Loading...
1990-04-10 SP '-- -./ QDEENSBORY PLARHING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 10TH, 1990 INDEX Site Plan No. 19-90 Margaret and Theodore Hans 1. Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. 3. (Roll~r Coaster) Subdivision No. 1-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Queensbury Economic Development Corp. 25. 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. -- --' QUEENSBORY PLARHING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 10TH, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTSs CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVERs SECRETARY PETER CARTIER NICHOLAS CAIMANO CONRAD KUPILLAS JAMES HAGAN TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT SENIOR PLAHHER-LEE YORK MR. ROBERTS-Two issues, tonight s make this a rather unique meeting s we I ve never really done before. Norma11ys on site plan reviewss we make our decisions on the spot s but we do have 30 days to make decisions and twice s last me~ting s the members wanted to postpone on the first two issues tonight and give ours~lv~s about 10 days and thatls why we're here tonight. SITE PLAN NO. 19-90 TYPE II WR-1A MARGARET AND THEODORE IlAHS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GUHH LANE, CLEVERDALE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 FT. BY 40 FT. U-SBAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 FT. 6 IN. BY 35 FT. OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE; REMOVAL OF AN 8 FT. BY 30 FT. SECTION OF EXISTING DOCK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: LESS THAN 1 ACRE SECTION 4.020 JOHN RAYs REPRESENTING APPLICANT; JOHN MASONs BOTH PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-On the particular case of the docks Theodore and Margaret Hans up on Lake Georges we wanted to go up and eyeball the situation again which we all did. We hads I guesss a fruitful discussion with. . and so forth. Johns I see youlre here representing the applicant. Do you care to make any comments? MR. RAY-My name is John Ray. I work with Walter Rehm and I'm representing the Hans. I be1i~ve that you..site plan applications. I believe every thing IS in order. Rea11ys we donlt have anything to offer at this tim~. If you've got any questions or concerns yould like me to addresss lId be more than happy to, otherwis~s I'll just let you go ahead and consider the application. MR. ROBERTS-Agains this is not a public hearing. We closed the public hearing on this befores and this is merely for the Board to ask further questions if it so desires and talk among ourselves or to make a decision. Do we have any more questions of the applicant? I guess maybe we should make note of the fact that the Lake Georg~ Park Commission vote on this was to agree to it so that one double dock and they would tear up a major portion of the existing dock. MR. MASON-My name is John Mason and 11m also here on behalf of the Hanss tonight. Yes s that I s correct. The one other c1aus~ in that permit granted by the Park Commission was that no docks be tied to the remaining stub of that section. MR. ROBERTS-No boatss you mean? MR. MASON-No boats. MR. CARTIER-John, one quick question. When we were out there, at the sites you mentioned that you would be willing to lower it by 4 inches or 6 inchess I don't remember. MR. MASON-Four inches. MR. KUPILLAS-I just have one question. I just seemed to me s looking at it from a neighbors perspective, as belongs to that cottage next door, I think it was Giffordlss is it possible to move it right on the setback line of 20 feet instead 1 "-- --' of 3 feet s 23 feet rather. It would seem to me that then that angle would be cut down drastically and their complaint about blocking and vi~w and all is somewhat valid, but if it IS moved closer, with all the shrubbery and trees growing theres it would seem that it would really cut th~ angle down. MR. MASON-The Hans would have no problem moving that back to the 20 foot setback lines if thatls what youlr~ asking. MR. KUPILLAS-It would seem to mes looking at it s that it would really cut s the part that was visible to the n~xt door neighbors s down considerably from that angle. MR. ROBERTS-11m trying to remembers though, the comments from the neighbors. They had some conc~rns about it being closer to their water intake line and 11m not sure they would appreciate being any closer to the side yard. MR. MASON-Th~y may not. I really donlt know the answer to that. this proposed dock is further away from their water intake line. far away from their water intak~ line than their own dock. I do know that It's twice as MR. ROBERTS-I'm just not sure how the n~ighbors feel about that. feet we ought to let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe for 3 MR. MASON-I will say thiss that if we move it 3 feets it will involve amending 4 or 5 other applications that we already have permits for. MR. ROBERTS-That answers that question. MR. CARTIER-One more questions John. The trees that are acting as screening for that for that boathouse on the property to the norths are those Hans property trees. MR. MASON-No s the only tree that is on the Hans property that actually scr~ens s is the on~ that the woodpeckers have taken apart. I want to leave that there. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll s we I ve gone round and round on this and some of us wanted to cut this double dock down to a single dock and we have our limitationss according to our Ordinance and I guess we' ve b~en shot out of the water on doing some of the things we would, perhapss like to have done. Excuse mes Peter. MR. CARTIER-Wells I just want~d to finish a point I was trying to mak~, the Kittredge's have some control over the screen, have all the controls apparently, over scre~ning. MR. CAIMANO-The only other thing is toos Petes for continuity. You know, we l~ft this thing and we went on a visitation and one of the reasons we did so was to see if we could mOve this thing further left and straighten it out and that kind of stuff ands just for continuity sakes we should make note of the fact s on the record, that we did look at that and it makes the situation wors~. It doesnlt make it better by moving the dock further left of the property line. MR. ROBERTS-In our opinion. MR. CAIMANO-In our opinion. MR. ROBERTS-Well s I think we I ve discussed this adequately and are ready to make a motion. If we're so inclined. Where do we stand, SEQRA, I guesss is not a probl~m with this. MS. CORPUS-Itls a Type II action. SEQRA is not required. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-90 MARGARET AND THEODORE IlAHS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For the construction of a 36 ft. by 40 ft. U-Shaped dock with a 28 ft. 6 in. by 35 ft. open sided boathouse with the stipulation that s as agreed s the height of the boathouse will be lowered by 4 inches s somewhat s to mitigate the sight view problems. Duly adopt~d this 10th day of Aprils 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan 2 ~ ,AD AD ''--'' '-- SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 TYPE: UHLISTED RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. (ROLLER COASTER) ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE TO ERECT A ROLLER COASTER ON THE FORMER CAMPGROUND SITE AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. (WARREN COUNTY PLARHING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-7 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION 4.020 I WAYNE JUDGEs REPRESENTING APPLICANT; MICHAEL O'CONNOR, BOTH PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Agains I would like to r~peats I guesss what I said earlier that this meeting is a bit unique. W~ I re meeting to make a final decision on, next s an issu~ that we had twos open public hearings On and th~ public hearings have been clos~d. We will not be accepting comments from th~ audiences tonight. The Board is perfectly welcome to ask questions of any of Our consultants or anybody in the audience, for that matt~rs by virtue of the open meetings laws we just have to do this in public ands agains to address the agenda, tonights we'r~ now talking about Site Plan 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. Basicallys to put the roll~r coast~r in on th~ Attraction I s Land prop~rty. We hav~ two area's of concern before we finish, first, th~ SEQRA reviews the New York State Environmental Quality R~view Act and then, the site plan motion and that wass I believes well not firsts but the parking considerations and the oth~r s noise and I' d lik~s at this times to addr~ss the parkings maybe that might be the ~asi~r one. Has the applicant b~~n abl~ to come up with any additional information for us on parking and I will ask the applicant, toos not to go into a long diss~rtation with background on this project. Letls d~al with it as the uniqu~ probl~m. MR. JUDGE-My name is Wayn~ Judge. You ask~d us to g~t a base line on the parking, and I think the n~ighbors were also interested in that. W~'re prepared to submit to th~ Boards our analysis of our existing parking that shows what it showss the maximum amount of parking that w~ have on the premises now. We consulted with industries r~presentative and they said that wh~n a sup~r ride is introduc~d to a parks th~ maximum additional att~ndanc~ that we could expect is somewhere in th~ area of 10 p~rc~nt. The applicantls position, based on the study that Mr. Morse made that the present parking s on the most crowded day, can accommodate another 10 percent. Our recomm~ndation, tonights is that you approve the application based on the studies and a bas~ lin~ which we give you here tonight and if, for any r~asons we don't have enough parking this summ~rs we'll do th~ sam~ thing that any other business does in this Town when th~y don't have ~nough parkings people will be turned away and we'll come back to the Boards because there's a lot of other space on the property, and apply for additional parking. I don I t think that'll be n~c~ssary, but if it is n~cessary, we III do it. The s~cond thing that I raised to Mik~, right aft~r the meeting was ov~rs Michael 01 Connor, that the meeting was overs last we~ks I made a statement that w~ would n~ver park within the 100 foot Critical Environmental Zone. I should not have made that statement. That was totally my fault. The applicant has made a claim to grandfathering some parking that happens to b~ within 100 feet of the zone becaus~ I didn I t realize the ZOne went right up to Route 9 and s to that ext~nt, w~ would want to continue that parkings but from the point of view of id~ntifying wher~ our total parking is s we've done that on a map and I think that was the Prop~rty Owner I s Association's main concern, what is your total parkings if you put a new rid~ in, we want you to apply for new parking. If you tak~ a rid~ outs as you discussed with th~ Planning Staff, we took a ride out like...ride...that's all welv~ don~ with parking. DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-My name is Dick Mors~. 11m with Morse Engin~erings Consulting Engine~rs in Qu~ensbury. We basically looked at the existing parking that most ev~ryone is familiar with at th~ Great Escape. I'm going tos basically, speak to four distinctive areas and I hav~ mapping that we haves basically, laid out a parking grid on th~s~ various areas. The first area is the olds traditional parking area that's right in front of the existing roll~r coasters the One that comes out into the parking lot and that was put in 5 or 6 y~ars ago. Then s ther~ I s th~ larg~ parking area that is across the street from that area and there I s basically two sid~s s one on each sid~ of the brook there and then we have a small area that is as you drive from th~ first parking area tos basicallys head underneath the underpass of th~ littl~ railroads cog railroads there I s an area just north of that retail sales outfit thatls owned by Mr. Wood, just on the north sid~ of thats that accommodates cars and then there is the ar~a that's grandfathered and thatls on the other side of that und~rpass and I do have mappings I only have one set. (Referring to mapping) This is what we III call the original parking lot. This is the main entrance area to the Great Escape s ov~r in this area and we have parking, here. This retaining wall that you s~~ in green was installed wh~n that roller coaster ride was put in and w~ have eliminated the parking that is refl~cted her~ in r~d. This parking plan was done by Tom McCormack in 178s 1978. Parking lot 3 "-' --' I, which we'll call this, as shown, with the slots taken outs in reds will handle 361 cars. This refl~cts parking lot Number Two to the Great Escapes being over here at Route 9 and we have these existing cross walks and lights here and the Red Coach is 10cated over in this area. With this s as showns we can get 1 s 771 cars into both of these lots on both sides of the stream here. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Morses did you mention the number for the other parking lot? MR. MORSE-361. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MORSE-This is referred to as s unfortunately, parking lot Number 5 s I I m out of order a little bit here. Wells maybe we can understand it if the other one is in position. This is the cog railroad here. This is Route 9 to the north. This is a private holding that is a retail, I can't remember, Northern Winds or something like that and Mr. Wood accesses this from this drive. So, basicallys he's heading under the underpass here and he does get cars in this area and parking lot Number 5 has a total of 85 cars. MR. CARTIER-Is any of that parking lot 5 in the 100 foot buffer? MR. MORSE-No. This next map will show, I thinks the critical area of concern. This mapping does reflect the edge of the wetland. This was mapping that was generated for the Tahitian Tempest part that we were in front of the Board a year or so ago. Thiss right heres is the underpass. Here's the cog railroad, as you see it here and we have outlined an area that runs to about where this necks down. There are barrows along this road and this is the areas welve got the existing maintenance buildings there's a split in the road that runs around here and there's a control gate that exists here and this area reflects, approximately, 150 cars for parking. Those are the four areas thats at this times in conversations with Mr. Woods he feels that he has used actively and that total is 2,367 s according to my... MR. KUPILLAS-Are they all standard size lots? MR. MORSE-Y~ss any lots here ares approximatelys 9 to 10 feet. Welve scaled them out, roughly s with the rough scale of the mapping, but we feel that all parking is cued by attendance ands of cours~s on certain days, they work harder at cuing that if they know they're going to have a heavy day. MR. CAIMANO-That I s right and that's why you won't be able to tell whether you have a 10 percent increase or not. It depends on the whim of the people parking the cars. There's no lin~s there. MR. ROBERTS-I guess we could assume that this parking is for a heavy day so.... maximize this, economics, if they think that they will park them this way on a heavy day. MR. CAIMANO-You I ve been in that lot as well as I have and there I s. no way that anybody's going to talk to me about 10 percent increase or decrease. There IS no way to judge how many cars are in that lot. MR. MORSE-I think all we Ire saying is that this is the number of cars in a standard 10 by 20 foot space that s if given this area, you can get in. I think that is something that was desirable for the Board to have that number. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. MORSE-Okay, in conversations with Mr. Wood and his Staff, they do not ever, I don't believe we ever got a firm count on cars. They don I t count cars s they count patrons. MR. CAIMANO-Don't count cars? MR. JUDGE-No, there's not one entrance. The practice is to admit the south bound cars at one entrance of the westerly parking lot and the north bound cars from a different entrance. There's no central count. The estimate is somewhere in the area of about 2,000 to 2sl00 cars would be the day that they think they have a maximum. That's a day that they think they Ire maxed out. Well, this is what I'm told. Maybe they're counting peoples I don't know. I'm told that they feel th~ylre maxed out the day that they have 2,000 to 2s100 cars. Therels a v~ry 4 '-' --' easy way to test it. We I ve never put a car in.. There I s never been a car in the... What we're saying, we were asked by the Planning Staff to tell th~ Board the maximum amount of parking that we can put in a 9 to 10 by 20, which is the standard space. This is not the kind of spacing that I s called for by your new Zoning Ordinance because welr~ not covered by your new Zoning Ordinance, but this is the maximum amount of parking we have on the property now. That's what we were asked to do and that's what w~ did. MR. ROBERTS-Well s that I s part of, I guess, what we wanted. If you don I t count carss how about people because we know from the statistics of an amusement park of this nature, cars fill up pretty well to 3.56. MR. JUDGE-The industry av~rage is 4 people per car. MR. ROBERTS-Wells a little less than thats but itls 3., where'd I read thats somethings but it's a large number of people per car. MR. JUDGE-Wells we uses as a bench marks an increase of 10 p~rcent. We didn't bother to extrapolat~ people to cars. We figured if people would increase by 10 percent, cars would also increase by 10s the cars would also increase. MR. ROBERTS-Well, can you give us a good days or an average day of attendance. MR. JUDGE-We're talking about maxed out attendance of 2100 cars. MR. ROBERTS-You're talking cars. 11m trying to correlate the cars to people. MR. JUDGE-Whatever that would be multiplied by the average number of people. MR. CAIMANO-8500 peopl~. MR. ROBERTS-But how many peoples you do have a head count, how many p~ople do you get in there on a good day? MR. JUDGE-I don't know. Mr. Wood gave that figure to Dick. Whatever it would bes the number of carss 2100 cars times 3s maxed out 3 and a half or 4, is 8,000 peoples that's a huge day. MR. ROBERTS-Is it? That's the question. I donlt know if itls a huge day or not. MRS. PULVER-Do they have a restriction. Say if you're driving your car to the park with your travel trailers do they have restriction or theylll park you? MR. JUDGE-Wells they told us what their practice was and Dick and I drove around the entire property. You have to understand, we don't work theres but they put their travel trailers up against the Northway because s I don I t know, for some traffic reasons or whatevers they put the biggest vehicles, the buses and the travel trailerss in special liness up against the Northways closest to the Northway. They put the cars closer up to the street and they put their employees in a lot right up next to the ticket booths that's what he told us. MRS. PULVER-11m with yous what I meant wass if someone came with their car and their travel trailer on a busy day and you I re saying 2100, in actuality s you I re not parking 2100 cars, you're parking a little less on a busy day because youlre using an extra MR. JUDGE-Right. Space. MRS. PULVER-What I I m wondering is, do they turn peop le away because they have a travel trailer and theylre taking an extra space. MR. JUDGE-Nos no they don It. MRS. PULVER-So that IS part of its too. So, it actually could be less. MR. CAIMANO-And it could be more. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-It could be 2100 carss plus the trailer. 5 .~ --.;I MR. JUDGE-Wells parking would be a problem for the owner as well as anyone else. I means if we donlt have enough parkings then we can It collect the entrance fees so we certainly wou1dnlt want to have a park without adequate parking. MR. CAIMANO-Let me see if I understand that. to 7.071, off street parking? Lees theylre not subject, then, MRS. YORK-Wells they can't park on the streets Nick. I donlt have my Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-No s but what Wayne is saying is you Ire grandfathering him, for some reasons and youlre not subject to the Zoning Ordinance right now. MR. JUDGE-What particular part of that Section are you talking about? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-7.071, it says "any parking lot or parking area that will contain more than 100 cars" etc.s etc., etc. MRS. YORK-No, it's a preexisting use ther~s so they would not have to provide the dividers or the other things. MR. CAIMANO-Okay s then all of us who live there know it is as expandable as an accordion and talking about parkings except for the fact that we now have a number ons is really immaterial because I don't think anybody can say that s today that lot is full with 2100 and tomorrow it's going to be full with 2800. It's full or it's not. MR. JUDGE-No, but what we I r~ saying is what the Property Owner I s Association has been asking us to say for the longest time and that is what is the maximum number of cars you could put on all of your property, right nows and what is the maximum ar~a that you will devote to parking and this is what we estimate it will be and I don't know ev~n if thatlss you knows if it's accurate to the foot or whatever. I guess it depends on whatever kid is telling the person to park their cars just as you said befores but what we're saying is s if everybody parks properly and the spaces are all spaced properly, this is what the numbers would r~vea1. Nows if we put this ride in and it turns out that we have to turn peop Ie away, then we've made a horrible mistake because we're not going to make any money if we turn peop 1e away and we're going to have to come back to the Board. There are other areas on this property that arenlt involved in any where near the wetland, where we could app ly for additional parking which we don I t want to do sit's too remote from the entrance way and we'd have to use jiffies and everything else s but if that's what happenss thatls what we'll have to do, but we donlt think that thatls what we will have to do. At least thatls what our clients tell uSs that this will not be necessary. MR. KUPILLAS-Would you stipulate that you're not going to use any other areas but the ones you just showed us? MR. JUDGE-Yess thatls what welre sayings this is maxed out parking and if we want anymore parking then we have to app 1y, the Zoning Law app lies and we have to go and app 1y for this parking. For examp 1e s there I s an area over by the Bavarian Palace. When we made our application for the Bavarian Palaces we said that none of that parking would be devoted to the Story Town/Great Escape ordinary ticket admissions that's not computed within the 2100. We could have saids wells we'll have our emp 10yees park over there and then we would free up another 100. We didn't do any of that. We said with our emp 10yees and everybody parking in the area where they normally parks we gets whatever the number was, 2s367s if everyone parked properly and all the kids are doing their jobs that they're supposed to do. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Morses I heard you use two numberss 9 by 20 and 10 by 20. MR. MORSE-Well s what had happened is s there is an area on, let me just clarify that, on this mapping, this string in heres when I scaled it this evenings coming over heres these are 9 feet aparts that would take out about 3 spaces. The other issue here is s we are cued parking. It I s like your factory parking, we consider factory parking, where you're coming ins the people are going to stay there. They're not in and outs in and out. I think 9 might even be an appropriate number. MR. CARTIER-Which leads me to what I was just trying to get at s is we have all day parking here, and in factory, industrials we design parkings is 9 by 20 and 6 "--' -- that may be an appropriate number to use her~. Which leads me to my next points and, Mr. Duseks I don't know if you'r~ prepared to make a comment about the grandfathering with regard to the parking in a buffer zone, but I have some major problems with parking in that buffer zone and it seems like the ways, the numbers have rattled by heres is that I donlt see a need for that. If youlre max~d out at 2100 cars and you have 2217 without that buffers why is that area being used? Let I s squeeze cars down tighter in some of the other parking lots and get out of that. MR. DUSEK-I think I can answer that. I just want to verify one things I think Lee knows this for sures but I believe Dave Hatin has previously rendered some sort of decision in connection with this grandfathered parking or else has not, in any events at the very leasts has not chosen to act upon to say that they're in violate of the Zoning Ordinance. I knows at least s that's the case s that I s he's aware of that parking area and he's discussed it with me. I think the issue of whether that is allowable parking or not is really an issue for Dave Hatin to decide ands ultimatelys if that decision is not likeds it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That would not be a decision for this Board to make and I think the only thing that this Board would be concerned about is whether or not they are in fact, you knows they can use that parkings that I s the question you want to ask and the best answer I can give you right now is I know Dave Hatin has not taken action against it and is aware of it. If you want a formal decision from hims 11m sure he could give you something in writing, but, as far as taking it away or giving it s or whatever s I don I t think that's this Board I s decision to make. MR. ROBERTS-Well, we were somewhat ~ncouraged, thoughs when the applicant did say that to us in the last meeting, that they would not be parking within the 100 feet of the wet land. So s tonight s he is taking away some of that, but not all of it. As I read thats that parking lot in that area doesn't go all the way over to the gravel bed. MR. MORSE-No, it does not. Dick Morses again. It's difficult to see from the mappings but this area, there are bumpers s I guess is the best way to describe it s that run right along the top of the bank and they stop about where you s~e this tree line necking down and it gets more into a single lane road and that is where welve estimated this number at stoppings at bumpers and where this traditionally necks down. MR. CARTIER-Are all 150 of those slots in the buffer or are some of them in the buffer and some out? Is the buffer line on there? MR. MORSE-No, the wetland MR. JUDGE-Wells there should be a scale. MR. MORSE-Wells itls 40s but I didn't bring my.. MR. JUDGE-Wells an inch is 40. MR. MORSE-So, it's 2 and a half inches. MR. JUDGE-And herels the margin. MR. CARTIER-Wells letls see if w~ can boil this down, here. How difficult would it be for the applicant to not park in that buffer areas grandfather clause aside? MR. JUDGE-That is last resort parking down there. That's the furthest parking from the ticket booth. We wanted to use maxed out numbers s but, according to th~ Staff s they're maxed out about 10 to 12 days a year and they usually don't use that parking. That's the last resort parking. We'r~ talking about 12 weeks and the maxed out parkings they claims is 10 to 12 weeks, but we figured s for purposes of this presentation, we couldn't says we have to use our maxed out number because we can't say we're going to be maxed out and then we I re going to add 10 percent to it because therels no place for 10 percent to go. MR. CAIMANO-So, you're maxed out number is 2367. MR. JUDGE-2367. MR. CAIMANO-2367s you're other number says around 2100. MR. JUDGE-Around 2100. 7 '--' -- MR. CAIMANO-So you've got...plus to play with. MR. JUDGE-Right, go about 15 percent. MR. CAIMANO-Sos it would seem like you'd never use that. MR. ROBERTS-To some extent, apparently s that's somewhat out of our hands at the moment. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. OICONNOR-May I make a comments Mr. Chairman? MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure. This wasn't the format tonight. the public hearing on this. I think we closed MR. 01 CONNOR-Well s if you have, I wonder in what manner you were able to. You've got new information that is being submitted to this Board that the public hasn't had an opportunity to make comment on. In fact s you've got new information submitted to this Board way outside the procedures established by this Board as to having material on file before it I S presented and considered by this Board. I have documentary evidence as to the parking lot along the wetlands that says that that parking lot is not grandfathered. I haves perhapss 150 affidavits of residents of the Town of Queensbury who say that they have not seen it used. Whether it's being used, even in parkings I can show you, by documentary evidence, that it is not legally grandfathered. MR. CAIMANO-Mike, just a second, it doesn't make any difference because we just heard from the attorneys this is not the purview of this Board any way. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it is. I would object to that and I would argue that I think it is the review process of this Board that this Boards if a legitimate question as to whether or not a variance is required is presented to this Boards the Board must address that question and hav~ an answer to that issue pr~sented to the Board before it can go forward. This has been zoned an Lc-42 Acre zone, recently. LC-15 before that and at no times since 1982s when the applicants by affidavit, admitted that he put the fill in this particular area, has vehicle parking as accessory use to a ride oriented facilitys been permitted. There is no application. There is no permit that has ever been issued by any part of the Town or any building part by the Towns which would allow thems since the date that they filled in this areas to use it for parking. You cannot get grand fathered by illegal use. I would ask Mr. Dusek if you can. I think that's a pretty well accepted practice or rule that you cannot. Maybe itls not being enforceds that in and of itself, there's no statue of limitations on an illegal uses that 11m aware ofs as far as enforcement goes. The extent of what is being shown here is far in excess of what I've ever even seen in there this past summer. I've never seen 150 cars down there. Until we challenged the use of that area for the waterslides there were no cars down there, except for two occasions s once when IBM was here and they used that and they also used the Warren County Municipal Center parking lot and one other tim~ when they had the same type gathering. So, I think you've got to stop passing the buck and saying that it's not before this Board. It's kind of like where they I re going to put the fill for the gravel p it and s just out of curiositys if you went and took a look at the stakes that they said were 100 feet from the stream last week when you were here. Those stakes were surrounded by water this past week. MR. CAIMANO-Well, Mikes I take exception to you I re passing the buck. I think we already said we were going to do somethings number one. Number twos according to mathematics, we're saying they don't even need that parking lot. MR. 01 CONNOR-Well s I withdrews on behalf of the Associations which 11m authorized to speak on behalf of the Glen Lake Protective Associations I withdrew our objection based upon the stipulation that was mades of record, last month. I don I t think you can come to the meeting and withdraw that stipulation. I expected a letter, since the last meetings and havenlt gotten one. We talkeds in the parking lot and said you're going send me a letter, new information. You cut short my presentation the last times Mr. Roberts. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think you I re point is well taken. chagrined to hear that this has been taken away from us. I think we are somewhat 8 '--" '--" MR. CARTIER-W~lls 11m not sure I agree that it's been tak~n away from us, toos and I'd like to throw something out, her~. Would th~ applicant agree nots under any circumstancess to use parking in the buff~r areas wetlands buffer areas until such time as this issue can b~ resolved by whatever Board or Agency requires a r~solution? MR. JUDGE-At the close of the last meetings after Dick had m~ntioned to mes the argument had b~~n mad~s for grandfath~ring, when I was not pres~nt. I walk~d up to Michael 0 I Connor and said Mike s I think I made an error when I made that statem~nt. I meant to accept th~ ar~a that was grandfathered. This is rhetorics what Mike is talking about. Nobody was surprised. He knew I was going to make that argument. I told the Staff that I had made th~ mistak~. I told yous tonights that I had made .a. mistake. We I r~ not taking anything away from anybody. I mad~ a mistak~. I'm human. I made a mistake. The grand fathered ar~a was not included in th~ area that I said we would not us~ for the wetland. That was my mistak~. I'm sorry. I apologiz~ to everybody her~ and I apologiz~ to my client. It was never on th~ table. Sinc~ it was never on the table, it was n~ver taken off th~ tabl~. I cannot say s on b~half of my client, that he won't park in area that h~ claims he has the right to park in. The fact that it I S used infrequ~ntly, just bolsters what I said b~fore and all this 150 affidavits and everything, I don I t know, if th~y f~lt so strongly about these 150 affidavits s why didn' t th~y bring them to the enforcement section of the Zoning Department, ther~ I s a code enforc~ment d~partment there. Th~y could hav~ just brought those in there and I think their Town Attorney is p~rfectly correct and then they would just prohibit us and that would crystallize the issue and the matter would be put to beds but no, 11m not authoriz~d to say w~ will not park in an ar~a where we claimed the right to park and 11m sorry if I mislead people last tim~. MR. ROBERTS-Sos your answ~r is nos P~ter. The next step, should we consider eliminating that parking in our approval, if there is to be such approval and if they choose to fight over that in the futur~ with whatever Boards let the chips fall where they may because, regardless of whether .a. mistake has been mad~ or not, w~ heard the mistake and took it to heart and based some of our decisions s I thinks on that, mistake or nots but it would look like th~ numbers would still not preclude this roller coaster from going in without thats those numbers. MR. CAIMANO-I think this is a pig in a poke. We'r~ talking about 150 spotss Dick? MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-150 spots out of 2,367 s and w~ only need 2100 s what are we arguing ~bout? Let's settle that later. Thatls hardly the biggest problem welve got tonight. MR. CARTIER-When you say, letls s~ttle that lat~r, exactly what do you mean? MR. CAIMANO-I mean the same way Dick said, if and when this gets passeds we will hav~ had our say and sáy, look, that will not b~ used. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Then w~ can fight over it later. MR. DUSEK-If I may address the Boards I think, just as a point of proc~dure, it would seem to me that, if the Board is saying what I think you I r~ sayings and that is that the parking is not necessary, in any events then does that now becom~ a non-issue for this Boards in terms of not having to take an position whatso~ver on its and if thatls the cases then it would se~m thats if th~r~ is a problem with the parkings that should b~ tak~n up with Mr. Hatin and Mr. Hatin should ~nforce the Zoning Ordinance accordingly and s that way s this Board do~sn' t ev~n g~t into that issue. I 1m v~ry concerneds on behalf of this Board, of getting into an issue of making it a part of your decision which may make that decision subj~ct to challenge later on. So, if you I re going to approv~ it s r~gardless of that, then my r~commendation to th~ Board would be to consider referring the matt~r and you could do that in the resolution, to Mr. Hatin for his attention, rather than make it go conting~nt on your decision. MR. 01 CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I also hav~ a couple of other questions. MR. ROBERTS-Are we on the same wavel~ngth, heres generally sp~aking? MR. CARTIER-If I'm assur~d thats yess this is going to b~ activ~ly looked ats looked intos I guess I could liv~ with it on that basis. 9 '----' --' MR. DUSEK-Mr. Hatin has a job to do as Director of Building and Codes Enforcement in the Towns and in point of fact s if he does not do that job, an Article 78 proceeding could be brought against him to compel him to do that job. SOs I think to give you that assurance, ands working with Mr. Hatin in the past, I have to say that I think he takes his job quite seriously. MR. ROBERTS-We can flag this, but not be dogmatic about it. MR. CARTIER-Just to finishs I thinks are you saying that we should make that resolution a part of our motion or do we make it a separate resolution or is that a moot point? MR. DUSEK-I think it's up to the Board. If the Board desiress you certainly could, as a separate resolution, just bring to Mr. Hatin' s attention that there is a question regarding parking and that you would ask him to look into it. MR. CAIMANO-..to me Peters is that, if we make a part of the motion, then we run the risk of anything else happens, we're going to run the risk of legal problems. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls what Counsells telling us. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairmans my problem with that is I would understand that your approval would be conditioned upon them not parking in that area until they have permission to do so. I have a problem with you giving permission and then having it just cre~p s as it has in the past. I also have a problems agains with going forward s at this particular point, with all the new information that I s being submitted to this Board after the public hearing was closed. I don't think that's proper procedures particularly the information that's being submitted to, nows to the fact that therels as perhapss 10 percent increase, if you look at the traffic study that was submitted last months or the last time that you met s there was going to be no increase in parking by the ride or the installation of the ride. Likewises as was mentioned by one of the Board memberss you're still being asked to approve a pig in a poke. I also have a problems and I haven't heard Mr. Dusek address the question of whether or not an applicant is in fact grandfathered when he submits an application showing an expansion as to existing parking. It is my understanding that, at that point s a site plan review sees that the parking is brought up to date and sees that the parking is in comp liance. You Ire given a numb~r parking, you haven't even been given a firm number as to people that attend and I think Mr. Judge is correct in saying he can only report what he knows. He doesn I t know what the app licant knows. There I s no one who I s spoken on behalf of the applicant which, whatever figure you have there that says that that I s adequate and what you're doing is building in a problem that you're going to have to face next time he comes in and then he's going to claim hardship. You allow me to build this 2 million dollar rides I now donlt have adequate parking to support it, I now need additional parkings in, perhaps s areas where parking would be p~rmitted by slope or by designation of critically environmental sensitive area or some other restriction on the land. youlre being ask to segments to approve in parts in parcels instead of looking at the whole, total process. I think we can equates very easilys the number of cars to the number that go through the gate and then you can take a look at it. If all those spots are 10 feet or 9 feet wides what happens to the requirements for handicapped parking. Are those spots provided for? At what width? Nows that may be getting ridiculouss but I think thatls what this Board has normally done. I've been here before and lIve argued on behalf of applicants, well, we've got an existing building with existing parkings it was at the 9 feet widths let's forget about that and look at what new space we're going to create and have the new space only comp ly to the new requirements and this Board has told me nothing. It want's all parking to comply and I haven I t heard anything about entrance ways or roadways or whatever widths s and what not. MR. ROBERTS-Well s I think we Ive answered part of that question by saying this probably makes sense to be treated as an industrial parking where it IS in in the morning and out at night and we are allowed 9 feet instead of 10 feet. As far as the handicapped s I don't supposed they are marked because nothing is marked, but then maybe that I s a stipulation that we could build into it. I think that could be settled...properly provide handicapped parking. MR. OlCONNOR-And you will take parking plans from any applicant, in light of this presentation, in the future? 10 ~ --./ MR. ROBERTS-We're talking about a preexisting use here. MR. OlCONNOR-Nos 11m talking about this application and what was submitted to you over the table. MR. CAIMANO-He does make a point thoughs Dick, and I made it to you earlier, and I guess I would be willing tos because there are a couple of new things that have come up s I, personallys would be willing to open a limited time for discussion if anybody has something new, minus Michael O'Connor, of courses but anybody else who has anything to says I would be willings that doesn't mean this would be right, that just means I would be willing. MR. O'CONNOR-I have a problem with thats Mr. Caimano, I have no objection to thats I understood what you meants but you have to do that on proper notice. When you have public discussions it has to be on notice. You take in brand new material and don I t give the public an opportunity to respond to it, comment on it, we're going away from... MR. JUDGE-I would like to comments this is Wayne Judge. First of alls there have been no new facts presented to this Board tonight. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls not correct. MR. JUDGE-At the close of the public hearings we were asked to come back h~re and tell you how much parking we had. Our original statement that we would not increase our parking needs in the park. Our statement remains the same. We are not going to increase our parking needs in the park. Our environmental impact statement is exactly the same. What I said was that the industry says if you bring a super ride into a park, there's been no evidence or no claim that this is a super ride, the most that you can expect, the mosts would be 10 percent and I said if we use the figures that we have for our parking and we maxed out plus we added 10 percent s using all the facts that you have in your application, we still wouldn't reach max out, thatls what we said tonight. There are no new facts here. What you're hearing now, is an attempt to delay and delay and delay. If you want to do or apply these kinds of standards to Attractions Lands then be prepared because we I re going to be here on every single app lication that Michael O'Connor appears on and we're going to asks for examples on the corner of 149 and 9s why those nice little planters aren't put on up there and why we have miles and miles of blacktop with no drainage, all draining down into Glen Lakes but nobody said a thing about 149 and 9 and therels a perfect example of it. It's a question of who IS ox is being gored. Youlve got the nice, bigs fat, deep pocket here and that's why this particular site plan review has b~en much more complicated then any other site plan review. We didn't bring a new fact out on parking and we Ire not going to bring a new fact out on sound.· We I re not going to bring a new fact out on anyone of the issues that are in our application. If you want to vote in favor of its vote in favor of it. If you want to vote it downs fines but remember the next time that somebody COmes up here with an applications I hope and pray you put them to the same amount of scrutiny that you put Charles Wood who's probably contributed more to this community than any client or any person that lives on Glen Lake. MR. HAGAN-Thanks for the threat. MR. ROBERTS-Yes s I think we will have both of you sit down and we I ve had enough threats. I guess we have to decide among ourselvess perhapss whether we have had new information. I think we've had new information as to parking in the wetland areas but we have taken care of that. As far as the new information about parkings perhaps, Mr. Judge was correct s maybe it isn't really all that big. I guess I would defer to Counsel, however, heres if he thinks that we should continue to review this or do we have to start over again because we have had "new information". MR. DUSEK-Perhaps I could make a couple of observations for you. The first thing is, if in fact s the Board we I re going to decide to re-open the public hearing s you would, in fact s have to do so on notice and that could not be done tonight. That's just one legal points in my opinion. The second point would be, as I think the Chairman has already hit upon it and that is you really have to make a decision, I guess, and I can I t really make that decision for you because that I s your job and it's a very hard job, I knows but I guess you have to kind of think back over the project as it has been presented to you and decide whether <?r not this information tonight wass in facts new informations or whether it was just information that supplemented previous information or maybe made it a little bit more pr~cises but if it crosses that threshold of being total new and something that the public 11 '---" ~ could not have had an opportunity to speak out ons then I think you might want to consider having a public hearing, but if you think it was the parking elements and the information before you tonight is not something that is sO new that the public wouldn I t have had some opportunity s already s to have been heard on this s then I think you can just move ahead with the project tonight and render a decision, but the final call is really among yourselvess analyzing and thinking to yourselves what it is that you've heard s what has been brought to you tonight and making that judgement call. MR. ROBERTS-I think we should mOve forward. I think most of what.. .asked for and the only really new stuff we can supersede or circumvent. MR. CARTIER-In terms of the public hearing that has been held already, was brought up. It I S in the notes from Staff. Noise was brought up. the notes from Staff. I think this informationls clarifying things requested. I don't see it as new. parking I tIs in that we MR. ROBERTS-If thatls the consensus of the Boards question, now, can we get away from parkings do we have enough information, and I think, Nick, you were the one probably the most vociferous about thiss are you somewhat MR. CAIMANO-There was some new evidence that came up or at least some new discussion that I had heard concerning noises in general that eminants from the MR. ROBERTS-Wells weIll get into the noise. MR. CAIMANO-Ohs youlre talking about parking. MR. ROBERTS-WeIll put parking to bed. MR. CAIMANO-Parking to bed. MR. ROBERTS-Okay s then what I'd like to do is to ask our Consulting Engineer, nows switching to the other issue tonights noise. MR. CARTIER-Can I but in for a second here. Could we take care of this resolution before we do anything else and then get on with it. MR. KUPILLAS-You mean the one about the Zoning Enforcement Officer? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Alright. Making that as a recommendation, disquieting something. MR. CARTIER-If we're still here at 2 am we Ire liable to forget. MOTION THAT DAVE BATIN LOOK INTO THE PARKING IN THE 100 FOOT BUFFER ZONE SURROUNDING THE WETLANDS WITH REFERENCE TO THE GREAT ESCAPE PARK, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoptions seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To make a determination as to whether or not that is being done or not legally. Duly adopted this 10th day of Aprils 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. ROBERTS-Turning then, agains to Waynes our Consulting Engineer, Wayne Gannetts we've asked him to give us another brief soliloquy and try to make us a little more expert on noise. (TAPE TURNED) MR. GANNETT-Thank yous Mr. Chairman. 1111 keep my remarks brief. I have done a little research into the issue of noise and the absolute issue of noise and the perception of noise. It is an extremely complicated and subjective issue. The information that I've provided to the Board members is excerpted from a publication called "Noise Control and Compatibility Training for Airports" which is an FAA publication. Nows obviouslys we're not talking about an airport here, but the issue of noise is a common one and I'd just like to spend a minute reviewing the information there and then give you a few remarks about noise in general. The first page, which is Page 12 of that publication, simply describes the A weighted sound pressure level which is a measure of sound which the human ear, is most representative of what the human ear actually hears and that is the accepted level for measuring sound. Most decibel levels that you'll hear in noise studies ares in fact, the dBA level. The pages that you have may be out of order. The next ones are Page 20 and 2ls which get into a discussion of noise compatibility. 12 '-- -' There's a highlighted few lines which lId like to read which are, I thinks germane to any discussion of noise impacts and that's in the middle of Page 20 "Individuals may each have different perceptions of what is an acceptable or an intruding level of noise. The background or residual noise against which a specific noise is perceived varies both by location and by time of day. Even the specific situation of the receiver, such ass outdoor, indoor with windows open or closeds as well as s ones activity of the moment s effect the perception of noise as intruding or not intruding" and I think that comment is true no matter whether you I re talking about an airports a traffic noises a roller coaster, or any other activity which generates noise. There have been some studies done which have basically shown that noise levels are a subjective issue so far as sleep interference, speech interference, studys concentrations critical tasks. Therels been a study done that determined that 10 percent or less of people ~xposed to a 50 to 55 dBA level of interior noise from aircraft would be expected to be awakened and this is a study of sleep that was done in connection with the Washington Airport. As far as studys concentration, and critical taskss not a sleep tasks live highlighted that "these thresholds are more difficult to identify then are those for sleep or speech interference and are even more subjective." I think it I S worthwhile to note that this comment is from an FAA publication and the FAA and consultants dealing with airports have had years and years of dealing with noise and noise perceptions. So I think it's safe to say that when a publication such as this states that something is subjectives it is extremely nebulous to try to pin down subjective values so far as the intrusion of noise. A final comment from the booklets Page 31 so far as noise barriers or shieldings IIll read the lines that lIve underlined "one common misconception is that trees or bushes will provide substantial attenuation of sound. This is not true when except when bands several hundred feet wide are used and when they are planted thickly with both trees and underbrush." MR. CARTIER-Do you know if that comment refers specifically to airports because we have two other pieces of information about noise here that suggest hundred foot wide can cut down as much as 5 dB IS, it can reduce noise by 5 dB I S and 11m wondering if that comment, in there, refers specifically to airport situations. I guess what 11m askings is that a general comment? MR. GANNETT-I don I t think either of those comments are incompatible. I think both sources are saying that, in order for there to be any significant or noticeable attenuation of sounds there has to be a thick growth of, not only, woodss but brush, but enough material there to effectively dampen sound. This publication is, obviously s based on airports s but the general perceptions of noise and the fact that differing people have different perceptionss those principles are true no matter what the noise source is, particularly at ground level. Getting back to the specific issues on the roller coaster, a noise study has been prepared by the app licant and s based on the study, it concluded that there should not be a problem with noise based on the numbers that were done. Two comments that I would like to draw the Board's attention to is, Number Ones the sound generation level was, in fact, an assumed level. I believe that the applicant stated that the noise level was anticipated to have been that of the inside of a New York subway car or 95 decibels on the A level. That mayor may not be true, there I s no information in the file that would say, what is the actual sound level of a roller coaster similar to this one in an operating situation. The other point s getting back to the study, is that different people will perceive noise levels differently and it IS an entirely subjective experience as to what is an acceptable noise level or type of noise and what is not. What lIve given you is probably not any definitive statementss but a general discussion about noises the fact that it is an extremely subjective and nebulous situation. There are really two issues that could be clarified. Certainly s in terms of a hard and fast number s there maybe existing information on what noise levels are actually generated by roller coasters. Certainlys any information on that would help improve our state of knowledge as to what is actually generated by a roller coaster such as this. Secondlys on the more subjective areas I am not aware whether any information has been submitted as to whether the applicant would propose any kind of a noise mitigation plan as part of the approval for this plan. Noise mitigation is not so much a technical area as more of a good neighbor policy and, perhaps the applicant consider it in his interest to propose some type of a noise mitigation plan. I leave that open for a discussion with the Board and the applicant. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you, Wayne. 13 "-- --/' MR. CARTIER-Just a quick comment s I don I t think you were here the evening that your notes were read and that is the direction that we are going in t~rms of what you described in your second paragraph. We're talking about a pre and post roller coaster noise study to compare the difference ands depending on the differences decide whether mitigation is required and the sticking point s as you point out, is, at what number difference in noise level would w~ consider it significant and that's going to be a subjective call. MR. GANNETT-Exactly and it I S very difficult to pick a number and says below this number, there is no impact ands above this numb~r, there is an impact because th~ noise level is not a sharp dividing line like a property line. It represents a zones a range of values over which some people may not object at all and other people may object strenuously. SOs in a ways a noise mitigation program is almost a good neighbor policy, what can or would the applicant propose to do to minimize any impact that may occur once the roller coaster is in an operating. MR. ROBERTS-I think we'll ask the applicant that very question in a minute. Before we dos is it fair to says from our investigation so far, I guess we were aIls perhapss a little disappointed that we weren't given the noise levels of a roller coaster or, particularlys this roller coaster, buts as a practical matter, the more we understand it, I believe it's a site specific kind of a thing and the location of the roller coaster would se~m to me to be a more important part of this whole thing. Those of us that have stood on the site and thought it was s simply the best location that we could imagine because it was in a hollow. It was buffered by some hills and quite a few trees. .distances from most people. I would think that this location, being site specific, iss perhapss more important than anything else that we've come across so far. Having said that, I would like to ask the applicant if there is anything in their plans to plant some more trees or something, perhaps, up front. I know we to talk about thats sort of after the facts leaving it open ended. MR. JUDGE-We have nothing to add to the application. I would like to add a few things though. I did discuss the problem of the announcements with Mr. Wood because some of the people had complained that the announcements were too loud. He claims that sometimes the weather has something to do with the noise. He says th~re are days when he runs around and is sure that the kids don't have these amplifiers turned way up and their down at there proper level and he gets a lot of complaints. Other dayss he IS walking around and the noise is bothering him and he gets absolutely no comp laints. He says he thinks it has something to do with the humidity or the nature of the weather or whatever. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the amount of noise that these kids generate on these amplifiers and the amount of comp laints that peop Ie get. He asked me to assure you that he tried to police these people with the amplifiers to keep the sound down as much as they can. The reason we havenlt made any representations and I'm particularly concerned about making representations, how am I going to say that a roller coaster is not going to be a noisy thing? I am an advocate for the applicant. I thinks personallys that the ride is being located in the best possible place to shelter the noise. There are no present plans to do any planting to mitigate the sounds. I donlt feel that a plantings now, would make an immediate difference ands in talking with Dicks he agrees. Maybes over the long pull it woulds wh~n these trees grew up s maybe that would make a difference, but when you consider that the ride is being placed in a bowl to begin with, I donlt know what difference planting would make there. The answer to your questions there are no present plans.. MR. CAIMANO-The thing that came to my attention was the fact that s since the Bavarian palace has been builts the people in Twicwood have an increase of... noise level, just from the park, that alone, simple because the park took down what noise buffer there was to begin with. Is that so? MR. JUDGE-That might be. MR. ROBERTS-Is there an opportunity to replace that? MR. CAIMANO-There isn't if you look at it s unless you build a new hill behind the Bavarian Palace. The problems now, it seemss remember when we looked at where the roller coaster is s it I S in that hollow in the back of the hill and when we talked about it last weeks we talked about it in terms of Courthouse Estates and I totally agree that that hill behind the roller coaster is going to protect Courthouse Estates, however s if you remember sitting on the property s that hill goes around in a curve and whatls now being said is that the noise comes out that hollow right behind the Bavarian Palace because there's no hill there and that the peop Ie in 14 ',----, --/ the Twicwood area, now, can here everything thatls going on and that any increasß in noise, regardless of whether it's one decibel or 101 decibels s is not good enough. If you remembers therß was a gentleman last weßks who said just that. He's not concerned about the roller coastßr, so much, as the fact that the whole situation is now diffßrßnt from what it used to be simply bßcause that noisß buffßr was taken down. If that's the cases that roller coast~r liess not only in a spot whßre it can't be protected from Twicwoods but, actuallys it would hurt it bßcause thß hollow would force the sound out the end of the hollow. MR. ROBERTS-Isnlt the location of the roller coaster going to be more bßhind that park bßrm to the east of the Bavarian Palace. MR. CAIMANO-If you stand at the ends Dick, you can see the back of the Bavarian Palaces at lßast that's wherß we stood that morning. That's the big concern that's being presented to me. MR. ROBERTS-11m just wondering if SOme planting on that bank would diffuse some of the sound beforß it works it's way around because it s~ßms to me that bank is directly, rßallys behind it. MR. CAIMANO-Wßll, Peter wanted to solve two problems tonight and I think thß one is insoluble and that is where are you going to go with noise. Noisß is subjectives the othßr is not. I think thß other one... specific to this site at this time. I donlt think we Ire going to solve the othßr ones in terms of the philosophy bßcause it just is subjective. MR. ROBERTS-Determining what would be unacceptable? MR. CAIMANO-Yßs, try to make a gßneral rule of play. MR. CARTIER-So that somßbody doesnlt get thß wrong impression here, that wßlve only lookßd at noise information from airports s Wß have been given two other trßatisess if you wills on noise and mitigation and so on and, going through that, I just trißd to pick out some numberss here. Let me tell you the direction I'm trying to go with this bßcause this only thing that makßs sense, and I understand it's subjective s but I'm not frightened by that word. I think this Board gßts into a lot of subjßctive things as much as we dislike them. What 11m suggesting we do is s a pre noise study, a pre roller coaster noise study and a post roller coaster noise study and look at the diffßrßnces s if any. It may s in fact, be that there are no differences. If that is the case, we put this noise issue to rßst. MR. ROBERTS-And we have a base line to operate with when we COmß in with the next ride. MR. CARTIER-Correct. If there is an increase in noisßs and this is the subjßctive part, w~ have to decide what increase in noise level requires mitigation. A two decib~1 increase is needed to be detectablßs according to this data that we have here. A 10 decibel increase causßs sound to appear to be twice as loud to the aVßrage listener. Thatls straight out of SOme of the information that was provided to us by the applicant. Somewheres it seems to mes between two and ten, an increase in two in tens lies the difference in noise lßvel generatßd by a roller coastßr that needs to bß mitigated. MR. CAIMANO-Should w~ havß a lottery and find out what that numbßr is? MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to narrow this down. MR. CAIMANO-That' s why I think you're in the right direction, but I don I t think you can gßt there. I think if w~ havß this company put up the roller coaster, in ordßr to have a before and after test,...because I know if I lived in Courthouse Estates, 11m going to bß rapping at your door and telling you how terribly loud that thing is, whether I can hear it or not because youlve opened up a Pandora's Box. MR. ROBERTS-I would rely on the neighbors to rely on decibel level, commercial readings. MR. CAIMANO-Wherß would you rely on those decibels readingss at what time of the day. We all nodded our head and saids humidity causes problems with sound, where, what times whens is it rainings is it not raining, is it dark, is it light? When are we going to do that? At what point? 15 "--' '-'" MR. CARTIER-If I were an applicant having to go through a noise studys I would want to make sure I measured noise levels at the point of inhabitants of people who are complaining about noise levels and effected by the.. .and also I would include what the relative humidity was and the wind direction. Those are the weather factors that influence noise level. If it turns out that the noise generated is 50, 11m talking about away from the roller coasters is 50s 60, 70 d~cibe1s, I donlt have a problem with that. If there is a significant difference in noise leve1s pre and post roller coast~r, 1111 go on record, to me a significant difference is 10 decibels. MRS. PULVER-Wonlt you pick up other noises? MR. CARTIER-Wells sures but that's 8-11 part of it. MR. PULVER-Yess but they can plan to do it, and it turns out to be a record breaking day with patrons and they have all kinds of noise. MR. CARTIER-But it IS still a measure of ambient noise level. It's still a measure of whatls going on between the noise levels. MR. CAIMANO-I mean, it works both ways, too. The applicants if we measured an averages if you said 10 and we measured it and the average was 11.1, that manls going to court and I wou1dn I t blame him. He spent a lot of money to put this thing up. You I re going to argue with me over 1 and a half decibels. He'll have everybody and their mother in there with hearing problems saying they can I t hear it and I would too. I means it's just too subjective and I think that we either have to make a decision based upon the fact that Attraction's Land should get, this commercial should get another piece into their puzzle or they should not. Itls as simple as that and I think that you asked that question. Do we like it or do we not like it? I mean, th~re I s economic gains and losses here too. The economic gains are obvious to Attractions Lands. . lawsuits to the community and as a...cou1d be staggering. I means what if it is loud and what if Mr. Lindstrand is trying to sell his house that day. I left here last week, fully intending to vote for this thing s but s the more you think about it, the more I think we have to look at both sides. We have to protect the peop 1e. That I s what this job's all about. Thatls what I just read in this book. We have to protect his businesss too. We have to make sure thats what is the most important. I think it com~s down to that. Who has the most to gain and the most to lose. MR. ROBERTS-If we could convince the people who hear the screams and roller coaster to think in terms of sales tax revenue that might.. MR. CAIMANO-Abso1ute1y s and I have that part in my notes. What do the citizens lose and that's part of what they lose. They lose quality of life. They lose economic value of property and they lose potential services because the Great Escape doesnlt bring in more revenue. MR. ROBERTS-Let I s think procedura11ys here, now. Counsel, are we talking about the possibility of conditional negative declaration as to SEQRA or something or are we, I think you Ive indicated that we might be getting into ourselves into some degree of trouble playing what ifs in the futures with this kind of approval. MR. DUSEK-My suggestion to the Boards and it kind of got started..a little bit where I suggested that you not go down the track that you were going at that times that therels a couple of things to consider. Certain1ys this Board has the powers first of all s to conditions in some respect s it I S approval. It can condition it's approval under SEQRA as a conditional negative declarations taking into account certain mandatory mitigation measures. It could also condition it's approval under site plan and require certain mitigation measures there, but I think thats whatever this Board I s going to do, before you get to that point, even, and even before you get to the point of do we allow the ride or don't you allow the rides I think you have to back up and take a look at the record that you have before you and all the facts that you have before you and decide, first of aIls is there a record in front of you that says there is going to be a noise impact as a result of this roller coaster and if you look through the record or think back, if you have something there that you can put your hands on or that you can point to, then I thinks you knows that gives you something to start with. If you don't have anything s then s maybe you I ve got to consider, one s that there is nothing or twos that you need further information. I I d like to make that, as a starting point to the Board, a suggestion there and once you reach that question and you answer yes or no to the first questions as to whether or not, then, if you say yes to that question, then youlve got to says can it be mitigated or can't it 16 "---' --' be mitigated and if you feel it can be mitigated so it's down to zeros that gets rid of the problem, once again and if you fe~l it can'ts then youlve got to make a decision as to wh~ther or not this needs further study or whether it IS som~thing that sufficient study and you're prepared to make a d~cision on at this point as to wh~thers then, to go ah~ad and allow the ride and and suffer the impact. I hope that helps. MR. CARTIER-Yess it helps me becaus~ I thought that was the direction I was going. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-How do w~ mitigate this if w~ don I t know what th~ noise level is to b~gin with. It I S not fair to the app licant to say s we don't know what the noise lev~l is going to be, but you're going to have to mitigate it. MR. CAIMANO-But you didn I t go back to qu~stion on~. Question One was, is there an impact and I think we all can agrees there is an impacts a negative impact on the sound. MR. CARTIER-Alright. His other comment was, do we need further information and my answer to that is also y~Ss but I donlt know how to get it without the ro11~r coaster. GENTLEMAN-There must be another one somewh~re, right? Is this one of one? MR. CAIMANO-We1ls it IS not a public hearing, but I'm going to answer that because it's a general question. The answers thatls th~ thing welr~ wrestling with, it's site sp~cific. Itls very subjective and it doesnlt make any difference if there's one over in Egypt. It wonlt make any difference at all. We canlt make a d~cision bas~d upon this ro11~r coaster over in Albany. We have to make a d~cision on this roller coaster in this spot with you peopl~ living there. Thatls the decision to be made. MR. ROBERTS-This is not a public hearing and I don I t think we I re going to open it up for public comments. We I ve been through that and I don't think ther~ IS enough new evid~nc~ to justify that, but it is getting down to push and shove here. MR. CAIMANO-Let me ask you this. How long will it take you to put that roller coaster ups do you know? MR. JUDGE-W~lls it's somewhere in the Buffalo area and it would have to be dismant1eds sand b1asteds painted, brought over here, and erected. I 1m amaz~d at some of the things theylve be~n able to accomp1ishs but I canlt imagin~ it being done in less than six months. MR. CAIMANO-Youlre talking about th~ fall? MR. JUDGE-I canlt imagine that it would b~ built. .Dick is an engineers maybe he knows more about it. MR. MORSE-Dick Morse s I really don't know. It could be as short as two months, but I seriously doubt that. There's a lot of concr~te. I would assume that, we have not been involved in the technica1...of the roller coaster its~lf. MRS. YORK-If I could make a suggestions if this isn I t going to b~come a reality until the fall and will not be involv~d in this season, why doesnlt the applicant take the opportunity to get some base level data generated during this upcoming season, over a period of time. MR. CARTIER-A noise study. MRS. YORK-Does a noise study this seasons documents that, and then the Board will not have to wrestle with this question as extensively in the future. You will have som~ base line data and th~n you can go from there. I think it would be in the best interests of th~ applicant to do that. MR. ROBERTS-Except that, is he going to go ahead and dismantle the roller coast~r and move it heres without knowing? MRS. YORK-W~lls ~ither way, I think, you knows h~'s always maintained that he has to change and upgrad~ his park to stay current with what is required of his business and it would be in his best int~rest to get that kind of information. 17 -../ MR. ROBERTS-Yess but I think he needs to know, nows whether he can go to the expense of buying the roller coaster and moving it here or not. I don't think putting it off a year is answering anybodyls question. MRS. YORK-Nos I wasn't saying that, Mr. Chairman. What I was suggesting is that you do get base line data in the futures should anything change there. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I premise. That would particular ride, as I think welve alreadys kind of, agreed that thatls Peter's probably help us more in the future than it would for this understand it. MR. CAIMANO-But you have to have base line data, what Lee is sayings a base line to determines whethers when itls ups it IS louder or not. That's all she's saying. MR. ROBERTS-Wells itls a catch-22 situation. MR. DUSEK-One of the elements that Mr. Cartier was thinking of a short time ago was a potential mitigation measure for the Boardls consideration. Therels essentially two ways the Board can look at mitigating this. If you feel it I S something that can be mitigated froms at leasts what Mr. Cartier was sayings the question iss do you want tos as a condition, make a mitigation m~asure part of this now ors if you're not prepared to do thats do you want to get into some sort of a testing program which will result in, mandatory installation of further trees or something. That's another ideas I thinks the Board can explore heres but if you do get into Mr. Cartierls suggestion, I think youlve got to be very specific as to when the studies are going to be dones where theylre going to be dones the particular noise levels and thens ultimately, if a study is reacheds there should an automatic triggering device that says, okay, this is what's going to be done in return, if that noise level is theres you knows some sort of submission of tests. I means there I s an involved procedure heres if you want to make that as part of a mitigation measure. Just another idea for the Board. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I applicant, maybes to front which would be think I broached this subject earlier, trying to get the agree to some mitigative measures, planting some trees up a cleaner deals perhapss and they said no up to this point. MR. CAIMANO-I guess the issue boils down tos the problem with what' you're saying is that therels so many branches on that trees thatls the issu~ heres are we going to allow...Great Escape..that is a noise producing business or not. MR. DUSEK-If I may add one more point, though. My understanding of the law in this area on Board approvals is I don't think you n~ed the app licant 's consent to say that he has to put in trees. I think you can make that a condition of your approval and the courts have upheld reasonable conditions on site plan approvals and on zoning variances and a variety of other things. So, if it's a reasonable condition and it's backed in the record, I think you can go ahead and say it..be done. MR. CARTIER-And I don't think you have to describe in terms of numbers of trees becauses again we're into site specificity here. What you could do is say is must be mitigated in such a way that noise is reduced by X decibels. MR. DUSEK-That's tricky because what if it can't be. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. DUSEK-Thatls why 11m suggestings if you want to do a mitigation measure, it be a precise measurement, plant this many trees at this location. MR. ROBERTS-We don't know what to ask for. MR. CAIMANO-What trees where? MR. OlCONNOR-Arenlt you all saying what you sometimes come to when you have a large scale project s that there is going to be an impact and you need more information and more studies to determine what it is s site specific. Aren I t you at a point where you're going to make a positive declaration under SEQRA and say come back with actual studies based upon that site, based upon what a roller coaster produces, not necessarily what the inside of a subway car produces s so you Ire going to take it out of gray land. Therels no burden upon this Board to approve an application by negative declaration. If everybody voices the concernss or really feels the concerns that you've mentioneds you're all saying that you understand and the 18 "-- --./ applicant has pn~tty much s.s.id thßre is going to bß an impact and it I S come to .s. point where I think the concern of the community is th.s.t it's going to bß a positive impact and there should be a full scalß environmental study of th.s.t s site specifics .s.nd take it out of gr.s.y land. MR. ROBERTS-I gUßss that's an option. MR. CARTIER-11m just t.s.king a fast look at Pagß 10 of the long form here. MR. ROBERTS- I I m wondering if we shouldn't start going through that. I guess we IVß gone through it s basically s and tripped ourselves up on thß noise aspect and..whßrever they are. MR. CARTIER-I'm st.s.rting on Page 6. Do you w.s.nt to go through this? MR. CAIMANO-It's on Page 10. MR. CARTIER-Wells yess you're rights it IS P.s.ge 10s but what 11m saying is do you want to go through this.. MR. ROBERTS-I think welve gone through most of it becausß we've just flagged these two issues in the past, I'm trying to remember where thßY .s.re here. Impact on watßrs we have no problem. Imp.s.ct on land, welrß well back from thß wetland. Not effecting .s.ny new body of water or ground watßr. Impact on air, minimal. Agricultur.s.l resources s aesthetic resources s Wß had decided that... s impact on historic.s.l or .s.rcheological resourcess no. Impact on open spaces or recreational, no. Impact on transportations we looked at a traffic study .s.nd found th.s.t it wasn't going to be Sßrious. Impact on energy s not a problem. Noise and odor impacts s is Number 16 on Pagß 10 s I guess s is whßre we I re trippßd up and m.s.ybe w~ should go down through those one by one and see. Noises will therß be objßctionable odors, noises or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Ex.s.mples would apply to Column 2s blasting within 1500 feet, not applicable, odors will occur routinßly, not .s.pplic.s.bles proposed action will reduce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. MR. CARTIER-And the question is we donlt know if... MR. ROBERTS-And that h.s.s got to be involved, too, potential large impacts prßsumably. Proposed .s.ction would removß n.s.tural barrißrs that would act as a noisß scrßen. I don It belißve it I s going to do that s it's just this one itßms proposed action will produce op~rating noise levßls excßeding the local ambient noise levßls for noise outside of structures .s.nd we don't have any such standards and we' rß de.s.ling inside of .s.n amusßment park as zonßd and yet, still s it I S a potential l.s.rge impact. Nows can it be mitigatßd or canlt it be and, if it can't be, I guesss perh.s.pss this does le.s.ve us with a positivß dßclaration as to SEQRA and welre looking for more information. MR. CARTIER-It is my gut reaction that thß increase in noise gen~rated by this roller coastßr is not going to bß signific.s.nt enough to require mitig.s.tions but that I s .s.ll it is is a gut reaction and I don't want to vote on the b.s.sis of a gut rßaction. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we all felt th.s.t way when we stood on the site .s.nd thought thß sitß was going to be MR. CARTIER-But th.s.t I s still going to have to be .s.ddrßssed bßcause I think the neighborhood does h.s.ve a legitimate concern, here and I think the idea of getting basß line datas somß time this summers is appropri.s.te bßcauses .s.t some points therß may come .s. timßs with Great Escapes when we says that's its no morßs enough is enough. I don't know if wßlre there yet. MR. CAIMANO-Wßll, I wonder if we're not there now becauses you see, thß thing that bothers mß is thß mitigation for the Gre.s.t Escape is.. they I re not pack up and le.s.ve towns they could find anothßr type of rides wh.s.tevers something ßlse to genßr.s.te money to...that's a potential, you h.s.vß that potenti.s.l, but I'm not sure that the residents have any mitigations if we allow this .s.nd if we keep allowing this, where do they go? Wh.s.t I s their mitigation? What if, as I said, Lindstrand goes to sell his house and the roller coaster is ins it's in the middle of the d.s.y, hels got to transfer .s.nd where's his mitigation? 19 "---' --' MR. ROBERTS-And yet most of the neighbors have bought, since the campground or amusement park was in existence. MR. CAIMANO-But we haves and we have Wayne not admitting to its but saying I donlt knows the fact thats when the put the Bavarian Palace in theres there was a change in the way the noise escaped the park in terms of the people who live on that side of the town. I had heard that before you got to this point. TOM MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-My name I s Tom McDonough. I happen to to live in Twicwood in the area which is closest to the park. There was no site plan review done with respect to the creation of the Bavarian Palace. MR. ROBERTS-There was after the fact. MR. MCDONOUGH-It was after the fact, but after the fact s all the high foliage and the hill structure and the basic lands there was a buffers had already been taken away. After the Bavarian Palace was fabricated, the noise level increased at that point. We didn't hear the noises until that work was done and it created much in the nature of a horn from whatever there was down in the valley of the park came right out through that area that was evacuated to create the area for the Palace. SOs you have an increase in decibels right off, to start with, which was not measured in the first instance. That noise we do get. It's obvious. It's distracting and if you add additional noise into the tunnel where you don't have any base, as you call its base data to increase the amplification of the noise that's already there and then add to it s there's absolutely no criteria that you have to establish what, if any, buffer could be created or if any big buffer would ever exist to dampen the noise created by additional noise making activity. I think a suggestion made heres a static study done at the location where the roller coaster already exists would give you an indications at least s what the noise level generated at that point is, if itls done in its laden weights unladen weight and done in various atmospheric conditions. That doesn't mean to say it I s going to react the same way when it I s put in this amp lification ampitheat~r which already exists. I just wanted known because, again, as brought up by Mr. Cartiers Mr. Caimano, you donlt know what noise level youlre dealing with. You already admit you I re dealing with a noise level well exceeding the 10 decibels Mr. Cartier is talking about without any.. . and if that be so, Mr. Cartier has indicated thatls a problem. Again, I think, and 11m not too familiar with the activities of how you go about this, but if the applicant is putting in an activity that I s going to be a noise making activity, at least there should be some input as to what the levels of noises in terms of decibelss thatls going to create at this points over and above what's already in existences which have not yet. .measured.. .all with respect to this applications with the noise l~vel already in existence. MR. ROBERTS-Well s if we can't mitigate these noises to our satisfactions we will declare a positive declaration and ask for information. MR. HAGAN-lId like to hear what the applicant has to say about this. MR. MORSE-My name is Dick Morse. 11m with Morse Engineering. We did prepare, at the request of this Board s two meetings ago, a noise study and I think the Board, at that times said something to the effect, we just n~ed some numbers to look at. Well, the numbers. .At that time we made an assumption. One of the assumptions s we made several assumptions, one of the assumptions was that the decibel reading was assumed at 95 decibels, that is in front of you for examination. I believe your Staff has also alluded to other decibel readings that they have reviewed and made a stat~ments and I would. .thiss but that an elevated trains which might be more closely associated with a roller coaster, is in a 100 decibels. I don I t know, Lee, do you remember that? I think John Goralski researched that for Staff. We then decayed the noises as we outlined in our report to you people, showing how it decays as it... There was a discussion, by an adjacent neighbors that that might be half of that.. spoke at the last meeting and I disagreed with that because that was in reference to a stream of traffic and that this was an actual moving point source. I do believe that my assumption is correct on that. If we take the worst scenarios that this is still a noise equal to an elevated trains that only increases the decibel reading from 95 to 100 and it's a linear relationship so that our assumed decibel readings at the end would be, the most you would add would be five to that the 95 to 100. 20 -../ MR. CAIMANO-Dicks l~t me stop you right there. Then we go to something else that we'r~ dealing with. Now, I will agree with you. Is personally will agree with the elevated train and the roller coaster as the vehicles that probably sound very similar, but we also know that roller coast~rs aren I t there as inanimate objects, ther~ are people on th~m who scr~am and we I re just handed this thing that says that that IS been found that people are mor~ sensitive to higher frequencies than lower frequenciess so we don't know what those screams are going to be. We don't know what those decibel r~adings ar~ and theylre the ones thats pr~sumablys ar~ going to be the ones who are going to be most irritat~d. MR. HAGAN-And at what distance would th~se decibels b~ measured at? MR. MORSE-W~ did provide that in Our report at varying distances. We show~d the decay at varying distances for that. We also did s we're discussing what is the ambient noise levels we physicallys Is myself, went out into the field and r~cord~d ambient noise levels on a date so stated in our report, that was when the park was not ~v~n in operations that was on a March days I think it was March 13ths but I would allow you to speak to the record that I Ive pres~nted to you, that showed thats even if you did add the 5 decibel increases that is th~ delta between the inside of a New York City subway and an elevated trains who knows wheres that the decibel readingss I still, according to our numberss would still be below the ambient nois~ level at the Whal~n property lines at th~ 286 foot level s th~ front of the Bavarian Palace and th~ parking lot or 100 feet off the Glen Lake Road in the parking lot near the County Cent~r. So s I think there is data in front of the Board that I s what was.. requ~sted by th~ app licant and I have not heard that Staff or the Townls Engineer has refuted that data. MR. CARTIER-We're not talking about refuting that data. MR. MORSE-No. MR. CARTIER-My concern was that, when it was tak~n, March and that's all you had to work with. I understand that. What I'm saying is s for us to get a b~tter handle on thiss we need it during the summ~rs when the ride is goings full high season. MR. MORSE-Let me say this, that the noise level will be higher in th~ summer. MR. CARTIER-We know that. MR. MORSÈ-Okay. I think what we're saying is that if the ambi~nt noise level is higher, and that our proj~cted noise level decaying from the roll~r coaster is going to be l~ss than th~ noise level in Marchs that our nois~ level is going to b~ less than it will be in th~ high season. I think that is the conclusion that I think we drew and so pointed out in our report. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I guess we have to admit we Ire not noise expertss buts somehows why are we not comforted by all the facts and figures that we've be~n giv~n so far. MR. CAIMANO-Th~y're too subjective. MR. ROBERTS-Can I t they be a little more objective. a roller coast~r, ev~n if it I S from a diff~rent unreasonable request. Mayb~ we do ne~d noise from site. I wonder if that's an MR. CAIMANO- It's not an unreasonab le request. any things ~xcept wasting time. I just don't know if it prov~s MR. ROBERTS-Well s I know that we I v~ said this before s that it needs to be site specific, but still. MR. CARTIER-Under SEQRA it says "Th~ propos~d act applying column 2, Pot~ntial Larg~ Impacts, Propos~d Action will produce operating noise ~xceeding the local ambi~nt noise levels for nois~ outside of structures." MR. CAIMANO-Well we definitely.. MR. CARTIER-Okay, ther~ it is. MR. CAIMANO-And there I s anoth~r one s too s Peter s on Number 18 s it says "Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects." 21 '-- --./ MR. HAGAN-And thatls the part I have a problem with. MR. CAIMANO-And 19 as well. MR. ROBERTS-19s "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" It would probably be hard to say no to that one. MR. CARTIER-It would be impossible. MR. CAIMANO-Youlve got two choices. You could either go with a positive d~clarations it seems to mes go with a positive declaration of SEQRA or we can vote for a denial. Well s I don't think we're really attempting to shoot down the project if we can be convinced it can be compatible not only to the neighborhoods but in that zone. I would not be in favor of turning it downs but 11m in favor of asking for more information. MR. HAGAN-But, based on what you know nows would you vote for approval? I can't. MR. CAIMANO-I canlt either. MR. ROBERTS-11m on the fence. I just don I t think the applicant I s quite made his case. Too many of us are on the fence or not quite sold. MR. CARTIER-I think the problem here is we are confronted with a unique situation. W~ are asking the applicant to provide us with data that can only be given after he's done what he's here for approval for and thatls the nub of the situation. MR. ROBERTS-And that's asking a lot. MR. CARTIER-What we're doing on faiths heres I think, is sayings ands to go back to Mr. Dusekls question is, we Ire saying that if the noise levels work out in such a way that they must be mitigateds 11m accepting on faith that they can be. Agains I don I t put a great deal of weight in that because that I s s again, a gut feeling I think. MR. ROBERTS-Isnlt thats perhapss leaving it a little too open ended for the applicant. He doesnlt know how much money itls going to cost to put up that ride and mitigate the circumstances. MR. CARTIER-Wells the mitigate may involve moving out a noisy ride because we I re talking about changing rides here. The applicant has submitted to us on a number of occasions that s in order to keep a park like this fresh s you change rides. Maybe thatls one way. MR. ROBERTS-Moving out a two million dollar ride after one year? That's not quite fair. MR. PULVER-Yess after you just put it in? I donlt think you could do that. MR. HAGAN-Wells if you take the total investment on the community, I think you're weighing something just as heavy as a two million dollar investment for one ride and that IS the part that concerns me. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I hate to use SEQRA as a political football here, but I guess, in this cases perhapss it comes into play. It would be my feeling that we would be talking about a positive declaration requiring a greater environmental assessment form, a draft environmental assessment forms primarily dealing with the subject of noise. Most everything else that theylve already addressed, I guess. MR. CARTIER-Is it a fair statement to say s with regard to Item 19 s the public controversy relat~s primarily to noise, that if we are addressing the noise issues we are also addressing the public controversy? MR. ROBERTS-I think sOs it's pretty much out of sight. MR. CAIMANO-Wells it sayss it's specific. to potential adverse environmental impacts right? So, it's very specific. The Article says "controversy related and therels only one that welre notings MR. CARTIER-Okay. 22 "---" "-'" MR. ROBERTS- Perhap s s I can see the way this is going s would the app licant care to make any comments? MR. CAIMANO-Why donlt we go through this. MR. ROBERTS-I think we Ive already gone through it. motion, aren't we? I think we I re ready for a MR. CAIMANO-Well, you've got the form. MR. ROBERTS-Ohs the SEQRA. MR. CAIMANO-I donlt think we have to do this now. MR. CARTIER-Wells we need to go through Part 3. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. Would someone care to read through that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, we're identifying the potential impacts that would generate the need for Part 3 as being under Item 16 with particular reference to proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures and also under Item l8s the proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Did some else mention Number 18. MR. CAIMANO-19. MR. CARTIER-Okay sand 19 "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts." Number One, briefly describe the impact. MR. CAIMANO-Unknown level of noise increase to the community. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Describe how the impact would be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project changes. Elimination of the roller coasters which we're not looking for. The possible planting of vegetative buffers to absorb sound. MR. CAIMANO-A different location. MR. CARTIER-A different location. The reintroduction of berms. MR. ROBERTS-There may be other things we don't know. They could put rubber wheels on it, I donlt know. MR. CARTIER-Yess we Ire not locked into these. "Based on the information availables decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importances consider: The probability of the impact occurring-it will occur; The duration of the impact MR. CAIMANO-The duration is for the summer s but, unfortunately s that's the time when people are out of doors. MR. CARTIER-lO to 12, applicant's used 10 to people tend to be out resources of value" MR. ROBERTS-That's not true, it correct, good point. SOs we're talkings I think th~ 12 weeks as a times and yess as you point outs it is when doors. "It I S irreversibility, including permanently lost could be taken down. MR. CAIMANO-It could be taken down, but it creates an economic hardships I thinks on the applicant. MR. ROBERTS-Oh, sure. MR. CAIMANO-So, from that point, it's potentially irreversible. MR. CARTIER-"Whether the impact can or will be controlled"-it can and will, or is that still a question? MR. ROBERTS-I think it IS a question. MR. CAIMANO-Itls a question. 23 -.. ~ MR. CARTIER-"The regional consequence of the impact"-I think that refers back to Item l8s in terms of proposed action setting a precedent for future project and one of the down sides of the growth is noise and we are confronting growth in this communitys so we're going to have to confront the noise issue eventually. "It's potential divergence from local needs and goals" MR. ROBERTS-Itls as zoned. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, it's as zoned and the public and this critical areas needs.. MR. CARTIER-"Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact" MR. CAIMANO-Yess welve got a whole bunch of people out there. MR. ROBERTS-Sos the feeling is welre on solid ice here, solid ground. MR. DUSEK-Wells I think the Board has certainly gone through the procedures outlined by SEQRA and. .SEQRA requires you to do.. . generally analyze and identify relevant areas which I think youlve done. It asks you to set forth. .your reasons why you think there is.. if not s it's up to the Board whether or not you want to move on the issue. There would actually be a series of two motionss I think, that would be don~. One is whether or not the Board is in agreement that there is.. based on the reasons that have just been set forth as part of Part 3 and just a second motion that you decide yes to that and you would have to authorize the Chairman to sign a positive declaration and to complete it and I could help you with that motion. If you decide, on the other hands that there is no impact (TAPE TURNED) MOTION TO MAKE A POSITIVE DECLARATION AS TO SEQRAs Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Based on potential impact of noise and that the proposed action may set an important precedent for future projects in terms of dealing with noise level and that public controversy is involved relating to said noise levels and the minutes of all of the previous discussions concerning numbers l6s l8s 19 and Part 3. Duly adopted this 10th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOE S : NONE MR. ROBERTS-Then that puts this project virtually on hold. MR. DUSEK-Well, you need the further resolution, now of 2.254 s authorizing the Chairman with the assistance of the Planning Department and Staff s to comp lete a positive declaration which form set forth as reasons supporting this determination the reasons that this Board just gave in its last motion and that's the resolution thatls needed. MOTION TO AUTIIORIZE THE CHAIRMAN, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE PLAHHING DEPARTMENT AND STAFF, TO COHPLETE A POSITIVE DECLARATIONs Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Peter Cartier: Which Form sets forth as reasons for supporting the determination, the reasons that the Board just gave in its last motion. Duly adopted this 10th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. DUSEK-There would be one further resolution.. The Board has to decide whether or not a scoping session would be useful in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement that is to follow. If you feel it would be useful, and it I S my recommendation that you consider that s you would have to decide who is going to, first of alls I thinks you have to decide, within 30 dayss as to what the written scope, written itemization, list of items s that will be covered by the EIS. So I would suggest that s at this point, the Board consider whether it IS going to do it or whether the applicant's going to do it. MR. ROBERTS-Haven't we s virtually, just done that s outlined what we think our concerns are? 24 "-- ..-' MR. DUSEK-Well, when you get into the scopings it covers everything, in detail, as to how the draft EIS will actually be set ups from the table of contents all the way through to th~ quality of information that will be gotten and itls a very useful session to have between the app licant and the Board so that everybody IS in agreement thats when you do get the EISs it's what you expected. Otherwise you could have a draft EIS presented to yous unprepareds that may not satisfy you and youlll end up having to go back and do it again. MR. CAIMANO-Does the scoping meeting decide whether we I re going to do it or the app licant? MR. DUSEK-Yes s the scoping can either occur at your initiations you could just simply say you're going to hold a scoping session at a certain date and time or it can occur at the initiation of the applicant. MR. CARTIER-That would also includes if I understand correctlys how we want the noise study to be done and... MR. DUSEK-All those type of issues can be discussed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, I think that's appropriate to do. MR. ROBERTS-You say this has to be done within 30 days? MR. DUSEK-That I s what the law provides for s that within 30 days following the filing of a positive declarations wells actuallys you have more than 30 days because the filing probably won It occur for a couple of days. MR. CARTIER-Thirty days to schedule a scoping session, or thirty days to hold on~? MR. DUSEK-To hold one. MR. CAIMANO-Do you have a dates Lee? MRS. YORK-Nos I just have a calendar. MR. ROBERTS-Well s don I t we have to have some coordination with the applicant, heres willingness to, in facts want to go through with this. MR. DUSEK-That may be useful. The suggestion that you hold off s if you have a meeting this Tuesday, that may be a good idea to hold off on that step until Tuesday to get some feedback from the applicant. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SOUTH SIDE OF DIX AVENUE, APPROX. 1,000 FT. WEST OF QUAKER ROAD AND DIX AVENUE INTERSECTION FOR AN 8 LOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.21 LOT SIZE: 32.3 ACRES JIM LAPANNs REPRESENTING QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORPs PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Okays thank you very much. We'll readdress the Queensbury Economic Development Corp. Welve done SEQRA befores for Preliminary Subdivision approval. No matter how hard we try, we seem to keep spinning our wheels and not getting anywhere. Howevers letls try it again. If my memory servess we have been hung up s I thinks on about three different issues since last time. Ones trying to satisfy the City of Glens Falls as to some stormwater drainage that. .onto Warren Str~et on the underpass. Second problem that surfaceds for a while at least from the Warren County Department of Transportation and a third problem had surfaced witH the New York State Department of Transportation. I think it I S fair to say s maybe taking the easiest one first s that Fred Austin has seemed to have backed away from his original letter and is most interested in what we I re going to do s but s I guess, doesn I t seem to be throwing a monkey wrench into this as I read his last letter. Have you talked to him since we have? Does anybody have any cOIlJJllents since his last letter which seems to allow us to move forward as far as County is concerned. MRS. YORK-Yes, his last letter, dated March 30ths was the latest submission lIve had from Mr. Austin and you already have that in your packet. 25 - ......,/ MR. ROBERTS-Okays I thinks perhapss we can skip over that one and ma.ybe take the n~xt easiest ones in my opinion, and that would be the letter from Frank O'K~~f~ from th~ City which isnlt quite what any of us had hoped fors I donlt believes but we do SOme details, som~hows this situation is not a serious a problem, but somehow w~ I re having trouble working it out. I met with the Sup~rvisor and th~ Highway Superintendent and they had no' problems with the Town committing to maintaining the berm that Paul had built. It seemed to be doing a very good job solving the problems out theres but we r~alized we didnlt have a long term easement over that gentleman I s piece of property. The Legal Department tried to g~t an eas~ment from him and that did not pan out. I don't know everything that happened in those negotiations. For awhiles somebody was thinking of even buying th~ piece of property, buts I guess that didnlt happen. Th~ns as I und~rstand it, another design has been developed that s in fact s will duplicat~ that berm on the oth~r side of the f~nce or to release on Astro Valcour property s not City property. That would solve the same problem, as near as I can understand it, although I think the Cityls Engineer has a littl~ problem cottening to that idea. As I r~ad the letter, here, from Mayor O'Keefes previouslys th~ last paragraphs "Previously, the issu~ of maintenance was raised concerning the Queensbury easem~nt from th~ Qu~~nsbury Industrial Park to th~ F~eder Canal. It is assumed that if futur~ problems occur within the eas~ment, the matter will be immediately addressed by Qu~ensbury Officials." I 1m not sure we hav~ the right to commit the Town to that if we don I t have an easem~nt, but maybe somebody knows more about that than I do at this point. BARRY JONESs REPRESENTING AVI MR. JONES-Mr. Rob~rtss my nam~ is Barry Jones. I represent AVI and we also have a site plan matter pending sort of in conjunction with that. I hav~ a letter from a Dave B~ar of AVI which basically is reassuranc~. MR. ROBERTS-Do you want to read that to us. MR. JONES-This is a l~tt~r address to Mr. Richard Roberts, Qu~ensbury Town Planning Board, Dear Mr. Roberts: First let me thank yous and the Town Planning Board for holding this and other special me~tings for the purposes of expediting approval of this project. Astro Valcour Incorporated has spent considerable times efforts and money to satisfy all th~ requir~ments of the pending project. Ther~ seems, however, to remain som~ qu~stions as to drainage in the minds of som~. The lett~r from Mayor OlKeefe that, should problems arises they assume the matter will be immediately addressed by Queensbury Officials. Astro Valcour would lik~ to assure the Planning Board thats should problems arise on the sites AVI will cooperate, fullys in any appropriate r~medy required. To ~x~mplify this, let me point out th~ rec~ntly completed, joint project on our existing site between AVI and the City of Glens Falls. This projects which has cost us over $17s000s involves th~ handling of drainage generated up stream of our building in the Gl~ns Falls Technical Park. AVI initiated the proj~ct, at which point the City offer~d to participate. It is this type of mutual cooperation which has made our relationship with the City a pleasant one. We look forward to dev~loping a similar relationship with the Town of Queensbury. We hope that this ~xamp le would serve to reassure th~ Planning Board and that any doubts on the drainage issue be put aside at this time. We hope that the Planning Board will look as favorably as w~ do on this project and expedite approval so that we can move forward. We thank yous in advance, and look forward to a lasting relationship. Sincerely, David A. B~ar s R~gional Manufacturing Manager of Astro Valcour Incorporated MR. ROBERTS-My talks with the City r~iterate that they seem to get along with you folks v~ry w~ll ands I guess the question is, from all of us including people from the Town, does this effectively get the Town of Queensbury off the hooks but I..assuming that we donlt really want to just hang our hat on what the mayor has said. Aren't you going to have a little problem going in on land you don I t even have an easement on, maybe ev~n from the City. I don I t think we can kind of hang our hat on the Mayor I s letters can wes but mayb~ that can be superseded bys solve the problem by AVI. JIM LAPANN, LAWYER FOR QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. MR. LAPANN-Could I speak to thats pl~ase? My name is Jim Lapann and 11m a lawy~r for, I represent the Queensbury Economic Dev~lopment Corporation. The berm that we I re talking about here is a berm to prot~ct that underpass on Warren Street and the berm that we tried to get the easement over and that w~ talked about s iss to my und~rstandings is being replaced by this berm that is being placed on th~ Astro Valcour land and that that is to dup licate the effect and protect that underpass and that what all of that work was about was to solve a long rang~ problem 26 -- -../ which is protecting that underpass from flooding. What I think is most important here, this evenings for the Preliminary Subdivision approval that we're requesting is that, in the first paragraph, the Mayor does comment that he has, that the City of Glens Falls has reviewed the planss which is the plans on our sites which is the only area that the QEDC..and the last sentence of the Mayorls first paragraph is that there are no objections to the planss that theylve reviewed our plans and they've stated in writing, and in a l~tter to the Senior Planner for th~ Town of Queensbury that there are no objections to our plans. So I would just say, to focus on our application and what we Ire here for this evening and the City hass indeeds said they have no objections and, as to the long range plan that we all worked so hard to try to effectuate, I think we do have, heres a statement from the people who IS land that the berm is ons that they wills indeed, maintain the berm in the future. MR. CARTIER-May I ask a question? Whols the "we" included in the "we have reviewed the drainage plans"? Did Mr. O'Keefe sit down with th~ City Engineer and go through the plans? Do I assume that that "we" also includes the City Engineer? MR. LAPANN-I can says for myself s that I had two meetings with Joe Sullivan who is the Assisting Engineer and I know that Mr. Sullivan went throughs thoroughlys the plans with Nick Scartelli and I met with thems went through all of our plans with Joe Sullivan and Manning Cohens at their offices. We went through a thorough review of all of the elements s went through their letters of concerns pointed out all the aspects and the only thing that remained, after that, was whatls going to happen off site on the berm and that I s all I can say about my experience. I believe Mr. Carr would like to add to that. MIKE CARRs AVI MR. CARR-Mike Carr with Astro Valcour. Subsequent to that meeting, Manning Cohen and Joe Sullivan MR. CARTIER-Excuse mes let me interrupt you here because I still haven I t had my question answered. What I asked wass did Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Cohen also approve the planss are they signed off? All I heard was who was in the meeting. Does the "we" here include Mr. Sullivan as approving the plans and Mr. Cohen as approving the plans? Is that the "we"? MR. LAPANN-I can I t speak for what the Mayor is saying. I believe the Mayor is sayings "we" the City of Glens Fallss including his departments. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-I think hels speaking for his Chief Engineer, Manning Cohen. MR. CARR-Yes, we went to the site itself and walked it and there was some misunderstanding s at that point s as to where the City boundary was. There is a berm that the City felt was adjacent to the property that we owns that I s not necessarily the cases it I S about 100 feet away and we took Manning and Joe out there and we identified the surveying stakes and pointed out s here I s where we III build a berm, if you so desire and that's pretty much how it was left. It was decideds at that time, that it was not necessary to build a berm because it was not..to be honest with you. MR. ROBERTS-You mean Paulls rights where the City line wass and I was wrong? PAUL NAYLORs TOWN HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT MR. NAYLOR-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Okay s I guess that I s not a very serious problem. It would appear to me that this problem has b~en resolved. Do we need to get into it any further? MR. CARTIER-Wells I don't think 11m splitting hairs here, if the members of the Board think 11m splitting hairs, tell me. 11m looking at the last sentence of Mr. OlKeefels letter. It says "It is assumed that if future problems occur within this easement s the matter will be immediately addressed by Queensbury Officials." Who gets to decide if there is a future problems numb~r one and who are the "Queensbury Officials". MR. ROBERTS-Ohs 11m suggesting we not put any cr~dence on this letter. I think this is too open-ended. I donlt think we can ask the Town to commit to that. 27 "-- --' MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-That's why 11m saying this letter from Astro Valcour, now, kind of supersedes the letter from the Mayor because the Mayor didn I t give us what we needed, but Astro Valcour is. I don't know, is Queensbury still going to have somes of course, I guess I don't know where their lin~ iss maybes are we still on Queensbury property or arenlt we? MR. NAYLOR-That linels right I told you it was. MR. ROBERTS-Well, maybe the Town is going to have something to say about maintaining that berm? MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor s Highway Superintendent s Town of Queensbury. It just happens that he (Manning) wanted me to look at something today so we just happened to drive by the location and I took him over and showed him what we did a long time agos which started the problem over here and. .that berm which was corrected when they filled the area and they filled in the brook and the water went in a different directions that I s what started the whole shibang. 01 Connor came back and cleaned the ditch out and put the water back supposed to stay and it's still there. We...the culverts..dead end street. The water is going where it IS supposed to be and it couldn I t go anywhere's else. Over the last couple of weeks ago we had a couple of inches of rains everybody else was doing the backstrokes I didn't s~e any..pumping down.. MR. ROBERTS-But the berm in the back is a back up? MR. NAYLOR-Well, there's two berms the way I see it. MR. ROBERTS-Wells if youlre going to build another one. MR. NAYLOR-Right? Therels that berm and there's their driveways which is a berm. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-So, if the first one goess somebody can run and stick their finger in that culvert and the second bermlll hold. MR. ROBERTS-Don't need to stick your finger in the culvert because that size is the size that Warren Street culvert will handles rights because thatls the second ponding between the two berms. MR. NAYLOR-That's all there is to it. MR. ROBERTS-I'm satisfied with this particular issue with the City. It I S not just th~ City, I think we were concerned. We donlt want to flood out Warren Street or Queensbury people who go under that underpass..Glens Falls people. MR. NAYLOR-Dick, can I say one more thing. That I s the way it's going to come on my back. So 11m just as worried as everybody else. You know, 11m not diving in to see how deep the water iss I've looked at it. If I made a mistakes I'm going to have to fix it, right and I haven't been fixing too many mistakes lately. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. As I saids I think that issue with the City is being taken care of. The third issue is, perhaps, not quite so simple and that's the New York State DOT and I guess you've got copies of the letter from Mr. Carlson and perhaps, that justifies being read in its entirety. MRS. YORK-Do you want me to read it? MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MRS. YORK-Read letter from Richard W. Carlsons P.E. s Director of Planning and Development s New York State Department of Transportations to Lee A. York, Senior Planners dated April 6s 1990 (on file) MR. ROBERTS-I guess the...with this is the last sentence in the previous paragraphs a procedures theylre trying tos I guess, give us a way so that the project is not held up. "A procedure that could be used to expedite the review might be to obtain, as a condition of approvals a commitment from the developer to mitigate traffic impacts that are subsequently identified when the evaluation is completed." This seems rather open-ended to me and I wonder if QEDC is willing to make that commitment or are there some other answerss heres I donlt know about? 28 -- '-' DICK MORSE, MORSE ENGINEERING MR. MORSE-My namß is Dick MorSß. 11m with Morse Engineering and we basically prßpared the traffic studys the preliminary and then this additional traffic study that the State is referring to. I don't want to take thß timß or burden the Board with trying to make traffic expßrts out of yous but we received this on April the 9th. We have been attempting to contact Nßw York Statß DOT ßver sinces to try to iron out these issuess to get somß communication to you people. MR. CARTIER-Mr. MorSßs you're a day up on us. We got this today. this aftßrnoon. Some of us s MR. MORSE-Okays this was stamped in the Planning and Zoning Department April 9th, but if I mights and I don't know if this is the proper forum for thiss but I can attßmpt to show thß Board that the data was provided to DOTs but that does nots I'm not surß that I s going to satisfy the Board and before I enter into a lengthy discourse on thats I woulds debate that issue I guess. MR. CAIMANO-I suppose that's why Dick asked the qUßstion because if the answßr to the qUßstion in the last paragraph is affirmativßs and we are sure of that, then it's not necessary to go any further. MR. MORSE-I suppose that is correct. MR. LAPANN-I can says as attorney for QEDCs that aftßr conferring with my clients that I can states most affirmatively, that we are willing to and we do givß a commitment to mitigat~ traffic impacts that are subsequently identified when the evaluation is completßd. MR. CARTIER-Okays agains 11m going back to sort of what I was talking about bßforß. Who idßntifißs thß impacts and at what point are Wß going to get into a debatß about whethßr this ne~ds to be mitigatßd or not. You know, who are all the people involved her~? It is open-ended and I'm a little concerned about that. MR. ROBERTS-Thßre is one other point in talking with Counsel about this. This is sort of a rßcommendation or this is New York State DOTls opinions it doesn't necßssarilys I guess, have to be our opinion. MR. DUSEK-Maybe I could assist on that. My undßrstanding is that DOT is not what Wß call "an involved agency". First of alls am I correct on thats Lee? MRS. YORK-You are corrßcts Mr. Dusßk. MR. DUSEK-Okays if that is the case whichs apparently it iss they are known as an int~rested party and as an agency which is an interested party s they are no differßnt than any citizßn that should make commßnts on a projßct befor~ yous which means that they, ultimately s will not be part of any SEQRA review process if it should go on and they don I t have to be part of s you knows having their particular concerns addressed. I think that you cannot ignore their comments s just likß you could not ignore thß comments of a citizen. However, I think you can look at the information that you have availablß before you from Morse Enginßßring as wßll as any other information you may have available on traffic studißs and then decide and wßight that information against the DOT report and if you find the information that you havß out weights the DOT report sthens in essßnce, you can give lßss credibility to that report and rely upon the othßr studißs as to how you proceed with the matter. MR. YORK-If I could just make a statßment, gentlemen. I have had a lot of commßnts about what IS an interested party, what IS a permitting agßncy and what's an involv~d ag~ncys lately. Dicks you may recall back, eVßn bßfore Paul started and when Paul starteds the Board was concerned about this and when we discussed SEQRA Paul suggested, at that times that I send notifications to all interested parties and involved agencies so that you could get the full benefit of ßxpßrtisß that we didn't have locally available. That became Planning Board policy and I was directßd to do that and I have continußd to do that and I just wanted to clarify that issue with you. MR. DUSEK-I've got to just corrßct that statemßnt. I think it's important that everybody understands this point that, first of alls I think all involvßd agencies were my intended direction to notify and that you follow that procedure whenever possible, unlisted actions, that does not mean interßstßd parties ands apparentlys 29 "-- --' th~r~ I S a misunderstanding h~re. My suggestion was, that whenever possib1~, you try to do a coordinat~d review on an unlisted action which would m~an involved agenciess not interested parties so it would not mean a notification to DOT. MR. ROBERTS-As a practical matt~rs thoughs we Ire usually looking for some outsid~ ~xpertise in this and we don't usually pr~tend to b~ traffic experts and we usually look tos perhaps, County or Stat~ DOT or someone e1s~. I think, for us to feel comfortab1~, we like to feel our neighbors are comfortables including all the Departm~nt I s of Transportat ion and, certainly, Paul. We don I t do v~ry much in the Town of Queensbury without making the Highway Department comfortable. RON MONTESIs COUNCILMAN, WARD 2 MR. MONTESI-Ron Montesi, Councilman, Ward 2. Let m~ just sp~ak to the issue of, if you felt a need to obtain more information as to what the impact mayor may not be on inters~ctions or the area adjac~nt to some of the areas that this interest~d party has talked about. We s as a Town Board s have to deal with this with, specifically s the West Mountain project. What was going to be the effect on traffic on Corinth Road and how we were going to monitor that and were we going to rely on the engin~ers from the W~st Mountain Development to say to us s so we think we n~ed to sp~nd som~ mon~y and put a traffic light in. Wer~ we, as a Towns going to spend the taxpayers money to tell West Mountain to build a new inters~ction or wid~n the intersection or put an extra bridg~ lane on. Int~r~sting1y enough, what we found was available to us was a TAC th~ Technical Associations which, the President s in this areas is Fr~d Austin. Paul Naylor is a member of that group. I sit on the Board in place of St~ve, at times, unless Steve is available to go to this, Karen Ray, who represents the G1~ns Falls Transit Authority, Manning Cohens and there are thr~e repres~ntatives from the Stat~. Their job, th~ir total function, thes~ three fellows from th~ State, is to acc~pt projects. If this Planning Board saids look, if w~'re going to approve this projects the developers on the proj~ct feel that th~re maybe SOme mitigation that I s ne~ded in 1995 or 2000 or whatev~r. Can you monitor this project for us? Can you do some traffic studies. We have som~ base 1in~ readings, if th~y accept Mr. Morse I s readings s and they will hand1~ that. Th~y will work it through th~ TAC, that group. When they fe~l that ther~ I s some mitigation that's necessary or some developments or some projects that ar~ needed, they will go from that group to the Town Boards the Town Board being th~ Queensbury Town Board where, or it may meet with th~ City and then what happ~ns is s the agre~ment that QEDC has signed or said that we would be part of th~ mitigations perhaps... Va1cour has to be part of that, maybe th~ Town of Queensbury has to part of it. I think that's just part of the process. I think the only thing I can say to you iss if this group is what th~ Town Board hung its hat on with W~st Mountain, they'r~ going to be totally invo1v~d in the Corinth Sector s with West Mountains Warr~n County, State roads s and Town roads and they are doing an ongoing monitoring for us. This group would also be available to do an ongoing monitoring for the Queensbury Planning Board or the Town Board with regardss sp~cifica11y, to this sit~. MR. CARTIER-But my question is, where I s th~ authority in there? At what point does somebody say, you have a problem? 11m assuming that IS TAC you're suggesting. TAC says, a1rights here's your problems here's how you've got to mitigate it. Do they hav~ th~ authority to force the mitigation? MR. MONTESI-No. They donlt have the authority. What they have the authority to do is to says you have a problem and, bear in mind that Fred Austins Paul Nay10rs or the Highway Sup~rintendent in Que~nsbury and the Highway Superintend~nt for the City are sitting on Board. Th~y become aware of the problem. They b~come aware of what's happ~ning in that ar~a. How it gets mitigat~d is the hard part. Who is totally responsible to ~rect a new intersection in front of Haviland Str~~t and Warren Street. You knows is it a work out deal wh~re the City says, well w~ I re going to hav~ to bear part of that responsibility, QEDC s you have to bear part of that r~sponsibi1ity as the d~v~loper who put this project in here. Maybe, Astro Va1cour is absov1ed from it and the Town of Queensbury has to bit the bullets but I think the mechanism that we neededs wells it was ~asy with us, with W~st Mountain. West Mountain said, if TAC says that it I s time to put the next lane in on Corinth Road, it's ~ntire lengths we will do it. Fred Austin sayss I'll help you because I 111 make sur~ you get your easements s you know, and you build it to our standards. We w~re only dealing with one developer there who was assuming th~ mitigation responsibilities. Her~s what welr~ saying iss QEDC is sayings w~' re going to assume SOme of the mitigation. As to how far s I means in all honestys should they be assuming the mitigations at Quaker and Warren and Haviland and Warren? How far does their responsibility go? I don I t know th~ answer to that. I'm just saying that s in order to find out that you hav~ a problems TAC is an 30 ~ ..,J independent group that does that job of monitoring for you and urge you to cons ider that group because they Ire indep endent of not representing the developer or any particular interest group. I would strongly anyone. They're MR. CARTIER-What I'm hearing iss and I guess this is what bothers mes we're going to take this traffic ball and we're going to hit it up into the air and we Ire going to keep it in the air until a problem develops and when we COme downs then we Ire going to decide who gets to hit the ball back up into the air. Am I missing something here? What 11m afraid is going to happen is, a traffic problem develops, as a result of thiss and we play ping pong with it about who IS going to fix it. Nows I may be way out of line heres if I am, straighten me out. MR. MORSE-Dick Morse of Morse Engin~ering. You're concerned with DOTls comments, rightfully SOs as we are. As I previously stateds we feel we have addressed those issues. The State had request~d a reevaluation in a letter dated March 5ths to you people, and I just want to highlight one issue here. Morse Engineer should have coll~cted turn movement counts at Progress Boulevard and Dix Avenue at the Astro Valcour driveway s Warren Street, because th~se are and will continue to be two access points. Okays that was the scope of what they requested us, thats from DOTs Mr. Carlson. Wh~n we get this next letter back, theylve expanded the scope and say we should look at all intersectionss beyonds you knows that we impact. The sense that we're getting from DOT is that this is just a continuing fall with them and that they also did not fully appreciate or evaluate the report that was in front of them and I can go through it line by line, but we have done to mitigate the problems that we discern as potential for this development at buildout have b~en explicitly shown in our report, i.e. turn lanes provided at both the Progress Boulevard access and egress point and at the Astro Valcour site. That information was provided to all parties. It was provided to Lee and she disseminated that to Wayne who I s shaking his head because I notice his comments reflected that he did not see that information. Lee s I don't know why Wayne has not seen that. I canlt answer that questions but I think we have addressed an issue. We have shown mitigation. Fred Austins at least s has basically accepted that mitigation as the primary access point onto the Dix Avenue sit~. From reading the letter we just received from New York State DOT, in their second to last paragraph, "our assessment of the available data is that measures such as turning lanes ands p~rhaps s improvements to nearby intersections may be necessary". Well s that, to mes infers that th~y had not fully read the information that we disseminated to them becauses in thats we did address the turning lanes. MR. GANNETT-Can I make a comments Mr. Chairman? MR. ROBERTS-Yess please. MR. GANNETT-Our letter of March 29ths our key concern on traffic was there appear to be SOme degradation of the levels of service at Progress Boulevard and Dix Avenue and our recommendation was that s prior to final approval, there be some plan made for improving that situations be it be turn lanes, intersignalization, whatever is recommended and that was also recommended in Morse Engineering's study. Now, if there are plans that are revised that show turn laness that mays in fact, hold up the concern. We have not seen those plans yet, but that may go a long ways towards answering that question. MR. MORSE-(Referring to map) This is the turn lane that's shown on the intersection ofs this is the expansion of the intersection which was incorporated in our study as a supplement to the study and therels also an expansion shown in the...of our study...which Astro Valcour has stated that they would explain. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think it was our feelings in general, that we wouldn't anticipate a lot of traffic problems from this subdivision. I guess I'm a little surprise that you don't seem more comfortable with it s but maybe there's some reasons. . and maybe some of them have already been addressed. If, in fact s QEDC will assume the future liability of this s in order to move the project s maybe that's good enough for us. FRED CHAMPAGNEs PRESIDENT, QEDC MR. CHAMPAGNE-My name is Fred Champagnes I s~rve as President of the QEDC. Before yous tonights is a major responsibility. I do believe that our role as the QEDC has been the Corporation serving the Town of Queensbury, but wes in no ways abrogate our responsibility to providing whatever's necessary down there, whatever it takes whoever chooses to be the judge. I do believe that s in one way or another, we can resolve that problem and I guess what 11m trying to say here tonight is that, 31 "-' --/ if you read tod.s.y I s business review s you did read where there were 300 s 000 jobs lost in the State of New York over the last dec.s.de. I here to also tell you that there I s been .s.bout 26,000 jobs, m.s.nufacturing jobs s lost in the l.s.st two years on top of this. I would hope that the definition of what we're trying to share with you tonight in terms of Our responsibility for economic growth in the Town of Queensbury is th.s.t a right hand or left hand turn in .s. passing l.s.ne Or .s. turn lane would not get in our way in order to approve this project. Th.s.nk you. MR. ROBERTS-Well s I think those were the three issues th.s.t were stumbling blocks for us. I guesss heres agains we were part way through the SEQRA reviews or were we? But that's our next thing that we need to .s.ddress. MR. CARTIER-I thought we also had the issue of the cul-de-sac and leaving the right-a-way easement to under the industrial park there. That was the original intent. I remember discussings off Dix Avenues we were discussing at one time that that was the ingress...the egress out some other way. MR. ROBERTS-Youlre talking from the cul-de-sac to the Ch.s.r1ebois property? MR. CARTIER-Yes. I thought we had talked about leaving .s.n easement there so we could put a...in there. It seems to me it's .s.ppropriate to internalize this thing as much as we possibly can. MR. ROBERTS-I know the Highway Superintendent kind of dr.s.gs his feet on that and ...letter indicates therels some reason thats possib1ys at the moments theylre not doing anything. In talking with Dick Mors~s I thought they were going to arr.s.nge it for setbacks or something on those two lots so that, in fact, some day in the futures it could happens if thatls a big ch.s.nge. MR. CARTIER-There will be an easement left there, is that correct? MR. ROBERTS-Wells ..donlt r~a11y need .s.n easement. MR. CARTIER-Wells whatever the .s.ppropriates right-of-way, whatever the terminology is? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. MORSE-Dick Morses again. Whatever Mr. Roberts and I had discussed w.s.s on lot s let me move over here. It is Lot 7 here. The Charlebois' entrance is in this approximat~ location. We do have .s. designs in-houses that reflects th.s.t. What we were thinking was s just to expand this limit of s setback limit s so that nothing could be constructed in theres if and whens in the futures at some time, this s the Town wanted to come in and take this to extend that. That was what we hads Mr. Roberts and myse1fs had discussed. MR. CARTIER-The setback is also going to include .s. new setback. Do you follow what 11m saying? If you put a building in theres it IS still got to conform with the setback from the new road. I guess wh.s.t I'm saying is, you Ive got to have a right-of-way .s.nd then whatever building goes in there is setback from that right- of-way. Is that correct. MR. MORSE-Th.s.t would be the geometry that we would use to establish th.s.t setback line, in other wordss that IS the..that we use .s.nd we could do that at the Boardls pleasure. MR. ROBERTS-It would seem like a simples wh.s.t ifs becauses right nows I guesss ..basica11y shot down. MR. CARTIER-It seems like you can mitig.s.te some of this traffic stuff by internalizing. MR. ROBERTS-But we I re not changing the cu1-de-s.s.c. We're changing one setback On one lot.. . down the road, it seems appropriate to go throughs it would be a possibility. MR. CARTIER-We're leaving a door open. MR. MONTESI-Exactly. In all probability, it III be a side line setback also. MR. ROBERTS-Yess I guess thatls really all it would be, for th.s.t particular lot. Itls the southern side line, I guess. 32 "'---' "-'" MR. CARTIER-Wells just so w~Ire all straight about this, I would make the assumption thats at some point very close to what~ver that other subdivision has done, that that connection be made. My assumption would be that that connection b~ made and that Charl~bois property is developed. MR. ROBERTS-Wells there are some problems with that. Have you read Mr. Montesils lett~r? MR. CARTIER-Well, I donlt understand how you tie s~wer lines to roads? I don't know what th~ connections are. Why can't you put in a road without sew~r lines? Why canlt you connect roads without sewer lin~s? I don't understand that. MR. ROBERTS-Wells I suppose you coulds at thats if you had a road without utiliti~s in it,..utilities were better serv~d going the other ways just for a traffic MR. CARTIER-Well, you want to call is that itls going my point is s if we're going to l~ave a right-of-way s what~ver its easem~nts right-of-ways then the ~xpectation that I have to be used. Itls going to improv~ the situation. MR. MONTESI-There may not be a need for that. WOMAN-Plus s you're just two different s you've got a commercial subdivision and a light industry subdivision. MR. CARTIER-But youlre also talking about a day care c~nter in th~re. W~Ire g~tting a mix and it just seems to mes I understand the difference between light industrial and commercials but it seems to mes that there should be. . internalize some of this stuff. Just to be sure I understand s what I 'm h~aring is, yes we're going to put in a right-of-ways but we're not going to use it. MR. MONTESI-Unl~ss it IS need~d. He's th~ guy that says we need it. GENTLEMAN-WeIll talk about it when the day COmes. MR. CARTIER-I can live with that. Alright. MR. LAPANN-I'd like to speaks if I coulds as to why. Ther~'s some v~ry good reasons why it would not be good to have continued internalization of the QEDC roadway ..with Charlebois I property. First of alls the map that's on file with the Town. of Qu~ensbury has the roadway coming in right around here. That I s what they I re requesting, currently, to reflect a row of one acre lots going across th~ back of their property. Certainlys what~ver they propose can be changed, but I think what the subdivision r~gulations sp~ak to is that we should, where possibles and it gives several indications as to whens 11m reading from Page 30 of the subdivision regulations, Section 6s the reason for continuation of projection of service streets that they give heres are the three major reasons. One is in order to make possibl~ nec~ssary fire protection and certainly welve had fire studies done of this. Our subdivision applications as proposeds with the cul-de-sac, has been given thorough review, both this lower portion and the upper portion and the lower portion have been give thorough review by the appropriate fire departments and there have been no suggestions that it would be better served by any continuation of the street and s indeed s where thes~ back lots of Charlebois, in the road ways that are proposed, there is an int~rsection with Dix Avenu~s a short ways away from Our boundary line ands certainlys it would be a more direct route to any of th~se lots that are in the Charl~bois areas right off Dix Avenue, right into th~re. SOs as far as fire protection goes, it's not a difficult run for them to come in h~re. Itls been reviewed and it certainly mak~s mOre sense to me to come right off Dix Avenue and service th~ lots over her~ for fire prot~ctions that I s reason Number One that there should be connection of the streets. Number Two is mov~ment of traffic. I think that on~ of the main points we I d like to suggest here is that bl~nds should there be a blend of light industrials large tracts with commercial properti~s on it and smallers one acres one acre lots that are along the back of there. Is that what we want for traffic. As far as whether there's going to b~ traffic coming in off Dix Avenue or not thatls going to service this area verys very nic~ly. Part of the design requirements or th~ design specifications for the Town of Queensbury suggest that you should try to minimize using small streets as through streets and what 11m suggesting is, I donlt think we want people coming down by our child care cent~r and using this to avoids and go down to Warren Street and use this to avoid the light at Quaker Road because the way it I S proposed now s for Charlebois, is to come in up here s go down. along ther~ and th~n go down to Warren Street which is up here. I don I t think that itls a good suggestion, from a planning standpoint, to come in past the child care center s down here and 33 "--' ~ continue on down to avoid that light and that would be my suggestion and also we Ive had quite a bit of traffic studies done on this area. As far as,.. comment about is it possible to build a road without a sewers well, I'm sure it iss but I think that the third suggestion as to why you would continue streets would be to facilitate the sewers and that sort of thing because of tens if you're going to go to th~ expense of digging the sewers, you I re going to.. . and we all know that we cannot use this area for any sewers outside of this sewer district. SOs it definitely takes away from that third suggestion in the subdivision regulations. The next thing I'd like to say iss when we Ire looking at the subdivision regulations and how do we satisfy them as to subdivider, I would suggest that we look, also, at d~ad end streets which is.. .on 5 right above continuation of projection of service streets and I thinks really, what we have more is that s than anything else. The last two sentences of dead end streets talk about where you have streetss that you I re not going to have a problem withs where it I S not going to cause a problem with the local traffic flows but that dead end streetls got to be a double wide street that's divided by a plant~ds "an increase in the right-of-way shall be provided for the planted, center island." I think what we Ive suggested here is right on line with the subdivision regulations for dead end streets. We have a double roadway interrupted by an island and that continues all the way down through here. So, I think that the proposal that we have made, including the cul-de-sac s addresses all of the issues that are in the subdivision regulations and it makes a lot of sense for this to remain just as it is and so there would be a roadway that would not continue throughout, tha.t certainly the Town Highway Superintend~nt is here and he's agreeable to the cul-de-sac as it exists and thats from a highway maintenance point of view s he doesn I t have a problem with it. He I s here to speak on that, I believe s if necessary. I do think the fact that we have an option, right nows existings for day care right here. It does have a big impact. Welve addresseds in our planss the suggestions on speed limits and signs. I just don't think it makes sense for us to conn~ct s what would otherwise be a fairly limited traffic flow, with a child care to a 10, one acre subdivisions 10, one acre lots in the Charlebois proposal. Anyway s those are my suggestions as to why this proposal meets with the subdivision regulations and makes sense. MR. ROBERTS-Okays letls not on a flexible arrangement, thing for a long time. I we can put this one to bed. get into a big hassle about this. Welve already agreed that..perhaps. We haven't even seen th~ neighboring think we I ve got flexibility built into this, so maybe You had some other issues(TAPE TURNED) MR. CARTIER-Radiuses for large trucks, that IS been addressed? MR. LAPANN-Yes s that I s been addressed in the plans and the island's going out at the traditional..as you round the curve, you go back towards it. MR. ROBERTS-Anything else on anybody I s mind? Maybe the SEQRA thing will jog our memory. MR. CAIMANO-We can start right off with Part 2. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. I think the public hearing has been held open on this. Is th~re anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1990 QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK FOR AN 8 LOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISIONs Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: an 8 lot Light Industrial subdivision and WHEREASs this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Acts NOW s THEREFORE s BE IT 34 '--' --' RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency app~ars to be involved. 2. The following agenci~s are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in th~ Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations impl~menting the State Environmental Quality R~view Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has be~n completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the r~levant areas of environmental conc~rn and having considered the criteria for determining wheth~r a proj~ct has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes s Rules and Regulations for th~ State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to b~ undertaken by this Board will hav~ no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is h~reby authorized to ex~cute and sign and file as may be n~cessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopt~d this 10th day of Aprils 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. ROBERTS-Nows as to the Preliminary subdivision approvals if there are no other further qu~stionss we Ire ready for a motion on that. MR. CAIMANO-I guess I have a procedural question and I guess I fe~l very strongly about asking it and ask your opinion. Contrary to some of th~ things welve h~ard over th~ past several weeks and monthss I think that th~ Planning Board, for itls parts has bent over backwards to try and be accommodatings to the point wher~s it is my op inion that s due to his help s the Chairman may have p laced himself in jeopardy and not be able to vote on this matter and 11m asking for a resolution from the l~gal department, in that cas~ s becaus~ I would rather face it. We I re talking about a quasi -governm~ntal agency s we I re talking about a public board and if there I s any question, at all, whether this vote is right or not right, then itls b~tter that the Chairmans whos in his decencys is trying to h~lp, if th~re I s a possibility that his vote would be tainted, then we should know that now. MR. DUSEK-Wells I thinks in order to answer that questions I'd have to know ~xactly what types of things that you'r~ talking about. MR. CAIMANO-My information is that he did no more than any other Planning Board Chairman ever doess and thatls to help an applicant through th~ things. My conc~rn is that we're dealing with QEDC that is a quasi-governmental agency and I just want to be sure that we donlt get ourselves into problems. MR. ROBERTS-Wells things just seems to. .when I called Dick Morse and we m~t in . . living room and we met on th~ site with Manning Cohen and his engineers s their ~ngineers. W~ tried to get a few things starteds is all. It seem~d to h~lp s althoughs it didn't h~lp for very long. MR. HAGAN-But it's all part of due process. MR. ROBERTS-Then I met with the Supervisor and Paul trying to r~solve this easement problem, so that Queensbury coulds and that didn't work either. SOs I don't know what I accomplished. MR. CAIMANO-Wells you helped. MR. ROBERTS-I tried. Actually, I was on the site to clarify it for myself as much as anybody. I und~rstood the drainage problem better by doing what I did. 35 '-' -./ MR. DUSEK-Let me ask you this. Did you have anything to gain, mon~tarilys as a r~sult of approval of the project? Do you have any sort of vested interest in the Corporation or the land. MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DUSEK-Any mortgagess notess anything of that nature? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DUSEK-If thatls the cases then I donlt knows you knows I think many tim~s, when you I re in governm~nt, if you go to DEC for a permit s they I r~ going to help you through the p~rmit processs theylre going to tell you what you needs th~y're going to sit down and talk to you, make suggestions on how you can g~t things done and I think when you go to th~ Planning D~partments the Planning Staff does the sam~ thing and if you COme to the Town Attorney, he IS going to tell you what he thinks of th~ laws. I don' t se~ that that really is anything improper, as long as he has no interest in the proj~ct itself. I think just th~ fact that he talks to the applicants and you help facilitate something, as long as you donlt f~els Dicks that you're in som~ way prejudic~ to the proj~ct. MR. ROBERTS-I didn't feel it. I was surprised when Nick kind of suggested it. MR. CAIMANO- In view of th~ I donlt want somebody who's thing got pass~d because of you and it's bound to happen circumstancess and lId lik~ it being on the record, a builder in Towns coming here and sayings ahas this you people and because the Chairman went out and help in this Town. MR. HAGAN-He was only involved in du~ process, though. MR. CAIMANO-Thatls fine. I'v~ said it, it's on th~ record and thatls it. MR. DUSEK-L~gallys to r~nd~r a formal legal opinion at this point, as I und~rstand the facts s I don I t see any reason that would cause the Chairman not to vot~ on this project. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1990 DEVELOPMENT CORP. s Introduced by Nicholas second~d by Peter Cartier: PRELIMINARY STAGE QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC Caimano who moved for its adoptions For an 8 lot Light Industrial subdivision. Duly adopted this 10th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CAIMANO-(referring to motion) subject to any things P~te? MR. ROBERTS-Wells not subject to anything. of mayb~ g~tting a bit more information. I guess w~' re in hopes, for final, MR. CAIMANO-Is there anything w~ need? MR. CARTIER-With the understanding that any questions that still need to be resolved will be resolved during final. MR. ROBERTS-I donlt know that ther~Is anything that really needs.. MR. MORSE-Th~ only two things I have are the DOT and the setback line that we're going to show on Lot 7. That's all I've got in my notes. MR. ROBERTS-And the DOT may not be able to be resolved s but QEDC is willing to assume liability, but hopefullys mayb~s we can narrow that down somewhat. MR. ROBERTS-Nows I think there are two questions to be asked. I'll ask it before QEDC does s about how fast they could get find and... might find th~ sam~ night for the Astro Valcour site plan. Two questions because 11m not sure ~xactly how fast the newspap~r could put in th~ legal advertising. The Staff usually tells 36 "--' "-"'" us it takes it takes from 7 to about 10 da.ys and sometimes a litt1~ faster. If there was some way that the paper would do it faster s we might look into that s but my other question iss and I have ha.dsome cOJlUllents that a couple of members are a little tired of specia.l meetings for this particula.r applicant and I don It knows ..whether or not we, in facts are willing to have a special meeting to facilitate this because I know that's wha.t they would like. MR. CAIMANO-Well s to answer your question, you could get it in earlier if you want to. MR. ROBERTS-We might be ta.lking might be talking 4 or 5 dayss Or what? MRS. YORK-You I re saying thens if the advertising was done, when could it appear in the paper. We have to count the dates that it appears in the paper. MR. CAIMANO-Letme tell YOUs it would a.ppear Friday. MRS. YORK-It could appear Friday? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I might says Lee, if we're going to do thiss and I'm not sure welre going to do it yet s but if we I re going to have a special me~ting s I wonder if we couldn't add this poor fellow down on Warren Streets wha.t's his name? MRS. YORK-Mr. Cha.irma.ns tha.t would be your prerogative. MR. ROBERTS-lId like to exercise my prerogative. MR. CARTIER-The fellow on Warren Street? MR. ROBERTS-Poor devil I s trying to refurbish a. restaurant and he I s missed two months and so he canlt open his restaurant. MR. CARTIER-Well, he ha.sn't come before uSs yet? MR. ROBERTS-No. We ha.venlt seen anything. Itls not a big deal, but if we're going to have a meetings we might be able to help the guy. SOs we have a strong vote here. Are we willing tos and, of course, we Ire not all h~re, are we willing to help this project? MR. CARTIER-Are we ta.lking this month? MR. ROBERTS-I guess so. MRS. YORK-Next week. MR. CARTIER-Next week. MR. ROBERTS-We have a meeting on Tuesda.y night. I suppos~ this could be a second meetings but I think we..and maybe weld rather ha.ve it a special meeting. MR. YORK-Nos weld ha.ve tos Mr. Chairman, the earliest you could Wednesday the 18th. It ha.s to be published for 5 full days. SOs the paper on the 13th, it would ha.ve to run through the 17th. be the earliest you could do a.nything. do it would be if it went into The 18th would MR. CARTIER-Thatls a. Wednesday? MRS. YORK-Itls a Wednesda.y. MR. ROBERTS-Would be sa.fer giving ourselves one day because that might not work, as saying Thursday? MRS. YORK-Is you knows it's up to you. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess I don't have a problem with it as long as QEDC and Astro Valcour is not assuming tha.t this is going to be a rubber stamp meeting because I have some issues that Astro Valcour would need to be addressed and it's not going to be just in a.nd out the door. I can see thats ma.ybe, with final for QEDCs but it would be unusual for us to go through one meeting for a site pla.n. 37 --.. '--' MR. HAGAN-Would you be willing to outline that ahead of time? MR. CARTIER-Yes,..right this minute, but we can. Let's get a meeting date. I'm leery of this. I'm willing to meets but I'm leery. 11m afraid people will get the idea and we'll have a special meeting and bingo, zingo and out the door. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we've saids from the beginnings we're willing to put this on the fast tracks but welre not willing to cut corners with quality of the review process. MR. CARTIER-Okays fair enough. MR. ROBERTS-Apparently, welre all willing to do this. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-If you think you cans Thursday s you I re going to be away, we don't Carols but that way we coulds possibly have a quorums even so, without Carol. MR. CAIMANO-Thursday? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-I agree with Lee, I think we give ourselvess as somebody saids in case we can't make thiss letls do Thursday. MRS. YORK-Wells you could do it ~ither Wednesday or Thursdays potentially. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but in case 11m wrong on my date. MRS. YORK-Ohs okays Nick. MR. HAGAN-Because Tuesdayls liable to be a long nights anyway. MR. CAIMANO-Thursdays then? MR. HAGAN-Thursday. MR. ROBERTS-Well, the time is up for grabs. MR. CARTIER-Is this room available? MRS. YORK-We don't know. I will set something up. MR. CARTIER-Is this April 19th) am I doing that right? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-7 o'clock at the Center. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thèn I guess we would hope that that site plan is going to be as good as it can be and weIll see you then. MR. JONES-Mr. Roberts s this is Barry Jones, agains I think that there may have been sOme misunderstandings in our Preliminary site plan that was submitted and I just want to assure the Board that welre going to do everything that we possible can to iron everything out prior to this next meeting. MR. CARTIER-My big issue iss drainages again. I hit some rough numbers. You've got 15 acres and roughly 5 of that is going to turn into parking lot and building. SOs 33 percent of your site is going to become impermeable and we've got already, on top of it, difficult drainag~ problems. That I s going to have to be addressed and the question floating in the ether from somewhere is s are there toxics on site. I knows som~where in our discussions we said that it was going to be tested. I recall reading, somewhere in your long form EAFs a qualified no. I have problems with qualified no IS s but I don I t want to get into that now. I just want to let you know that that's something that I s going to COme along. Those are questions I want to raises when you are here for site plan. MRS. YORK-I just want to address the Boards if youlre finished. Over a year ago, people who were on the old Board, as the old Boards passed a resolution directing me to send out the legal notices to appropriate agencies and parties. Nows there seems to be some confusion over that. If this Board still wants me to do that and notice all the involved agencies. 38 ""--' --' MR. ROBERTS-Are you talking SEQRA? MRS. YORK-Yes s I am. All the involved agencies and all the int~rested parties s I'd like a resolution to that effect s directing me to do that. If you want me to notice just permitting agenciess lId like to know. I would like some direction here because there seems to be a conflict and 11m in the middle of it. MR. ROBERTS-I donlt think therels a conflict. MR. CARTIER-Well, let IS clear it up. 1111 propose a resolution. RESOLUTION THAT THE SENIOR PLAHHER OR HER DESIGNATE TO BE REQUIRED TO NOTICE ANY INTERESTED PARTIES WITH REGARD TO THE SEQRA PROCESS AS WELL AS INVOLVED AGENCIES s Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoptions seconded by Nicholas Caimano: MR. DUSEK-Before the Board votes on that s that could be v~ry troublesome. The problem is, who do you decides or how is the Senior Planner to decide who is an interested party. Involved agencies are all that is required to have notice in a SEQRA process. MR. CARTlER-I think that I s a judgement call on the part of the Senior Planner and 11m more than willing to let her make that call. MR. DUSEK-Just so you know, thatls a judgement call that's being made. MR. ROBERTS-True. Duly adopted this 10th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MRS. YORK-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Okays this meeting is adjourn~d. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDs Richard Robertss Chairman 39 '---" -../ LOCATION MAPS APRIL 10TH, 1990 SPECIAL QUEENSBORY PLARHING BOARD MEETING OLD BUSINESS: Sit~ Plan No. 19-90 Theodore and Margaret Hans ....Atf~ i tt: ~ 4ft.. 8 JfiK6 <õEo('£ "Ou. Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Lands Inc. (Roller Coaster) Subdivision No. 1-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Que~nsbury Economic Development Corp. (Staff Notes and Map attached) p ~, - ''-'' .-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1S1nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: April 9, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area Variance Use Variance -Sign Variance == Interpretation -X.... Subdi.uäoa: _ Sketch. -X...- Prelimiury. Site PIaD Rmew - Petition fer a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: SubdiviRion No. 1-)qqO Applicant's Name: Queensburv Economic Development Corp. Meeting Date: April 10. 1990 ............................................................................................ There are no further comments regarding this submission from the Planning Staff. Letters on this project have been received from the following individuals: Fred Austin, Paul Naylors Councilman Ron Montesis DOTs Rist-Frost Engineers, and the City of Glens Falls. The Board has kept open the public hearing. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has to be completed and a declaration made. LAY/pw . . - -- --,' \\\.t \.G~' February 28, 1990 Town of Queensbury Planning Board Queensbury Town Hall Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Technical Park Sewer District QEDC Subdivision Dear Planning Board Members: This letter is in reference to the Planning Department's suggestion that the roadway in the Queensbury Technical Park, together with the water and sewer lines, be converted from a cul- de-sac configuration to a through street. There are certain factual and historical matters which strongly contradict the feasibility of this change. Perhaps a brief history of this project's sewer lines is in order. The Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls have an agreement to provide sewer transmission and treatment for the 40 acres of Industrial Park lands on Dix Avenue. This agreement pertains specifically to the Technical Park Sewer district, which was formed by the Town in July of 1987 (Resolution 222). The agreement with the City sets forth a capacity of 20,000 gallons per day from the Technical Park Sewer District. The City allowed this capacity into its treatment plant with no capital "up front" cost. The capital cost will be in the form of a fifteen percent share of the Town taxes from the properties that will eventually become the tax base. The pipes were sized for only this capacity, and no other uses of these lines or capacity was to be made. Since the design of the existing sewer lines will not allow for expansion of capacity, and since the existing (quite "-" -./ favorable) agreement does not allow for any sewer discharge other than from the area set forth in the agreement, it is not feasible to allow the sewer lines to continue outside of the Technical park onto the adjoining property. I also feel that it would not be cost effective for a water line tie in with the adjoining parcel, as suggested by the Planning Department, since the adjoining parcel has water connections with Quaker Road and Warren street. As their project is proposed, their road would traverse their property from Warren street to Dix Avenue, with entrances on Quaker Road. The more logical water sources would be from these other water lines. In addition to the lack of feasibility of the sewer tie in, and the more logical alternate source of water lines, I would recommend that the highway commercial designation of the adjoining parcel should not be mixed with the light industrial nature of the Industrial Park, with a through road situation. Very truly yours, Ldd.../ /?1' /JA-Z;~' Ronald S. Montesi Chairman Sewer Committee Queensbury Town Board RSM:psm ~---- \lU&I&l1 W.ùlUlt ftU # , , I V PREUMIN ~ ~ofttn of «)ueenøburv ~ig4fttav ~eparIñiFnr" JY PlAN B.y .t H.vll.nd A08dl Office Phone 518-793-7771 Qu.en'bury, New York 12804 PAUL H, NAYLOR Superintendent Highways RICHARD A. MISSITA ;~~ 1~ Su~rln_~t HIghway. , MAR. Date: March 1, 1990 To: Planning Board fILE copy From: Paul H. Naylor, Re: QEDC HOOK UP ",- but the amount type '·è§!....}ead end would create a making it less desirable to market in the future. In conclusion to this matter I have agreed to leave this parcel of land as a Cul-de-sac. R~~~~Ul.IY~ '.-"'~~'----'~ C/ ~ -" /' ') '~aul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent -- ~ a_----- ~ -..- fJLF COpy -../ RIZT·FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS '-' i~ ,r~ '.\'~. '-:ì. ~(g' ~~-.' '~:.'(:;'J\ Ii \\1 , " ''-':"C ,., ',,,'" " . i : ",~ )~9r ( l ~NN]NG~ONW ~I:n I'IC/"!"!,ilI:"'. March 29, 1990 RFA #89-5000/90-501 POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 Mrs. lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Queensbury Economic Development Corp. - Subdivision 1-1990 Preliminary Plans - March 19, 1990 Resubmission SUBOIVISIOIIIIO. /-/1'10 QfDC. PRELIMINARY pLAN Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the QEDC revised Preliminary Subdivision plans. Most of the items in the February 5 and February 12, 1990 letters have been addressed. Prior to final approval, the following items should be dealt with: 1. Indicate the name of the new road. 2. It is not clear where light poles will be placed in the subdivision. 3. We believe the intersection of the inside edge of roads A & B with the east edge of Progress Boulevard needs a drainage structure to avoid ponding since all of these roads have conventional crown slopes. 4. The drainage report has adequately verified size of the retention basin in the median of Progress Boulevard for lots 1, 2, 4s 5 and 6. 5. The revised QEDC/Astro Valcour traffic report indicates that levels of service for left turns from Progress Boulevard onto Dix Avenue would be at level of service "D"." These levels of service indicate significant congestion and delay. We recommend that, prior to final approval, a plan be developed to upgrade the Progress Boulevard/Dix Avenue intersection with a turn lane or signalization, as appropriate. Design of traffic improve- ments should be coordinated with the Highway Superintendent and Warren County DPW. Very truly yours, )Jf'JST AS tt(~ett. P.L Mana ng Project Engineer WG : mg $ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH ------~ WARA-~ WARRENSBURGa::FœS '-' 261 Main Street Warrensburg, NY 12886 Tel. 518-623·.1.1 518- 761-6556 FAX 518-623-2772 COUNTY DEPARTMENT 0... PuBLIC WOlitK8 ~IPAL CENTER OFFICES Lake George. NY 12aM5 .~. .. Civil Defense and Natwal Disaster Tel. 518-761·6<490 Buildings and Grounds Tel. 518-761-6<49<4 Superintendent's Office Highway Division Parks and Recreation Airport Administration Equipment Maintenance Engineering Hatchery Administration .:J;.. ~,' :' ---"-"'7C.' :-:" r "r\ \i ¡ f\ ¡ ",' '. ¡,;" ,,~ !',"'J'; " i, '.~ ~ :, .~ 1,~ ~y . '-\ï' '~ ~."'¡'U¡'~{:;' & ;¿V''ii¡ FRED AUSTIN, P.E. Supt. Public:: Works '"""~""A,f:'--:r:ftí1~,:",1'" (O~" WARREN COUNlY AIRPORT Tel. 518-792-5995 Ro.1 Box 573 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, NY 12804 ROGER GEBO Dep. Supt. Public Works r: t I aq 0 f , \. (. SURO\V\S\OM MO.~ pB£l..1MINARV pLAN March 30, 1990 Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Bldg. 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 RE: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK, DIX AVENUE Dear Lee, Apparently some confusion exists over the requirements of this office regarding the Progress Blvd. & Dix Avenue intersection. I This intersection exists, and works, and we do not anticipate requiring any specific improvements, etc. Morris Engineer stated in their revised traffic analysis for the Park (March 1990)' that "recommendations will be incorporated during the final design phase regarding traffic, signal and geometric lane additions for the future traffic projections". OUr interest was in being included as a recipient of the final design findings (whatever they are, if anything) for our traffic file. Our interest was not meant to imply any specific requirements. In this instance we leave that decision to your department. If I've caused some confusion I'm sorry. () I I Very t.tul I , I ¡' I. FA:rl fI':' . ~" ustin, P. . Warren County Supt. Public Works xc: Roger Gebo .. FRANCIS X. O'KEEFE MAYOR ,O_h) --- - , ¡ ; \4 .--\ L TELEPHONEI (518) 761·38CW -6uy tf ~té1ù ~t¡¿ NIIiY YORI( OFFIC¡ OF T...¡ MAYOR April 5, 1990 ~... v, ""u~I:~.,ø.... J ~!ilWl~ ~::~7.~r~ DEPARTMENT Mrs. Lee A. York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 üúiJunilSION NO. I-I C¡c¡ () RE: Queensbury Technical Park, Drainage Plan eHEUMlNARY PLAN Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the drainage plans for the Queensbury Industrial Park as submitted by Morse Engineering. With the staff of Morse Engineering we have inspected the site, and have been assured by Mr. Nicholas Sciarettli, Morse Engineering, that all Queensbury requirements have been incorporated in the proposed drainage plans. There are no objections to the plans. Previously, the issue of maintenance was raised concerning the Queensbury easement from the Queensbury Industrial Park to the Feeder Canal. It is assumed that if future problems occur within this easement, the matter will be immediately addressed by Queensbury Officials. Sincerely, ~~. ~ cJZ;;é Francis X...øk~fe Mayor FXO/jab cc: Manning Cohen, Supervisor Municipal Services Ronald Newell, City Attorney Robert Morris, Water &. Sewer Attorney David Bayer, Plant Manager Astro-Val, Inc. ~ "---" *' -'Y F ~. .. - \' I I , ,I , '<c , r n p Y ft,,, v. ..."cc...-,,,.. -, ~~~!~~ JOHN E. TAYLOR. P,E, REGIONAL DIRECTOR STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY. N.Y. 12208 ~LANNINQ . ZONIN' DEPARTIIEN'" FRANKLIN E, WHITE COMMISSIONER April 6, 1990 Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Planning Board Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 SUBDlVISIOtt NO. J - J , q Ò PRELIMINARY PLAN Re: QUEERSBURY TECItHICAL PARK DIX AVENUB, WARRER COUH'1'Y Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed Morse Engineering's most recent Traffic Analyses for the Queensbury Technical Park (revised in March 1990), and have the following comments: 1. The raw traffic count data are acceptable. The existing turn movement volumes for the Dix Avenue and Progress Blvd. intersection are acceptable. The turn movement volumes for the Warren Street and Astro-Valcour Driveway are not acceptable, however, because the volumes do not reflect the raw count data. 2. The trip generation rates are acceptable if the analyses assume that the peak hours are the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. 3. The trip distributions are acceptable; however, the analyses should have made more generalized assumptions about the origin and destination of the new trips to be generated by the park. 4. The trip distribution splits are acceptable. 5. What is the year of full buildout, i.e. 1995 or 2000? 6. A 2% per annum background traffic growth rate is acceptable for current area growth. However, it would not account for other major area developments (like Earltown) that may be completed in the future. Because of this, the 1995 and 2000 turn'movement volumes may be understated. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -- Mrs. Lee A. York April 6, 1990 Page 2 Because the analysis includes a number of deficiencies, there is in sufficient information to evaluate its conclusions and recommendations. The study does not include proj ected intersection levels of service expected without development. Because of this, the analysis cannot identify the difference between the level of service with and without development and we cannot draw conclusions about what roadway improvements will be needed to restore pre- development levels of service. Another unaddressed item is the effect of the proposed development on nearby intersections. The analysis does not examine nearby intersections; instead, it is limited to only the new driveways that provide access to the site. As a general rule, level of service should be evaluated for any intersection for which traffic volumes are increased by 10% or more on any of its approaches as a result of traffic generated by the proposed development. Our assessment of the available data is that measures such as turning lanes and perhaps improvements to nearby intersections, may be necessary to adequately mitigate traffic impacts generated by the project; however, there is currently not enough information to completely identify either the impacts or the desired mitigations. We strongly encourage that a more complete evaluation be undertaken during the current review process. A procedure that could be used to expedite the review might be to obtain, as a condition of approval, a commitment from the developer to mitigate traffic impacts that are subsequently identified when the evaluation is completed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please contact Kenneth Carlson or me (telephone: 474-6215) if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ~~. CL -- -- - RICHARD W. CARLSON, P.E. Director, Planning & Development Region one RWC/JD/dah ----- "-"'" Mrs. Lee A. York April 6, 1990 Page 3 cc: J. E. Minnick, City of Glens Falls Planning Board F. Austin, Warren County Department of Public Works J. W. Kelly, Traffic Engineering & Safety, Region 1 H. F. Steffens, Warren County Resident Engineer N. scartelli, Morse Engineering P. VanKeuren, Glens Falls Transportation Council ¡":~ ;';':".:~ ;~/:~ t " "~"") f.~,.it~~\ ~i:.~}':. t?" . , S84t44:'1E ~- , "'" ' 240.00 "'" .: t'l\.:~~~·'; . ' ~!' .. ! ";", f' 324 \"'EXIST. 12"WATER ç EXISt 36"CMP INV. ~1Ci.20 ~ -- -';'-. .; -~. .,,-~- Z l.LJ a:: a:: ~ " -- OVERHEAD RAILROAD TRACK t- l.LJ W a:: t- en R=30' EXIST. CULVERT 100' 75' I; ",. ., ...,:".,~,:." 12'. ..'. .PROPO$EQ}??ruRNIN~,i!¡lCAN~M¡W!i}i}it!~~~~:~:,::.::. 1 ACCESS ROAD ~ -" f- -.- -'----'-"-