The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-02-27 -, QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 22-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Shultz Subdivision Arz~lia H. Shultz 1 Subdivision No. 7-1989 SKETCH PLAN Farm To Mark~t Commons John A. and St~phani~ B. Mason 1 Sit~ Plan No. 76-89 Mari~ Fasulo Frank's Pizz~ria 2 Sit~ Plan No. 12-90 Mark Darius 3 Sit~ Plan No. 13-90 Attractions Land, Inc. (Grav~l Extraction) 8 Sit~ Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. (Roll~r Coast~r) 26 Subdivision No. 2-90 Adirondack Plantations Char1~s Di~hl 40 Sit~ Plan No. 15-90 Jam~s W~l1~r 45 Subdivision No. 3-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Roy and J~ann~ Tonn~s~n 51 Subdivision No. 4-1990 SKETCH PLAN Sh~rman Acr~s, S~ction 2 Walt~r R~hm 53 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. .-... QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-JOHN FERGUSON STUART BAKER, ASSISTANT PLANNER MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ had a littl~ quorum probl~m last w~~k so w~ had, on~ thing at l~ast, carri~d ov~r and l~t' s addr~ss that first and that was a Pr~liminary Stag~ for Shultz Subdivision. SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A SHULTZ SUBDIVISION ARZELIA H. SHULTZ NORTHERLY SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, 1,000 FT. SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD FOR A SUBDIVISION. PLAN TO RETAIN EXISTING RESIDENCE PARCEL AND TO CONVEY TWO BUILDING LOTS. TAX HAP NO. 55-1-8 LOT SIZE: 9.5 ACRES DAVID SHULTZ, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d this has alr~ady gain~d conc~ptual approval and w~'v~ h~ld th~ public h~aring, although I will k~~p the public hearing open tonight if anybody's int~r~sted. MR. SHULTZ-Stated I gu~ss th~r~ was a qu~stion on what tr~~s would b~ r~mov~d from th~ road frontag~ on Ridg~ Road. Only th~ tr~~s on th~ dri v~way op~nings will b~ r~mov~d. Th~ r~st will stay. MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d do~s any of the m~mb~rs have any questions about this? I think most of our qu~stions have been answered. Is ther~ anyone in the audi~nce who cares to comment on this proj~ct? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RECOHMEHDATION TO ACCEPT SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE SHULTZ SUBDIVISION ARZELIA SHULTZ, Introduced by Carol Pulver who mov~d for its adoption, second~d by Nicholas Caimano: For a thr~~ lot subdivision plan to retain ~xisting residents parcel and to convey two building lots. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Hagan OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1989 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED EXTENSION ONLY HC-1A FARM TO HARKET COMMONS JOHN A. AND STEPHANIE B. MASON SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF PROPERTY ARE 20o± FT. NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 149 AND BAY ROAD AND LIES BETWEEN THOSE ROADS. REQUESTING A 6 MONTH EXTENSION OF SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL. APPROVED APRIL 25, 1989 (SOIL INVESTIGATION AND PERC TESTS) TAX MAP NO. 27-1-40 LOT SIZE: 3.79 ACRES CREATING THREE LOTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO CONVEY THE FEE IN SAID LOTS TO INDIVIDUAL BUYERS. FOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USE; SPECIFIC NATURE OF PROPOSED BUSINESS IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME. 1 LEON STEVES, VANDUSEN AND STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Asked, does anybody have a problem with giving this Sketch Plan approval a 6 month extension? MR. CARTIER-Stated we also have a letter from Beautification on this, too. MRS. PULVER-Stated we have Staff Notes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated ok, I guess we also have comments from staff, too. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. BAKER-Stated and we also have a note from the Committee for Community Beautification and they disapproved. (on file) MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, we Ire still talking in terms of Sketch Plan and we have yet to address Preliminary and Final. I wonder if we can't address some of this down the road. Perhaps, send them back for... we may want to ask the same thing. I don't that we'd want that in a motion, particularly, at this stage, though, do we? MR. CARTIER-Stated well, just to flag the applicant, if he's got to go back, I think we could make it as part of the motion. MR. ROBERTS-Stated alright. MR. CARTIER-Stated just to flag it for the applicant that we expect him to appear before... . MR. ROBERTS-Stated ok, then, do you have any more comments? MR. STEVES-Stated my name is Leon Steves with VanDusen and Steves. The owners asked me to appear tonight on their behalf to explain that the request of Bob Eddy, on February 10th, they were unable to attend the February 12th meeting that he called, nor could I. All of us were out of town. It wasn't any attempt, on our part, to avoid the Beautification Committee. MR. CARTIER-Stated it was a date conflict. MR. STEVES-Stated absolutely. MOTION TO GRANT SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1989 SKETCH PLAN FARM TO HARlŒT COHHONS JOHN A. AND STEPHANIE B. MASON, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Six month extension from the expiration date, April 25, 1990. Extension from that date until October 25, 1990 with the understanding that the applicant will appear before the Beautification Committee. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan SITE PLAN NO. 76-89 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA HARlE FASULO FRANK'S PIZZERIA NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROUTE 149 AND ROUTE 9, NEXT TO DEXTER SHOES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION OVER THE 21 FT. BY 42 FT. OPEN DINING AREA OF THE RESTAURANT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-1-11 LOT SIZE: ~ ACRE SECTION 4.020 K ROBERT MULLER PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Stated this we have seen before and, I guess, we must have been asking for additional information. 11m not sure whether we closed the public hearing on this, but we will say we didn't and leave it open. 2 -../ MR. MULLER-Stated my name is Bob Muller, I'm the attorney for the applicant on this. MR. ROBERTS-Stated let me interrupt you, just a minute. As we normally do, we will have comments from Staff read before we turn it over to you. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. MULLER-Stated I just want to identify, for the record, my name is Robert Muller. I am the attorney for the applicant. This is old business. I'm not at all familiar with the format for the proceedings here, but I do want to make certain that we can now come away with the approval of this Board, having answered the one question that was left from the previous meeting. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think I would tend to agree with you. I think we had covered everything else, pretty much, before, as I recall, mostly to that storm water management question. MRS. PULVER-Stated It was also, he had the wrong paperwork. Originally, it was 21 ft. by 42 ft. They were asking for 14 by... and they gave us all the paperwork for 21 by 42. MR. MULLER-Stated according to what was read, that's been resolved. MRS. PULVER-Stated yes, it has. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, has anybody got a copy of this we can put on the wall? We don't have a large map, well, I guess we've all seen that and been through it. In case I did leave the public hearing open, is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76-1989 MARIE FASULO-FRANK'S PIZZERIA, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the addition of the open dining area that has met the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance. As part of the motion, we will entertain the letter from the Department of Transportation dated January 12th, 1990. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-90 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 HARK DARIUS 121 AVIATION ROAD ACROSS FROM SOKOL'S HAR1ŒT APPLICANT TO RENT 900 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING BUILDING FOR AUTOMOTIVE TUNE-UPS, COMPUTER ANALYSIS, AND REPAIR. USE VARIANCE GRANTED ON JANUARY 17, 1990. TAX MAP NO. 78-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 1.71 ACRES SECTION: 9.010 BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING MARK DARIUS AND WILLIAM MAILLE, OWNER OF PROPERTY MR. ROBERTS-Asked does Staff have some comments on this? STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. JORDAN-Stated my name is Bruce Jordan. I'm the attorney for Mr. Darius and also Mr. Maille, who owns the property that we're talking about here this evening. As indicated in the application, essentially, I think .... there was going to be no changes to the physical improvements, whether it be the structure or the ground area on the property as the result of the lease of this one bay of a three bay garage. As to the Staff's comments, I think I can address the two areas for which additional information is sought here. First of all, as we indicated when we 3 were before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Darius will be operating this business, himself, as the sole proprietor, without any employees. It's going to be a very limited operation, kind of a specialty shop and he will be servicing, as far as on site, maybe two to three cars at most at anyone particular time. As far as the hazardous materials issue, this is not a full service auto repair shop. We're not talking about overhauls of vehicles. We're not talking about your basic lube and oil changes that will occur on the site. It's not going to have those kind of chemicals or lubricants or anything of that nature there. He's going to be, basically, doing tune-ups on conventional ignition systems and computer analysis and repair of some of the more modern, more sophisticated computer brain type systems. MR. CARTIER-Asked, is he going to clean parts? Is he going to be doing any parts cleaning? I would assume, with a tune-up, there's going to be some parts cleaning involved, that that's going to involve some solvent. MR. JORDAN-Stated I can ask him. You mean, would there be no solvent of any nature at any time on the property, I'd have to say, probably there would, at one time or another. For example, if you're doing a major overhaul on a motor, you're going to have substantial solvent problems because you're going to have to wash and clean the parts that you have.. .motor and so forth. That's not this type of operation. MR. CARTIER-Stated nevertheless, there are going to be solvents present and they're going to be people in that garage exposed to those, in contact with those solvents and so on and I think this is an appropriate comment, on the part of the Staff. I think, I've just been through this...so I know this kind of thing needs to be necessary. I hope you're not asking' us to ignore that comment from Staff. MR. JORDAN-Stated I'm not suggesting you ignore it, I'm endeavoring to respond to it. MR. CAIMANO-Stated I guess my question, it's partly with Mr. Cartier, this is not a hobby on Mr. Darius's part, this is a business, right? MR. JORDAN-Stated that is correct. MR. CAIMANO-Stated and the intent of all this is to grow, so what is stated now is quite likely to grow beyond what you have, beyond the 2 or 3 cars, beyond a simple, little thing. I presume, that's what Mr. Darius has in mind. MR. JORDAN-Stated 1111 let him respond to that. MARK DARIUS MR. DARIUS-Stated my name's Mark Darius. I have three chemicals on the property. Two of them are contained in aerosol cans. One is carburetor cleaner and the other's brake cleaner which is also used in part of it. The other chemical I have is a biodegradable solvent such as if you were to clean something. It I S made out of vegetables and citrus fruits. It's 100 percent biodegradable. MR. CARTIER-Stated ok, but, we may be arguing over an ant hill here. All this is requesting is that the MSDA sheet be supplied, that's all. We're not saying you can't use these solvents. All we're saying is that you provide the paperwork that is required by the EPA. MR. DYBAS-Asked, Mark, I'm not opposed to the business, per se, but, what I want to know is, who's cars and trucks are out there for sale all the while and keep on expanding the lot? MR. DARIUS-Stated there's no cars out there for sale. MR. DYBAS-Stated well, there's usually a car or truck in front. There's cars and trucks for sale, at one time or another. There's been a boat for sale at one time. I go by that place a dozen times a day, I live three blocks past it. What my concern is, I wish you success in your venture, but we've seen things grow out of proportion and the next thing you know, we've got a garage and a used car lot and a junk yard. I've. . . through it several times. Somebody comes in with a banged up car and it sits there for months and months and.. .get parts to fix it up and then you've got an eyesore. That's my only concern. If you're going to run a... garage, you're only going to work on.. cars and there going to go, that's fine, but I know how things get out of hand and that's what my concern is. 4 MR. DARIUS-Stated I don't operate any type of a body shop. Once in a great while, you'll see an older car there, that's in there for some minor tune-up. The main thing I do is a lot of work on fuel injections and things like that. There's no body shop involved. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think Mr. Dybas's comments are very apropos, however, and I think maybe we might want to put something...to park there so we have some clout, down the road, when and if it became a problem. MR. DYBAS-Asked, do you remember, Dick, under the old plan, we changed the Zoning around to accommodate everybody, for the... and the neighborhood, and everybody else. We really worked very hard to make it presentable to everybody and sometimes I feel, when I drive by, that that's being neglected and that's my only concern and before it gets out of hand to far, I want to be sure we put a stop to it because once it gets out of hand, it's very difficult to move back again. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I agree. MR. DYBAS-Stated if he's going to run a legitimate automobile repair shop, as he's saying, cars coming and going, repair and gone, that's fine. I have no hard feeling with that, but I have seen what's happened in a few instances already and I don't want the area...by anybody, Mark or anybody else. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, what's reasonable to you, Mark? Is three cars, waiting, at anyone time reasonable, up front? Is no cars overnight, reasonable to you? MR. DARIUS-Stated sometimes, like you said, import cars, getting a computer for one or specialty parts, sometimes, can take two or three days. MR. DYBAS-Stated and two to three weeks, even. MR. DARIUS-Stated I've had them a lot longer than that, just for that fact, they're so hard to get parts for. Then comes, you get, spurts of, everybody's car breaks down the same day and it kind of, some days there's no cars there, I'm just working on what I've had and then, other days, it'll go past three cars. MRS. PULVER-Asked, is there any place out back, behind the building, to park, should be right behind where you work. I was there and it was snowing and. .out front..go around the back of the building, so that theylre not roadside. MR. DARIUS-Asked, is there other than roadside parking out back? MRS. PULVER-Stated no, other than parking them in the front. MR. DARIUS-Stated right. MRS. PULVER-Stated parking in the back, is there room for parts? MR. DARIUS-Stated yes. MRS. PULVER-Asked and you have access to the back? The property is part of your renting, your 900 sq. ft.? MR. DARIUS-Stated yes. MR. JORDAN-Stated he does, but we had a lot of snow. There's one out there, buried, now that'll probably take the spring to get it out. MR. CARTIER-Asked, also, you have a situation where some cars could be tested ...correct? MR. DARIUS-Stated yes. MR. CARTIER-Stated I'm just trying to get a handle on car numbers here. What are your hours of operation, roughly. Ilm not trying to pin you down to something specific here, 8 to 5, 8 to 6? MR. DARIUS-Stated 8 to 7. MR. CARTIER-Stated 8 to 7. 5 --' MR. DARIUS-Stated 7's about the latest. MR. CARTIER-Asked, would you say, in that time frame, you'd be working on a maximum of 5 cars a day or more. MR. DARIUS-Stated not that many. MR. CARTIER-Stated not that many. MRS. PULVER-Asked, so if you have two cars waiting for parts, you could work on three cars, and you would have five cars there? MR. DARIUS-Stated right. Another little thing is, every once in awhile, like when it got cold, Monday, a lot of people's cars broke down at the same time. MRS. PULVER-Stated well, I don't think we would run over everyday to see how many cars you have there, but if there was 20 cars there for a long. MR. DARIUS-Stated a period of a month or something, right. I understand. MRS. PULVER-Stated you know, I mean, if we said five and you had six there for two days, I don't think we'd mind. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the problem is, Mark is not going to be responsible for all the cars there and the owner of the building, I think, probably, would be parking some cars there. ...that's where they've been coming from previously. Plus, that creates a cumulative thing that we have to be concerned about. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, Stu, you're concern about overnight storage is outside, not inside, is that correct? MR. BAKER-Stated correct. MR. DYBAS-Stated I realize you don't have any control over the outside perimeter, particularly up front and as you're facing it from the road on the left hand side, but that's where we seem to be getting an accumulation of cars and trucks and everything for sale and starting to use like a, used car, used truck or whatever. This is one thing, I don't think, that has ever been approved for that area to start with. Are you Mr. Maille? MR. MAILLE-Stated I'm Mr. Maille. The truck that you saw there was a snow plow that had, written on it, for sale, which we fixed the spring in it and we took it to our job to plow snow, but that was my plow and I don't know where you saw a camper, you said a camper. MR. DYBAS-Stated no, I've seen almost everything up there from the time you moved in until, I don't know when. At one time or another, there's been various vehicles or equipment there. MR. MAILLE-Stated the other car that you there, for sale out there, was a blue Aires car...and the motor home was mine and that wasn't for sale. MR. DYBAS-Stated I've seen so many of them that I couldn't tell you what I've seen, to be honest with you. Over the last 12 months, for example. MR. MAILLE-Stated because I have a motor home and it was there, parked out front, but I didn't have it for sale and when it does snow, I get a lot of Mr. Sokolls cars. . . . so that his shop can be cleaned and they stay there and they pick them up. That's just a temporary thing. MR. DYBAS-Stated we're very interested in keeping that the way we had promised the neighborhood is was going to be kept, that's what we're trying to do. We bent over backwards for everybody over at, Evergreen and the people on Aviation and the people all around that area to try to keep that area as clean as we possibly can and that's what we're attempting to do and if you cooperate with us, I don't think we'll have a problem. MR. MAILLE-Stated well, what I'm trying to do is cut my business down I don't have a bunch of trucks. I mean, I had, at one time, four dump and I'm down to two now, but one way or the other, it's going to go. so that trucks, MR. DYBAS-Stated I don't have a hard time with his operation either. they'll do a fine job there. I think 6 -- ~ MR. CARTIER-Asked, if we made, as part of a motion, a five automobile limit, including OVßrnights, with the understanding that, occasionally, that limit will be exceßded under unusual circumstances, you would not have a problem with the number five? MR. DARIUS-Stated no, I wouldn't. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, Peter, let me ask you a question herß. On this drawing on thß lßft hand sidß there are eight slots, if we limited the parking to that area, right there, it sßems like that would make thß placß rßlatively neat and it would givß him the numbßr of slots hß would want. You sße what I mßan. MR. DARIUS-Asked, could you state, I'm sorry? MR. CAIMANO-Statßd I'm looking at the corner portion over herß? MR. DARIUS-Stated ok, that's what I thought, thank you. MR. CARTIER-Stated the southwßst cornßr. MR. DYBAS-Asked, Mark, dOßs five cars, extßrnally, and whatever you can park inside, seßm very reasonablß to you? MR. DARIUS-Stated yes it does. MR. CAIMANO-Askßd, how many cars can you fit inside? MR. DARIUS-Statßd I can squish two, I think. (TAPE TURNED) MRS. PULVER-Stated thßre has to bß just a little bit of £lßxibility there, but not much. MR. DARIUS-Asked, so you're suggesting that the limit would bß an aVßrage, rathßr than. MR. CAIMANO-Stated that little section, in the southwest corner of the lot has ßight slots in it right now. MR. DARIUS-Stated yßs it dOßs. MR. ROBERTS-Statßd we're thinking of going even for thß eight, instead of the five. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, arß you happy, Mark? MR. DARIUS-Stated yßs, I am. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, where do we stand with SEQRA on this project? Do Wß neßd to go through thß short ßnvironmental assßssment form on this? MS. CORPUS-Statßd Mr. Chairman, yes, I think you do. to whether the Board had addressed SEQRA at any time, that you just did for Frank's Pizzeria? Also, I had a qUßstion as for thß previous site plan MR. ROBERTS-Statßd I'm assuming that Wß did. This was old businßss. We would normally do at thß public hearing and we had the public hearing in Novembßr and that's when we would normally do it. We had addrßssed SEQRA prior to site plan approval. So, I think you'll probably find that that's been done. MS. CORPUS-Stated ok, but at this point, yes, I would recommend going through the SEQRA application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION 12-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: 7 --- ..-/ WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Rental and use of 900 sq. ft. of an existing building for automotive tune-ups, computer analysis and repair, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute, and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-90 HARK DARIUS, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Having met the requirements of the Board. Also, that the eight spaces in the southwest corner be approved for parking of overnight cars that are in repair or awaiting repair. With the assumption that the advanced EA Form will be completed. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts SITE PLAN NO. 13-90 TYPE: UNLISTED RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (GRAVEL EXTRACTION) ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD FOR CONTINUATION OF PRIVATE SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION OF 125,000 CUBIC YARDS OVER A 5 YEAR PERIOD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-12.37, 14, 20 SECTION 4.020 I WAYNE JUDGE, REPRESENTING ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) 8 '---' ----- MR. CARTIER-Asked, (referring to engineer report) silt fences tend to be kind of temporary, from the silt fences I've seen. Is there such a thing as a permanent silt fence that can handle five years of use and gathering or are we talking about a normal, silt fence that must constantly be replaced? MR. FERGUSON-Stated well, it's also something that they might move from time to time as they advance, so, as things progress, they could move it and replace it if something's damaged. MR. CARTIER-Stated ok, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess the County Planning Board approved with the condition added that the applicant secure approval from the Soil and Water Conservation District Office for reclamation and mining procedures. MR. BAKER-Stated we also did receive public comment, over the phone, on February 22nd. Sue Davidsen, in the Planning Department had a conversation with Frank Shortell, of Courthouse Estates and the gentleman stated that he is "absolutely opposed to the project. Have left a big hole there and it's an eyesore. II MR. JUDGE-Stated good evening. My name is Wayne Judge and I represent Attractions Land on this application. First, I'd like to get into a little bit of the genesis of this thing. As you may know, the Americade Conference is scheduled to be held at Story Town this coming spring and, in connection with that Conference, the organizers insisted that we upgrade the parking lot on the westerly side of Route 9, by filling in some of the low spots and the Attractions Land Park has been operating a barrow pit, probably, for the last, at least 10 or 15 years, on the easterly side of Route 9. We discovered that there was no requirement, under the Statutes, to obtain approvals from the Department of Environmental Conservation and, if we use the minimal amounts of gravel that we brought in maximum amounts, that we could move on our own property, within the Town Ordinance. We probably could've taken a bunch of loads over in December and then a bunch of loads over in January and, not have enough, but we would at least get the project started, but it was decided because of the fact that we had recently agreed to the 100 foot environmental buffer zone, back from the wetlands, and the fact that almost anything that we do in this area becomes politically controversial to the Glen Lake Association, that we would be better advised to meet with the Town Engineers and Planning Department and tell them what we had intended to do and what they would recommend and, after a meeting with the Planning Department and the Town Engineers, it was recommended that, rather than go piecemeal with this barrow pit, every time that we felt that we needed to move fill from one part of the parcel to another part of the parcel that we would make a separate site plan review application, it's a Type II project under the site plan review, private sand and gravel barrow pits, that we would make one comprehensive proposal that would encompass all the barrowing we could conceive at the present time and also, include in that, a comprehensive reclamation plan so that we could address everybody's problems at one time and then not have to continually come back to the Planning Board and continually be in the adversarial situation with the neighbors which isn't good for anybody. So, that's why we're here, essentially why we're here. As far as the technical aspects of the barrow pit project, 11m not qualified to talk about that. We have hired engineers and asked them to do a project that would be acceptable to the Town. The comments that are heard, from the Town Engineer, tonight and also from the Town Planner, I have absolutely no problems with any of those technical things. As far as using noisy equipment, anyone can carry out an acceptable project in an unacceptable manner. To some extent, everyone has to make an act of faith, if that's what you want to do, but if you want to cut down on the areas of the act of faith, we would enter into an agreement, or make that a condition of the permit, any of the conditions that I heard here tonight seem reasonable to us. As far as the margin of the wetlands is concerned, we've been in litigation involving margins of the wetlands before, and, a lot of times, there is a question of where it is because margins of the wetlands is defined in the statute as the out of boundary of wetlands vegetation. Now, you really have to be a botanist to know what that means, but we're willing to comply with whatever hundred foot buffer zone back from wherever the Department of Environmental Conservation places blue flags. So, without boring anybody, further, about technical issues of which I'm not versed, I'll turn is over to Dick Morse of Morse Engineering for the technical side of this. DICK MORSE PRESENT MR. MORSE-Stated my name is Dick Morse. I'm with Morse Engineering here in Queensbury, New York. Nick Scartelli and myself worked on this project and, basically, have put forward the map that you see in front of you and that has received some comment. 9 --" I think any comm~nts that w~ hav~ h~ard tonight from both your Staff and your Consultant, I believe we can address to your satisfaction. One point that you brought out, Peter, was th~ silt fence, was it being a t~mporary. Well, again, in and of the nature of the silt f~nce, they ar~ temporary and they serve their purpose by collecting silts and, when they're blinded with silts, naturally, they do have to be removed and replaced and upgrad~d. So, it is a t~mporary structure and it n~~ds to be temporary to serve it's purpose. The discussion on the setback, it is my understanding, and I haven't had a chance to discuss this with Nick b~cause Nick was out today with the Departm~nt of Environmental Cons~rvation on th~ site and they apparently concurred that the blue flagging that was there was the approximate boundary of the w~tlands. MR. JUDGE-Stated that is correct. MR. MORSE-Stated if that is the case, we are encroaching, right now, approximately 10 to 15 feet into that with the plan that is in front of you, but we have no problem in modifying that plan. The ar~a of encroachment< referring to plan), and I would show this to the gen~ral public, this line that you s~e, at the base of th~ drawing, is th~ edge of water as it is shown on Glen Lak~. Th~ survey mapping shows this line as the flagg~d wetland area. This lin~ does mov~ down and is in, approximat~ly, this area through h~re and we need to define that on the map for all parti~s and then w~ can move this section, th~r~' s about a 10 foot encroachment from what we d~t~rmined in th~ field today, that can be modified to mitigate that. I think there were some questions on the sizing of the culvert. I beli~ve that it was provided in our drainag~ computations. It's shown on th~ ...hydrograph in th~ back of the submission and also... We'd be willing to, certainly, review that with your Consultant. I think that, in general, the project speaks for itself. W~ have no problems with working in an easterly to westerly direction. Curr~ntly, the existing pit is open, in here. We certainly could push over here and start our work effort in this general area and work in that dir~ction if that is the Board's pl~asure. I would op~n it up for oth~r questions, at this point, I beli~v~. MR. CAIMANO-Ask~d, Mr. Chairman, I have a gen~ral question is let IS go to the end. now. What will w~ see when the project done, how will you l~ave th~ proj~ct? general question, first, I guess. The We hav~, what amounts to, an eyesore, is compl~ted? When it's all said and MR. MORSE-Stated the project, in our r~clamation plan, we talk about seeding it with crown vetch. If you remember, on the entrance road to the campground is, currently, th~ area that was disturbed by th~ enlargement of th~ parking ar~a at th~ bas~ lev~l, that is a crown vetch cover. crown vetch grows to about 12 to 18 inches in height and it's a d~nse green mass of cover. It does get a pink flower that holds for, approximately, maybe, a month to six weeks in the spring and early summer. B~sides that, itls a d~nse, green cover. Th~ reason that crown vetch is used in th~se areas is that its root activity will go to approximat~ly 30 feet and stabilizes a slope very well. MR. CARTIER-Stat~d ok, that kind of gets at something I was thinking about, too. We're going to end up, to go back to Mr. Caimano' s point, with a s lope surface h~re. MR. MORSE-Stated correct. MR. CARTIER-Stat~d that is not grading down to level. We're going to end up with a finished product that is really going to b~ a slope. MR. MORSE-Stated from this point to this point, you will have a continuous slope. At the base, this will be a level surface, from the silt f~nce(TAPE TURNED)that's going from here to th~re. MR. DYBAS-Asked how many f~et would that be from the drop? MR. MORSE-Stated we I re going to go from 500 down to 430, so that's a 70 foot embankment. MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, and crown vetch can anchor an embankment over long periods of time? MR. MORSE-Stated yes. It's a perennial. MR. DYBAS-Asked....on steep projects? 10 ',,---, -./ MR. MORSE-Stated right. There's a permanent ditch, I probably should point that out too, that will be installed around the total slope to divert the stormwater drainage off of this into the retention basin. The retention basin, basically, acts as a siltation retention basin, until stabilization, and then becomes a permanent retention basin. MR. DYBAS-Asked, you wouldn't... you'd be doing anything with crown vetch until you're completely...is that correct, basically? When do you plan on doing this? MR. MORSE-Stated I think the sequencing, is, of course, something that is open to discussion, but, I think, if we started in this direction, as recoinmended by Staff then, as we got back to the stabilized slope, after we had worked this space and were continuing in this direction, then we would stabilize this as we moved in that westerly direction so that it wouldn't be one total area, and, of course, we're looking at a five year plan which is really a basic projection of demand for material on the site. MRS. PULVER-Asked, where are you keeping all of this gravel? MR. MORSE-Stated well, number one, we're not sure and I think that's the best answer I can give you at this point. It has been stated, in a number of previous submissions, that the park is always in the state of renovation, upgrading to keep a clientele that is always enjoying new and exciting attractions. ~ MR. JUDGE-Stated obviously, a certain amount of it is used for sanding the interior roads, every year. So that would go without saying. A certain amount of it will be used to maintain the parking lots that we had when we got the variances in the first place. For those parking lots on the westerly side of the road, we agree that most of that area would be permeable. So, the require upgrading because they get...sometimes. As to the rest of it, we don't have any plans except that, we can't sell any of it and we can't move it off this lot because, if we do, then we have to get a DEC permit and we'd have to tell them what we're going to do with it, but, as far as I know, I haven't heard of any plans, other than to upgrade that parking lot on the west side of Route 9. MR. CAIMANO-Stated so basically, to go back to the beginning, you want our carte blanch to work for five years in case something comes up. ~ MR. JUDGE-Stated yes. In other words, if we have another project, we want to be able to know that we have a source of fill and this would be it because if we have another project that requires site plan review, this is one aspect that will not have to be reviewed because we will have already received approval on this part, but, it's impossible to plan for a small part of this, other than coming back every time we had another project, back into this again, that's why it was recommended to us by your Staff that we make a comprehensive plan of all this barrowing we'll need out of this bank and show the Town what it's going to look like in five years, when it's allover. MR. DYBAS-Stated we encourage all applicants to show us what their planning... so we can get a better idea, too, as far as our end is concerned. I know you can't tell us what's going to happen in five years, but I think the chief concern is that we want to be sure that if you start this project, it's going to be completed within five years and we're not going to drag it out and we're not going to forget to plant the plantings and we're going to be doing everything we're supposed to be doing. MR. JUDGE-Stated that's definitely a legitimate concern. MR. DYBAS-Stated there's a lot of slippage in what people say. For one reason or another, there's a lot of slippage. MR. JUDGE-Stated right. MR. DYBAS-Stated we really can't accept that kind of philosophy, though for the neighborhood, particularly, and for the environment. MR. CARTIER-Stated I think, maybe, what we could do, is look at it in terms of, or it be presented to us as a series of phases. Here's what's going to happen in Phase One, here's what's going to happen in Phase Two, a kind of a rough time line. By the end of Phase One, we're going to have, for example, one third or one quarter of the bank will have been revegetated and so on. 11 -.../ MR. CAIMANO-Stated yes, because, it seems to me, we have to put so many qualifiers in some kind of a motion that it's just a broad thing and anything could happen in that five year period, which is kind of scary. MR. MORSE-Stated yes, I think we could put phase limit lines on it and say this is our extraction limit for Phase One and we probably would look at annual phasing of that, a five year phasing period, that I s certainly a possibility and I think we could move in that direction from when we tied up that corner we could put some bar lines on there and show how we're going to phase it. The problem is, with phasing it, is, let I s assume that we start over in this segment, we start from this point in our excavation plan, ok, and we'd probably be working this knoll. Phase One might not even get us back to that final stabilized slope. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. CARTIER-Stated yes, I'm not suggesting, even though you're not done excavating in Phase One, that you have to start Phase Two or anything like that. There may not even be time lines on the phases. It's just a matter of, ok, we're going to break this up into a series of steps. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it almost seems self policing to me. to west as has been suggested and stabilize that as you go. If we move from east MR. MORSE-Stated I think, if the Board would entertain some sort of phasing that, whenever a 50 foot swath of original or stabilized bank is achieved, that will be stabilized with the crown vetch, something like that. MR. CARTIER-Stated fine. MR. MORSE-Stated we can talk about a number, but to say that we're going to take this amount, in year two, I don't think I can. MR. CARTIER-Stated that's not what I'm looking for. MR. MORSE-Stated we seem to be back every year anyway, so I'm quite sure the Board would be... also. MRS. PULVER-Stated .. .question, where is it going, I kind of envisioned you were taking it out of, maybe, one hole and making a mountain over here, but like you said, though you don't have any intention to do that, you don't really know what you I re going to do with all this. I don't have any problem with the five year plan. What I do have is, in five years, if you haven't used it, are you going to ask for a five year extension, and then we're going to have five more years or at the end of five years, that's it, if you haven't used it, it's done? MR. MORSE-Stated I think, right now, we have selected a five year period. We _ \ feel that that is a conservative period that we will be using that material. ~ It can only be used on site under this application that we're seeking, and I don't have a better answer for you than that. If the Board chooses to put restrictions on it, that, at the end of five years, we are done and it would take a total reprocessing of the application to expand it, I think we certainly would MR. JUDGE-Stated well, the direction we got from your Staff, and what we had originally planned, was to max out this barrow pit. Theoretically, at the end of five years, if we get to these elevations, that would be it. We're not taking anymore out. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess we're wondering what happens if you only use half...? MRS. PULVER-Stated yes. MR. CAIMANO-Stated...then you've only used half of it. MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't think this Board could sit here and say you have to use the rest of it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated no, we're not pushing that, I don't think. MR. DYBAS-Stated but, by the same token, this would have to be left in a condition that this would not be an eyesore. MRS. PULVER-Stated if you only use half, you only use half. MR. DYBAS-Stated I'm not trying to tie you into anything, but I'm just thinking out loud. 12 '---- -...-' MR. MORSE-Stated let's run one of those theories down. Let's assume that we're over here and we haven't even touched this and our five year time clock is up. What I would suggest, is that we grade this out, contour it back in, blend it back in where original grade meets the one on three slope and we stabilize it and now if we want to come back, at some later date, and say, well, 10 years from now, we need another 50,000 yards or whatever's left in this... we come back and make a new application. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, make a decision when? MR. MORSE-Stated five years. MR. CAIMANO-Stated in the meantime, you've stopped and all of a sudden there's a hole over there, somebody has to make the decision, we're not going to go any further for awhile, let's clean it up. Who makes that decision? If nobody's going to make the decision, then it just sits there. MR. MORSE-Stated well, if you denied the application, it would sit there forever. MR. CARTIER-Stated no, what I'm thinking of is, maybe in terms of what we're talking about here, is we could put in some time lines, in terms of, if, again I'm talking off the top of my head here, if extraction within a phase has not occurred for X number of months, the next step is to stabilize and revegetate. MR. JUDGE-Stated yes, that's reasonable. I mean, most building permits, if you don't act on it within a period of time, they run out, but this was a barrow pit for a long time and barrow pit isn't that great looking, most of the time, and, in answer to the question on the topsoil stored on the property, we don I t plan to strip any topsoil. As far as I know, there is no topsoil, that's why that box was checked, no. MR. CARTIER-Stated you're going to be cutting some trees and things off the top. What about that material? I don't know how much of that it's going to amount to, but how's that going to...? MR. MORSE-Stated yes, any material that will be of a salable nature, will be sold, extracted off the site. Stumpage will be buried on the site, under the fill area, in the stabilized slopes. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, is this going to be just bank run, no screening and no crushing? MR. MORSE-Stated that is correct. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, you've got some spots to find enough sand for sanding dry roads that you could even do that bank run? MR. MORSE-Stated that is correct. MR. ROBERTS-Stated so that minimizes a lot of problems. MR. MORSE-Stated we have proposed no crushed rock.. MR. DYBAS-Asked, if you could get through.. . sand in July or August and let it sit there, you won't do anything until the the following spring, now, as far as crown vetch? I'm trying to find the worst scenario so we can get some answers. MR. MORSE-Stated crown vetch planting season is, classically, May, June. MR. DYBAS-Stated that's what I mean. So now you let it sit from August, until next Mayor June. Now, you've got an eyesore. You've got runoff. You've got silting. You've got everything that you've got to contend with for six, seven, eight, nine months, roughly and that's my question. MR. CAIMANO-Stated and it's not going to grow right away either. MR. DYBAS-Stated no, but you've got to stabilize it during that period. Probably, ...won't do anything for two or three years after you put it in anyway. MR. MORSE-Stated well, we're doing both plant and seedlings, ok. There's a combination mix that we've specified. This is a good grade gravel, there's not a lot of silt in it and you can see, if you've been on the site, that there's not a lot of silt or runoff with the existing... is much steeper than anything we're proposing. 13 --' --- MR. DYBAS-Asked, so from until August to May, what do we do with it? MR. MORSE-Stated it's going to sit there and they're going to be barrowing out of it for winter maintenance purposes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, there's a letter in here. Should we read that first? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I just wondered, if that gentleman was here, perhaps he'd like to read his own letter. Robert Tompkins, is that who we're dealing with here? Why don't I have you tell us about your letter. ROBERT TOMPKINS MR. TOMPKINS-Ok, fine. My name is Robert Tompkins and I recently bought the property in front of....it's Davis property, Davis property on the northern boundary of this... MR. DYBAS-What is the distance between the top of that pit and the boundary line? MR. JUDGE-Eighty feet. MR. TOMPKINS- I wrote a letter to your Planning Board and I'd like to read it to you. Read letter (on file) MR. ROBERTS-Sir, when I was traipsing around in the woods the other day, I couldn't really identify your southern border. How far is the back of your house from the back of your lot line? MR. TOMPKINS-There's two markers in the back of my property. There's two markers and they were put there. I recently bought the house and they surveyed it. MR. ROBERTS-Can you give me an idea of the distance between the back of your house and that back lot line? MR. TOMPKINS-The back lot line is somewhere about 50 feet and I might add, with the bulldozer working down there, since about September, when we moved in, which is about 350 feet away from my house, so we can here that bulldozer constantly and grinding up the sand. If they want to dig wi thin 80 feet of my house, if they don't need it, don't dig it. Why dig that close to us if they don't need it. MRS. PULVER-I think they have said that, though, that their only going to take what they need. MR. TOMPKINS-My experience in working with developers, if they can take it, they'll do it. MR. ROBERTS-Alright, thank you for you're input. Is there anyone else in the audience who cares to comment? I think maybe we should respond to why this thing was not advertised. I assume it has been advertised. I think we tried to pass the word. I'm sure the Glen Lake Association got the word. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Pulver, gentleman, I am Michael O'Connor. I'm speaking, individually, as a resident of Glen Lake and as a spokesman on behalf of the Glen Lake Association and, as Mr. Judge indicated, it is tiring to come here in an adversary manner and, I hope, not to make a presentation in an adversary manner. I recognize the fact that this is a permitted use under site plan review in this particular zone. I do have some serious questions, though, as to what has been presented to the Board, to this point, and my first question would be, is where does the Board stand with regard to SEQRA? Has then been completed, begun, or where, at this point? MR. ROBERTS-Well, they have filled out forms, but we have not addressed that as yet, that will be done later in this evening, I would assume. MR. O'CONNOR-I would suggest that that be the first thing that you do and that, when you do that, you do it not in the fragmented manner in which it has been 14 '-' --.../ ~ pr~s~nt~d to you. You will not~ on your ag~nda tonight, you hav~ two diff~r~nt applications from th~ sam~ applicant, for th~ sam~ prop~rty. This application is for th~ north ~nd of th~ prop~rty. Th~ oth~r application is for th~ south ~nd of th~ prop~rty and w~'v~ b~~n told, as part of th~ir pr~s~ntation to this point, that th~y'r~ going to mov~ or possibly mov~, this 125,000 cubic yards of fill to y~t oth~r positions on th~ir prop~rty. If you look at th~ prop~rty and look at th~ us~, historically, I think it' s com~ tim~ that you ask~d for som~ long t~rm, SEQRA input by th~ way of a positiv~ d~claration with r~gard to th~ applications that ar~ b~for~ th~ Board tonight and that you ask th~ applicant to submit an impact stat~m~nt as to wh~r~ th~y' r~ going and what th~y' r~ going to do. Sp~cifically, as to th~ s~cond application, I not~ that th~y'r~ proposing a major rid~ or major attraction facility. You will r~call, this past summ~r, th~y had anoth~r proposal for th~ sam~ area b~for~ you. As part of that proposal, th~y had ~xt~nsiv~ plans for additional parking. With this submittal tonight, th~y hav~ not shown any additional parking and, historically, I b~li~v~, th~y ar~ short of parking. I hav~, with m~, affidavits of about, probably, 150 p~opl~ that I 'v~ had pr~par~d and had ~x~cut~d b~for~ notari~s with r~gard to parking us~s wh~n th~y had th~ wat~rslid~ p~rmit b~for~, as to what parking th~y used down n~ar th~ w~tland, which is th~ Gl~n Lak~ Association's concern and it app~ars as though th~ylr~ ~ncroaching upon it without p~rmit, much lik~ th~y'r~ ~ncroaching on this. Mr. Judg~ indicat~s that h~'s her~, mayb~ out of goodwill or, I'm not sur~ what his r~f~r~nc~ was, to hav~ you r~vi~w this. H~' s h~r~ b~caus~ th~ ordinanc~ says, ~v~n for a privat~ grav~l ~xtraction, you n~~d a Typ~ II R~vi~w. Th~r~' s nev~r be~n a p~rmit for that barrow pit, barrow pit by affidavits that th~y submitt~d in conn~ction with th~ wat~rslid~, was indicat~d to hav~ b~gun in 1982. Wh~n, again, a sp~cial p~rmit, was th~ minimum that would hav~ b~~n r~quir~d. It was n~v~r obtain~d, so w~ don' t hav~ th~ continuation, h~r~, of an ~xisting, l~gal barrow pit. You hav~ som~thing befor~ you, for th~ v~ry first time, I think. There are great flaws with what's b~fore you and, if I understand, mathematically correct, they're talking about a 1 on 3 finished grade. Well, the ordinance requires a maximum grade of 30 percent. I'm not sur~ why they do not comply with that. The Ordinanc~ also r~quir~s that any ~ntranc~, and pr~sumably, and ~xcavation, b~ scr~en~d from public right-of-ways and I 'v~ h~ard nothing of that with regard to this particular application. Th~ application admitted by th~ applicant, is within th~ buff~r zon~ of th~ w~tland. Again, not a p~rmitt~d use or p~rmitt~d op~ration. I 'v~ h~ard nothing of applications for varianc~s which would th~n allow this Board to proc~~d with th~ application in th~ mann~r in which it has be~n pr~s~nt~d. Also, b~yond, simply th~ ~xcavation within th~ buff~r zon~, if you will look at som~ of th~ oth~r planning, it shows the r~location or r~alignment of a dirt road which r~quir~s a w~tland permit becaus~ that is within th~ buff~r zon~. This is, what I would t~rm to b~, an acc~ssory us~, acc~ssory structur~, it's an obj~ct plac~d in th~ ground, that also is within th~ w~tland buff~r zon~. I think, probably, som~thing can be don~ ther~. Probably something could b~ don~ to improv~ it, but I think youlv~ got to go back to bas~ on~ and b~gin again. I qu~stion, s~riously, wheth~r or not a DEC p~rmit is actually n~ed~d b~cause som~ of the lands to which this property or this soil will b~ removed is not t~chnically in th~ nam~ of the applicant and not own~d by the applicant. Some is own~d by the Warren/Washington County Industrial D~v~lopm~nt. If I understand that this is going to b~ used throughout th~ other prop~rties that are us~d in conjuction with the amus~ment park. No property's owned by the Warren/Washington County D~velopm~nt? MR. JUDGE-Non~. Th~r~ ar~ so many things that have b~en incorr~ct, up to this point, I'd lik~ to hav~ an opportunity to reply. MR. 0' CONNOR-That's my und~rstanding from mapping that w~ had last year and when the w~tlands application was b~for~ th~ Board, at that time of th~ revi~w, the County Cl~rk' s Office and that I s th~ information I hav~ as to ownership. Th~ distinction that might be b~tween wheth~r it's only going to b~ b~for~ this Board or the Town would be, that I'm aware of, if it 's b~for~ th~ DEC, you can only get a three y~ar permit and th~n you have to go back and get a ren~wal of the application. Also, you have to bond th~ r~clamation program, r~gardl~ss of who you are or what statute you might have and you hav~ to bond that to a degr~~ that is satisfactory to DEC. Those ar~ two distinctions. The other distinction I hav~ is, I'm not sur~, but I think th~y might require t~rracing and.. .Mr. Morse on that as far as having a 70 foot continuous slope. I think that that might hav~ to be t~rrac~d as opposed to the 70 foot run, which I might suggest h~re. My suggestion would be that we have the applicants complet~ th~ mapping of the w~tland correctly so that you have control. So that it at least goes b~yond the point of where the barrowing or the fill r~moval is plann~d to tak~ plac~. If you notice the mapping, it's right to this point. Your rules and regulations say that all setbacks from w~tlands, streams, and lakes will be shown. Obviously, that is not done. It can be corr~cted and simply can be put on here that DEC 15 -- has flagged it and agreed upon where the wetlands are. Perhaps they can do something with less sloping, some terracing and more of a time frame. I have some other questions for, too, for you. Maybe the Board is aware, maybe not, I donlt think Staff was, apparently, we're fortunately getting extra staff and sometimes, unfortunately, I don't know if the left hand and the right hand is seeing what the other is doing. (TAPE TURNED) that there was a report on Glen Lake in Critically Environmental Area destination prepared by John Goralski dated November lst, 1989 and of interest in that particular report, it would show that this barrow pit is going to be over a water... Now, the last time I was before this Board, we talked about a mining permit, we had to bring in proof of the water table level. I have not seen anything on that, maybe I missed on the plans. There is a mention of it in your rules and regulations. You're supposed to maintain a certain distance, in the ordinary case, above the groundwater table. Where you have an... it's suggested by John Goralski, in this report that there is more possibility of contamination of groundwater and you may want to increase that standard to insure yourself and insure us that there's not going to be any contamination of the groundwater. The other thing, which maybe you are aware of or not aware of, there's a Glen Lake Study Report and we'd be glad to make these all available to the Board so that you have an understanding of the.. . and of the water course as it comes through this particular area. MR. CARTIER-Does the Town have a copy of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes they do. MR. CARTIER-The Planning Department does? MR. BAKER-Yes we do. MR. O'CONNOR-We have submitted that, Mr. Cartier. Also, in John's report, he talks about the percobility of the soil in this particular area, which, again, I think would lead to concerns about contamination of groundwater, and which was recognized, I think, by Mr. Morse, that this area doesn't have a great deal of room and that it is a very sandy, very fast percolation and it does have great potential for it. So you may want to, again, look at the standard that you normally impose for a distance above groundwater and see what we're going to have in this particular application. On the particular application I also have a question as to how it was determined that there are 4.4 acres involved in this project. Could I be shown the outer limits by which those calculations were made? MR. SCARTELLI-Roughly the area of contouring is this area right in here. MR. 0' CONNOR-Then I would submit to the Board that that is perhaps misleading in that none of the buffer zones or required buffer zones are included. I'm not sure of the inclusion of those buffer zones would move you to a Type II project to a Type I project automatically, but I couldn't imagine, if you included all the buffer zones and included the retention area and you tried to square it out in some manner like you would a sign measurement that we've had before the Board before, that you would get into 4 acres. I have comments directly related to the short form Environmental Assessment form. MR. CARTIER-The short form. I don't think we Ire going to be doing a short form. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what was part of the application that I picked up. MR. CARTIER-Short in terms of paper length, but this is the long form. MR. O'CONNOR-I may be mixing the two applications. MR. CARTIER-Ok, yes. The short form that you're looking at goes with the next application and, as far as the gravel extraction, it the full one. MR. ROBERTS-Actually, my packet has both a short and a long form for the same project, gravel extraction. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think we're going to be looking at the long form. MR. SCARTELLI-We submitted the short one, then we submitted the long one. MR. JUDGE-It was requested after the short form...the long form. 16 -- MR. O'CONNOR-The particular questions or comments I would have on what was submitted as the long form. I'll try to be as brief as can be. Again, I have a question on the total acreage, under A Number 2. I have a question under Number 3 as to we 11 drained 100 percent. I presume, from the choices there,... correc t answer, but I think you should have a percolation test of some nature to back that up. As to question 6, whether or not the site is contiguous to or contains a building site district listed on State or National registers of historic places. As I understand it, this is listed on the archeological list of important sites by the State of New York and we have some information on that, I think an inquiry should be made whether or not there is an archeological listing. I'm not sure if there is or there isn't. We have some information that there is. MR. CARTIER-You can share that information...here. MR. OICONNOR-Yes, I'll dig it out in a minute. I guess 11, 12. I would answer differently, but that depends upon whether they modify the plan because presently the plan does infringe upon the buffer zone of a Class I wetland. MR. ROBERTS-We've already addressed that, but they don't want to go for a wetlands permit, either ours or theirs. MR. 0' CONNOR-Well, I think you have to go for a wetlands permit if you relocate a roadway within the buffer zone and that, they may have to address and I've got the wetland regulations here if you want to look at those, as to when permitting is required. Number 20, also, is a question that I think was answered incorrectly and that was whether or not the site has ever been used for solid or hazardous wastes. A portion of the site is used or has been used as a stump dump and that has been determined to be a hazardous waste. I think there is an exception that they can store stumps from the site under their own excavation. The stumps from other sites cannot be stored under a landfill or be part of a landfill reclamation. If you remember, I went through that once with a piece of property up on Big Boom Road and went through DEC. They would not allow us to bring the trucks back full with stumps and trees that they took from the other site and put on there. Now, I'm not trying to mix apples and oranges, but here, part of this site, has already got that condition existing on it. I don't know if simply covering that with the sand that's on the site and the vegetation that has been is going to be sufficient to satisfy the closure requirements that are imposed on the site. As I understand it, last fall, when we objected to some of the excavation that was going on, we were told that that was simply to satisfy DEC's order to immediately...the stumps that had been...on a temporary basis. I don't know where that's gone with them or not, but that is part of an environmental review and should be part of your concern as to how it's addressed. Question 15 is also not answered, is any portion of the project located within 100 year flood plain. I have flood maps with me that would indicate that it is. I think that's something you're going to just have to have the engineers make a determination on. MR. CARTIER-Which question is that please? MR. O'CONNOR-Number 15. MR. CARTIER-Ok. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Number 16, again, I would answer that differently. Number 20, it say "Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels?" and it's answered no. I think that's also answered incorrectly. In the past, when I've been involved with mining permits, what has been very effective has been earth berms. Whether they be earth berms at the upper level or earth berms at the lower level, it might provide a lot of comfort and I don't know if you have to shrink the site or not, you've got some natural... to the top, but you could and I think the report of Morse Engineering indicates that, in their opinion, sound is only going go through the wetland because of the natural earth berm in the hill, but that sound is still going to reach everybody on the upper end of Glen Lake. We get a great deal of noise now, out of the amusements that are run out of the park that's there. MR. DYBAS-Dick, do you know the decibel ratings of your equipment, offhand because with the prevailing winds and the decibel ratings are over 80 which is beyond thfè noise that we' rfè talking about, then the prfèvailing winds will carry across to that area where the people are living and I'm sure your equipment has a decibfèl rating of more than 80. It has to. 17 ----' MR. O'CONNOR-What I'm thinking is earth berms, 10 to 15 feet height, built as permanent..dikes, if you will, that are sodded or seeded so that there's no erosion problem and they appear to be effective. I would suggest that on the lower slope and, in some manner, outside the drainage ditch, if it's possible. Even to the point, if you are putting it into the proposed buffer zone. I don't think that that would be an intrusion if you didn't take any trees out to build it. I don't know what tree was in there or vegetation was in there, with restrictions on trees and what not, but if you're seriously going to try and do this in a quality manner, I think you've got to provide some protection, due others, from the noise that's going to go on. MR. DYBAS-In addition to the berm, Mike, the more trees you have in there, obviously, it's going to reduce the noise level reaching the people on the back part. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think there's an unfortunate side effect of the whole project, but that's, I think, the applicants choice. Right now, he's got a natural barrier between him and Courthouse Estates and he's removing a good deal of that natural barrier by removing the trees here. There was a question on the tree cutting that took place last year and part of the year before that. I think there's a rule, now, that you can have.. .you I re supposed to have site plan review, again, the reason, maybe, that they've got to be here. I think it's going to be counterproductive to the relationship between them and adjoining property owners, but that's their choice, I suppose, if they want to go to do this. I think, though, that they should be required to try and make some attempt to mitigate it, not simply say it's only going to be a short period of time or it's not going to be a bother. They've admitted that there's a noise and I think you indicated, I don't know of any mining operation that you're not above the levels that you're talking about. I don't mean to go on and on. I think that you're going to have to have new documentation submitted to you. Simply because it doesn't comply with the regulations that you have, under the present zoning for mining and sand excavation. I'm not going to try and beat the dead dog with what you have before you. I hope that what is submitted to you in the future will be in compliance and will be more acceptable. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Ok, thank you. Obviously, our staff, reviewing this in a proper matter, perhaps theylll want to reconsider some of these things. Wayne, would you like some rebuttal time here? MR. JUDGE-I'd just like to reply to just some of the things. First of all, I think it I s obvious now that some of our local lawyers are beginning to learn, from Lou Oliver, that if they want to oppose a project in Warren County that they take out the book, start with the first section and go all the way through to the last section of the statute and make sure that they've hit each one. I counted about five "don't knows" and about six "not sures" in Mr. O'Connor's presentation. Basically, when you're going to oppose an application, you should have something to back it up "don I t know if the right hand knew what the left hand was doing on the Queensbury Staff", Mr. Goralski was the one who suggested to us that we go for a comprehensive plan such as this, in the first place. Mr. Goralski, the author of the report that Mr. O'Connor just read. So the right hand, although Mr. OIConnor didn't know whether the right hand knew what the left hand was doing, I can say, for the Town of Queensbury, that the right hand did know what the left hand was doing, Mr. Goralski, the author of the report, the one who recommended that we make the application. The title, Mr. O'Connor said, was not all in one name. It is one name, since the last time he checked, the IDA loan was paid off and the title was all in one name. "Not sure if the project had historical significance". "Not sure if a stump dump is a hazardous waste". "Don't know if the closure requirements of the State was met". "Not sure whether the noise levels were correct". "Would have answered a lot of the questions on the Environmental Impact Statement different than the applicant" and "doesn't know \whether we appeared here in good faith". "Not sure whether we might use this ~project someday as a parking area" and has a hundred affidavits to prove that we're in violation of present parking restrictions and we should combine this application with another application that's pending before the Board. This is all nonsense. First of all, if you assume, from the start, that any applicant that appeared before you is acting in bad faith, there wouldn't be any application - ~that we can approve. (There's nothing about parking in this application.) Sure, we can violate the Town Zoning Ordinance and we can do things that aren't allowed under the statutes, that's possible. Any applicant can do that. As I said before, any legitimate project can be handled in an illegitimate way. That's not what we're going to do. That's what I'm saying. Now, maybe, I'll be fired and some new person will take over and violate your Zoning Ordinance. You don't have any control over that and I don't have any control over that, but that's not a proper area of inquiry. There's no evidence that this is a national, o -- -- historical site. If there is some evidence, let's see it, then our answer is wrong. That's simple enough and if we're in violation of any local ordinance we should know. There was never any permit requirement for a private extraction of sand and gravel as long as you didn't exceed the maximum requirements of the Town and if there were permit requirements, the Staff would have made us aware of them. The ironic part of all of this is, such evil motives are ascribed to this park. When has the park ever been convicted or accused, other than in a meeting like this, by any organization, of violating the Zoning Ordinances. We never have. We've never been convicted of violating any Zoning Ordinance of the park. There's no reason to think there's any bad faith here. I think this Board should confine it's inquiry to the application that was submitted, not a lot of I'm not sure's and conjectures about the bad faith of the owners of the park and, as to the adjoining property owner's complaints about living next to an amusement park that might expand, this is very similar to the person who buys a house next to an airport and then complains about the noise of airplanes flying overhead. I think that a person would have to be pretty lacking in observation not to know that he's buying a house next to an amusement park. I mean, this is a recreational, commercial zone. That means recreational and commercial uses are permitted in this zone. Therefore, to the normal person, that means that people engaged in recreation are probably not the quietest people in the world. They're not going to be as quiet as if you buy a house in a residential zone. A residential zone is set out so that it will be quiet for residential people. A recreational commercial zone is not going to be as quiet. I'm sorry, it's not going to be as quiet as a residential zone. It never will be. We'll hear the rides, but that's a permitted use in the area and that's one of the hazards of living next to a recreational commercial zone. MR. DYBAS-I'm not going to take sides here, but being on the Planning Board for 13 years, I think it has made a lot of residents of that area and some Planning Board members, gun shy on some of the events that have taken place in the last 10, 12, 13 years and I could probably give you a laundry list, if I wanted to tie up this meeting for an hour, and say this is happening and that I s happening and I'm not going to and I hope you're hearing and I think you are, but it has made people gun shy. That whole area has made a lot of people gun shy from the west parking lot and that stream to countless other projects. MR. JUDGE-The fact of the matter is that a lot of times, however, people didn't realize that what was happening was within the statutes. There have been lots of changes in the statute. You have to admit that, too, in your Zoning Statute, just directed to this. MR. DYBAS-There probably was, but I have never seen a statute that says you can have a bull dozer within 20 feet of a stream, cleaning up the hillside. Have you ever seen that kind of authority? I just want to respond that maybe the whole thing has made a lot of people gun shy. MRS. PULVER-My question, Mike, was are you against this application or do you just want them to redo the application? I got a little confused. You were making suggestions as to what they could do to make it better. MR. O'CONNOR-In the manner in which it is presented, I am opposed to it. As Mr. Judge says, I try to be very polite in my conversation by saying I'm not sure or I don't know, but I do know that if it doesn't comply with the rating requirements and it doesn't comply with the submittal requirements, it shouldn't be approved in the condition that it is presently submitted. I have, for the Board, a copy of a letter, reporting on a conversation with Len Garafeli, of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, to inform the writer of the letter that any permitting done by DEC would require input from their agency as the area's of Story Town, Attractions Land, Inc. is within an archeological important area. I also have a copy, for the Board, of a 1967 Zoning Ordinance as to the pertinent sections as to whether or not what is there is legal or what would be required in the zone that was then there. There was no excavations permitted. At that time, you had to be in one zone, to have excavation. I also have a copy of the 1982 Ordinance which I submit the same purpose. If it's of any importance, I do have actual data on each point that I spoke of. I also have a copy of the flood map which I'll be glad to submit to the Board, for the Board's review to show that a portion of the project is within the 100 year flood plain and, again, prohibited by our current regulations. As to whether or not Mr. Goralski knew of the review by Staff or not, it wasn't conferred if they were doing something wrong. When I spoke to Staff as to their review of the application, they were not aware, in fact, of all the contents of Mr. Goralski's report, as to whether or not this is over an...and as to percolation of that soil and that's why I would 19 ------- --' ask to r~vi~w that with r~gard to this particular application. docum~ntation, g~ntl~man, if I was wrong, it might b~ as to own~rship I can ch~ck in th~ County Cl~rks Offic~ and I probably will b~for~ app~aranc~ b~for~ you. I think you' r~ ~ntitl~d to know much mor~ than b~~n submitt~d and you'r~ ~ntitl~d to a much b~tt~r plan than what submitt~d. Th~r~'s and that my n~xt what has has b~~n MR. ROBERTS-I 'm wond~ring wh~th~r Staff or l~gal d~partm~nt has h~ard anything, y~t, h~r~ tonight that would sugg~st w~' r~ not going through th~ prop~r r~vi~w proc~ss tonight, that w~ want to look mor~ clos~ly at anything. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, I think s~v~ral p~opl~ spok~ and mad~ som~ gr~at comm~nts. Mr. Tompkins, obviously, mad~ som~ good points, Mr. 0' Connor, Mr. Judge and the b~st point, I guess was made by Mr. Dybas, r~garding conc~rns. I gu~ss, I donlt fe~l v~ry comfortable, just sitting here with five p~opl~ making a decision h~re tonight without... MR. CARTIER-This is nowhere near approval stage. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-I don't think w~ have to worry about approving this tonight. MR. ROBERTS-Ok, I gu~ss that answers our qu~stions. L~t's g~t a little philosophical her~ for a minute. Leaving an 80 foot buff~r zoning into th~ n~ighboring r~sidential properties. Now, we're not ~v~n sur~ you're going to ne~d all of that grav~l (TAPE TURNED)look like that land up there starts to slop~ off kind of naturally, anyway. I wond~r, if w~ couldn't get the grav~l that you r~ally n~ed, and it's a valuable, natural resource that, I understand, you r~ally ought to have th~ right to us~, but I wond~r, it almost seems as though you're not going to r~ally n~ed all of that and maybe w~ could scale this down. MR. MORSE-Perhaps, for th~ sak~ of argument, and I'm just speaking for myself, one thing we are holding a 1 on 3 slope h~r~ and we have be~n b~en in front of this Board and proposed using 1 on 2 I S and ste~p~r slop~s and various other features, not only in other parks, but in oth~r projects within the Town. ...slope, you can obtain th~ same amount, number on~, of volume, which our client, of course, is concerned with volumes, and by doing that moving this boundary further away, leaving a larger tree buffer in place. If that' s som~thing that the Board might ent~rtain as a compromise, perhaps it's something w~ should evaluate for our client. Any objections or comments to that? MR. DYBAS-I certainly don I t have any objections. My only thoughts are that, I'm concerned about th~ people in the area, obviously, and as our Zoning Ordinanc~ implies, the very first paragraph, the purpos~ of this Ordinance is to promot~ the h~alth, th~ h~alth and that's what I'm thinking of. If th~ dust flying, the noise levels, visual impact, I'm not saying I'm going to approv~ it or disapprove it, but I'm saying thes~ ar~ all questions that ar~ real burning qu~stions to all of us. MR. MORSE-Well, I think in moving that, number one, we' r~ moving away from th~ neighbor. We possibly could achieve or find a balanc~ point in here wher~ we I re still ~xtracting th~ sam~ amount, disturbing l~ss, squar~ footage, and taking out l~ss trees and obtaining our goals and, I b~liev~, perhaps the goals of the peopl~ pr~sent in h~r~ or a goal. MR. DYBAS-I would say itls a step in the right dir~ction. MR. ROBERTS-I guess,...get into, th~n a ste~per bank and a little mor~ alignm~nt. MR. MORSE-W~ll, w~'v~ talk~d 1 on 2 and steeper banks and those were acceptabl~ and approvable by the State DOT. Th~y have b~~n install~d on various other installations in this ar~a and ar~ installed, commonly, on roads.. .not only the County and State, but also th~ Town. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess, I was not hoping, nec~ssarily, for a steeper slope, but, perhaps using a little l~ss of th~ upp~r bay. MR. DYBAS-Actually, the st~~per slope concerns me st~eper slope, obviously, during the periods you'r~ get it plant~d, a combination planting and either sort or some sort of a fabric to hold the soil. tim~s. I don't think thatls a big concern. less b~cause I think with a going to have it, b~fore you a screening proc~ss of som~ It's b~~n done, thousands of 20 - -- MR. MORSE-This mat~rial is not highly ~rodabl~. MR. ROBERTS-I wasn't too conc~rn~d about that. You'r~ addr~ssing that and you'v~ got th~ siltration pond and might ~v~n b~ talking a b~rm b~tw~~n th~r~ and th~ w~t land b~for~ w~' r~ don~ th~r~, anyway, that has had som~ m~ri t in th~ pas t. I gu~ss this vot~'s op~n to th~ public, would you car~ to sp~ak? BILL MORTON MR. MORTON-My nam~ls Bill Morton. I'm with th~ Qu~~nsbury Environm~ntal Committ~~ and r~garding this conc~rn of th~ qu~stion, issu~ of distanc~ to th~ n~ighbors prop~rty to th~ north, it would s~~m to m~ that it would v~ry much b~hoov~ th~ Planning Board to obtain information on soil slippag~ pot~ntial. This kind of information can b~ obtain~d from th~ Warr~n County Soil Surv~y from th~ Warr~n County Soil Wat~r Cons~rvation District, but I think it I S v~ry r~l~vant to th~ qu~stion h~r~ of distanc~ b~tw~~n th~ propos~d min~ and th~ prop~rty. If th~r~ is any slippag~ pot~ntial, th~ n~ighbor to th~ north could b~ in for a lot of trouble. I'm not saying that there is a slippag~ pot~ntial with this kind of a soil, but, c~rtainly, it would be...to look into that. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you, Bill. DR. HOROWITZ DR. HOROWITZ-My name is Dr. Horowitz and I'm a r~sident of Glen Lake. I'm affiliated with th~ Glen Lake Association. I was very impressed with the eloquenc~ of Mr. Tompkins lett~r and I'm not going to reiterate it. I will express to you the f~elings of th~ Gl~n Lake Association. As to what was said about Mr. Goralski IS report, which I have read, as you probably know, we are in the midst of trying to obtain a 250 foot area around the Lake, and, if possibly, around the wetlands which will help to keep Glen Lake at its present health condition. We have seen it go from, what one might call a pristine Lake, down hill fairly rapidly. People had mentioned before that silt was not such a big factor. We know where it went. It's in Glen Lake now. We have picked up, at that end of the Lake, maybe 3 feet over the last 5, 6 years. We are in the process of actually trying to get this type of thing documented. I think that's very important in that Queensbury only has several areas like Glen Lake, Glen Lake being the largest. Though it is legal for someone to take major advantage of property that he owns, certainly the spirit of the law or the spirit of whatever it is the statutes, can also be taken into account. During this whole phase of operation, I haven't heard a word said about safety. There'll be walls that kids can fall down and die. We saw one area, around the Lake, where, recently, within the last 8 months, someone was allowed to mine out, actually, a cavity, right on the Lake. Somehow it just happened. These things are dangerous. Now I'm not going to get into a name calling contest, he said, she said. These things are dangerous. We are the people who live there. It's our population, our kids, who are going to be effected and I can tell you, also, just as one postscript, as President of the Glen Lake Association, I, personally, was never notified. I'm the only Horowitz in the book. I was never notified that something as monstrous as this was going on. Somebody called me, just last Thursday, and I think that's terrible. I found out from members of the Glen Lake Association. Certainly I, or someone in the Glen Lake Association, should have been notified that this type of mining operation was going to occur, so that we could be here tonight. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I'd like to find out one thing. Where the siltation might be coming from in Glen Lake, I wouldn't think you could attribute that to this particular barrow pit, necessarily, that, I would guess, is larg~ly coming from road sanding on the Northway and on Route 9 coming in from the stream. Let's not throw all of the onus of that on the gravel operation. MR. BAKER-I would just like to recommend to the Board that you get Mr. O'Connor's comments in writing as those may be helpful to you in evaluating this project. MR. ROBERTS-I assume we'll get most of them since we're taping it and they'll be in the minutes, but maybe theyld be clearer. Sometimes we don't get everything. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I have no object to doing a letter reviewing what I've comm~nted in the letter, although, honestly, I presume that the applicant is going to resubmit. I've never had something approved by this Board, that was not documented by drawing submitted to the Board within the filing times required and I presume that there is a significant enough changes that are going to be 21 '- 'yØ madê on thê plan that you'rê going to havê to havê a rêsubmittal and I would suggêst maybê at this point is that you try and dirêct thê applicant and gêt somê agrêêmênt as to arêas of compromisê that would bê suggestêd that might be within fêêling of accêptancê or not in accêptance. MR. ROBERTS-That's what I'vê bêen trying to do. MR. O'CONNOR-But, I mean, to me to submit comments on what's submittêd hêrê, I think would, actually, not bê of grêat value bêcausê you' rê going to changê a lot of what's thêrê. I think thêY can simply do it by drawing back from the wêtland êncroachment, by showing thê wêtland map, by showing thê ground/watêr level, and that thêY maintain thê 6 fêêt that is rêquirêd. Maybê, from an êngineering point of viêw, thêY wi 11 acknowlêdgê that it should be higher and maybe they' rê going to lift thê floor of this. Maybe thêy'rê going to mOVê thê êntranCê road so itls not within the buffêr zonê. You know, thêre's a lot of things that can be donê. I think, if thêY havê no great intention of using all 125,000 yards, my suggêstion would be, rather than incrêasing the stêêpnêss of thê slopê, to just back down a littlê bit and to dêcrêasê thê quantity so thêY accomplish the nêed that thêY know that thêY havê. Thêrê' s. . . . rêasons to... êVêr comê back hêrê again, but I still go back to my initial comment that I think, maybê, at somêtimê, that you look at thê wholê postagê stamp and not onê corner at a timê. MR. CARTIER-Wdl, I think Mr. Bakêr's rêquest was valid bêcause I think what hê wants to do is to bê surê that we look at êVêry possiblê commênt that has bêên madê, has bêen addrêssêd onê way or anothêr. MR. ROBERTS-And I think that you're rêading thê tênor of this Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I havê no problêm with sênding Mr. Baker a lêttêr with a copy to Mr. Judge with what I thought my comments Wêre, not as Wayne wrote them down, though, because I don't agree with what he wrotê down. MR. JUDGE-Thfò immediatê dilemma that the applicant has is this. When we wênt to the Town, we were only interêsted in getting enough gravel to get this Americade Conference off the ground this spring and it was only because Wê wanted to show the Town the whole picture that we got into this thing in thê first place, which is the most laughable part of it and now, everyone's telling us, you shouldn't have told us what thê whole thing was going to be, you should have just done that first little thing. Wouldn't it, if you were trying to accommodate the Americade, wouldn't you come back here with a little tiny project, next timê, rather than try to get approval of this and have to incur the wrath of all thesê people. I mêan, wouldn't that makê sense, if you were a lawYêr advising a client and who's trying to get this job done by the summertime? The only reason we went into something of this magnitude was bêcause we thought Wê were going to satisfy not only the Planners, but the peoplê, to show them what the worst possible thing could happen here. MR. DYBAS-And we appreciate that. MR. JUDGE-Well, I hope you appreciate our dilemma now because we have a time factor oursêlvês. MR. DYBAS-I can undêrstand your position because every applicant comes in with a plan and they want it approved because thêY needed it yesterday. So, you're no diffêrent from the rêst, however, I might say, I appreciate Mr. O'Connor's points because I think they're valid and this application is not within the Ordinance as specified and if you go by past precedênts, we have never acted upon an application that was not completê. MR. JUDGE-I'm not looking for any kind of prêferential treatment. saying what the dilemma is, at this point. I was just MR. DYBAS-And we havê a dilemma with you. MR. CAIMANO-It seêms to me, though, that there's certainly an area of compromisê. MR. JUDGE-What I think might be hêlpful, and I don't know if this is practical or not, but to hire your enginêer and sit down with the Town Engineer as we did, I don't think on this projêct, but on the next application, and try to iron out what êxactly is needed and thên to show up on the night of the hêaring and hêar a report of the engineer saying, well, this wasn't there and that wasn't therê and the other wasn't there. Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to havê the êngineers 22 ~ -- call ~ach oth~r up, a w~~k or two b~for~ th~ h~aring and say, h~y Jo~, don't forg~t to bring this or mak~ sur~ you ar~ th~r~ with that, so that w~ don't hav~ to put i t ov~r and th~ Board' 11 hav~ ~v~rything in front of it. I m~an w~' d b~ v~ry happy to giv~ cr~dit to th~ Town Engin~~r for ~v~ry d~f~ct th~y found, but it would sav~ so much tim~, it s~~ms. MR. CARTIER-That' s tru~, but on~ of th~ things w~ hav~ to r~m~mb~r is, that w~ ar~ conducting th~ public's busin~ss and all of this has to b~ don~ as public. MR. JUDGE-What w~ can say, th~ ~ngin~~r could giv~ his r~port and say w~ found th~s~ d~fici~nci~s in th~ application and w~ may hav~ b~~n awar~ of it b~for~ th~ h~aring, that's not k~~ping it from th~ public. MR. ROBERTS-Wayn~, w~' v~ b~~n through this. Our proc~dur~s hav~ ~vol v~d th~ way th~y hav~ for a lot of pr~tty good r~asons that I don't want to g~t into now. Whil~ w~'v~ got th~ public h~aring op~n, is th~r~ anybody ~ls~ who car~s to comm~nt tonight? ED WINCHIP MR. WINCHIP-My nam~ is Ed Winchip and I liv~ at th~ top of that hol~. My n~ighbor did a pr~tty good job of ~xplaining about if you approv~ it, th~r~ should b~ a bigg~r buff~r zon~, 80 f~~t is not much to start down a hill and th~r~'s not many tr~~s th~r~, go from th~ prop~rty lin~, in 80 f~~t, 150, 175, now you' r~ into a lot of tr~~s. All I can s~~ th~r~, down th~ road, is th~ rid~. That's all IIV~ got to say. LAURIE GRACE MRS. GRACE-My nam~ is Lauri~ Grac~. I liv~ on Ash Driv~ in Qu~~nsbury. First of all, I don't think this is a...but an ~nvironm~ntal issu~ and I do hop~ that you p~opl~ ar~ h~r~ to h~lp prot~ct th~ ~nvironm~nt and do what you s~~ fit. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, I think w~ I v~ gon~ around and around with this stuff tonight and, as I g~t th~ s~ns~ of this Board, th~y would lik~ to hav~ this tabl~d for som~ mor~ information. MR. CAIMANO-W~ll, mor~ information is on~ thing, but, just on~ last qu~stion. . . . grav~l, I h~ar, ov~r h~r~, v~ry s~rious conc~rns about dust, nois~, ~y~ sight and saf~ty. You'r~ right, our conc~rn is with your conc~rn with th~ ~nvironm~nt. It isn't what IS missing, it's th~ fact that th~r~ s~~ms to b~, Ilm not h~r~ to compromis~, but I h~ar Mr. 0 I Connor, I hav~n' t h~ard on~ n~ighbor say, don't do this, if you' r~ going to do this, corr~ct m~ if Ilm wrong. Is that th~ s~ns~ of it? How about you guys g~t tog~th~r, b~for~ you com~ back h~r~ again, and do your own compromising. Is that against th~ rul~s? Why ~xp~ct us to b~ th~ judg~? Could th~r~ not b~ som~ way that th~ thr~~ of you, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Judg~, and som~body from th~ Planning D~partm~nt, mayb~, and som~body from th~ n~ighborhood g~t tog~th~r, th~ms~lv~s and try to work out, at l~ast, down to thr~~ or four qu~stions. W~ can pass judgm~nt b~caus~ that's ~asy. MR. CARTIER- I think it I S an appropriat~ comm~nt, but I'm not sur~ th~ Planning D~partm~nt n~~ds to g~t involv~d. MR. CAIMANO-Fin~, kick th~m out th~n, but I don't h~ar anybody saying, I don't want this, just do it and prot~ct m~. If that's th~ cas~, if it's not an adv~rsarial thing, it was simply a matt~r of compromis~, th~n pl~as~ compromis~. MRS. PULVER-Nick, I think th~ylr~ saying th~y will compromis~. MR. DYBAS-First of all, Nick, b~for~ you go too far, how many p~opl~ ar~ strictly, out right, oppos~d to th~ proj~ct? MR. CAIMANO-That's what I want to know, that's why I ask~d th~ Board. MR. ROBERTS-You m~an any proj~ct? MR. DYBAS-This proj~ct. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I ask~d b~for~ and I didn't h~ar that answ~r. MR. CARTIER-As pr~s~ntly pr~s~nt~d to us, is what w~'r~ talking about? 23 - -- MR. CAIMANO-Und~r any circumstanc~s, you'r~ against it. MR. CARTIER-I didn't m~an to confus~ th~ issu~, and I think I did. How many ar~ pr~s~ntly oppos~d to th~ pr~s~nt proposal b~for~ us? Ok. For the record: The majority of people in the audience raised their hand. MR. CARTIER-How many are opposed to any kind of ~xcavation project on that site? MR. O'CONNOR-You're not talking about in principle, you're talking about in fact? MR. CAIMANO-In fact. MR. O'CONNOR-I say that, and not sarcastically, b~cause I think an RC 42 acre zone has a permitted use, land private extraction of sand and gravel as long as it doesn't infringe upon oth~r people's right to ~njoy that sam~ zone and the ben~fits of that zone. I would think that someplace b~tween zero and project, there is some type of proj~ct that would not infringe upon others, mys~lf included. To that type project, I would have no objection. I'm just trying to answer you're comment. MR. CARTIER-I und~rstand. I think Mr. Caimano has a valid point. I think what hels trying to do, and I like th~ idea, is to get the Planning Board out of being the middle man between Attractions Land, Inc. and the Glen Lak~ Association. What he's saying, I think, is you guys hav~ you're shoot out, out in the parking lot, then com~ in. MR. O'CONNOR-I would say it differently on your record. I'm sur~ th~ Board is not attempting, in any manner, to delegate it's ...duties. MR. CAIMANO-No, not at all, we'll rule on the r~gulations. MR. CARTIER-I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying, what Mr. Caimano is saying is, get togeth~r and do your compromising and it'll go faster here. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think the basic, bottom line is, th~ system does work. The public hearings have s~rved a useful purpose. We' v~ got som~ good id~as on the table tonight and it does se~m like it's time for some kind of compromise. I know that you had hop~d, working with th~ Staff, that would be th~ end of it. It wasn't. MR. DYBAS-I don't think it ever is. MR. ROBERTS-Let's take the information that the neighbors have given us tonight and the applicant and se~ if we might answer som~ of th~ questions and, possibly, refine the proj~ct. Appar~ntly, there are a few people who ar~ nev~r going to be satisfied. I think that we have to take that with a grain of salt. MR. DYBAS-I think Mr. O'Connor can witness to the fact that h~'s been on both sides of the f~nc~ and we have never stymied progr~ss in this community and we certainly hav~ looked for the welfare of th~ community and it's a tough coin to try to follow, but we try to do our best. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-90 ATnACTIONS LAND, INC. (GRAVEL EXTRACTION), Introduced by Pet~r Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, second~d by Nicholas Caimano: So that all of the comments made by the Engineering and Planning Staff can b~ addressed. That a wider buffer zone at the top of the finished slope can be expanded. Th~ comments and concerns by neighbors be address~d and that effect on th~ water table, where the water table is, noise l~vels, saf~ty concerns, the things that were brought up here tonight, be addressed. Public h~aring was left open. Special ~xception if they are ready to submit by the March meeting. The submission deadline will b~ March 14th. Duly adopted this 27th day of F~bruary, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts 24 "--' -.../ MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, th~r~'s on~ matt~r that should b~ addr~ss~d by the Board. Th~ d~adlin~ for th~ submission of n~w applications and n~w information for March is tomorrow at 2 pm. I sugg~st that you consid~r ~xt~nding that d~adlin~ for this application, if you'd lik~ to s~~ th~m on th~ March ag~nda. MR. CARTIER-To g~t it on th~ March? MR. BAKER-To g~t it on th~ March, the d~adlin~ is tomorrow. MR. ROBERTS-That do~s pos~ a probl~m. This is th~ s~cond m~~ting of th~ month, which complicat~s that. MR. CAIMANO-But Mr. Chairman, all th~s~ p~opl~... I think it I s significant. I mov~ th~ sp~cial acc~ptanc~ and w~ acc~pt this if th~y'r~ r~ady in a March m~~ting. MR. CARTIER-But, let's give Staff, also, ad~quat~ tim~ to be abl~ to r~vi~w th~ n~w submission. Let' s b~ sure w~ und~rstand this b~caus~ I get v~ry frustrat~d with this. w~ kind of lightly toss something off and then som~body has to pick up th~ loose ~nds here. w~ hav~ Planning Staff that has torevi~w it. W~ hav~ Engin~~ring Staff that has to r~vi~w it. MR. ROBERTS-Legal Staff, in this case. MR. CARTIER-How much tim~ do~s Planning, Legal, Engin~~ring Staff ne~d to do th~ job that n~~ds to be don~ on this kind of application? MR. BAKER-W~ll, I' d lik~ to know how long the applicant' s ~ngin~~ring and l~gal staff ne~ds to put th~ information tog~th~r? MR. JUDGE-W~ll, l~gal is nothing. Th~r~ hav~ b~~n no l~gal...that w~ haven't alr~ady b~~n aware of. Essentially, it I S an engin~~ring issue and if Mik~ is willing to m~~t with us tomorrow, we'll meet with him tomorrow and try to adjust th~ proj~ct and me~t his conc~rns and th~n if we g~t to a point wh~r~ we can't agr~~ with him on som~thing, we'll submit th~ best thing w~ can. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, I think Staff, in th~ past, has said that you want~d a w~ek to do that kind of work. MR. CARTIER-Is a w~ek ~nough tim~, for Staff? I'm going to b~ v~ry s~lfish h~r~ and look at this from a pur~ly planning p~rspectiv~ and not consid~r th~ applicant, in this cas~. MR. BAKER-Ok, on~ we~k from th~ tim~ we g~t it in our hands to r~vi~w it b~for~ the me~ting, is that what you'r~ suggesting? MR. CARTIER-No, I want a sugg~stion from you. this. You 'r~ th~ one who's got to do MR. BAKER-I would lik~ to, from a Planning p~rsp~ctiv~, have this in in a w~ek, by n~xt Tu~sday, if at all possibl~ and that would giv~ us at l~ast thr~~ w~~ks for th~ Planning and Engin~~ring r~view. MR. CARTIER-Th~n I would lik~ to add to my motion that a submission dat~ for th~ n~w information be in th~ Planning D~partm~nt by March 6th. I und~rstand what you'r~ saying Mr. Mors~. MR. 01 CONNOR-Mr. Carti~r, I usually don't argu~ for my, not my oppon~nt, w~'r~ working tog~th~r on th~ thing. Th~ Staff comments that th~y'r~ going to addr~ss, r~ally w~r~ not that significant, that I 'm awar~ of. If I rem~mb~r what Staff was indicating, unl~ss I'm wrong, th~ chang~s ar~ going to b~ in th~ dim~nsion or conc~pt or th~ scop~ of th~ project. MR. CARTIER-Staff is saying to m~, Mr. O'Connor, that th~y n~~d a w~~k and I want to giv~ th~m th~ tim~. MR. ROBERTS-P~ter, h~ just kind of indicat~d he want~d mor~ than a w~~k. MRS. PULVER-Y~s. MR. BAKER-What I m~an is I'd lik~ th~ information in a w~~k. 25 '~ --- MR. O'CONNOR-Alright, one comment that I don't have, that I won't have is, whether or not you actually are in an archeological area and I'm not being facetious about that. The people from the Department of Parks and Recreation say that you are. MR. CARTIER-First of all, what we need to know, is what meeting are we talking about in March, the first or the second? (TAPE TURNED) MR. BAKER-If we make it the second meeting in March then we can MR. CARTIER-The second meeting in March is the 27th. Ok, if you had this material by March 20, and I'm asking this, I'm not suggesting, I'm asking. MR. BAKER-I would like a little more than a week to work with, if at all possible. MR. DYBAS-You want more than a week in work days. MR. BAKER-Work days yes. MR. CARTIER-Submission by Wednesday the 14th. MR. BAKER-Wednesday the 14th would be fine. SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED COASTER) ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD CAMPGROUND SITE AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION 4.020 I RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. {ROLLER TO ERECT A ROLLER COASTER ON THE FORMER (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-7 WAYNE JUDGE STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Stated the County Planning Board has approved without comment. We do have a letter from John Whalen, but I see he's in the audience, I'll let him speak for himself. MR. JUDGE-Stated the site for this roller coaster is in an area that was formerly developed as a camping resort. The theory behind the camping resort was similar to the Disney theory, that if you could get people to come and live by the park you could increase their length of stay, so that they would go back day after day to the park. The reason why it didn't work here is because there aren't enough attractions to keep people there for more than one day. So, the camping resort was not a success, as a result, there's an area of ground, about 2.2 acres, almost flat. The difference between the lowest point and the highest point over that entire stretch of ground is about 20 feet, a little bit more than 20 feet and it sits in a natural depression in the ground. This is where the water park area was going to be taking advantage of all these grades. On the easterly side, there's a steep hill. On the southerly side, you can see from the site lines on the application, there I s also a hill. On the westerly side is the amusement park and, out through that narrow corridor there, is the wetlands and then, of course, the wetlands of Route 9. One of the comments that was made at the Planning Board meeting was that a women had called in and said that she thought that when the ride was constructed, it could be seen from the bridge on the bike trail. So, I took a walk out there today, to the bridge at the bike trail and I was not able to resolve that issue because, first of all, it was snowing like mad, but secondly I think, in order to really resolve it you'd have to get a balloon up 90 feet. If you did, I think you maybe would be able to see the top of the ride. I don't think you'd be able to see a lot of it because there's a lot of growth between the bike trail and this area. As much as the property owners association may object to putting another amusement ride in this recreational commercial area, if you're familiar with the area, objectively, this is about the best place you could pick for this ride, in my opinion. It's in a natural bowl, at the bottom of a natural bowl. The land is almost flat. There'll be a minimum of trees that have to be taken down because the area has already been cleared for the camping resort and it's sitting vacant. The only thing that's there are these little places where you plug in electricity and those are going to be removed. I don't understand the economics 26 ----,' of adding another ride without charging for that particular ride, but apparently in the industry, you're supposed to change your mix of rides every couple of years and get people to come. There is no anticipated increase in parking. That doesn't mean that, through advertising whether you had this ride or you didn't have this ride, there may be an increased demand for parking, but we have a limited amount of parking and we do not anticipate that this ride will increase that demand. That's our thought. There are not very many technical issues involved in the construction of this ride, under part of the ride there's going to be crushed stone and grass and there's going to be a path constructed to the ride. That's it. It's 90 feet high. The height restriction for rides in Queensbury, I think, is 100 feet. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, is that reasonable to assume that you're not going to have an increase in parking? You're adding a new ride,..because you want to draw more people to this. MR. JUDGE-Stated I want to get people back, yes. I don't know what the economics of parks are, but we have parking. We have a parking lot, theoretically, it can handle all of our people. They tell me it's reasonable. MRS. PULVER-Asked, if you're not going to increase the admission or parking, is the theory to, maybe, keep the people in the park longer with the new ride? You spend more money to increase revenue, maybe that..rather than MR. JUDGE-Stated that's right and it's to attract people who came last year to come back this year, but we actually draw from a limited geographical base. If I knew the economics of this business, I probably wouldn't be standing here presenting this case to you tonight, but I turn this over to Nick and Dick Morse who did the technical work on it. NICK SCARTELLI MR. SCARTELLI-Stated you know the location of the ride. The disturbed area is roughly around 2.2 acres. The land form goes from about 216, in here, to about 232. The platform for the roller coaster itself would be about, approximately 212 which is perfectly level from one end of the roller coaster to the other. There are, of course, cut slopes on the east end and, of course, the fill slopes on the west end. In the middle, it's virtually, pretty much, about what the ground level, present elevation of the ground level. The land form in here is about 3 percent and, of course, as I said, the final grading underneath the roller coaster will be perfectly flat. We have extended a pathway from the domed picnic areas here, which will be graded down to a shelter area which is which is supposed to be where you have the ride start and ends right here. MR. JUDGE-Stated the Staff took the position that this was an expansion of a permit ted use because this... was here anyway. I don't know why the addi t ion of one ride to a 39 ride park would be considered the type that requires site plan review, but that was the decision and that's the reason why we're here. It's deemed to be an expansion and that's why we're here. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated (referring to plan) As you can see the ride, the highest point is at this location which is around 91 feet from the elevation of around 212. The base elevation here would be 212. The framework of the roller coaster is an open lattice and, therefore, we don't anticipate any drainage problems in the area because the rainfall would, of course, fall between the lattice work onto the ground and here, with the high permeability of the soil itself, we feel as though it would soak right into the ground. This area here is opposite the area that the Bavarian Palace was, it's just down the other side and that had a percolation rate of about 1 inch in 25 seconds, very fast. We did the graphics on two site lines. The top site line, which was called Profile A, is approximately, in the area of where the Trading Post is on Route 9 and that, of course, looking across the wetlands, you would see, of course, the top of the roller coaster, if your sight line is clear. There are a number of trees in the area and with some foliage on there, it probably would be difficult to see the full view of the roller coaster. This, from Round Pond road has a hill here as it's interruption to the line of sight and this is the highest point of the roller coaster and you can see the sight line goes right over the top. As Mr. Judge says, he did view another view which was coming from the other direction, in this area here, to the roller coaster site from the bike path, which somebody had raised at the Warren County Planning Board. MR. CARTIER-Stated you're going to do a cut fill in there. Are you going to be able to get enough fill out of the cutting that you do, or are you going to have to bring in fill from the gravel extraction area? 27 ''"--' ---./ MR. SCARTELLI-Stated no, there's a sufficient amount so that it will pretty well balance off. MR. CARTIER-Asked, it's all been...? MR. SCARTELLI-Stated yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROBERTS-Do you want to read your letter, John? JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-Yes, I'd like to read it. Before I read the letter, there's one thing that I'd just like to state on this, looking over the drawings, this is not a little merry-go-round. This is a big, rip-roaring roller coaster. It's 800 feet long. It's almost 100 feet tall and as long as almost 3 football fields. I was shocked to find out that there were no sound studies. In other words, we're being asked to accept something, on face value, that itld probably be quiet, but I don't think so and I wonder why a project, with a magnitude like this,... I mean, this is not a little roller coaster. This is a big one. I've heard it goes 100 miles an hour. MR. JUDGE-We met with the Engineer for the Town and the Staff for the Town and we asked them all the tests that they wanted us to make on the coaster and any requests that they made, we did, including the site lines. You, asked why there was not a sound test made... I don't imagine it would be that quiet. I mean, it's an amusement ride. It's in an amusement park. The area is recreational commercial. This is an amusement park and it IS a roller coaster, so I doubt very much if it's going to be quiet and you're points are well taken. MR. WHALEN-My name is John Whalen and I own the land immediately to the north of the roller coaster. I live on Farm to Market Road in the Town of Queensbury and I own this section up in here and, according to Dick Morse's map, it IS 288 feet above the roller coast. Like I said, it's a long roller coaster, 800 feet long, 91 feet high and my main concern is the noise that I feel that this will generate and, though Wayne says that it's in a recreational commercial area, but no where in the permitted uses do I see anywhere that you have a permitted use to. . . lines outside the boundaries and this is what I'm concerned about so why don't I just read my letter(on file). BILL MORTON MR. MORTON-I'm Bill Morton from the Queensbury Environmental Committee. One of the comments that I have, relates to the materials and texture. It's my understanding and my observation that most of these kinds of facilities are wooden tressels. Is this the case? MR. SCARTELLI-This is a steel. MR. MORTON-Steel, ok. Were it to be wooden, I have noticed that many wooden tressels use white paint which are quite obvious and can be seen for a long distance. If it was to have been a wooden tressel, maybe a different color paint, such as green, or something like that, which would blend into the surroundings would be more appropriate. Is there anything that can be done with a steel tressel to make it less obvious or more obscure in the background? That's my question. MR. ROBERTS-Couldn't it be painted earth tones? MR. SCARTELLI-Yes, it could be painted grey. DR. HOROWITZ DR. HOROWITZ-Dr. Horowitz in Glen Lake. I have a question and that is, I'd like the traffic patterns, especially along Round Pond Road, addressed. I know that right now, even in the middle of winter, it's very difficult to make a left hand turn, that is, from Round Pond Road, down towards Glens Falls, even in winter, it's difficult, in summer, it's almost impossible and for those of us who do use that access, and sometimes I have to use it in a hurry, it's almost impossible in the summer, everything has to be routed down toward Bay Road and that's my question. I'll make a comment, which mayor may not be relevant. Sometime, a 28 -- -../ long time, during my adolescence and growing up, I was a lifeguard and much of that time was spent in Rockaway Beach, New York, sometimes spent, maybe 50 feet in front of their roller coaster. Now, that roller coaster was behind me. The ocean was in front of me and with the wind blowing in that direction, noise can be deafening and I would ask that you certainly put certain sound restrictions and obviously sound studies into whatever plans you make. Last week, or some five days ago, I was in Coney Island and roller coasters tend to, and I saw their roller coaster. Roller coasters tend to decay and to certainly think that all kinds of inspections have to be made on an annual basis. When these things cause accidents, they are horrible accidents. We've read about them during..last summer. Thank you. (TAPE TURNED) MR. O'CONNOR-I have two questions, then I would address the "don't know's" that Wayne has just mentioned, one as to what the actually noise would be produced from this particular ride and the other as to what increase would be required of the parking that is already in existence. Again, I will address the SEQRA requirements. You're being asked to approach this park in a fragmented way which is contrary to SEQRA regulations. You I re supposed to look at everything that's going on for the cumulative effect. If we go back to the Bavarian Palace where they had to get a waiver or variance because they didn't have sufficient parking. If we go back to where they were going to add some other attractions last summer and they were going to propose additional parking because of the additional population that they hoped to draw. Why aren't you looking at the total parking of the project now, as opposed to simply accepting the statement of the applicant that he doesn't know what effect this will have on the parking of the facility. Why look at it after the fact and find out that you've got a problem. I think there are definitive ways to enumerate parking requirements for these types of facilities. There are traffic studies that can be done. There are manuals that will give you the various requirements and it's an easy manner of counting what is presently there. The applicant hasnlt even approached that. I think to actually make an intelligent SEQRA determination, you've got to determine what the cumulative effect of this action with other actions, will have. I also have a particular question as to the mechanics of the construction, maybe the pictures could answer that. I would ask the applicant to submit those pictures to the Board as part of this application and I would refer to the two that show the structure that is built with a roof over it and I would ask the Board to go back, again, and take a look at our Ordinance as to height limitations for this particular zone and I know I'm going to have arguments from Mr. Judge with regard to this. There is a height limitation, for buildings within that zone, of 50 feet and, from what I can see, just from those brief pictures, that is a building, as defined within our Ordinance, even though it maybe used for amusement purposes or maybe an amusement ride. It looks like it is one contiguous structure, from the building which encloses the area that people embark upon the ride, to the point where they go around the track. We got into this discussion before and, as I understand it, within the Ordinance, a building means any structure which is permanently affixed to the land, is covered by a roof, I'm leaving out some of the inbetween words, intended for enclosure of chattels, which is personal property. That obviously is intended, that roof, to enclose the chattel of the cars when their in storage and people, for their protection, when they're getting on and off the ride. A structure means any object constructed, installed, or permanently placed on land to facilitate land use. I think you need a variance before you can approve this particular ride or this particular amusement device if it's going to be in excess of 50 feet in height. I don't think there's any question by Staff, that, for this particular zone, the height limitation on a building is 50 feet. This was once before, the same issue with another type of amusement device, was before the ZBA, the Zoning Board of Appeals. That Board rendered an interpretation that those devices were not buildings, but at that time, no argument was made that they were devices enclosed by roofs as this particular building is and as you will note on the applicant's submittal, he states that that is a building. I don't think you have a question of fact as to whether or not it is a building. I would also submit to you a brief that we've prepared in connection with another project, but I think is pertinent for Staff and for Council that the Zoning Board was not proper in issuing that interpretation because it didn't have, properly, that question before it. It had not been... by Staff at that point. Thank you. I'll dig that brief out for you. 29 '- ------ MR. JUDGE-Well, Mike and I were adversaries in that... about whether or not the height restriction under the building, under the zoning code, applied to amusement rides and the Zoning Board specifically found that the height restriction did not apply and, subsequently, the Zçning Statute was changed and the height restriction, suggested by the Glen Lake Association, was put into your Queensbury Statute and the height restriction was set at 100 feet and now the application is to put in an amusement ride that's 90 feet high and Mr. O'Connor is now saying that this isn't a ride, but because therels a roof on one of the waiting areas, that, instead of being a ride, it's a building. That argument, I think, falls of it's own weight. There were two other issues. One was the parking. Now, I remember appearing before a Zoning Board in Orlando, Florida and one of the issues was, how much of the ozone layer would be effected by the parking of three buses in a particular area and there had been an expert called by the Planning Board and there was an expert called by the applicant, which was not my client at the time, but I had the chance to talk with him because I was sitting around in this hearing and this is great grist for lawyer's mills and, in this case, it was a great grist for a scientist mill because what they were trying to do is figure out, destroy the ozone area over what area, and then they started to argue about where all this effluent was going to go and, really, it turned into a philosophical argument rather than a scientific argument. Now, we say there would be no increase in parking and you can, sure, hire a couple of experts and say, they anticipate there'll be no increase in parking, but we anticipate there will be an increase in parking and there could be a great debate over how many people are going to decide to go to the Great Escape this coming year. Would there be an increase in parking if we lowered the advertising budget? Would there be an increase in parking if we increased the advertising budget? Would there be an increase in parking if we redirected the advertising budget? It would have nothing whatever to do with this ride. The person who knows whether or not the parking is going to increase is the guy who owns the park and he's not going to put another ride in if he doesn't think he can accommodate the people so that they can get to the front gate and pay the fee to get in and we say there is not going to be an increase in parking. You can either accept that or not accept it or you can hire an expert to come in and enter into the same kind of theorizing that I was just talking about, but you're not going to be anymore intelligent, contrary to what Mr. O'Connor said, that isn't going to be, necessarily, or even practically, a more intelligent decision, it's just going to be a different decision and it's going to cost a lot more and it's going to help me get my kids through college, but it's not going to make for any basic, fairer planning for the Town of Queensbury. Then, on the question of noise, this is a roller coaster. I mean, it's going to sound and look like a roller coaster. It's a big roller coaster and it's located in an area that the Town of Queensbury set aside for an amusement park and it's going to be a loud, fun roller coaster and you could make as many test on this roller coaster as you want and it's going to sound just as loud as any other roller coaster, even as loud as the roller coaster that Dr. Horowitz stood in front of when he was a lifeguard and there isn't anything that we can do about it. JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-I'm John Whalen from Farm to Market Road. I'd just like to reply to Wayne. If it's going to be a loud, noisy, obnoxious roller coaster. MR. JUDGE-Obnoxious I didn't say. MR. WHALEN-What I mean is, do we want it in Queensbury? I say we don't. If it's going to be big, loud, and noisy like you said, Wayne, we don't want it here. It should be in Coney Island. An amusement park is not a license to make noise and objectionable noise and annoy the neighbors. An amusement is a place where people go to have fun. It doesn't have to be a place that annoys everybody all the way around it. BILL MORTON MR. MORTON-Bill Morton from the Queensbury Environmental Committee. I don't pretend to be an expert on roller coasters, but one thing I have observed and that is, first of all I don't know how to address the noise that might come from the people riding on this thing, but one thing I have observed is that the roller coasters that make a lot of noise are the ones that have steel rails and steel wheels and it's the running of the steel over steel that seems to make a lot of noise. There are roller coaster systems that use a rubberized wheel type of thing that is a lot less noisy. So, I don't know, maybe something like that could be .... MR. CARTIER-I think we need to understand that this roller coaster is already in existence. 30 '-' ---- MR. JUDGE-Y~s, this is not a n~w roll~r coast~r. MR. CARTIER-It has b~~n purchas~d and is b~ing brought to som~ oth~r amus~m~nt park. Now, wh~th~r th~ wh~~ls ar~ st~~l on it, I do not know. MR. CAIMANO-It's not n~c~ssarily h~r~. MR. ROBERTS-Do you know th~ typ~ of construction? on~ that would includ~ buff~ring nois~s. It I S probably not a mod~rn MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, I hav~ a qu~stion for Couns~l, if I may. Mik~ OIConnor has brought up th~ SEQRA qu~stion r~garding this proj~ct and th~ qu~stion I hav~ is, is h~ right? Do w~ hav~ to look at th~ proj~ct as a whol~, again, ~v~rytim~ w~ do th~ SEQRA forms or can w~ g~t by with looking at th~ proj~ct in part? MS. CORPUS-I think that's a gr~at qu~stion. I p~rsonally, at this point, don't know th~ answ~r to that qu~stion and I would hav~ to do som~ inv~stigating for th~ Board. I think that's an issu~ the Board might, definitely want to consider with this application and th~ previous application and I will d~finitely look into it for you and g~t back to you. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. Mr. Whalen, how long have you lived wh~r~ you live? MR. WHALEN-I've own~d that prop~rty for, probably, sinc~ about 1967 or 68. MR. ROBERTS-He do~sn't live on this piece of prop~rty. understand that this is a vacant pi~ce of property. I think you should MR. CAlMANO-Yes. JIM WELLER MR. WELLER-I 1m Jim Weller and I 'm r~ally here for anoth~r purpose tonight and I happen~d to be list~ning to this conversation, but I am in the construction business here in the Town of Qu~ensbury and I do a lot of the work on these n~w rides and r~furbished rides in th~ Great Escape and we'r~ und~r an agreem~nt with Mr. Wood to put the roll~r coaster in. I can say that the plan for the roll~r coaster is it is to b~ ~ntirely refurbished. Th~ track and the rail and the wh~el assemblies on the cars ar~ b~ing refurbished to bring th~m up to mod~rn day standards and th~ requir~m~nts of the Stat~ of N~w York, that's my understanding. I might say something e1s~ too, maybe as a taxpayer in th~ Town of Queensbury and the fact that I think we're pretty fortunate, her~, to s~~ the Park go into the hands of people that want to k~ep it a vital part of the ~conomy her~ in the Town of Queensbury and my understanding, in b~ing around the Great Escap~ organization for s~v~ral y~ars, is that one of th~ primary intents that Mr. Wood had in s~lling this Park to th~ IVC, was that they would own 6 to 8 to mayb~ 12 Parks and b~ able to mov~ thes~ rides within th~ various Parks and we have done construction work, und~rstanding that som~ of the rid~s maybe temporary and they will be moved from Park to Park so that th~y can keep th~ crowd coming, not necessarily that they increas~ th~ crowds that are coming, but so that they can k~~p an int~r~st in th~... bring the peopl~ back to the Park year after y~ar. MR. CARTIER-Mr. W~ller, with r~gard to r~furbishing th~ ride, do you know if any of that refurbishing is addr~ssed toward reducing noise levels or is that strictly to bring it up to saf~ty standards? MR. WELLER-I don't know th~ ~xact details of th~ r~furbishing. MR. O'CONNOR-Not by way of comment, but by way of question to th~ Board, w~ haven't changed the burd~n of proof, hav~ w~ b~cause, as I understand it, the applicant has to come forward to show that it is not going to interf~re with his neighbors, with the project he's proposing. If a legitimat~ qu~stion or conc~rn has be~n rais~d, such as nois~ going across th~ boundary, it must b~ some showing simply not a stat~m~nt that it's an amus~m~nt ride and amusement rid~s are noisy. I mean, we could have a 21 gun salute and call that an amusem~nt thing and we're going to p~rmit that to go off ~v~ry hour. There has to b~ some balanc~ and I think, without any showing by th~ applicant as to what the nois~ to be produc~d, you haven't ~ven approached a point where you can address the application. MR. JUDGE-The burd~n of proof issue doesn't come up, this is a permitt~d use. This is a p~rmitted use in the zon~. Unl~ss someone can show that we're creating 31 "--' ~ a nuisance, the burden is not, are application is in and, on its face, it doesn't show that it's doing anything that isn't permitted in this zone. No one has shown that it will. For me to stand up here and say that someone won't scream on a roller coaster ride, everyone knows that they will and that's probably the loudest sound you'll here, but it's an amusement park and this is a permitted use in the park. It's a permitted use in this area and if you read your statute, it says that the purpose of this zone is to encourage the development of amusement parks in this area, to encourage the development. MR. ROBERTS-There, apparently, does seem to be a fairly significant buffer area of almost 300 feet and it's down the hill and the noise that is traveling across property lines is going on to the same zone. MR. DYBAS-I'm not so sure, in my own mind, I can accept your thought that this is an amusement park and we're going to use a wide brush and say that this is acceptable. I don't mean to challenge you on that point, but someplace along the line, there must be some kind of point that you say this is acceptable and this is not acceptable, even though, in theory, it is permissible, permissible, but by the same token, is it acceptable, that's my thought. MR. CAIMANO-It seems to me we're not established since you're...the Board. both screaming and... in that park. that at all. going to be on the bounds that we've already We already have a ride which elicits noise, So, it doesn't seem that we're going beyond MR. JUDGE-The other thing is, if we were talking about shooting off a cannon, as Mike suggested, in an amusement park to bring people in, or whatever it is, this would be something that might help the amusement park, but it's not the essence of an amusement park, but when you say amusement park, people think roller coaster. I mean a roller coaster belongs in an amusement park and for someone to say, well, a roller coaster is too noisy for an amusement park, that's a total nonsequitur. I mean, a roller coaster is an amusement park. A ferris wheel and a roller coaster, that's what people think of when they think of an amusement park and for the Town of Queensbury to say, well, you can have an amusement park, but we don't want any roller coasters because people yell when they get on a roller coaster, that's ridiculous. MR. 0' CONNOR-For the purpose of record, I think this is the first time that a device within the park has been before this Board for site plan review. I think the only other site plan review was the Bavarian Palace which was not an external device, that I recall, from the times that I have been before the Board. MR. ROBERTS-Well, Waterslide World came before us. MR. O'CONNOR-The Waterslide World came before you. It never got to a point where you'd even discuss the substance because it was withdrawn. I've been here when a proposed model car, or, I'm not sure, miniature car amusement park was proposed on the west side of Route 9 and at that point, you had all kinds of sound studies as to what would be transmitted across Route 9 to Twickwood and, in fact, I think you denied that application because of the noise studies that were before the Board that would go out into adjoining properties, whether they be of the same zone or not. MR. ROBERTS-I made a fool of myself on that one until they ran the go cart around City Hall and... MR. O'CONNOR-But did it get built? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. 0' CONNOR-They had sound studies on before you, you required sound studies, to approve something in the dark. it. that Anytime you had amusement devices I'm aware of. You've never tried MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if I might just bring up something that might just aid the Board when it's determination. In Section 5.071 of the Zoning Ordinance, it has a list of development considerations that the Board has to take into account when site review is done and I quote "Any burden on the public in providing facilities and services made necessary by such land use and development or subdivisions of land, shall also be taken into account as well as any commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits which might derived there from" and under that, of course, there's noise level. So, I do believe it IS well within the Board's right to request anything or to request clarification of noise levels, if that would help you in your decision. 32 -- --- MR. CAIMANO-I don't question that is, what can for criteria? After acceptable criteria? we should look at noise levels. My question we do that sound test, what do we use for the MR. O'CONNOR-There are, I think, noise statutes that are applicable by general New York State code. MR. CAIMANO-For amusement parks? MR. 0' CONNOR-For use of property, what will go off the property and there are general standards as to when you come to a nuisance and don't come to a nuisance. MR. CARTIER-... in terms of distance away from the source of the noise and so on and, at that point" it becomes a judgement call, on the part of this Planning Board, as to whether that noise level is acceptable or not acceptable. MR. O'CONNOR-There are standards and I'm sure that there's standards within the industry that probably even Staff Engineering is aware of. I've seen it with Lake George. They presently have under review, a waterslide and they are very concerned with their noise ambience, as to where it leaves the property or doesn't leave the property. There was a waterslide in part of my research for last years work in Chestertown, that was turned down because of the prospect of noise that was going to leave the property site. They may be different ordinances and I don't know exactly how to compare one to the other, but it's generally a common consideration of Boards as to how much noise is going to be created and you make that determination before it's created as opposed to afterwards. MRS. PULVER-Let me ask you a question, Mike. and it says, ok, the noise is whatever, now Mr. a tree falls in the forest and no one's there, is there really noise on Mr. Whalen's property So, we request this noise study Whalenls property is vacant, if does it make a sound? So, now if there's no one to hear it? MR. 0' CONNOR- I think you're under the same burden whether his property is vacant or not vacant and you can ask your Staff as to whether I am correct in that manner. You can't allow an excess on one persons property because the next property is not used. I don't mean to argue this, I'm just telling you, as a general Planning premise, whether the purchased property is vacant or not vacant, is not a criteria that you use. You may think it isn't common sense, but you're under the same burden, so that the person, when he wants to enjoy his development rights, he won I t be burdened by something that you've created. All I'm proposing, and I don't know what the final results are because I haven't heard what actual noise will be produced, is to applicant what noise will be produced, have him give you an engineering study as to how far that will project at 93 feet in the area. MR. CAlMANO-And then what, though? MR. O'CONNOR-If it projects beyond his property line, what is he going to do to mitigate it? MR. CAIMANO-All noise projects beyond the property line, whether it's you in your backyard pool or those people up there. It's then our decision as to how far we'll allow that, right? MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. You have a discretionary decision as to whether that is an acceptable burden to put upon that property. MR. DYBAS-Acceptable or not acceptable. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. You've walked in the area of the amusement park now on many occasions. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-What noises do you commonly hear now? MR. CAlMANO-Screams. MR. O'CONNOR-And if you move this to the campsite ground, which is further over, much further over than the other amusement rides. How much more are you going to hear that when you raise that 93 feet in the air and is that a fair burden to put on property? 33 -.......... -----/ MRS. PULVER-How many p~opl~ ar~ going to b~ on that rid~? How many scr~ams? MR. O'CONNOR~Mrs. Pulv~r, th~y hav~n't told you that. That's part of th~ study. You s~~, I'v~ n~v~r s~~n a proposal without that includ~d. It's lik~ m~ t~lling you I'm going to put a n~w busin~ss in without giving you a.. MR. JUDGE-Now, how can you say you'v~ n~v~r s~~n a proposal without a nois~ study includ~d. This Board sits h~ar ~v~ry month, I'v~ n~v~r h~ard on~ with a nois~ study includ~d and I'v~ b~~n to a lot of th~s~ m~~tings. MR. CAIMANO-I 'm c~rtainly willing to acc~pt th~ fact that a roll~r coast~r is going to ~licit a lot of nois~, wh~th~r it's going to b~ 120 d~cib~ls, 220 d~cib~ls, or 3 d~cib~ls. I'm willing to admit, without going through th~ ~xp~ns~ of a study by anybody, that th~r~' s going to b~ a lot of nois~. Wh~n g~t through with th~ study, w~' r~ still going to hav~ to sit h~r~ and say, that' s acc~ptabl~ or not acc~ptabl~, wh~th~r it's 200,000 d~cib~ls or 2 d~cib~ls. MR. ROBERTS-.. willing to prot~ct th~ vacant prop~rty zon~ th~ sam~ way. might want a loud~r rid~ on th~ir prop~rty. Th~y MR. CAIMANO-It's going to b~ loud. Th~ qu~stion is, do w~ allow it loud. (TAPE TURNED) which is wh~r~ th~ nois~ com~s from. MR. CARTIER-But, that still do~sn I t t~ll us what th~ nois~ l~v~1s, ultimat~ly, ar~ going to b~ off th~ sit~, on som~body ~ls~s prop~rty and it may com~ out that, well, we've made som~body go through som~thing that th~y didn't have to, but we're not going to know that until we go through it and, we may in fact, have to find out that, well, if the noise level off site is such that it n~eds to b~ mitigated, . . but I don't want to go into an approval with not having all the professional answers and this on~ is one that I haven't heard answered yet, to my satisfaction. JIM FAIR MR. FAIR-My name is Jim Fair. I live over on Courthouse Estates and, on the qu~stion of noise, we seem to be addressing the fact that this gentleman, Mr. Whalen's, on vacant land, but wh~re I live a lot of houses are ov~r there and people live there and I'd like to hav~ a study done to find out the impact that this new roller coaster might hav~ on existing people who live in that area. I think that might be a legitimate conc~rn of many people in our area. MR. ROBERTS-You're talking about a long ways away. MRS. PULVER-I kind of agre~ with you, Nick. You know, when w~ find out it's 2,000 decib~ls, maybe we should do a noise study on th~ Screamin' Demon or something. MR. CAIMANO-The only way I can s~e, correct me if I'm wrong, to do a noise study, is to do a history, that is, go som~where ~lse, go offsit~, and say, this roller coaster, given this, is going to create this noise, that will not satisfy you in Courthous~ Estat~s. The only way w~ can satisfy you exactly, or even closely, is to put the roller coaster up and run it. MR. DYBAS-Th~y don't have to do that. You can go someplace where... c~rtify the decib~l rating, ground zero, 50, 100, 200, 300 fe~t up. Now, you know the rating. Now you draw a map and 300 feet out or 600 feet out is his house or his house, th~n you've got an accurat~ decibel rating for that area. Now when you get that rating, and that particularly points out, you or somebody will have to t~rm that acceptable or not acceptable level, that's the way you do it. MR. JUDGE-What Mr. Caimano's point is, is the guy here that wanted to have his car fixing thing, th~ previous application, he has a noise level. H~ creates noise that probably his n~ighbor doesn't like. MR. DYBAS-That's indoors. MR. JUDGE-Now, nobody asked him to do a study of the amount of noise that he makes when he fixes those cars. MR. DYBAS-He is not fixing cars, he is r~pairing engines and that's done inside. MR. JUDGE-My analogy doesnlt necessarily hav~ to do with what he does. What I'm saying is, what if a n~ighbor came up and said, I think, when that guy puts thos~ 34 "'-"' ---' oth~r 3 cars out on, I don't ~v~n know what his application was, it's going to cr~at~ much mor~ nois~ and I think h~ ought to do a study so that I could find out wh~th~r h~' s going cr~at~ a nois~ l~v~l that's going to b~ unacc~ptabl~ to m~ and suppos~ you say, that's ridiculous, you know h~ls going to b~ backing cars in and out of his plac~ all day long and it's going to cr~at~ som~ nois~. Th~ normal nois~ that a m~chanic cr~at~s wh~n h~ fix~s cars or driv~s th~m in to fix th~m, or what~v~r and th~ n~ighbor says, w~ll, I don't lik~ that. I don't think that's an acc~ptabl~ nois~ l~v~l and you I r~ n~v~r going to r~ally know how much nois~ h~ cr~at~s unl~ss you hav~ him do a study about it. MR. DYBAS-W~ do know what th~ nois~ l~v~l of an automobil~ is. MR. JUDGE-And, I think, most p~opl~ know what th~ nois~ l~v~l of a roll~r coast~r is. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. I'm not ins~nsitiv~ to th~ nois~. I'm not ins~nsitiv~ to th~ Courthous~ Estat~ hous~s. I'm only saying that, I'm willing to acc~pt th~ fact it's going to b~ noisi~r than h~ll. That's not th~ issu~. Th~ issu~ is, at any nois~ l~v~l, is it acc~ptabl~ to thos~ p~opl~. MR. DYBAS-That's what w~'r~ all saying, th~r~'s only on~ way to do it. MR. JUDGE-If ~v~ryon~ whisp~r~d on th~ rid~, it would still b~ a 1~v~1 that would b~ unacc~ptabl~ to Mik~ O'Connor. MR. DYBAS-I'm just trying to prot~ct th~ p~opl~ and find out, is this an acc~ptabl~ nois~ l~v~l. Th~ rid~ do~s b~long th~r~, but do~s it b~long th~r~ at such a... MR. JUDGE-No nois~ l~v~l will b~ acc~ptabl~ to Mr. Whal~n or to Mr. O'Connor, r~gardl~ss of how many d~cib~ls it cr~at~s b~caus~ a rid~ thatls a roll~r coast~r is going to cr~at~ mor~ nois~ than th~y want. MR. DYBAS-And if I was living back th~r~, it would b~ unacc~ptab1~ to m~. MR. JUDGE-So th~n you shouldn't liv~ n~ar an amus~m~nt park. MRS. PULVER-What about if you ask~d th~m what th~y thought would b~ an acc~ptabl~ nois~ l~v~l. S~~, th~y probably don't know. MR. CARTIER-You can't do it that way. You'v~ got to hav~ numb~rs. MRS. PULVER-That's what I m~an, th~y don't know. MR. CARTIER-B~sid~s nois~ l~v~ls, you' v~ got to hav~ numb~rs and thos~ numb~rs r~quir~ a study. MR. DYBAS-W~ll, c~rtainly a roll~r coast~r, d~finit~ly, mak~s mor~ than 100 dcbs. It's got to. Eighty is normal sp~aking or slightly ov~r. Now, 100 is obj~ctionabl~. That thing's probably got to put out what, I don' t ~v~n want to tak~ a gu~ss at it. How far will that nois~ l~v~l of 1,000 dcbs trav~l with th~ w~st wind? You t~ll m~ that, Couns~l. MR. MORSE-On~ hundr~d and tw~nty d~cib~1s, you can physically f~~l that vibrat~ your body, ok. Sixty d~cib~ls is in a normal sp~aking rang~ in an auditorium or som~thing lik~ that. So that I s th~ rang~ w~' r~ d~aling with and ~v~rytim~ you doubl~ th~ distanc~ away from th~ nois~ sourc~, you drop th~ d~cib~l rating, I think it's 5 or 10 d~cib~ls. So you tak~ a nois~ l~v~l, add, l~ts say 10 f~~t, if you go back 20 f~~t, youlr~ going to drop it a function of that. If you doubl~ that distanc~ to 40, it will drop at that sam~ incr~m~nt, which I think is, I can't r~m~mb~r. MR. CARTIER-W~'r~ talking Inv~rs~ Squar~ Law h~r~, ar~n't w~? MR. MORSE-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-Ok. In oth~r words, you doubl~ th~ distanc~, th~ sound is quart~r~d. Tripl~ th~ distanc~ th~ sound is r~duc~d by... MR. MORSE-No, itls r~duc~d th~ sam~ p~rc~ntag~. It's r~duc~d th~ sam~ factor, a factor of 5 or 10. L~t' s say it's 60 at 20 f~~t, you go back to 40 f~~t and it'll go to 50. You go back 80 f~~t, it will go to 10 minus that, but I'm not sur~ of th~ factor. 35 -- -- MR. CARTIER-Well, we're spending an awful lot of time on this, and I wish we could, somehow, informally pole the Board here on which way we want to go with this. Do we want a noise study or do we not want a noise study and then get off this because if the Board, in total, does not want a noise study, then we can move on this thing. If it does want a noise study, we can table it and get a noise study. We're going around the roller coaster again. BILL MORTON MR. MORTON-Very briefly, there's been a lot of research done on decibels and noise and standards have been developed. It just occurs to me that, really, what this Board should try to attain, through Staff, is some information on standards for noise that are available and use the standards as a basic guideline for making a decision. MR. O'CONNOR-My question, Mr. Chairman, was, where was this ride before it was purchased and aren't there studies, if it was in a metropolitan area, of that ride, of the noise created by that ride, that could be shared? MR. CARTIER-The noise levels and how noise is carried, is somewhat site specific. So that noise study is going to have to be done in terms of, empirically, where that roller coaster is proposed to be located. MR. MORSE-I think, if it's been in any type of metropolitan area, there were studies on it, from my review of more metropolitan type zoning. MR. CARTIER-So what you're saying is somewhere, in the files somewhere, are some numbers. MR. MORSE-We can find out what it was producing. MRS. PULVER-It wouldn't be the same roller coaster. MR. O'CONNOR-It won't be the same. MRS. PULVER-This one has the wooden track. The new one is going to have a steel track. MR. OICONNOR-I will retire for the evening, but you have two other issue, folks. Is this a building and, under SEQRA, do you have to consider parking for the total site or just for what might be produced by this ride? MR. ROBERTS-Well, to take the word of the applicant, we've already considered parking. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, I think the issue might not be the parking, but the two SEQRA applications themselves, cumulatively, at the two projects and I definitely think that that is still a question in my mind. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if there is that question plus the question of noise, maybe this is enough to where we're going to need to table this mostly to answer those questions and to get a handle on the noise. I suppose we'd be setting some kind of precedent here in the Town. How far out of this zone do we allow noise to go and so forth and so on. I know, looking at the site, most of us thought this is a great site, itls going to muffle the sound and it shouldn't bother anybody and I guess I basically still feel that way. I don't know where you find a better site. On the other hand, you read through here and certainly noise levels is a part of the thing that we're supposed to consider under site plan review. MR. CARTIER-We're being asked to make a judgement call here, on noise, and if I'm going to have to make a judgement call, I want as much possible information as I can get for making an intelligent judgement call, is what I'm saying and I can't do it without numbers. MR. ROBERTS- I think they're asking quite a lot of us, information. Whether the information is bogus or not, that backs us up in making our decision. without a we'll have little more information MR. DYBAS-Ilm sure someplace out there, somebody's got to have some kind of readings on both rides in both places. 36 JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-John Whal~n, again. I just want to mak~ just a f~w comm~nts. On~ of th~m is on th~ r~ading from th~ Qu~~nsbury Zoning Ordinanc~ on r~cr~ational comm~rcial, RC-15 Zon~, which w~ w~r~ discussing. The purpos~ of it, as Wayne has talk~d about, is to ~ncourag~ ~xpansion of r~cr~ational us~, but also, it says r~sid~ntial us~s ar~ consid~r~d compatibl~ with RC Zon~s. So, if r~sid~ntial us~s are going to b~ compatibl~ with RC Zon~s, you'r~ going to hav~ to ke~p th~m r~asonably qui~t. MR. ROBERTS-That do~sn't mak~ much s~ns~. MR. WHALEN-That's what it says. MR. DYBAS-I think it do~s mak~ s~ns~, wh~n you stop and think of it. MR. CARTIER-If you giv~ m~ awhil~ b~caus~ I r~m~mb~r having that discussion. It would tak~ m~ awhil~ to dr~g that up. MR. WHALEN-And singl~ family dw~llings ar~ a p~rmitt~d us~. So, whil~ an amus~m~nt park rid~ is p~rmitt~d, a privat~ hous~ is p~rmitt~d and th~y'r~ suppos~d to b~ compatibl~ and you can't hav~ that if th~y'r~ ~xtr~m~ly noisy. MR. DYBAS-I think, basically, what th~y'r~ saying is, an it~m is allow~d as long as it is not obnoxious or objectionable to th~ resid~nts. MR. WHALEN-But it do~snlt ruin my land, so that I could us~ it for r~sid~ntial purpos~s. MR. DYBAS-The k~y issu~, in many ar~as, is obj~ctionabl~ nois~s. W~'r~ not allowed to tak~ wat~r from my roof and dump it off on your land, that's... that I s going into your land. Why should I make noise and dump it off on your prop~rty. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Whal~n, th~ only comm~nt I would mak~ th~r~ is that I don't think, as one who was involv~d in r~writing that Ordinanc~, our int~nt was to say that, in r~cr~ational comm~rcial, that r~cr~ation comm~rcial activiti~s and r~sid~ntial activiti~s would carry ~qual w~ight, if you und~rstand what I'm saying. Th~y w~r~ d~sign~d to be, primarily, r~cr~ational comm~rcial zones. In which, s~condarily MR. WHALEN-It do~s say that th~y are consider~d compatibl~ and not secondary. MR. ROBERTS-That was tru~ in th~ W~st Mountain ar~a wh~r~ you hav~ a ski in r~sid~ntial. That's not tru~, for boating r~sidences, near Story Town. two ar~as that mayb~ w~ paint~d with a little too broad a brush. area Th~ MR. WHALEN-I don't think an amus~m~nt park has a lic~ns~ to bring in noisy rid~s, ...without r~gard to anyon~ around th~m. MR. DYBAS-I'm not oppos~d to this rid~. 11m for th~ park ~xpanding and continuing growth and ~v~rything ~ls~. I just want to b~ darn sur~, lik~ P~t~r, that wh~n w~ vot~ on th~ issu~, w~ have all the facts and nobody's going to g~t hurt and l~t th~ park grow. That's th~ only issu~ I hav~. MR. JUDGE-I wish I kn~w what you want~d us to study and giv~ you statistics about. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Judg~, I can giv~ you an answ~r for that. What I want to s~~, for m~, I'm not talking for th~ Board, I want to s~~ a nois~ study don~ that t~lls m~ how much nois~, what nois~ l~v~ls ar~ g~n~rat~d at Courthous~ Estat~s, at adjoining prop~rti~s. Th~ kinds of numb~rs that Mr. Dybas was talking about. MR. CAIMANO-How ar~ you t~ll th~m, at Courthouse Estat~s, without... MR. CARTIER-You can do it ~mpirically. This is an ~ntir~ ar~a of acoustical engin~~ring and itls a sci~nc~ that approach~s an art. MR. CAIMANO-Ok, and all th~ Mr. Judg~ brought up, and rightfully so, not that we should not prot~ct th~ Town r~sid~nc~s, all of us, from nois~ pollution b~caus~ w~ should, but you'r~ op~ning up a Pandora's Box becaus~ if you had had this sam~ argum~nt about 2 hours ago, wh~n Mr. Darius was up h~r~, I would hav~ said, I liv~ damn close to him and in th~ summ~rtim~, wh~n h~ starts racing ~ngin~s to find out how his work is going and his doors ar~ op~n, my nois~ l~v~l in my n~ighborhood's going up and I want to know how far that's going up. 37 '--' -.-/ MR. CARTIER-I guess the only way I could answer that is to say I've got a much better handle on the noise generated by a one bay auto repair shop, but I don't have much of a handle on the noise generated by a roller coaster. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think we have a very serious question regarding the SEQRA' MR. ROBERTS-Ok, thatls true. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think in fairness to the applicant, we should give him some kind of indication, from this Board, as to whether we want a noise study or not. I don't know how to do that straw vote or what? I guess I've said my peace about that. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think the applicant can see if it IS going to be held up trying to find out the proper review procedure here. I would think, if I were him, that would give me time enough, maybe, to go and try to do a little bit of this stuff to try to improve his case. MR. CAIMANO-And I would be willing to accept the numbers out of some engineering book and then empirically draw it out, as Mr. Cartier says, to guess at what those numbers will be, short of spending a million dollars to set up a...roller coaster to find out what... MR. JUDGE-The SEQRA review question, if I understand it, is that if you add a ride to the park, you necessarily will add more parking? MR. CAIMANO-No. The SEQRA review question that I questioned is a much more broader question then that and that is, when someone adds something to any site plan review where we need to go to SEQRA, do we need to go back and redo the entire SEQRA, the SEQRA for the entire project and not just individual parts. MR. JUDGE-Well, the entire project is to put in the ride. MR. CAIMANO-The entire project is Great Escape Park. MS. CORPUS-That's the question, Wayne, whether it's the entire park and if it is, then the gravel extraction would be part of the entire park as well as the ride. MR. JUDGE-The entire park and the gravel site? MS. CORPUS-No, that is part of the entire MR. JUDGE-The gravel site isnlt going to create anymore parking. MS. CORPUS-The parking is not the issue. MR. CAIMANO-The parking is not the issue. The question is, we go through this SEQRA review form and we're being asked to go through this for your roller coaster on the Great Escape Park or Attractions Land, Inc. The question is, are we bound by law to go back and do the SEQRA review for the entire park as it now is redone because of the roller coaster or can we just do that section which is the roller coaster. We ought to know the answer to that. MR. JUDGE-Well, we thought we were submitting the SEQRA application as it applied to the entire park. What effect is this coaster going to have on the entire park? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. MR. JUDGE-That's the way the questions are phrased. The only effect it'll have on drainage for the entire park will be what's effected by the construction of this roller coaster, that's the drainage question. The noise issue, you raised. We thought we had addressed it. You don't. You want more studies. We could give you more studies, but as far as how a SEQRA review would expand to the entire park, I never even really understood Mike's point on that. If you combine the two projects together, you still don't get anything bigger than the two projects. They're totally unrelated. MR. CARTIER-The point is, our attorney has said it needs to be researched and we need to do that. We could talk about this for the rest of the evening and it's not going to change anything. 38 -..../ -- MR. JUDGE-So, if w~ cam~ back, at th~ n~xt m~~ting, would this b~ r~ach~d at th~ n~xt m~~ting? MS. CORPUS-W~ '11 g~t back to you much b~for~ th~ n~xt m~~ting, Wayn~. I'll g~t back to th~ Board and you. MR. CARTIER-Do w~ hav~ agr~~m~nt with th~ applicant to tabl~ this application? MR. JUDGE-Tabl~ th~ application? MR. CARTIER-Y~s. MR. JUDGE-Sur~. Th~ applicant agr~~s to tabl~ th~ application. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (ROLLER COASTER), Introduc~d by P~t~r Carti~r who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Nicholas Caimano: Tabl~d with agr~~m~nt of th~ applicant. R~ason b~ing w~ n~~d a d~t~rmination from th~ D~puty Town Attorn~y with r~gard to SEQRA proc~ss and also for th~ applicant to provid~ us with a nois~ study. Th~ d~adlin~ for submission of n~w information will b~ March 14th, 1990. Duly adopt~d this 27th day of F~bruary, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. BAKER-I would lik~ to point out to th~ Board that in ord~r to prop~rly ~valuat~ any nois~ study that's brought in, w~ may have to hire an outside consulting firm to do that as Rist-Frost may not be able to evaluate it. MR. JUDGE-I r~a1ly question that, I m~an, what would th~ consultant study? Th~ ride isnlt up, what is he going to study? MR. ROBERTS- I think you're going to get decibel levels from some other roller coaster somewhere ~ls~ and measure the distance. MR. CARTIER-Let me b~ very blunt here. A bunch of us ar~ talking out of ignoranc~ her~ about noise levels and how to study noise and so on. Let's leave it to the experts and get a study from th~m and then we can talk about it. With regard to Mr. Baker's concerns, if we have standards and there are standards out there, maybe this Board can evaluate them based on those standards and make a judgement bas~d on those standards. MR. JUDGE-This is fine, but before the Town hir~s an expert at our ~xp~ns~, w~ would like to have th~ option to cons~nt to it. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. W~ can't sp~nd your mon~y without your approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Unl~ss you'r~ s~tting pr~c~d~nt, Mr. Carti~r, that is not a corr~ct statem~nt of th~ Ordinanc~. The applicant, by submitting, has submitt~d himself to th~ jurisdiction of th~ Board, this Board has th~ authority to hire those consultants it d~~ms n~c~ssary for this Board to b~ abl~ to make a d~termination. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s, I b~liev~ that's right. MR. CAlMANO-But all Mr. Judg~ want~d was, b~for~ w~ hir~d th~ guy, tell him. MR. OICONNOR-Then I don't want to h~ar Mr. Judg~ complain, in March, that you d~cid~d that you'r~ going to n~~d an ~xp~rt to study this and it's going to tak~ you anoth~r month. I'm trying to g~t all the coins on th~ tabl~. The point that I mak~ is, I don't want to unn~c~ssarily delay this application, but (TAPE TURNED) you say that you should hav~ som~body look at it, he should b~ anticipating that you may say that you're going to hire som~body aft~r you'v~ told him that. MR. CARTIER-I think Staff is going to b~ abl~ to giv~ us a good id~a as to wh~th~r W~ can handl~ it or wh~th~r outsid~ h~lp is n~~d~d. MR. O'CONNOR-Th~ oth~r point is I think I rais~d a l~gitimat~ point as to the particular.. .of this d~vic~ and I think Counsel is going to giv~ an opinion on that or s~~k an int~rpretation on that. 39 - -.../ MR. CARTIER-Th~ building structur~ qu~stion? MR. O'CONNOR-Y~s. MR. CARTlER-W~ll, I think that's alr~ady b~~n r~solv~d. r~r~solution to that. I think w~ can g~t a SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1990 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A ADIRONDACK PLAHTATIONS CHARLES DIEHL SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE, APPROX. 4,000 FT. EAST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD AND SHERMAN AVENUE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 4 EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE PURCHASED AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-22 LOT SIZE: 58.264 ACRES WILSON MATHIAS, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from John S. Goralski, Plann~r (attach~d) MR. MATHIAS-Stat~d (r~f~rring to Staff Not~s) lid just lik~ to add to that, that wasn't addr~ss~d as a r~sult of th~ advic~ of th~ two Town Attorn~y's that w~r~ pr~s~nt at th~ ZBA m~~ting. ENGINEER REPORT Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tt, Town Engin~~r (attach~d) MR. MATHIAS-Stat~d my nam~ is Wilson Mathias. Di~hl who's curr~ntly th~ own~r of th~ prop~rty. Plan, isnlt it? I m~an that's th~ whol~ point of off th~ ground and, obvious ly, th~r~ ar~ going b~ work~d out. I 'm h~r~ on b~half of Charl~s A. I think that's not too for Sk~tch th~s~ things is to g~t th~ proj~ct to b~ som~ d~tails that hav~ to MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d absolut~ly. MR. MATHIAS-Stat~d I think that th~ main point for us to mak~ at this point is that my cli~nt do~s own, it 's approximat~ly a 50 acr~, parc~l on Upp~r Sh~rman Av~nu~. Th~ prop~rty curr~ntly has on it, 4 fourpl~x~s. Th~ Zoning Board of App~als grant~d us r~li~f from th~ sp~cific provisions of th~ Ordinanc~ with r~sp~ct to going forward with th~ subdivision of th~ ~xisting fourpl~x~s that would basically allow individual own~rs to own a four family unit, not four individual own~rs within ~ach on~, but on~ fourpl~x would b~ individually own~d. As far as th~ ZBA was conc~rn~d and as far as th~ applicant is conc~rn~d, th~ approximat~ly 5 acr~ parc~l, which is shown on th~ back as lot 5, was r~quir~d to r~main unimprov~d by th~ t~rms of th~ initial approval wh~n th~ multifamily units w~r~ first construct~d and w~ don' t propos~ to chang~ that. Th~ r~maining 48 acr~s, my cli~nt propos~s to d~v~lop into r~sid~ntial units and w~ hav~ fil~d today a subdivision application for thos~ 46 r~sid~ntial units. I think that in t~rms of th~ ~as~m~nt situation, I agr~~ with what ~ngin~~rs point~d out and th~s~ ar~ d~tails w~ can provid~ on th~ map and that's just a matt~r of clarifying that. I think th~ r~ally qu~stion that w~ hav~ b~for~ you at this point is, how to d~al with th~ 4 and half to 5 acr~s in th~ back. Now, obviously, on~ m~thod of d~aling with that is a Hom~own~rs Association. I think w~' r~ r~luctant to do that for th~ primary r~ason that th~ cr~ation of a Hom~own~rs Association is a fairly ~xp~nsiv~ and tim~ consuming proc~ss. It's a wond~rful thing wh~n a Hom~own~rs Association owns som~thing, wh~n th~r~ ar~ common faciliti~s that ar~ going to b~ shar~d by units and, in fact, in th~ 48 acr~ parc~l, w~ ar~ going to propos~ that w~ cr~at~ a Hom~own~rs Association. How~v~r, basically, b~caus~ w~ think that w~ I v~ d~sign~d this subdivision so that, ~xc~pt for a coupl~ of ~as~m~nts, for wat~rlin~s crossing prop~rty for th~ drainag~ th~ ~ngin~~r points out, that basically thos~ lots that ar~ on th~r~ now, th~ four that hav~ buildings on th~m, ar~ s~lfcontain~d. Th~y don't shar~ anything in common. MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d, is that t~chnically tru~? Don' t th~y shar~ som~ stormwat~r manag~m~nt plans in that th~ wat~r ~nds up down h~r~ on th~...? MR. MATHIAS-Stat~d w~ll, th~ wat~r' s going to ~nd up th~r~, sur~, but I think that, and you can go back through your r~cords and ~ngin~~r will mayb~ tak~ a look at what h~'s got, as I und~rstand th~ Mors~ Engin~~ring r~port that was don~ back in '85 or so wh~n th~s~ things w~r~ first approv~d by th~ Board, th~ way I r~ad it, thos~ sit~s w~r~ d~t~rmin~d, actually, it would b~ b~tt~r to look at 40 -- ------ the drainage report, the drainage was designed there so that it didn't really even end up on that back lot. Now, we're not suggesting that we be permitted to do anything wi th it. It's going to remain unimproved and we have no prob lem in putting some type of restrictive covenant that, that deals with that, but the land out there is, as you can see by the contours, very, very flat. We don't have a huge problem with water coursing out of the multifamilies on to someplace. It just isn't so and so I think that it's a legitimate concern of the Board and of the applicant to say, what do we do with that four acres because, if we do nothing, the likelihood is that what will happen is someone will stop paying taxes on it and then what happens? I don't think that we feel we need to create a Homeowners Association for it because the Homeowners Association's sole reason for being there is going to be to maintain a liability insurance policy and that seems a ridiculous restriction to place on this project. I think that there are a couple of suggestions that we would make and would hope that the Board would give us some direction about which way to go on this. I think one is, in a sense, giving each one of the lot owners an undivided one quarter interest in the back lands for purpose of maintaining liability insurance. Another possibility is actually, in a sense, cutting up the back five acre lot, all...acres into 4 equal sections and saying, lot one gets A, lot two gets B, lot three gets C, lot four gets D, you can't do anything with it. You canlt build out there. It's got to remain ... Another possibility that I think is more practical, is something with covenants and restrictions similar to what was done at Evergreen Park, Dr. Shutz's complex out there, where there isn't a Homeowners Association, however, there are common elements that are, when someone buys one of those footprints, they get an undivided interest in, the common property, they call it and define it and as part of the covenants and restrictions they're required to have liability insurance and that type of thing and I think that's, to me, maybe the most sensible way of dealing with it. It isn't necessary to use that parcel for the sewage system that's already received a SPDES Permit from the State of New York. The replacement system was designed totally within one of the other lots. Also, the water retention basin is located totally within that first lot. It doesn't come within the background so that you've really some, just plain, open space, green area, whatever you want to call it that I think can be left alone with the use of covenants and restrictions and I would suggest that's the way to go on this. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, do you have any thoughts on that Counsel? past we've run into this problem where nobody seemed to own it. I guess, in the MS. CORPUS-Stated well, this is something that, Wilson and our office could definitely talk about options. I have this annoying question in my head. I was at the ZBA hearing and I've got the minutes and the motion in front of me. The motion, and it's right here, granted variances for lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. They didn't address that lot 5 at all. My question, I'm trying to get this straight, they didn't address it. I'm assuming that it's still part of what's adjoining it and that it doesn't exist as a separate lot, in actuality, it would be up to this Board to make that particular subdivision, Wilson? MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes, that's what we've asked and our application sets forth, we say five lots and include that lot number 5. MS. CORPUS-Stated I was just clarifying something you said about the ZBA said it had to remain green and actually, they didn't actually address it. MR. MATHIAS-Stated then we probably should have tried to do something. I think that that was the understanding when Dr. Karp got his approvals for multifamily and I think that's the understanding we had when we purchased the property. So, I think our concept here is that property can't be developed and we intend to provide covenants and restrictions prohibiting it and I think that what we would like, at this point, at the Sketch Plan approval, is some direction to go, in terms of the ownership aspect of it so that we can submit an application for preliminary approval and go on our merry way here. MR. CARTIER-Asked, I don't know, is it up to the Board to make that kind of suggestion, how to handle that property? MS. CORPUS-Stated sure, I believe that it would be within your purview if the applicant's obviously asking you for that direction, they want to make it a green area. MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, it's already in the restrictive convenants as what can happen to that, you just have to honor that. 41 '-.- -- MR. MATHIAS-Stated I think we're bound by it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I think, in terms of the approval, when you gave Dr. Karp, under site plan, for those multifamily units, I think the Planning Board restricted the use of that 4.5 acre parcel and I don't think we can, although maybe we'd like to add it to density and some other things, I don't think we can do that. I think we're stuck with what you already did. MR. ROBERTS-Stated as you said, there's probably two or three ways of doing that and as far as I'm concerned the simplest way is alright with me. If it's too expense to form a Homeowners Association for this, maybe there's a simpler way. MS. CORPUS-Stated there might be. I have a question for Wilson. If you were thinking of dividing it up amongst the lots, it might also be helpful to see how you plan on doing that, I mean, are you going to do it by meets and bounds or things like that. I'm just suggesting that we could talk about that. MR. MATHIAS-Stated as a practical matter, I think it's better to describe it as somewhat of a common area because if I divide it by meets and bounds, then I know someone's going to say, well, how do I get there, where I s my easement and, once I get there, glòe, what if I cut thlòse trees down and do somlòthing else here. I think that if you have it, basically, you're just saying, this goes along with thlò project, you all get it and that's part of your...in a sense, that's includlòd within your MS. CORPUS-Stated I see that, that the two lots, I guess, are connected, but the other two aren't. MR. MATHIAS-Statlòd YIòS, two of them touch it and two of them don't. MS. CORPUS-Stated well, I think that might be something we have to talk about too, as far as- MR. CARTIER-Asked, there has to be an easlòment somlòwhere, right? MS. CORPUS-Statlòd right. MR. MATHIAS-Stated well, I guess the issue that I havlò is, what would you want to havlò an easement to get thlòre if you can't do anything onclò you get therlò? MR. CARTIER-Statlòd if I own a piece of property in common with somlòbody, I want to blò able to get to it, legally. If I'm an owner of lot one and I own a pieclò of lot five in common with threlò other proplòrty owners, but I don't havlò any way of getting there, that's a strange deal. MR. MATHIAS-Stated well, a right-of-way for ingress and egress is certainly not a difficult document to draft and you I ve got a melòts and bounds dlòscription. I don't slòe that as a big problem. MR. CARTIER-Statlòd I have anothlòr question hlòrlò and I may be missing something, but I don't think I am. I'm looking at 58 acres of property and you have just indicated that you are coming in with a plan to put up 46 dwelling units on thlò remaining 48 acres, correct? MR. MATHIAS-Statlòd right. MR. CARTIER-Stated alright, what that adds up to is, with theslò quadraplexes is 62 dwelling units on 50 acres of land in a 1 acre zone. MR. MATHIAS-Statlòd right and we got a variance from the ZBA for this. MR. CARTIER-Stated you got a variance for lot size on those four lots. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I think we got a variance so that we could subdivide them. They're preexisting uses. The density issues's already been raised. I mean, you addressed that when they got approved. I don't think you can now impose the density on to the remaining lands. The site plan approval for those units was four. MR. CARTIER-Asked, based on those lot sizes? 42 -- - MR. MATHIAS-Stated well, first of all, when they got approved, it was an SR-20,000. MR. CARTIER-Stated wðIl, maybe that answers my question. I think it does. What has happened here is that we are ending up with a density beyond what the present Ordinance calls for by..of the variance that was granted, is that correct? MS. CORPUS-Stated correct. MR. MATHIAS-Stated and as to the remaining lands, we're going to meet the density requirements. MR. CARTIER-Asked, and that happened because these were built prior to MS. CORPUS-Stated prior to the new Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Stated ok, that answers my question. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you're really subdividing four lots off that property. MS. CORPUS-Stated well, I don't think there's an actual subdivision for that green area as it exists now. There's not a filed subdivision of that, is there Wilson? MR. MATHIAS-Stated no, but that green area is described in the site plan approvals that these units already attained and we've picked up those boundary lines based on that. MS. CORPUS-Stated I guess the only question in my mind is this is a subdivision, I guess the Board would have to determine the exact locations for subdivision apart from the site plan. MR. MATHIAS-Stated again, this is what we're suggesting and since we think we're stuck with it, based on what the.. MS. CORPUS-Stated that I s the minimum, right. green area required by the site plan. I think that would be the minimum MR. ROBERTS-Stated it's reserved area and it's going to be a liability to the new homeowner. There's no question about it. MR. MATHIAS-Stated but I can't build on it, what are we going to do, you know, that's the catch and that's the catch no matter whether we subdivide it and have individual owners or MR. ROBERTS-Stated I'm just thinking for purposes of making the easements easier, divide that whole area up for lots one and two, since lots three and four aren't contiguous maybe leave them out of this ownership, reserved there, whatever the lot numbers are. Make your easement a little bit easier.. . easement coming down from a natural, these fellows didn't have any responsibility for it, because I don't know what you're new subdivision looks like. MR. MATHIAS-Stated it's only in terms of the area. that because it's a brand new ballgame. I didn't want to show you MR. ROBERTS-Stated I assume you'll use whateverls left over here. MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes. MR. CARTIER-Stated I'm still confused. Were these lot lines for lots 1,2,3, are these brand new lot lines? MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes, those are brand new lot lines. MR. CARTIER-Asked, and these are the result of the variance which you received? MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes. MR. CARTIER-Stated but we're subdividing up a piece of property under the current ordinance here. This is being divided into four quadraplex lots plus a bunch of single lots. I don't see how this is grandfathered. MS. CORPUS-Stated I think I know what you're getting at, about changing the green area location, perhaps. MR. MATHIAS-Stated the density was established by the Planning Board when it said, we're going to approve these multifamily units, which by the way, Peter, included two additional units that we lost. 43 "-" '..-- MR. CARTIER-Stated yes, that you lost, I'm aware of that, but weren't those quadraplexes built on what was the original 58 acres? MR. MATHIAS-Stated no, the application dealt strictly with, talking about in that instance, approximately a little over 10 acre parcel. The Zoning Board giveth an~ the Zoning Board taketh away, I mean they gave us an acre and took away 8 un1.ts. MR. CARTIER-Stated the only thing that concerns me here, and then I'll let this rest, is that this is not a way of increasing density or getting a way around density restrictions at some point in the future. Ilm suggesting that you III do that. MR. MATHIAS-Stated no, I think we're living within the density that was already established, rightly or wrongly. MR. CARTIER-Stated the only thing I don't want to see happening is somebody coming in and building some quadraplexes, a few quadraplexes on a huge chunk of property and then coming back and saying, well, I want to lop these quadraplexes off and it's a hardship and so on, but I still want my original density. In other words, I don't want see somebody trying to beat the density. Again, I'm not suggesting you're doing that. MR. ROBERTS-Stated when this was approved, we didn't attach any of the rest of the land, as far as density is concerned, except for this... MR. MATHIAS-Stated Peter, frankly, before we bought, that was a concern that we had in terms of what was going to be the overall density for the piece and that's why we've done it this way. I think, just so we don't take up too much more time here because I don't think this is a complicated one. It IS already there and, like it or not, the Boards have taken a pretty hard look at the water, sewer, all of those drainage issues and we're not doing anything extra. It would seem to me, the sense that I get, is that, what we ought to do with that 4 and a half acres in the back is simply, arbitrarily attribute approximately half to the first lot furthest to the east, the other half to the other lot and then provide easements, I guess, although they're contiguous, I don't know why we need to and make sure that they're restrictive covenants that the property remain forever wild. MR. ROBERTS-Stated and there's no reason why they can't do this, nature trails or something. It's all pine, isn't it? MR. MATHIAS-Stated it's almost all pine. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, anybody have any other comments? This is not a public hearing. This is for Sketch Plan approval. Have we got any other philosophic things that we need to send him home to do? MR. BAKER-Stated I would just like to point out in your packets(TAPE TURNED)letter from Ralph VanDusen, the Deputy Superintendent of the Water Department: Currently parcels 1F1 and 1;2 are supplied with town water from a private main. If these two parcels are going to be purchased by separate owners, I have some question about who will be responsible for maintenance and operation of this private water line and hydrant. It is possible that the owner of the water main could elect not to make repairs that may become necessary and shut the water off instead. Whatever the outcome, our office needs to be notified who will be responsible for this private system. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess that's something that you have to work out with the Water Department. MR. MATHIAS-Stated yes, I think we'll address that, either in the form of covenants and restrictions, again, like the Evergreen situation or through some type of affirmative easement. The point, obviously, is to get some input with respect to the technical aspects of these things so that we can get more detail the next time we come back. MOTION TO APPROVE SUTCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1990 CHARLES DIEHL, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a subdivision of four existing structures to be purchased as individual units with the one lot to be split into two parcels. Lot 5, equal care and ownership be established by covenant. This will be subject to addressing comments from Engineering, Staff, and the Water Department. 44 '-' --/ Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MS. CORPUS-Asked, will the ownership be just for the two lots adjoining it? I didn't quite catch that. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that seems the simplest to us, unless there's some reason why we shouldn't do this. MS. CORPUS-No. I'm just asking. MR. ROBERTS-Stated unless it would spread the risk of the liability over more owners. MR. CARTIER-Stated all we're interested in is protecting...I think he understands that's what we want. MR. MATHIAS-Stated I would think that it's easier for us to deal with just the two and, again, they're self-contained, so I think if we address the water line issue, the rest will take care of itself. MR. CAIMANO-Stated the motion should also be subject to Engineering, Staff and Water Departmentls comments. MR. MATHIAS-Stated we will agree to incorporate the suggestions that have been made by Staff, Engineering, and the Water Department into our preliminary submission. SITE PLAN NO. 15-90 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 JAMES WELLER LOTS 4 & 5 OF CROSSROADS PARK, NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND BLIND ROCK ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 STORY STRUCTURE FOR GENERAL OFFICES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 78-3-34.5, 34.6 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES, 0.95 ACRES SECTION 4.020-F JAMES WELLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. WELLER-Stated I'm Jim Weller. I'll be the owner of the property and the owner of the development. The issues from the Independent Living are issues that will generally be addressed in the buildings design and details of the building...within the building. MR. ROBERTS-Stated handicapped parking. MR. WELLER-Stated handicapped parking has been provided for in the site plan, but their talking about access within...it's a two story building. MR. ROBERTS-Stated we have comments from the Beautification Committee, too. They approved. Are you familiar with their comments? MR. WELLER-Stated yes I am. I appeared at the Beautification Committee and talked through the site plan with them and...the approval and asked as we further develop this project, that we submit them what we plan to do with the.. .part of the building. It's usually a matter of choice. MR. ROBERTS-Stated Paul Naylor still has some problems. Do you have his letter? MR. WELLER-Stated yes I do and I met with Paul Naylor last week and we talked about this particular letter. I really didn't understand it when I first saw it and his problem was the fact that, on our site plan, we were showing drainage from our site into the drainage pipe which runs between the two lots and has been granted, I guess, or will be taken over by the Town Highway Department. He's concerned about who's going to maintain the pipe, if I plug it up or he plugs it up or whatever. We agreed that we would change the site plan so that we carry 45 '- ---,,' MR. WELLER-Stated the testing that was done with the Phase I approval indicates that there would be no problem, whatsoever, and we treated it as the last developer treated it. There was simply a confirmation that the earlier testing was done it wouldn't, in fact, hold up after the site was graded. There are some areas on these sites, not particularly where we propose to put the drywells, but there are some areas on the site that are going to see some pretty substantial fill. MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes, they are. MR. WELLER-Stated and it would be impossible, if we were proposing to put the drainage system in those areas, to give you test data at this point and I think that may have been what we contemplated when Phase I approval was granted. MR. CARTIER-Stated well, I'm going uncomfortable with that because, to me, it sets a precedent and this is a perfect example of it. If we did it that way the last time, we now have an application to begin doing it that way because it was done the last time. MR. WELLER-Stated I think, in addition to it being done that way, is the fact that there is expensive development that needs to be done on these properties and in many cases you wouldn't be able to do the percolation testing until the development work was done. MR. ROBERTS-Stated not without the developer grading the entire site or portions of it. MR. WELLER-Stated he's not selling the property that way. He's selling the property at existing grades, developing only the roads and the drainage system. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he must have made some special dispensations for that kind of thing. MR. CARTIER-Stated that's something that can probably get dug out of records and we can take a look at what we did and why. Do you recall how long ago that traffic study was requested? MR. WELLER-Stated...in the middle of that now. MR. CARTIER-Asked, and you still don't have a traffic study done? I know that traffic study's got to be done because when did this, I remember spending a lot of time talking about the traffic impact on this intersection out here which is already a problem. MS. CORPUS-Asked, you know there's a light going in? MR. CARTIER-Stated yes, that'll make it better, but there was some concerns about traffic impact and density. MR. ROBERTS-Stated we've seen Phase II of the Sketch Plans. We must be waiting for the traffic study before we go any further with Phase II. MR. BAKER-Stated I believe John me:ntione:d some:thing about the traffic study in his notes on the: Phase: II Ske:tch Plan. MR. CARTIER-Aske:d, well, I gue:ss my que:stion is, do we ne:ed to have: the: traffic study before: we can approve: this application? MR. ROBERTS-State:d I would think that we could go with one or two more buildings before: the: traffic study. The:re:'s no big problem there:. The: light, I gue:ss, is in the: process of being installed, that should take: care of us for awhile. MR. DYBAS-Aske:d, was the:re anything done in that line:, pete:r, prior to that light going up? Somebody had to do something to confirm that the light had to go up. MR. CARTIER-Stated that light was in be:fore: this subdivision e:ve:n was on paper, but I guess what I'm saying is, we: ought to specify, pre:tty quickly, when that traffic study ne:e:ds to be done: before: we can go with any more:. You're not the: person who nee:ds to he:ar that, it's the owne:r of the property. MR. WELLER-Stated I'll take: the me:ssage: to him. 47 ',-, -/ MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d, do w~ hav~ som~ oth~r r~fin~m~nt before w~ put this to bed? int~r~sting probl~m. W~ ar~ going to have problems that we need a little bit more I guess the percolation rates are an to...stormwater piping on th~ map. MR. WELLER-Stated we do hav~ percolation rates. The system, as it's shown on the sit~ plan, is based on percolation test data on that site. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, from the subdivision? MR. WELLER-Stated from th~ subdivision and the t~st information and test well location are indicated on the site plan. What we're saying is, that we do not have verification of the exact location of the wells, the se~page pits and we would like to conc~de that we will v~rify those befor~ we proc~ed. MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, as th~ person I s already said th~r~, I wonder, hav~ w~ got a s~rious problem with going that route on this? MR. CARTIER-Asked what's that? MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d on this subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Stated well, it s~ems to m~, th~r~' s a lot of things here that hav~ to b~ address~d and this thing's probably going to get tabled. In the meantime, w~ could get back what w~ did on the last one with regard to the s~ptic system and that would give us some idea. It would make me feel more comfortable with doing it. MR. WELLER-Stated I can show you the site plan I've got with m~, if you'd lik~ to look at that. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d if you could just clarify for us, who that was an when that was, the sit~ plan, was that, the first building, th~ Prudential? MR. WELLER-Stated it was for th~ Prudential Building and I believe the representativ~ on it was Cushing/Dybas and it was Bay Road Realty Corporation. I've the sit~ plan her~ and I'd be glad to pull it out and show it to you. MR. CARTIER-Stat~d actually, all w~ n~ed is a number off it. MS. CORPUS-Stat~d that's all. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you might want to go back to the subdivision as well. Frank D~Santis was the developer. MR. WELLER-Stated Ilm sorry. I don't have it with me. We have it in our files. MR. WELLER-Stated may I ask what it is that you would lik~ us to clarify? We understand the drainag~, that situation, which we believe is clarified, we just need to up dat~ that line. MR. CARTIER-Stated yes, that's what it amounts to. It's kind of a gen~ric clarification. You're going to have to deal with all the comments that have b~en made. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess there really aren't all that many. MR. CAIMANO-Stated there's only two. Th~re's the size of the plant material and the drainage. MR. WELLER-Stated I I d submit that we w~nt through th~ plant mat~rial proposal with the Beautification Committ~~ and w~ did r~ceiv~ their approval and that w~ did try to carry th~ th~m~ of the planting, that will, in the spring, ~xist at th~ Prud~ntial Building. MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, hav~ you got full acc~ssibility to th~ s~cond floor as w~ll as bathrooms up th~re? MR. WELLER-Stated yes, we will hav~. I think the requirement was to get a building p~rmit . MR. ROBERTS-Stated I wond~r if w~ really have to hold this up. MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, well, what about this letter from Mr. Naylor? I'm not trying to hold you up, Mr. Weller. 48 "---' -- MR. WELLER-Statêd I would cêrtainly apprêciatê if you could êVên givê mê a conditional onê and I'll submit thê drawing as it was approvêd by Mr. Naylor. I think it's quitê clêar what hê and John Goralski indicatêd would bê ok. MR. ROBERTS-Statêd Wê don't havê that in writing yêt. That's vêrbal, so far. MR. CARTIER-Askêd, and you addrêssêd him aftêr Fêbruary 13th? MR. ROBERTS-Statêd YêS. MR. WELLER-Statêd wêl1, Wê addrêssêd him aftêr his lêttêr and I bêliêVê it was last wêêk that I mêt with thê Planning Dêpartmênt and with Paul Naylor. MR. CARTIER-Askêd, aftêr his lêttêr of Fêbruary 13th? MR. WELLER-Statêd YêS. It's our undêrstanding that Wê don't gêt an opportunity to mêêt with him until aftêr Wê makê thê submittal. That's our undêrstanding of working with that Dêpartmênt. MR. CARTIER-Askêd, stormwatêr managêmênt, I'm undêr thê last paragraph of Mr. Goralski's notês? MR. ROBERTS-Statêd wêll, that, again, apparêntly, has bêên covêrêd with thê Highway Supêrintêndênt. Hê'S agrêêd to go with that êxtra pipê. MR. CARTIER-Askêd so, with thê êxcêption of traffic study, êVêrything's bêên addrêssêd on Mr. Goralski's notês, is that right? MRS. PULVER-Statêd YêS. (TAPE TURNED) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-90, Introducêd by PHêr Cartiêr who movêd for its adoption, sêcondêd by Carol Pulvêr: WHEREAS, thêrê is prêsêntly bêforê thê Planning Board an application for: Unlisted Site Plan 15-90 for tbe construction of a two story structure for general offices on Lots 4 & 5 of Crossroads Park. and, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has dêtêrminêd that thê proposêd projêct and Planning Board action is subject to rêviêw undêr thê Statê Environmêntal Quality Rêviêw Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No fêdêral agêncy appêars to bê involvêd. 2. Thê following agênciês arê involvêd: Nonê 3. Thê proposêd action considêred by this Board is unlistêd in thê Dêpartmênt of Environmêntal Consêrvation Regulations implêmênting thê Statê Environmêntal Quality RêViêw Act and thê rêgulations of thê Town of QUêênsbury. 4. An Environmêntal Assêssmênt Form has beên completêd by thê applicant. 5. Having considêred and thoroughly analyzêd thê rêlêvant arêas of ênvironmêntal conCêrn and having considêred thê critêria for dêtêrmining whêthêr a projêct has a significant ênvironmental impact as thê samê is Sêt forth in Sêction 617.11 of thê Official Compilation of Codês, Rulês and Rêgulations for thê Statê of Nêw York, this Board finds that thê action about to be undêrtakên 49 ......./ '-" by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration as may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. ROBERTS-Stated before we make the motion on the site plan, I notice that the setback from Blind Rock Road is only 30 feet from the right-of-way, roadway, is that correct? MR. WELLER-Stated we've shown a setback line of 30 feet and I believe we've set the building back 32. The setback line that's shown on our site plan is the same setback line that's shown on the Phase I approved development plan. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I know, on the first building, you made a mistake, allowing that to be built too close to Bay Road. I'm wondering if this building is not too close to Blind Rock Road. MS. CORPUS-Stated if I could clarify that, Mr. Chairman. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that the Board has, for tonight, has to do with that 75 foot corridor change on Bay Road. MR. ROBERTS-Stated right. MS. CORPUS-Stated and that's just specific to Bay Road itself. MR. ROBERTS-Stated some of us thought we had already done that, along Bay Road and some how it didn't get done, but where we got fooled, to some extent was, that did not front on Bay Road, it backed up to Bay Road and it only required 30 feet instead of 50 feet. MS. CORPUS-Stated the language has also changed to not talk about fronting. MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes, well, I know we're...it wasn't a mistake we're taking steps to correct. The building's there and, I guess, I wish this building, maybe, wasn I t quite so close to Blind Rock Road, but I suppose that's not easily done the way everything's laid out. MRS. PULVER-Asked, if you decide to change, you said that's the way it was shown on the Preliminary Sketch, so there were buildings placed on all the lots? I didn't see it. MR. CARTIER-Stated yes, but that was represented to us just as examples, typical examples. MRS. PULVER-Stated because if they're selling off those lots from, this is the building and whatever. MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, I'm sure they've calculated density and everything based on the setbacks. If that other building's 75 feet back from Bay Road, we'd have heard a lot of squawking from this whole...comer lot and the property was bought predicated on the Ordinance at that time, so maybe that's reason enough to... MR. BAKER-Asked, has the Board settled the issue of the necessity for perc tests at the site of the seepage pits? MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess we had decided that we would do it the way we did it on the first building in the subdivision. It would all have to be done, down the road) to verify that the system will work to the Building Department, prior to building. MR. WELLER-Stated well, that's certainly what we'd asked for and I think you have a control mechanism here in the Town of Queensbury. 50 "--' .-/ MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-90 JAMES WELLER, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Providing Mr. Weller satisfies the perc test that will be required by the Building Department and have them on the Site Plan and that they satisfy the requirements of the Highway Department. Stormwater Management should be addressed. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA ROY AND JEANNE TONNESEN BIRCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR A TWO LOT RESIDEBTIAL SUBDIVISION, ONE 1. 92 ACRE LOT TO BE CONVEYED FOR BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 34-1-58.1 LOT SIZE: 4.55 ACRES CHARLES NACEY, REPRESENTING THE TONNESEN'S, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. NACEY-Stated I'm Chuck Nacey from Coulter & McCormack's office on behalf of the Tonnesen's. I think the Staff has essentially summed up what this is all about. The Tonnesen's have a house on the southerly portion and they wish to build on the northerly portion. Just a couple of comments on Staff on this. In regard to the mislabeling of the contours,..has been severely flogged and those changes will be made. The elevation at the center of that depression, it shows on the map, is 1236.0 which would mean a maximum of about 5 feet of fill.. .We certainly can show proposed utilities. Most of these cases where we show a line going in from an existing telephone pole or line, it's simply diagrammatical and the utilities put them wherever they feel they should put them, so that would be the best we could do in this situation. From Rist-Frost's comments, the percolation tests, certainly does not take in an area that was eventually sighted for the absorption field, but the perc test was taken about the same elevation as the sighting of the absorption field, so we did dig a test pit... percolation test was taken at a depth of 30 inches and it I S essentially a sandy knoll where they're building, where they propose to build and we found nothing, no stones, nothing and it just ...sands to at least 30 inches. We were...on the perc test...so we feel this is probably a good representative of that general area right in there. In regards to the drainage calculations, there was a waiver request submitted with the package. We thought there probably would not be significant amount of runoff from this site. Erosion control measures are shown, but they're calling for seeding and mulching of the slopes to the north of the proposed house and...to be erected around...area during the construction until the site has been stabilized to the rows of grass and what not. So, if there's something else that you'd like to see then certainly we'd be open to that. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it's a beautiful.. I didn't see any problems when I finally found it. MR. CARTIER-Asked, do you have a waiver request on file? MR. NACEY-Stated yes, we do. MR. FERGUSON-Stated we did not get a copy of the waiver request. I see the waiver request here. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, would you still like to see a perc test at the site, the exact location, somewhere down the road, be more site specific? MR. FERGUSON-Stated you get a lot better idea when they're closer to the absorption fields. Since I've been here, I can see things changing in areas when you're, and rather than get into an area where something isn't being totally different 51 "--' ---./ from where you plan on it, it's just easier. Even if pit and you come up with the same type of soils that other location, then you could draw some conclusions, from looking up above and not going down into the ground. you go out and dig a test you've documented at your yes, it's the same, but, MR. ROBERTS-Stated when you get in there to dig your summer hole, we better dig the. . Granting the location, maybe we can do the same as we did the last one. He can't dig it now, obviously, with frost on the ground. If we don't anticipate any problems, maybe redesigning according to what you find... in the system we wanted to. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, what do you think? Do you think we could hold it up for the we 11 ? MR. CARTIER-Stated it's preliminary. MR. ROBERTS-Stated ok, it's preliminary, a two stage process. on this? Is there a hurry MR. NACEY-Stated. .project, the applicant wants to keep it moving. Boardls choice to...we don't have a choice. If it's this MR. ROBERTS-Stated I'm not too concerned about this one. MR. NACEY-Stated certainly, yes, we can make it a condition. MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, weill at least do that, the question is do we want more time? MR. CARTIER-Asked what's gained and what's lost. It may speed the process. I don I t see a great deal of pressure here to speed this one up. What's lost is, someone may come in and ask for the same thing and it may be difficult to say no. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you'd have to do a little site work, cut some trees and get a backhoe in there. MR. CARTIER-Stated we're talking about one lot being subdivided off. It's not like somebody's standing there with a ....you must have approval by such and such a date. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-1990, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Preliminary Stage approval of a two lot residential subdivision, one 1. 92 to be conveyed to building owned by ROY AND JEANNE TONNESEN, Birch Road, Glen Lake, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 52 ~ --../ 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1990 ROY AND .JEANNE TONNESEN, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: With the following stipulations: comments made by both Planning approval, including perc test. That the waiver request be accepted. and Engineering Staff be addressed That the for final Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. NACEY-Asked, what else, on the perc test. Are you satisfied with erosion control that's shown on the map? MR. CARTIER-Stated drainage calculations, is that the waiver? MR. FERGUSON-Stated that's the waiver. MR. CARTIER-Stated ok, so thatls been taken care of. Erosion control measures? MR. FERGUSON-Stated that is more of a note. We can put down, whenever you're going to be disturbing earth(TAPE TURNED) like putting straw down, and putting a straw built dike, a silt fence, depending on the severity of what you're doing, just to control it. MR. NACEY-Stated that's what shows on the plan now. I guess I'm asking if that's a question? MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes, I think long term plans. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA SHEBMAIf ACRES, SECTION 2 WALTER REHM ±1.8 MILES ALONG SHERMAN AVENUE FROM NORTHWAY CROSSING TO MICHAEL'S DRIVE, SOUTHERLY ALONG MICHAEL'S DRIVE TO SOUTH END THEREOF. FOR A 6 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 121-7-999 LOT SIZE: 31.15 ACRES CHARLES NACEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) 53 -- ~ MR. ROBERTS-Asked, are we getting ourselves into trouble, here, using up land that was otherwise designated recreation area? This is a topic for discussion for some other time, but I guess we have a little bit of a complication with the fill systems we I ve been recommending with the Department of Health. We cannot allow them without extensive work and I expected a letter, I think, for tonight from Rist-Frost explaining, so maybe you have something, but fill systems maybe aren't the catch all that we've been, because Brian Fear, throughout Partridge Run, has thrown that back at us because he can no longer approve fill systems unless they're, as I say, designed, filled, and tested and take 9 months to do it and so, we're redoing that as a...that maybe the subdivision would without it. So somewhere along the way, we're going to get that back. Here's a letter discussing this. I guess maybe we better get a copy of this to everybody when we have time. MR. FERGUSON-Stated the official letter's coming through the turnpike, but I had that one with me so you could have it up front. MR. ROBERTS-Stated apparently, DOH are in the process of changing their regulations, but at this particular juncture, I guess we've got to be a little more careful about how we require fill systems. It seemed like a good idea at the time. It was very high perced soil, but it's not that simple. MR. NACEY-Stated On this Section One map of Sherman Acres, the parcel we're dealing with now, from.. .is, essentially, this yellow outlining parcel. On the Section One map, there is an undefined area, down here at the end of Michael's Drive, which is noted as recreation area. In looking at the Rehm's deed, there are no reservations, exceptions, or mentions of any rights of anyone else to that piece of property that they were deeded. There's no mention of this recreational area and in the other deeds to the parcels that had been conveyed on already from this subdivision, there are no grants or rights to the individual owners for use of another portion of the land surrounding their particular lots. So, I wonder whether this was just something that was added to the map. I don't know the reason why, but it's been done before in the past and this is a 1973 map. Probably, someone thought that the land would never be used because it does give way as it goes into the southeastern corner. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, your utilizing this land as part of your subdivision? MR. NACEY-Stated that's correct. MR. ROBERTS-Stated maybe that's better if I know who owns it. those typical cases. It seems like a good idea at the time, probably pays any attention to it or takes care of it. This is one of and now, nobody MR. NACEY-Stated the one other point to address is Rist-Frost's comment. They're speaking specifically about this planned absorption field on Lot 2 and our rationale for not going through a fill system on this lot was, that Test Hole 4, which is also on Lot 2 at an elevation of about 418, had water at 6 and a half feet and ...at 5 five feet and Test Hole 7, which is over here, on the next lot at a slightly lower elevation, at about 2 feet lower, had water at 5 feet and.. at 4 feet. The proposed absorption field is about elevation 417 and if we can assume that this is an existing slope through here... ground that way, we based our determination that a fill system wouldn't be needed on that rationale, because below it and above it you still had plenty of room for...at least a minimum of that, more than a minimum separation. Now we aren't going for a fill system for the simple reason that the ground does have a high...also. The fill that's..for each individual lot on the details shown accounts for additional fill rather than minimum, but we're trying to keep a separation of 2 feet from the bottom of the trench to.. We've added a half a foot or a foot of additional fill in those areas. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, are we talking about fill systems here or are we talking about ground systems? You're building up, aren't you? MR. NACEY-Stated yes, we're building up, but it's a formal situation. MR. ROBERTS-Stated what we were talking about over here was trying to add heavier soil to slow down the perc rate. That's what I guess we were referring to with the fill systems. MR. NACEY-Stated in the detail that appears on the next sheet here, it specifies that there has to be a mixture of silt and sand and some clays in the material that's used. It also stated that it has to be either mechanically stabilized or...a period, of I guess it IS 6 months,...and then the additional perc test, two perc tests, for each fill system before the system itself can actually be 54 -- ,--~ siz~d. An int~r~sting point, this is not jurisdictional with th~ D~partm~nt of H~alth. Th~ r~ason for that is, th~ R~hm' s, not b~ing th~ original subdivid~r' s for S~ction On~, Brian F~ar consid~rs this a n~w subdivision. B~caus~ w~ hav~ 3 of th~ 6 lots in ~xc~ss of 5 acr~s, w~ only hav~ 3 lots that would b~ jurisdictional.. with th~ D~partm~nt of H~alth. So, his comm~nt to m~ y~st~rday was that, unl~ss this Board wish~d him to r~vi~w th~ fill syst~ms that ar~ proposed him, th~n it would not b~ jurisdictional to his offic~. MR. CARTIER-Asked, do you hav~ any id~a wh~r~ th~ wat~r's coming from. This really puzzl~s m~. MR. NACEY-Stat~d I r~ally b~li~v~ that th~r~' s a substrata of, not n~cessarily compact~d soil, but saturat~d soil und~rlying most of this subdivision and it's ,a fairly dec~nt slop~ coming down to this particular ar~a and th~ slop~ do~s continu~ about out into h~r~, th~n it flatt~ns out to almost nothing and it IS just, it's not ponding, but it' s v~ry gradually s~~ping through th~ ground out into that ar~a and continu~s on. It's a catch all for th~ r~st of th~ subdivision. MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ 'v~ got a l~tt~r from th~ Wat~r D~partm~nt h~r~(on fil~). Hav~ you got this on~? MR. NACEY-Stat~d y~s, I do. MR. ROBERTS-R~ad part of l~tt~r: At th~ ~nd of Micha~l's Driv~ a hydrant is shown adjac~nt to a driv~way. Th~ frontag~ of this lot isv~ry small. If this hydrant is install~d as it is shown, I ~xp~ct that th~ hydrant will b~ hit by a car backing out of th~ driv~way to lot 5. I would r~comm~nd that you mov~ th~ hydrant to th~ prop~rty lin~ or if that is not possibl~ to lot 4. MR. NACEY-Stat~d sinc~ Frank Walt~rls b~com~ involv~d, that has b~~n tak~n car~ of. MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I gu~ss Frank I s l~tt~r is s~lf ~xplanatory. I didn't find a lot of probl~ms, looking ov~r th~ prop~rty. W~'r~ looking at Sk~tch Plan h~r~. This would probably b~ a two stag~ proc~ss. W~'ll d~al with SEQRA th~ n~xt tim~. MOTION TO ACCEPT SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 SHERMAN ACRES-SECTION 2, Introduc~d by Nicholas Caimano who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by P~t~r Carti~r: For a six lot r~sid~ntial subdivision, subj~ct to all th~ conditions of th~ l~tt~rs from Staff and Rist-Frost. Duly adopt~d this 27th day of F~bruary, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan On motion m~~ting was adjourn~d. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Rob~rts, Chairman 55 -- -- LOCATION MAPS February 27, 1990 Planning Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 7-1990 Sketch Plan Farm to Market Commons(Staff Notes attached) John A. and Stephanie B. Mason Site Plan No. 76-89 Marie Fasulo Frank's Pizzeria (Staff Notes and Map attached) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. .12-90 Mark Darius (Staff Notes attached) .. OUlllln,bury .. EII/mllnl.,y \2.\ 1p ;~.,,,,,...qJ.. . School I \ Oueen,bury · ¡ Junior High School ~HEt ROAD ~-ï il Q '" Site Plan No. 13-90 Attractions Land, Inc. (Gravel Extraction) (Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. (Roller Coaster) (Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 2-1990 Sketch Plan Adirondack Plantations Charles Diehl (Staff Notes attached) !;-I: CIIUTIIAYlM ISTATES N + £' 1)(',111 II" ~ ~ t ~ . 5 t FOIIEST MilK MOBILE ,,0..,' of ~ COURT .. . IIO..EST£...O VILV.C£ ~ MOBILE ! HOM£ PAIII( ¡;: . o - "' - ~ ~ H.r ~S~~~ :~ oI, fA. " t - l-~,~,.n,. "--' -' LOCATION MAPS February 27, 1990 Planning Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (cont'd) Site Plan No. 15-90 Jam~s Weller (Staff Notes attached) -:F' , l . .'Ud "I''' ~ .,U.. 1 Gex, -- ITI. .o~o_ø'C:. \1,/ 'O...fC,INI U· (,,,, (kMul:Y CO! iI" _0001 Subdivision No. 3-1990 Preliminary Stage Roy and Jeanne Tonnesen (Staff Notes attached) LAKE Subdivision No. 4-1990 Sketch Plan Sherman Acres, Section 2 (Staff notes attached) Walter Rehm ... Vi;' - ---' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY p'=-nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Februarv 21. 1990 John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance -SigaVariance == Interpretation X SubdiYision: -L Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Review - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Subdivision No. 7-1989 Applicant's Name: Farm to Market Commons Meeting Date: Februarv 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ The Subdivision Regulat ions require the applicant to submit an application for Preliminary approval within one year of Sketch Plan approval. In the case of Farm to Market Commons this time period will elapse on April 25, 1990. The applicant is requesting a (6) six month extension of this time period. At this time it does not appear that the conditions under which Sketch Plan approval was granted have changed. I, therefore, recommend a maximum six month extension. JG/pw ; ' . . -------. *./ fP. ..' - ---'" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pi Sinning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Februarv 20. 1990 By: John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiYiaion: _ Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, X Site Plan Review - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDaI Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 76-89 Applicant'. Name: Marie Fasulo - Frank's Pizzeria Meeting Date: Februarv 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ First, let me clarify the dimensions of the proposed addition. The new addition will be 14' x 65' as indicated on the revised map. The Board's major concern at the previous meet ing was stormwater running onto Route 9. The applicant has been in touch with Herbert Steffan at N.Y. S. D.O.T. In a telephone conversation with me, Mr. Steffan stated that he encouraged the applicant to divert stormwater runoff to the State's catch basin on Route 9. He also stated that he would review, advise and approve the specifics of the drainage system at the time of construction. I I have no other concerris about this proposal. '''I. JG/pw .. ----~- ~l\ -if ,'\.' ,'/5lp J::/ / ./ I'll / / ._¡:- I-- "... - - -I '7 r/l' L,~ ~. -C:¡ J?~ F¡V .... ?£A'/ / ......~..... "- J . . ,... ~ "'- '_ . ..::-,,1 ",' ----- /" .Þ..-- ~ ' , ) 1 - "r----- ,-. $ùiCfÅe~ " ð,\Zþ..'4~L,. ~ _ 1 , pAe. \L \ ,1..1 G¡. A~-ÞA. ... / r.....(,?' \ ' '. .',... _ .çc>~. '.,2.-\ - ....., " ..-.,. ' ...", ) .' f" , " I \ j)J. ~ ~'f4 .. - ¡I ;-<, . \J\ \ PI '~ ·oc "\ W,' -,~ ' '.\ () '" \ " , ·0/' ., i.' I J ~ ;;;.::.- >:::" . ',,;~, ù'; ~' \'1-'( .¿ ,\ /, ?,í \ \.>I!~ ( \ I, 1 '~1t: ',I '\\ "v¡ _ L! I 0 ""2 ,.X. ~ r:- 'J"". \. ,/ 0 ,O~ '. . _ rc (, '. \ " p "v'( .... "'- ==----__ ......... ~\:LL ~'~ ' .¡~ .gT/'Hl~:¡?'-' 1. 'IJ . ~~~ '~ :\~-.:'~; _~~'B l~.. .,~1 b:J 0 lJ), 23:2.1. ~-J:- ' L1~'C) ,bRF-A ,"&. 2..c3S qJ '2 g =-\. fA ') :'^.':'Í.~_~~'_?¡JF¡¡;:· 4"1 \~~ ~ \ç.~:·;:\,'A1-""F-.A,,"'2D9D J/l 10.'} f.~ \ ." ..-j-:'¿i . '. \' " _ .tìr.¡ / . : I . '1,"'_ ""... A~£..\, -::.::::'>$ I" 2.ð . J' .,' / -.-,,- _.-- . , _. _ _-L OJ ""N' ° '--b; - ..../; / /'" ~~>:~, ~'~_~A .. qD"-/4r: ~ ~.: ~ ': '~'r:~r~ t,-<. yg ~R\.~ (ß' ,r-. 1-' t'- I "'1 -41 -=: "? 7 c."" ~I <' ~ -' ''V' £/ ~.), ¿~ -" r~ - ,Y . _ ... _. .' ,-' ,JI, I I"..t~ - . ..__._, I I¿¿J. ~µ "7 ;. r!\ l. (;. t:, ~ 'C &. ~!:',: f.' A. -= I 5.!," . \ ~. . \~ ~ :-n:: (? c:; ._'" _ .__..__- ___ ____,.".__ '" \ \ .. __ ...'P-'\ I- ¡' '. -. "';>0.:, .. \ tJl \i . '\ €.x ~~ . s C:. ~ § 1,""1' E'...}) h.~ }J ,'y r - j>. d., cii; ::.e i\ tJ~:!> 1?.[ s 1 A.b C !I, NT' ~, ',\\3 t' __ ,'t!:.- ~;. <;9: . / ~ (~I 1,) J.1 i4 t ~ 1 \ .... -.-.....,.... .J" . 'L- ..,. /I :;;:.U.. t, ~. :::. so' -----, ~ -, /\ /) . ;' \ '/ II , i /\ \ .I A'/I I '.( 1\ \ /V\ 1 ,( II ~. '-~/ ~, \ 'V\ / \ '/; ~ \./ \ ___{ 1\ , II 1 I" ~ / \ \ . . ~: ! f t'f ~ --- '-'\ ~ '25 \ Û\l.p4 . ~ ... -. .--- J.../ ---D .' /. I iJ. ' rf F ' I (3.1 ~ ,¡" . ~/ § : ~I .'~ I ÚI ,/: ~ /' .).~ -...11 ~) I \/~l ~ ~ " / I:J I r /' .t' " -..... {' (" '\ r - , t .--..--<?,,------{-~ """ ~, - ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Februarv 21. 1990 Stuart Baker Area VariaDce Uøe Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdiftsion: Sketch, X Site PlaD Reriew - - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Pre1im~-- _ -Z' FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 12-90 Applicant's Name: Mark Darius MeetiDg Date: Februarv 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is currently renting 900 sq. ft. of the existing building for use an an automotive repair shop. A Use Variance for this action was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 17, 1990 In the "Schedule A Attachment" submitted by the applicant, the permeable area is stated to be 65%. This is an incorrect figure. The permeable area on the property is equal to the green area as shown on page 3 of the application. Although 9.7% green area is below the 25% requirement for a NC-IO zone, this is a preexisting condition that does not need a variance. One concern the Board should address is the number of cars that should be parked in front of the garage at any point during the day. Ov~nnight storage of vehicles should also be addressed. The applicant is required to submit a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDA) as required by the Environmental Protection Agency. The list must include the chemicals and hazardous materials to be stored and used on site and the quantities of such. The plan presented to the Board must show any storage and containment areas. SB/pw .. ~ e~piiJìi ~, - "--' --- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PJanning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 27, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiYision: Sketch, Pre1imin_- - - - -I' X Site Plan Re.ïew _ Petition fer a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 13-90 Applicant's Name: A ttractions Land, Inc./Sand and Gravel Extraction Meeting Date: February 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the expansion of the existing sand and gravel pit on the Great Escape property. The excavation is to be continued over a five year period to remove an estimated 125,000 cubic yards of material. This action entails a number of environmental concerns which the Board should give careful consideration to: A) Stormwater Management Since this project is proposed to be done over a 5 year period, maintenance of the proposed erosion control devices should be carefully monitored by the applicant. The siltation fence proposed for the south side of "Temporary Ditch A" should especially be monitored closely during the initial larger scale excavation for sediment accumulation, and be cleaned out as often as necessary for proper erosion control. B) Dust ·'1. The Board should stipulate that vehicle speeds be kept below 10 m.p.h. to minimize potential adverse impacts. If road treatment is determined to be necessary (especially during the dryer Summer season), I would recommend that the Board require that dirt access roads be wetted with water daily or as needed to minimize any dust problems. (t) t-' oise The Board should look carefully into the impact of increased or continuing noise levels created by the excavating machinery. According to the Impact Statement submitted for the applicant by Morse Engineering, noise created by the excavation equipment will be transmitted southerly, away from adjacent residences. Last Summer, these residences were able to hear excavating equipment operation through a 280 ft. buffer area and a 60 ft. drop in elevation. As this wooded buffer area decreases in size, the impact of noise on these residences can be expected to increase significantly. .. -../ ~ The Board should also discuss the types of machinery that will be allowed to operate in the gravel borrow pit area. Very loud sifting machinery is often used as part of a gravel extraction site. The Board should consider whether this type of machinery will be allowed at the site. Hours of operation of machinery at the site should also be discussed. I would recommend that the Board consider limiting work at the site to 8 hours per day, for at the most, 6 days a week. Such limitations may help mitigate the potential noise impacts. Since the objective of this project is sand and gravel extraction, blasting should not be necessary. To ensure the health and safety of neighboring property owners, blasting should be prohibited. D) Protection of Glen Lake Wetlands A 100 ft. buffer area should be maintained between the area to be excavated and the adjacent wetlands. Last year the DEC flagged the wetlands boundary along the southerly boundary of the proposed excavation. However, the full extent of this flagging is not shown on the site plans submitted. Assuming that the wetlands boundary continues easterly between the 400 and 410 contour levels, it appears that at least 20 feet of surface area to be excavated lies within the required buffer area. The Board should request that the applicant submit a new gravel removal plan showing the DEC Wetlands determination and the buffer area from the flagged boundary. If a 100 ft. buffer area is shown, no wetlands permits will be necessary. E) Traffic Impact Since all material excavated will be used on Attractions Land, Inc. property, impacts on Route 9 traffic should be minimal. To ensure the minimal impact, the Board should request that trucks involved in the excavation be limited to the interior dirt roads on the eastern side whenever possible. If trucks must cross Route 9 to A ttractions Land property on the western side, truck routing should be such that the normal traffic flow on Route 9 is minimally impacted. Maximum use of the interior roads east of Route 9 should be encouraged. F) Reclamation and Erosion Control ','1, To minimize erosion and to mitigate the potential adverse visual impact of this project, the Board should consider requesting that excavation be done in a east to west manner. As the area of excavation is shifted away from the wetlands buffer zone, the siltation fence can be shifted as well, allowing the applicant to begin reclamation of the portion closest to the wetland as soon as possible. Such gradual reclamation would also significantly minimize the visual impact of the project. SB/sed .. 21 BAY S1ÆET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GlENS FAU.S. NY 1280t 518·793-4141 'FILE COpy ,i~~!t~~ -.-/ SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. I 3 - q D 6~' RIST-FRQST ASæ::lATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS -LANNING a ZONINI,. "I=ÞARTMfN'" February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.013 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Attractions land, Inc. (Gravel Extraction) Site Plan 13-90 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. Calculations showing the capacity of the 21" and 15" CMP culverts should be provided. The discharge from the retention pond should not be greater than the historic runoff during the 5 year life of the project as well as upon completion of work. Calculations are needed to verify that the pond is able to store the required sediment plus the developed runoff for the bare gravel soil condition. 2. Since this is a private extraction pit, a NYSDEC permit is not required. However, a maintenance plan should be provided to the Town to insure sediment basin and ditah repair and cleanout along with dust control. A silt fence should be placed between the existing dirt road and Glen lake due to the increased traffic, to prevent sediment from entering the lake. In addition, proper erosion control must be maintained at all locations where the excavated material is placed. 3. A stabilized outlet for the 21" CMP culvert should be provided. 4. The project may have a visual impact from Route 9. 5. The NYS SEQR form indicates that no topsoil will be stockpiled on site. e GlENS FALLS. NY·l.ACX)N1A, NH . . ~ .. ~..Q:.; _. '---- ----- Town of Queensbury Attn: Ms. lee York Page 2 February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.013 6. If infiltrat ion is to be used, test pit data should be included to verify the percolation rate. Very truly yours, R~ST ASSO I ~l=tt, P. . Managi~l'P~oject Engineer WG/CIJIII enclosure cc: Planning Board Members ',:,1, .- ~, - --.../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI=-nnh..g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 27, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiTision: Sketch, PreUmmary' - - - , --X- Site Plan ReYiew _ Petition fer a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 14-90 Applicant's Name: Attractions Land, Inc./Roller Coaster Meeting Date: February 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application is for a 91 foot high Roller Coaster to be placed on the site of the former Great Escape Camping Resort. The Roller Coaster will be approximately 600 feet from the wetland and at the base of the hill that rises towards lands owned by John and Carol Whalen. Because this area is surrounded by residential properties, visual impact is of concern with a structure of this height. From Glen Lake, the Roller Coaster will be buffered by the hill to the north. Round Pond Road will be buffered by the existing hill as shown on Drawing P-l. The Roller Coaster may possibly be seen from Route 9 in the area of the Glen Lake Road across the wetland, however, a review of the maps genèrated for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not indicate any impact on scenic views or vistas. Finally, if the lands of John and Carol Whalen are ever developed, the Roller Coaster could be seen from portions of the site." As with any amusement ride, noise is also a factor. The Roller Coaster will be placed in a depression which is significantly set back from the north, south, and west property lines, and will be surrounded by wooded areas. Although no noise data has been provided, however, I do not feel that there will be a significant increase in the noise generated from the site. The application states that parking will be unchanged. It is difficult to determine what the increase in parking demand will be. The Board should, however, consider the adequacy of parking. As the Amusement Park expands, the parking should increase in relation to the expansion. The clearing and grading required for the ride and access road appears to be the minimum necessary. I do not feel that the proposed site work will have a significant negative impact on the area. The WalTen County Planning Board has approved. JSG/sed . . ---_._~--- 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GlENS FAU.S. NY 12801 518· 793-4141 ~~ L E ( 0 P Y ~~![~1 -- ~~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. OONSULTlNG ENGINEERS SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, J ¡..¡ - q 0 'lANNING . ZONINf "I=ÞAATMF"'''' February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.014 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Attractions Land, Inc. (Roller Coaster) Site Plan 14-90 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. The new 212 contour should be corrected at the west end of the roller coaster. 2. It is suggested that drywells be placed within the ditch area at the Northeast end of the roadway, on each side, to intercept any stormwater that may runoff from the paved area into the proposed roller coaster site. Very truly yours, ~I 5T AS a n~~ett, .. Mana~g Project Engineer WG/cmw enclosure cc: Planning Board Members ,'1, e GlENS FAU.S, NY·l.ACX>N1A, NH ; ---~._.. · ..' - --- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PJ:lnning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 27, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation v SubdiYision: -X Sketch, Prelimmary' -A- _, Site Plan Review - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Subdivision No. 2-1990 Applicant'. Name: Adirondack Plantations, Charles Diehl Meeting Date: February 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ This proposal is for a 6 lot subdivision off Sherman Avenue. Four lots will have one existing fourplex each, a large 47 acre ± lot which is currently. vacant, and a 4.854 acre lot which is to remain undeveloped as per Site Plan Review No. 54-88 approval. The site plan approval for Z additional fourplexes has lapsed and the Zoning Board of Appeals refused to grant the necessary variances to construct these units. The Zoning Board of Appeals did grant variances from the density requirements and from the requirement for double the lot width on collector roads. The question of whether a variance is needed for private roads not built to Town standards was not addressed in the Zoning Board of Appeal's motion. i The 47± acre lot is not included on the survey map or on the map titled "Site Plan Existing Facilities". There is no topography for this lot nor is it included in the drainage report. I would recommend that it be stated on the subdivision plat that, "No new construction will take place on lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.". This is currently a requirement for lot 5, as I stated previously. The question of who will own, maintain, and pay taxes on lot 5 still remains. I would recommend that either a Homeowners Association be created, or that lot 5 be made a part of lot 6. JSG/sed ,. ._-_..______u__ .- ...... .v'-..·.,.. FilE COpy SUBD\V\S\ON MO. "-' RIST·FR06T AlØ:)ClAlES, p.c. OONSULTlNG ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518' 793-4141 1~~!r~1 ~",qqO 'LANNING . ZONIN(; "IJPARTMEN,! February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.502 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Adirondack Plantations Subdivision 2-1990 - Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. An easement for lot 1, from lot 2, for the water utility is needed. 2. An easement is needed for the driveway between lots 1 and 2 and lots 3 and 4 with agreements forma intenance between adjacent lot owners. 3. No water service to lots 3 and 4 is indicated on the plan. 4. Before the final approval, the use of the 4.85 acre parcel will need to be decided. The application form indicates two possible uses of this parcel. 5. A sewage replacement area is indicated on the site plan. How this area will bè allocated to each of the four lots is not clear. Lots 1 and 2 have no space for a replacement system. 6. The drywell location should be indicated on the plan. A drainage' easement will be required for the drainage swale area, which traverses the lots. Very truly yours, ~OST AS IAT.S, a{9annett, .E. M.n~rOject Engineer WG/cmw enclosure cc: Planning Board Members $ GlENS FALLS, NY 'I.ACONIA. NH : ----- ~ - ~, - -- -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1Anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: February 27. 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance -SigDVariance == Interpretation SubdiYision: -X- Site Plan ReYiew Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlanda Permit Sketch. _ Preliminary. Final Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 15-90 Applicant's Name: James Weller Meeting Date: February 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application is for a 12,800 sq. ft. office building on lots 4 and 5 of the Cross Roads Park Subdivision. This application has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for Zoning Compliance. The proposed building is rather large and is at the high point on the site. Because the cun-ent site is an open field, the new construction on the site appears massive in scale. The applicant has proposed 6 ft. to 8 ft. Austrian Pines along Blind Rock Road and 6 ft. to 8 ft. Red Maples along Hunter Brook Lane; this will help to "scale down" the appearance of the building. I am aware that the developer has gone to great length, to design an attractive building. However, the Board should be sure that an adequate quantity and size of plant material will be provided so that the building will be a focal point yet will blend into the slUTounding landscape. 'I The parking layout and circulation pattern appear to be optimum for the site. Cars will enter the site from the road cut closest to Blind Rock Road and exit from the northerly road cut. (The north arrow on the site plan is incolT'ect.) The majority of the parking is set back from Blind Rock Road, so this will not appear as a sea of asphalt from the main road. At this point it would be appropriate to remind the Board that a traffic study has been requested that will address build out of the entire subdivision. The proposed Stormwater Management Plan is based on a revision to the previously approved Stormwater Management Plan for Phase One of the Subdivision. This revision has not been approved by the Planning Board. The Highway Superintendent has expressed serious concern about discharging storm water from private property into a town drainage pipe without the existence of a drainage district. The Superintendent also stated he would have no problem with a separate, previously maintained, drainage pipe being installed within the Town's easement to handle the on-site stormwater runoff. The Warren County Planning Board approved this application. JSG/sed ," <------. .. 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GlENS FAU..S. NY 12801 518, 793...141 'FllE COpy ~~!~ 'LANNING' ZONIN' ¡ "~IIART"'N"! --' ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. I j - q 0 February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.015 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: James Weller Site Plan 15-90 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. The percolation test should be done at the site of the seepage pits. The data should indicate test date, depth to ground- water, and mottling or bedrock. Two percolation tests should be made, one at halfway depth and another at the floor of the pit. 2. Since the percolation rate is faster than 5 min./inch, NYSDEC recommends that seepage pits have extensive pretreatment. 3. Erosion control measures should be placed such that sediment laden runoff will not leave the site. 4. With the exception of the proposal to tie into the existing 12" storm sewer between lots 4 and 5, the drainage plan is consistent with the Phase I subdivision plan previously approved. That pipe was not sized to handle lot 4 and 5 runoff; other means should be used to convey runoff to the Phase I retention area. Very truly yours, ~OST AS ATES, ~~~nett, P.E. Mana~Jh~tlproject Engineer WG/cmw enclosure cc: Planning Baard Members @ GLENS FALLS. NY'lAOONlA, NH .. .. '6:- - "--' ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: February 21, 1990 Stuart Baker Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance == InterpretatioD Other: x Subdi'risioa: Sketch. X Pre1im' _ _ DIaI'f. Site Plan Rmew == Petition for a CbaDge of Zcme Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Appücation Number: Subdivisicn No. 3-1990 AppBcaDt's Name: Ray and Jeanne Toonesen MeetiDg Date: February 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicants would like to subdivide their 4.57 acre lot into two lots, creating a 1.92 acre building lot for sale. This subdivisíon should be reviewed by the Board as a Type I action, since a portion of the property to be subdivided is within the Glen Lake Critical Environmental Area. Due to staff error, this action was listed as unlisted. The proposed contours shown on the Preliminary Plat should be corrected to show the correct elevations on the north side of the house location. The Board should look carefully into the amount of fill which will be required to raise the proposed house location to an elevation of 441 ft. To aid in this determination, the Board may wish to have the actual elevation at the bottom of the depression shown on the final plat. The proposed location of utilities should be shown on the final plat. SB/pw .----- ~ 21 BAY STÆET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FAU.S. NY 12801 518· 793-<4141 f ~ { (0 ¡: " "J. ~ ~w........ :)~awr~)~ J~ FEB 261990~ SUBDIVISION NO. 3 - I q q () -- PRELIMINARY PLAN RtST·FAOST ~TES, P,C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.503 'LANNING a ZONINr. ~II:DAATM'N1" Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Roy and Jeanne Tonnesen Subdivision 3-1990 - Preliminary Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. Results of the percol at ion test should give test pit data indicating test date, depth to groundwater, mottling or bedrock at the actual absorption field location. 2. No drainage calculations are provided. If the applicant believes that the increase in runoff from the proposed construction is minimal, a waiver should be requested. 3. Erosion control measures should be provided, as necessary, in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, ~OST A ¡{¿;'~ne t, .. Man~~~g"Project Engineer WG/cmw enclosure cc: Planning Board Members e GLENS FAU.S. NY·LJiOONIA. NH " . - -- -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Plannh.g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior PlaÍmer Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Februarv 22. 1990 By: Stuart Baker Area Variance Uae Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretaticm x SubdtriIIioD: X Sketch, PNIim· - - mary, Site PIaD Reriew - Petiticm for a CbaDge of ZaDe - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDal Other: ApplicatiOD Number: Subdivision No. 4-1990 Applicaat's Name: Walter O. Rehm, III - Sherman Acres. Section 2 MeetiDg Date: February 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing subdividing 31.15 acres into 6 lots. The proposed road and lot layouts are severely limited by the existing wet soil conditions. Accordingly, it would be difficult to create a larger number of buildable lots, and it would be impractical to connect Michael's Drive and Amy Lane with a loop. When Sherman Acres, Section I was approved by the Planning Board in 1974, portions of lots 4 & 5 and all of lot 6 were part of a designated "Recreation Area". Considering the amol,lnt of acreage in Section II that is undevelopable due to soil conditions, the Board may wish to work with the developers in the creation of a passive recreation area. Possible access to such an area could be through lot #2 off the Amy Lane cul-de-sac. SB/pw .. ----_._~.- /- --......-/ ~., '~ f" RIST·FROST ~TES. P,C. F t ': ~ (0 P ( CONSULTING ENGINEERS i~fiWt[f1l. J~ FES 281990 ~!J SUBDIVISION NO. t.j - J q q c~ 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FAU.S. NY 12801 518' 79H141 SKETCH PLAN February 23, 1990 RFA #89-5000.504 'lAMNING . ZONINf" "J:D&RTtlEN.... Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Sherman Acres, Section 2 Subdivision 4-1990 - Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following coments: 1. The tes.t hole information indicates that lot 2 may also require a fill system, due to the depth to groundwater. Very truly yours, ~ST CrATES, ~~nett, P.L Man~~~g' Project Engineer WG/cmw enclosure cc: Planning Board Members '- e GLENS FAU.S. NY. LACONIA. NH <-~.__._.._--