed from
an existing water park identical in number and type of rides to the proposed Great Escape
Water Park, and measured at a 30 foot to 85 foot distance from the Colorado River Ride.
2
.~
------
.,-" \:::---
-~
I would also like to point out an omission in Mr. Wood's Environmental Assessment
Form, Park 1, page 5, Section C. Zoning and Planning Information, Question 7. "What
are the predominant land uses and zoning Classifications within a X mile radius of the
proposed action." Mr. Wood answers "commercial". However, after locating the proposed
water slides on Site Plan Drawing No. PM 1, I find that WR-1A (Glen Lake), WR-3 (Round
Pond), and RR-3Ã zonings are all within a X mile radius of the proposed Water Park.
Sincerely,
~:J/~A' ,)
( / - John T. Whalen
3