Loading...
1991-07-11 SP o --- -- (JIEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-1991 Attractions Land. Inc. 1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Roller Coaster THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WIL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. --- .....,/ QUEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 11TH, 1991 4:00 P.... ME"BERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTIN JAMES HAGAN NICHOLAS CAIMANO TIMOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT DEPUTY TOWI ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT-REPRESENTED BY JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN 110. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED RC-15 ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE (ROLLER COASTER) ROOTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD TO ERECT A ROLLER COASTER 011 THE FORMER CAMPGROOND SITE AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-7 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION 4.020 I MR. CARTIE~-The purpose of this meeting is to review and take comments on the completeness or incompleteness of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the LA Group. If deemed complete, we will set a public hearing date. If it is deemed incomplete, we will indicate which areas need to be addressed further and make the applicant aware of those items. I think what we'll do is we'll go through and take Staff Comments first. Mr. Goralski, would you like to lead us off? STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, representing the Town Planning Department, "The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the roll er coaster at the Great Escape has been revi ewed wi th respect to scope, content adequacy, so that the Planning Board can determine whether the DEIS is satisfactory for the purposes of cOlllllencing public review. As per Section 617.8 of the SEQRA, the Board must first find that the DEIS is adequate for public review and then must determine whether or not to conduct a public hearing on the proposed action. In determining whether a public hearing is warranted, the Board shall consider among other things, the degree of interest shown by the public and/or involved agencies, whether substantive or environmental issues have been raised, and the adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed. Due to the intense public interest shown in the project to date, a public hearing would appear to be appropriate. This will also give the Board an opportunity to receive additional input regarding significant environmental issues and the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. The DEIS has been compared to the Scoping Document which was adopted by the Planning Board in April 1990, in an effort to ascertain whether all of the items in the Scoping Document have been addressed. Section 1 of the DEIS addresses the items set forth in Section 3 of the Scoping Document. The design and layout of the roller coaster is described as is the walkway connecting the roller coaster to the existing park. It is noted that a vintage design of this type is more compact than modern rides. Water supply and wastewater disposal will be facilitated by the use of systems currently serving the RV Park. The drainage report presented indicates any increase in stonnwater runoff can be handled by a drywell on each side of the proposed walkway. The concept of cycling rides is discussed in Section 1, specifically, if new rides are added and previous rides removed, previous patrons will return to the park. This concept is an integral part of the economic considerations of this proposal. As stated in the DEIS, the Great Escape has a tremendous economic impact on the Town of Queensbury and on Warren County. Parking is also discussed in Section 1. The traffic study included as part of the DEIS concludes that a need for 40 spaces would be created by this proposal. The DEIS indicates that this need can be accommodated within the existing parking areas. It should be noted that 190 of the 2,306 parking spaces are in the area adjacent to the Glen Lake Fen. In the past, there has been some debate over whether this can be considered preexisting parking. Given that there are approximately 500,000 users of the park annually and there are approximately 100 days that the park is open, there is an average of 5,000 users per day. Since many users come in car loads of three or four or in bus loads, 2100 to 2300 parking spaces appear adequate, even with the addition of the roller coaster. The use of parking attendants on peak use days, such as weekends and holidays, is strongly encouraged. Aside from the site plan review application presently before the Planning Board, New York State Department of Labor Certification and the Town of Queensbury Building Permit must be obtained. Therefore, the New York State Department of Labor is the only other involved agency. Section 2 of the DEIS is an in-depth study of the existing environmental setting, geology, soils, topögraphy, surface water, groundwater ventilation, wildlife, wetlands, climate, and air quality are all described, although they are not addressed in the Scoping Document. Existing land use and zoning are described. To the west, the park is bordered by the intensely developed Route 9 corridor. To the north, it is 1 .~ bordered by the Glen Lake Fen. To the east and south are residences. Directly adjacent to the proposed roller coaster site is a large parcel owned by Mr. John Whalen. This parcel is currently vacant and is zoned Recreation COIIIIT!ercial. The Great Escape is also zoned Recreation COllllTlercial. Under purpose of the Recreation COllllTlercial Zone, the Zoning Ordinance states, 'The RC zones are areas within Queensbury where the Town wishes to isolate, protect, and encourage expansion of the recreation industry. Large scale projects will be encouraged to produce long range planned unit development plans defining uses, intensities, patterns, etc. Residential uses, seasonal included, are considered compatible with RC zones. The addition of a roller coast appears to be consistent with this purpose. Under Planned Development, the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan states 'The Recreation Commercial designation includes private recreation oriented facilities housing and campgrounds'. Existing traffic patterns, parking, and pedestrian circulation are discussed in this Section. Public services including police, fire, and emergency medical services are described. The current ambient noise levels, as well as the existing visual character are introduced in this Section. Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Section 3. All permitted and Type II uses allowed in the RC zone are considered, as are alternative site layouts and the no action alternative. Section 4 is the real meat of the DEIS. This Section should be carefully scrutinized by the Board. This Section evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and proposed measures to mitigate those impacts. Impacts related to the construction phase of this proposal are, in general, short term, local, impacts. The mitigation measures related to the construction phase impacts appear adequate, given the severity of the impacts. The Board should be sure that a definite limit of clearing is delineated on the plan. Proper erosion and sediment control should be established prior to the commencement of construction and should be maintained throughout the duration of construction. All disturbed areas should be re-vegetated as soon as practical. The impacts related to the operational phase of this proposal is the area which has given rise to a public concern. Specifically, these concerns center around traffic, parking, noise, and visual impact. An in-depth traffic study has been included, which indicates that no significant impacts on traffic will result from the addition of this ride. Regarding pedestrian circulation across Route 9, three recollllTlendations are proposed. In addition to these, the Board may wish to consider some means of channelizing pedestrian traffic to the proper cross walks. Regarding parking, sources used to determine required parking for the facility of this type should be documented. The noise study will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. It is unclear whether impact on the Whalen property is addressed. Photographs included in the DEIS provide tremendous insight into the visual impacts of the proposal. They in fact provide a worse case scenario because there are no leaves on the trees. Sections 5, 6, and 8 do not raise any additional concerns. Section 7 of the DEIS addresses cumulative and growth inducing impacts. The concept of cycling rides is pertinent to this Section also. Although the roll er coaster wi 11 attract some new customers, the project sponsor has stated that new ri des are needed to attract return business. The minutes of the Scoping Session indicate extensive discussion related to the possibility of the park's hours increasing due to the addition of adult oriented rides. This is not specifically discussed. In conclusion, for the most part, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted for the roller coaster at the Great Escape appears to be satisfactory for the purposes of commencing public review. However, there are several issues which additional clarification or information may be necessary. These include, parking adjacent to the wetland, noise impacts to the Whalen property, the possibility of extending the park's hours. If the Planning Board determines that all issues have been satisfactorily addressed, a Notice of Completion should be filed in accordance with Section 617.10 C and D of the SEQRA. Also, a public hearing should be scheduled in accordance with Section 617.8 D of the same regulations." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom. ENGINEER. REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, July 11, 1991 "We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated June, 1991 as prepared by the LA Group on behalf of the applicant. Our limited review is for completeness to assist the Board in determining sUfficiency for public review and is based upon the Scoping Document and SEQRA regulations 617.8(b)(I). This review has been limited to technical matters which include only; transportation, noise and general site development. Natural sciences, socio-economic and all other elements of the DEIS are not covered by our review. seOPING DOCUMEIT The following items outlined in the scoping document were not found to be addressed: III.B. Location: The study area limits and a map showing the same. III.D. Construction: Potential for future development on adjacent lands. IV.B. Transportation: Documentation of sources (i.e. criteria) used to determine required parking for a facility of this type. IV.C. Noise: Impacts to the Whalen property and appropriate mitigation measures attendant thereto (if applicable). ADEQUACY AID CONTENT OF DEIS Section 1.04.02 2 '-' --- a. Parking capacity analysis may not fully account for oversize bus and RV type vehicles. Section 2.13 and Appendix 1 a. Actual traffic counts conducted by Larry M. Levine for the study on May 26, 1991 indicate a peak hour rate on Route 9 of approximately 2100 vehicles per hour based on the data from 11:25 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. The 1988 Simhoff study indicates peak hour traffic is 1114. The increase is approximately 90%. The April 14, 1991 Larry M. Levine traffic study Level of Service analysis is apparently based on 36% growth of background traffic with additional tripmaking from the roller coaster superimposed. The existing conditions Level of Service may not reflect the traffic growth suggested by Larry M. Levine traffic counts of May 26, 1991. Of particular concern would be deterioration of Round Pond Road Level of Service. b. Traffic counts of May 26, 1991 do not provide any current data for Round Pond Road. c. Peak facility use dates should be established from historical attendance records to substantiate the validity of vehicular and pedestrian traffic data in the analyses. d. The general conclusion that the proposed roller coaster will in itself have a negligible impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic appears correct. Because the predominant purpose of the DEIS is to address impacts of the proposed project, the relevancy of the traffic study comments made herein may be diminished and should be so considered by the Planning Board. Section 4.020.13 A and Appendix 3 a. Conclusions relating to noise impact are based on typical meteorological conditions. Extreme meteorological conditions that produce maximum noise transmission should be addressed and impacts for those conditions established. Section 4.02.13 B a. Consistency with zoning may not be applicable as mitigation. SUMMARY The site development concept proposed appears to be well conceived given the site constraints on available lands. Our review has been for general content and adequacy of analysis for a portion of the issues indicated in the Scoping Document. The technical merit and accuracy of all presented data pertaining to our review has been reviewed only to the extent necessary for the purpose of determining completeness. Merit and accuracy review of the technical analysis should be continued during the public cOßIIlent period. Additional information the applicant is required to provide as a result of these comments should likewise be reviewed. SUbject to the Planning Board's satisfaction with applicant responses to these cOßllJents, it is our opinion that the elements of the document covered by this review are suitable for commencing public review. " MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a couple of letters, here. Mr. Whalen, would you care to read yours into the record? JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-I'll read it into the record. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. WHALEN-My name is John Whalen, Farm to Market Road, Queensbury. "I am a resident of the Town of Queensbury and own 40 acres of land adjacent to the Great Escape, and i.t is only 288 feet from the proposed roller coaster site. I attended last years Planning Board hearings and objected to the noise levels this roller coaster would generate on my property (see my letters dated February 26th, 1990, March 27th, and April 10th, 1990). The Queensbury Planning Department acknowledge my concerns in their Draft Scoping Document by John Goralski. On Page 3 of the above document under, C Noise, impacts to the Whalen property must be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures outlined. I have examined the June 1991 Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement and find that sound studies were not done on my property adjacent to the proposed roller coaster site, nor were any mitigation measures proposed as requested in the Draft Scoping Document. It is probable that these requested noise studies were not done because it was known that the results would be unacceptably high on my property. I am asking the Queensbury Planning Board not to accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as complete, nor to schedule a public hearing until noise studies and mitigation recommendations have been completed for my 40 acres. This sound study should include the area along my south property line facing the roller coaster site, and also at other points on my property to determine the extent that the sound penetrates. Sincerely, John Whalen" 3 "---" ~ MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We have a letter from a Mr. Guido Passarelli. Is Mr. Passarelli present? Okay. Let me read that letter into the record, then. "Dear Mrs. York, this letter is in regard to the proposed roller coaster addition at the Great Escape. I consider myself to be a progressive person and understand the nature of business and growth. I, however, am deeply concerned about the new roller coaster proposed to be built at the Great Escape, directly adjacent to and bordering 82 acres that I currently own on Round Pond Road. I purchased thi s beautiful piece of property and have invested in excess of a mill ion dollars with a vision of future development and many estates of exquisite, residential homes. Buyers of these homes will demand the right to quiet enjoyment of their property. I'm sure the Town Planning Board will understand my staunch objection to this project for the following reasons. One, increased traffic on Round Pond Road will be inevitable, as a result of curious onlookers wanting to see this huge monstrosity up close. Increased traffic on this road is sure to create problems. I believe this issue has been discussed with Mr. Wood before, regarding the Bavarian Palace, at which time he said that he would, at his expense, change the road. To date, it is still very dangerous to make a left turn onto Route 9. The visual impact of the area is sure to be an eyesore. I personally see nothing appealing about the tangled wood of a massive roller coaster, especially overlooking a peaceful, residential neighborhood. In my opinion, noise from the park at this time is barely acceptable. I share this opinion with residents from Courthouse Estates, Glen Lake, and the Twicwood area. The addition of a roaring, screaming roller coaster is bound to increase the level of obnoxious noise that we must already tolerate as a result of the theme park. The measurement of ambient noise does not take into account my property which would be most effected by the roller coaster. Therefore, any mitigation measures have not been identified. The Scoping Document also states on Page 3 that the environmental impact statement should provide an overview of potential impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to other projects and development in the vicinity. Nowhere in the EIS does it identify what development could take place on my property with regard to zoning and how any future development will be effected or limited by the roller coaster placement. I do not believe that the EIS submitted is complete as it does not address the issues identified in the Scoping Document. Currently, the park closes for the day at 6 p.m. Should the park ever decide to extend its operating hours into the evening, the issue of added noise becomes an even greater concern to residents. The park does, presently, have a loop roller coaster clearly visible on Route 9. I understand that the roller coaster that's being proposed is a new attraction to increase attendance to the park, the additional anticipated business to be only 40 cars per day or 16,000 total new patrons per 100 day season. With the total seasonal attendance of 500,000 for the capital investment into this project, I wonder if there is a need or actual benefit." And included in that letter is a map identifying the roller coaster property, the lands of Mr. Whalen and Mr. Passarelli. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, for the Board's clarification, and upon review of the SEQRA regulations, public comment and public review are not relevant at this stage of the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the Lead Agency. That will happen upon determination of completeness, at which time the public will have a chance to submit c~ents, recommendations, etc., etc. to this Board. I would just recomRend this Board not take public comment into consideration at this particular time with determination as to completeness, but these comments would be relevant upon that determination. MR. CARTIER-Even though these comments address the completeness or lack of completeness of this document? MS. CORPUS-That is not an issue open, at this time, for public comment. They will have that opportunity later on. There is nothing in the regulations that permits a public hearing or public input. MR. CARTIER-Is there anything that prevents it? MR. CAIMANO-Well, the point is that Mr. Passarelli and Mr. Whalen's cOßnents are argumentative and notwithstanding in this hearing. They are opinions. They are not necessarily fact. and what she is asking us to do is to generate a thought of our own, without leaning toward Passarelli and Whalen or anybody else for that matter, if I'm correct, which brings me to the question, why did you pass out these out in the first place, but, be that as it may, that's what she's trying to get to. Because they say that, doesn't mean they're correct. MR. CARTIER-I'm not suggesting they are. It's just that I thought it would be appropriate to include them in the record, in that they address the issue of completeness or incompleteness, and that's what we're dealing with here tOday. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to clarify. MR. CAIMANO-My point is that it doesn't address the completeness because it's an opinion. It's not based on fact, necessarily. It's up to us to determine that, and then we can take the arguments. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, what's the Board's druthers? What I was going to do with you next, if you consider it appropriate, is go through the Scoping Document that I believe you all have a copy of, and decide which areas still need to be addressed, based on the Scoping Document, if you find such items, okay. MR. HAGAN-You're stating these letters to the public were issued to us in error? MS. CORPUS-I believe so. I didn't realize the Board had such letters. MR. CARTIER-Just so I'm with you on this, you're saying that these letters should be held until such time as a public hearing, and included in that part of the record? 4 '-" ~ MS. CORPUS-I would recommend that to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm in the Scoping Document, Roman Numeral I or II no problem, correct? This is coversheet, table of contents, and summary. Roman Numeral III, Project Description and Need, Tom, in his conments, brought up some references to that, specifically Item 3b. "The following items outlined in the Scoping Document were not found to be addressed: III.B. Location: The study area limits and a map showing the same." Is that enough to deem this incomplete? Is that a major issue with the Board? MRS. PULVER-I can't seem to find where you're at. MR. CARTIER-I'm on the Draft Scoping Document and I'm also on Tom's. HOLLY ELMER MRS. ELMER-Mr. Cartier, my name is Holly Elmer. I'm from the LA Group. I realize there was a comment on whether the study area was defined. MR. CARTIER-Let me go through this with the Board, and then I'll take comments from you, okay? MRS. ELMER-All right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The reason I'm doing this is I want to go through all of this so you can get up at one time, instead of up and down and up and down. Has anybody got any problems with that, III.B., Location: Study area limits and a map showing the same? I assume we're going to hear from the applicant about that. "III.D. Construction: Potential for future development on adjacent lands." Has anybody got any comments there? MR. LAPOINT-Again, going back to III.B., I'm sorry I wasn't quick enough to keep up with you. I don't think that's in the DEIS. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is that something this Board feels needs to be addressed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-What we're going to do, here, is decide whether or not this document's complete. If it's not complete. If it's not complete, we're going to indicate to the applicant what other items need to be addressed, okay. MR. CAIMANO-You said III.B., as in boy? MR. LAPOINT-III.B. of the Rist-Frost letter. MR. MARTIN-The first comment, location, in the Rist-Frost letter. MR. YARMOWICH-The Board should, after the applicant's finished, be aware that any reasons for it not being complete must be responded to the applicant in writing, so that he should be clear to them exactly what you mean, so that it can be transmitted to them in writing. Regulations require you to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Yes, so, I guess I would like an explanation. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to hear from the applicant, item by item? MRS. PULVER-No. I mean, from the Board. If they think this isn't complete, what I'd like to know is what we're saying is not complete? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. What's not complete in III.B.? MRS. PULVER-Briefly describe project location. I've looked at a lot of photos and stuff in here. I mean, I know where it is. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. A study area limits and a map showing what was studied and where. MR. CAIMANO-Is there some question? MR. LAPOINT-Pardon me? MR. CAIMANO-Is there some question? MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, without referring to comments, where would the sound? 5 "-- -.../ MRS. PULVER-We're not talking about sound on this one. MR. CAIMANO-It clearly indicates, in the sound portion, where he puts his cells. Clearly, the person who did the sound, puts down where he put his microphones. Doesn't he? MR. CARTIER-Does the Board want to hear from the applicant item by item on this? MR. CAIMANO-No. Not yet. What I want to hear is from our attorney, to determine whether or not they can speak also. MS. CORPUS-The appl icant should be given an opportunity to respond, but, again, as Mr. Yarmowich has indicated, questions and responses, if they're additional information not already provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, should be given in writing to the Board. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I guess I agree with you. I think we go through the whole thing once and let them take notes and then answer them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-But I don't see III.B. as being a problem. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I guess, then, I'm asking my question to Tom, then, again, he says, "The following items outlined in the scoping document were not found to be addressed: III.B. Location: The study area limits and a map showing the same." Is there a map in here that shows exactly that? MR. CAIMANO-Several, as a matter of fact. MR. LAPOINT-Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-In general, a study area is usually included in an EIS by the regulations including a discrete description, Executive Summary Requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement include the need to provide a clear description of what areas were studied, geographic relationship to the project. In this case, it is various elements, the Courthouse Estates, Twicwood, nearby residences, as well as some traffic conditions on Route 9. Whether or not the completeness issue of that particular feature of the document relates to whether or not the Board feels the information is understandable for the purposes of the public, that the SEQRA regulations are clear in establishing the requirement of a document to be complete, that it must be understandable. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It is understandable to me, but, again, I read this literally, that you need a map, that you think-there is a map missing from this? MR. YARMOWICH-The scoping document. okay, and I'll read directly from it, it says, the study area should be defined and delineated on an exhibit of appropriate scale. MR. LAPOINT-Is that provided, in your opinion? MR. YARMOWICH-I did not find any such map or exhibit with a discrete description of that information. Now, the applicant may have various responses to that which could satisfy this Board and this Board may deem that the public would find that suitable for their use and review. MR. CAIMANO-Without contradicting Mr. Yarmowich and his correctness, I say to you, all of you, and all of us, that we know exactly what's been studied. There is no ambiguity here. We know where this is. Somebody in SEQRA may not know where it is, but we know where it is. MR. YARMOWICH-This Board may know, but you're now making a decision, will the public know. MR. CAIMANO-I think that there's no one in this Town of Queensbury, Glens Falls, or the surrounding areas that won't know. That's my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So the question becomes, is this an issue the Board wants to address in any further documentation? MR. CAIMANO-I don't. MR. LAPOINT-No. That clears it up for me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "III.D. Construction: Potential for future development on adjacent lands." don't recall seeing that, myself. MR. HAGAN-But why would that be part of this review, at this point? 6 '-' ----" MR. CARTIER-Well, what we're talking about is long term impact. For example, does this have an impact, in terms of limiting what somebody could do on adjacent property at a future time, or, Tom, another example, maybe, off the top of your head? MR. HAGAN-I don't think that's pertinent at this time, Peter. MRS. PULVER-But doesn't that make you look through a crystal ball to see what everybody's going to do with their adjacent property? MR. CAIMANO-But, of course, that's what a Planning Board is supposed to do. MR. CARTIER-That's part of the SEQRA process. MRS. PULVER-Well, right now, it's vacant land. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but that's part of the SEQRA process, Carol. MRS. PULVER-I know. I understand that. MR. CAIMANO-I don't see it in there, myself, either, however, we are talking about the fact that, again, this park, as it's currently used, is not going to change all that much and we already know what's next to it and how it's going to effect development. There are going to be people who are not going to build a home next to some portions of it because of the noise. They're not going to want to. So, it has changed the character. We already know that. Do we not? MR. YARMOWICH-Just to help the Board understand, the scoping document indicates that, and this was something the Planning Board decided on from a shopping 1 ist provided by the DEC regulations on SEQRA and the Planning Board had included in the previous scoping document, the requirement to discuss potential for future development on adjacent lands as a result of this project. So, the relevance of that previous Planning Board inclusion had to do with how does this project effect adjacent development opportunities, if, in fact, it does. Whether or not that information is in here is something that, again, the Board will have to determine if it's adequate. MR. CARTIER-In other words, what Tom is saying, diplomatically, is that we asked for it then, why are we not asking for it now, if it's not in there? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we want to see that included? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "IV.B. Transportation: Documentation of sources (i.e. criteria) used to determine required parking for a facility of this type." Does anyone feel the need for, well, let me go back to the relevant Section, here. On the third paragraph down, on Item IV.B. of the scoping document, "Adequacy of parking facilities must be addressed. A plan of the existing parking facilities should be provided. The total number of existing parking must be discussed in relation to the number of parking spaces provided. Sources used to determine required parking for a facility of this type should be documented." That is what Tom is referring to, the last item in there. MR. MARTIN-That shouldn't be hard to come up with. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. That should be relatively easy, I would think. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item IV.C. of the scoping document, back to Tom's letter, "Impacts to the Whalen property and appropriate mitigation measures attendant thereto (if applicable)." Is that something this Board feels should be addressed? MR. MARTIN-Well, that sort of is touched on in the item III.D. It's an adjacent property and we're looking for an evaluation of impacts on those properties and this is simply highl ighting one area of impact, noise. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, in addressing III.D., actually that could be combined with IV.C., that's a related issue. MR. MARTIN-Right. That should be highlighted, or. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Section, on Tom's second page, "Section 2.13 and Appendix I", lets go down to Item D, there, because that's the major portion of that. "The general conclusion that that proposed roller coaster will in itself have a negligible impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic appears correct. 7 ~ ~ Because the predominant purpose of the DEIS is to address impacts of the proposed project, the relevancy of the traffic study comments made herein may be diminished and should be so considered by the Planning Board." In effect, what paragraph d does, correct me if I'm wrong, here, Tom, is tell us we may not need to concern ourselves with Item A, B, and C above. MR. MARTIN-Yes, can you further clarify that whole section there? MR. YARMOWICH-Let me say that, in reviewing the traffic count information, I found a deviation which appears to be a deviation, and I think this is an area where it's appropriate for the applicant to respond, if the Board even deems this all relevant. If you put information in this document that goes for public comment that may be incorrect, it may give rise to certain impressions that don't necessarily exist regarding this project and the background or existing conditions. There may be some concern on the part of this Board for doing that. There may be none whatsoever. If the Board feels that these particular issues will not become an impediment to completing this environmental impact study, then they may wish not to change this. It may be possibly that they would direct the applicant to simply remove this in the DEIS, or to correct it to their satisfaction. Whether or not you feel this is relevant is something you should be considering, in light of the public interest and the way in which the scoping document was originally prepared. That's the nature of Comment D. Addressing the specific Comments A, B, and C, it relates to the actual vehicles that were found to occur on Memorial Day weekend of this year. The fact that the original 1988 study, upon which all the Level of Service determinations are made, is from a projection of background growth provided by New York State DOT information. The growth rate suggested by the Memorial Day weekend traffic counts, compared to the July 22nd and 24th, I believe, traffic counts of 1988, mayor may not have any relationship to peak facility use. That's not very well established in the traffic study. The fact is that the traffic study results show that the impact is negligible. Whatever level of service is out there, it probably won't change as a result of this roller coaster and that appears to be correct. MR. CAIMANO-You say that twice, and I'd like to know why you say, that appears to be correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, as I continued to say at the closing paragraph of this letter, I was able to take enough look at the data and when a traffic study is conducted, it's generated through the Institute of Traffic Engineers Guide Book. That book has in it many tables, many standard rates of design and it's a computer generated analysis. For obvious reasons, all that output information wasn't included here, could and may be necessary to review, if, in fact, there is the obvious change in the level of service which would be unacceptable. MR. MARTIN-There's no reason to assume that that would be the case? MR. YARMOWICH-At this point, as a reviewer you must receive most information uncontested and simply review it for what it's worth, allow the public, as part of the process, if and when this is deemed to be complete, to sift through that information, as they should, as well as the Board, until the end of the comment period, and then go ahead and give the applicant final comments to address. So, it's my opinion that the fact that it's not particularly relevant is probably not enough reason, for this particular item alone, to deem the docume\1t incomplete, but nonetheless, it should be clear to the applicant, if, in fact, the Board intends to pursue these technical matters. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, therein is the crux of the matter. Does the Board intend to pursue the technicalities involved in traffic counts? Is that something we need to look at or is that something you want the applicant to address further in his or her comments? MRS. PULVER-It might be nitpicking a little bit. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, and no. I don't know what the number is that's significant. That's what I'm trying to get out of you or this gentleman, because this was always the crux of the matter, to me. We either have to believe that there is not going to be any significant increase in traffic or there is. okay. If there is not, that means that the Great Escape must get into this or there's going to be a drop in business. Otherwise, there's going to be an increase in business, and there's going to be an increase in traffic. What I want to know is, what is significant in this report? What's a significant increase? MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. A significant increase would be, typically, something which is known to change a level of service to a value which this Board is not comfortable with. Currently, the analysis indicates that the level of service at Round Pond Road is Level of Service E, which this consultant indicates is marginally acceptable. If, in fact, traffic is substantially different, that particular intersection may be operating at a level of service below E. MR. CARTIER-By below you mean, worse than E? MR. YARMOWICH-Worse than E. Now, if that's an existing condition, it may be that this Board, in eventually getting to the end of this process when findings are made and all the considerations blended in because of their request for traffic studies and mitigation which can be, in the SEQRA process, it's entirely acceptable for mitigation to be proposed by the applicant that would offset other unmitigatable type circumstances and still make the attendant findings such that the applicant would be able to proceed. 8 ~ '~ It may not turn out that way. What I'm saying is that there can be a trade with mitigation, with particular problems that this Board finds, and still proceed with the project, if it's a mutually agreeable sort of thing. MR. CAIMANO-We want to be careful that the current applicant doesn't pay for the sins of someone else. I happen to use that corner a lot, and it is becoming a difficult corner, not because of the roller coaster, which isn't there yet, but simply because of two other businesses on that corner that are growing in stature. One is the Zoological Park and the other is Martha's keeps growing. I don't think we should kick that out of our minds. MR. YARMOWICH-There's quite a deal of matter in the traffic study which relates to pedestrian issues which do pertain quite pertinently to this applicant's operation. The Board probably already has some opinions as to whether or not they are desirable in conjunction with this application and I think that all that does take some bearing on how the Board wants to have the applicant pursue traffic and pedestrian studies. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, what is the Board's pleasure with regard to the Section A through D? Does the Board deem it pertinent that this be addressed in order for this document to be considered complete? MR. CAIMANO-Well, I suppose just by our very hesitation we deem it so, right? MR. LAPOINT-It would be nice if all the numbers reconciled. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Anything else on that item? Okay. Back to Tom's, same page on Tom's letter, "Section 4.02.13 A and Appendix 3 a. Conclusions relating to noise impact are based on typical meteorological conditions. Extreme meteorological conditions that produce maximum noise transmission should be addressed and impacts for these conditions established." MR. CAIMANO-We get into a realm of theory and probabilities, here, that I think are not worthwhile. I mean, we could say that about anything. So, I just don't think this is worth holding it up for. MR. HAGAN-I, personally, have the feeling, as an engineer, that's something you had to say. MR. CAIMANO-I do, too. MR. YARMOWICH-It's merely a point of view of which magnitude is acceptable to this Board. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think the concerns that have been expressed have to do with, under certain weather conditions, the noise becomes more objectionable than other weather conditions, and I think that's what Tom is addressing, here. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, he is, but lets not forget that the place is only open a short period of time during the year anyway, and the occurrences, the probability of occurrences are so small that I don't think that it's worth getting involved in. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, am I hearing it right, that it is the Board's consensus, here, that we don't need to address. MR. HAGAN-I would rather not get into that. MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MR. HAGAN-I think we could argue for hours on it and we'd get no where. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else on that item, or on Tom's letter? Okay. Let's go back to John Goralski's. MR. GORALSKI-I think you can just go to Conclusions, okay. Parking on the adjacent wetlands, I'm not aware of whether or not there was a final decision made by the Zoning Administrator as to what is all owabl e there. In the body of my 1 etter, here, I tal k about the number of parking spaces. Whether or not it's significant to subtract 100 spaces from that area or not, I think, is something the Board should decide on. Even if you subtract half the spaces that are down by the wetland, it appears that the parking won't be impacted by the addition of the roller coaster. It's just something that should be brought up. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I agree. I threw some numbers around, there. I roughed in a 75 foot buffer, there, which means they lose 107 parking spaces, and using the figure of 6,000 people per day, three persons per car, they only need 2,000 parking spaces. MR. GORALSKI-Right. 9 --- MR. CARTIER-I think we could include a buffer, a 75 foot buffer in there at the expense of 107 spots and still not have a problem with parking. MR. GORALSKI-Still have adequate parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, is it the consensus of the Board that they want that addressed? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Noise impacts to the Whalen property? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Possibility of extending park hours? MR. CAIMANO-We talked about this before. It seemed like that couldn't happen anyway, without coming back to the Planning Board for a site plan review. Is that right? MR. GORALSKI-That's not true. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. What is the story? MR. GORALSKI-They can operate whatever hours they would like. MR. CAIMANO-It seems like we had testimony on the record that said that they could not do that without going somewhere. MR. GORALSKI-Not at all. I have the minutes right here, and that's not the case. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-We could specify that, down the line. MR. GORALSKI-That is something you could do, is you could, well, I don't know, I guess you'd have to ask the attorney. You do have the right to put specific conditions on any site plan approval, whether or not limiting the hours of operation is within that realm is a legal question. MR. CARTIER-No. I think what we can do here is to say later hours of operation will only be, I don't have the wordi ng down in my head, here, but it seems 1 i ke we're not sayi ng we're goi ng to not allow it. We're going to say we could allow later hours of operation, provided that the applicant came back and talked to us about mitigating any problems associated with that. Does that sound appropriate, Karla? MR. GORALSKI-I think the issue, right now, is not what condition you would impose, but whether or not you want that addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. CARTIER-Good point. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, the answer's yes, correct? MR. HAGAN-Didn't the applicant make some comment, regarding that? My memory fails me, but I think we brought that up. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, he did. MRS. PULVER-I don't think they committed one way or the other, to extended hours, as I recall. MR. HAGAN-I got the distinct impression that somebody said that they wouldn't extend the hours. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's something that we want to keep in mind, but we can address that at some other time, later on. Okay. Does the Board have any other issues that they wish to raise that have not shown up in Tom's comments or John's comments? All right. Let's see if I can summarize these, in no particular order. One thing I picked up on, in going through this, is there's a letter from Brian LaFl ure regarding fi re access to the roll er coaster. That needs to be addressed somewhere along the line. Okay. Lets see if I have all these, and somebody follow me on this and make sure I've got them all, here, parking within the wetlands area, noise impact on the Whalen property, the possibility of extending park hours, fire access, potential for future development on adjacent sites, traffic, the parki ng issue, in connecti on with thewetl ands, I guess, channel i zi ng pedestri an traffic to the crosswalks. Have I got it all? 10 '--../ '-, MR. GORALSKI-I'm just a little, could we digress a little and go back to the parking along the wetland? I thought our discussion was that, even without that parking, they had adequate capacity for. MR. CARTIER-Let me re-phrase it, then. Elimination of parking in the wetland areas? MR. GORALSKI-Well, then what they would do is eliminate that in their final EIS. That wouldn't be a reason to determine that this is not a complete document. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. All I'm trying to do is give the applicant as much, you know, a list of our concerns as possible so that, at some point along the line, it will be addressed. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. We just have to be clear as to whether or not it's a complete document or not. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any issues they want to raise? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, just in general, because, again, I have a letter from our engineer that says these documents were not found to be addressed and that I would address this to the applicant, that if you're going to go back and go over this, that you would want to consider including all of these items, whether we deem them as necessary or not, and in particular, Item 3b. If someone infers that it is not here, or implies it's not here, then it's simple enough to just add it. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I would like to say that by doing this right now is what will happen is, if in fact when this thing becomes a public review document, you won't be answering these questions over and over again. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-If the Board deems them to be okay tOday, then unless the public finds evidence to the contrary, factual evidence to the contrary, you won't have to keep doing this over and over and over. MR. CARTIER-Would the applicant's representative care to address the Board? HOLLY ELMER MRS. ELMER-Holly Elmer, the LA Group. Lets take it from the top. The Study Area Maps, as most of you noticed. there's a noise study which has its own map. Visual study has its maps. The traffic study has its own maps. If you would like, we could make one map showing overlapping circles of these studies, for clarification. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think that would meet that scoping document and fairly simple to do. MRS. ELMER-That would be easy enough to do. What we would like to do, maybe, perhaps, offer is for the final impact statement, if some of these cOlllllents could go in there, possibly deem the document complete today, and address these in the final. MR. GORALSKI-We have to be very clear on that, okay. Are you saying that this document is not complete because that map is not in there, or are you saying that you'd like to see that included in the final EIS? MRS. ELMER-Generally, if it's not a substantive issue, a major omission, you know, a map like that could go in the final. We all know what it's going to look like. MR. GORALSKI-I think, in theory, that the location is addressed, here. There is not one single map that draws a line. However, there's a.location description and there are enough maps that even someone who was not familiar with the Great Escape could look at this document and find the project site. MRS. PULVER-I think I'd be happy with it in the final. MRS. ELMER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-That question is going to come up with all of these items, however. Is it not? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, everyone of them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have to determine which ones are substantive enough to. 11 '- MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's why we're here today. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. ELMER-If it's a big enough omission, then we should revise the DEIS. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't think it's a big enough omission. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's something we can deal with at final. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. ELMER-I think your other first item there was the wetland parking. That parking is used only about four times out of the hundred day season and it's strictly for overflow parking, emergency overflow parking. It's not regularly used and it's only in the interest of safety that we put cars back there. MR. MARTIN-I think it's not so much the use of it we're concerned with as the existence of the impermeable surface and all that so close to the wetlands. MRS. ELMER-Well, that's the thing. It's not impermeable. It's sand. The danger of a parking near the wetland would be a runoff. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. ELMER-But since that's all sand and not paved. MR. CARTIER-Well, my concern is, a buffer is a buffer is a buffer. If you use it, it's not a buffer anymore and we, in the past, have been very adamant, I think, about maintaining wetlands buffers and given the fact, and I know I'm getting ahead of myself here again, that you could lose 107 or 110, potentially, here, allegedly, you could lose 107 or 110 parking spaces and still be within your parking and provide the 75 foot buffer. I think it's possible. MRS. ELMER-Yes. If we were going to do any development there, we would have to get a permit from DEC to work in the buffer, but since there's no development proposed there, no permit is needed. MR. CARTIER-I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying to you, then. MRS. ELMER-Well, as far as I know buffers, a DEC buffer is 100 feet around a wetland. Army Corp. has no buffer, and there's no development or paving proposed for there. MR. CARTIER-Does DEC have regulation over that wetland, then? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they do. MR. CARTIER-So, you'd have to require a 100 foot buffer? MRS. ELMER-It's a 100 foot buffer. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MRS. ELMER-If there's any development proposed, we would have to get a permit. MR. CARTIER-Well, parking nearby, to me, is in effect, it's not a building, but it's development. It has an impact on a wetland. MRS. ELMER-Well, in our experience with the DEC, that would not be an impact. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the question is, and I'm not going to ask you, but thinking back to the minutes, we've already gone through this, and I think I recall Mr. Judge saying that that's not necessary anyway, and why are we haggling over it. Why get into it? Why not just get it out of the way, if it's going to be a source of irritation? MRS. ELMER-Well, we're just trying to leave the options open, basically. It's the emergency overflow parking for public safety. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but it's the options that get us in trouble later on. MRS. ELMER-It's basically the public safety we're concerned with. MR. CARTIER-Well, understand where I'm coming from, in terms of long view. If we make an exception here and we say, well, okay, in thi s case, we're not goi ng to do a buffer, then we open the door to anybody coming in, wanting to do something. 12 -- MRS. ELMER-Anybody would have to get a permit from the DEC. MR. CARTIER-Well, you're dealing with the Town of Queensbury right now. Lets leave DEC out of this. I would like to see a minimum 75 foot buffer there, and that's why I'm saying, that's why I pushed some numbers around, I think you can do it, and not negatively impact your parking. DICK BARTLETT MR. BARTLETT-May I join Mrs. Elmer? I'm Dick Bartlett and also appearing for the applicant. As I understand it, the parking that has gone on there, has gone on for some time. It is permeable soil. There is no structure there. There is no paving there. There is no roadway, except that caused by vehicles. MR. CARTIER-I am aware of all of that, Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT-I know you are Mr. Cartier. Let me come to my point. My point is that what does that have to do with this appl ication? What is-there is there. The parking that has gone on there has been of an emergency character, a few times a year, when there are huge crowds there, and we concede that at those times it's been used for parking, but it's not going to take on any new role, in connection with the roller coaster. It's going to continue to be overflow parking. So, I guess my question to the Board would be, what is the relationship of the occasional parking that takes place now, near the wetlands, have to do with the wetlands? MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned, it's part of this DEIS, and as far as I'm concerned, anything in there is fair game, then. I understand what you're talking about is, in effect, grandfathering this particular parking. MR. MARTIN-Won't the use of the roller coaster cause an increase in the frequency of use of that parking lot needed as overflow? MRS. PULVER-No. thought they said 40 cars. MRS. ELMER-There's only 40 spaces. MR. MARTIN-Forty spaces? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Forty cars is the maximum the roller coaster would add. MRS. ELMER-We've got 2300 spaces. MR. HAGAN-You would be willing to stand on that statement for 50 years? You're predicting the future that I don't think any of us can do. MR. BARTLETT-Not with certainty, of course. No, we understand that. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but to say it's just for temporary overflow, I think, is assuming an awful lot, Dick. MR. HAGAN-Well, all I'm saying, Jim, is that that's what it's been used for in the past. We contemplate a 40 car increase, by reason of the roller coaster, but let me put it slightly differently. The Board is going to have to deal with that issue, ultimately. We can't decide it for you. It seems to me that the matter is adequately addressed in the DEIS. The question is what the Board is going to do with the application when it comes to it's final consideration. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just trying to layout my concerns for you, so that you're not feeling like you're getting sandbagged later on, here. What I'm concerned about is, yes, if we use it for overflow parking, now, at some point in the distant future, the question may arise, well, maybe we can use it for something else because we've got a past practice, here, that involves using it for parking and now we're going to put some structure on it or a ride or something like that. MR. BARTLETT-So that we understand that parking along the wetland will be addressed before we conclude our whole process here. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MRS. ELMER-I guess for the purposes of the DEIS, you have all you need to know about that parking area. You've got a pretty good map. The noi se study concentrated on the nearest receptors, on the theory that anybody farther away woul d have a reduced impact, and that's stated in the opening paragraphs of the noise study. So, the Whalen property is farther away than the nearest residence on Birdsall Road, known as Receptor One. MR. CARTIER-But the property line is only 288 feet away. I heard that somewhere. 13 MR. CAIMANO-And it's an adjacent property. MR. CARTIER-And it's an adjacent property. MRS. ELMER-It's adjacent. I know it's undeveloped right now. MR. CARTIER-But the point is, that may have some negative impact on the ability of the owner to develop that property at some point in the future. MRS. ELMER-I understand he bought that knowing it was an RC-15 zone. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-That's correct. MRS. ELMER-It's a recreational zone, which the zoning law says is compatible with residential use. MR. CAIMANO-But, again, trying to cover all our bases, this is an adjoining property and, prior to his appearance tonight, which we are not taking into account, there has been complaint, so, therefore, it would seem logical that this is an area that would be taken care of. MRS. ELMER-All right. In the DElS, we could extend the noise study to include that. It is further away, but we could make a specific statement about the Whalen property. Item Three, the possibil ity of extending the hours, under, I think it's Section 7, Growth Inducing Aspects, we mention that the park is sometimes open, now, for charitable benefits, fund-raisers, that kind of thing, and the major impediment to any development of late hours would be the need to light the park. It's a pretty big park and there's no lighting at all for night time use, right now. There are no plans, at this time, to open it at night. That's about all I can say there. MR. CARTIER-Is that stated in there? MRS. ELMER-I don't think I said that. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It is. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. It is. It's stated that there is no site lighting. MRS. ELMER-Yes. It does say that. MR. YARMOWICH-Would or would not site lighting require site plan review is something else that may be influential in determining whether or not-that's even a factor, right now. MR. CAIMANO-Is is part of the site plan review? MR. GORALSKI-No. It is part of .! site plan review, site 1 ighting. However, if the appl icant wished to install lighting throughout the park, there would be no review by the Town. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, maybe an electrical firm. MRS. ELMER-So, that Section does discuss the possibility of extending the hours. MR. CARTIER-All right. That's something we may want to specify later on down the line. MRS. ELMER-Okay. You saw Mr. LaFlure's letter regarding the fire access. He does have a map of the park and they conduct drills out there on a regular basis, I understand. They do have a 95 foot aerial truck, now, that will access the coaster, and the only thing they asked for was a couple of gravel pads to put their outriggers down and they could reach the highest points, and Mr. Wood is certainly glad to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. ELMER-Item Five was the potential for future development. He is zoned for recreational park and he probably will bring more rides in, but he has been, every two or three years, bringing in a new ride, which is part of the marketing strategy for a park like this. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think that item was referring to future development on adjacent property, also. MRS. ELMER-On adjacent properties, yes. 14 ---..-- MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I want to jump in here, too, and say that I don't want that comment, in regard to the Whalen property, to be just limited to that, in terms of noise. I want to see the noise impact on all adjacent property owners. MRS. ELMER-We could be more specific. Like I said, the noise study concentrated on the nearest receptors and examined those, and you can interpolate the impacts to other properties farther away. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm also concerned about the ones that are closer to that, also. MRS. ELMER-Well, we did the closest ones in the noise study. Gulson Labs did that work. MR. CARTIER-You did the house, but you didn't do the vacant land. MR. MARTIN-I'm talking vacant properties and noise reception at the vacant properties. MRS. ELMER-Yes, well they're still farther away than some existing residences. MR. CARTIER-But understand the point we're making here, I think, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, because it has to do with this idea of potential for future development of adjacent property, here. What is going to be the impact of noise at the property line. Do you understand what 1'm saying? MRS. ELMER-Well, it's a recreational park and it's been there since 1954 and they bought their land knowing this was there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, that's true, but noise levels have gone up since 1954. MRS. ELMER-Well, not just from the park, though. We've got Route 9. We've got the outlet centers. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I'm not arguing that with you. I think what the Board is saying is, we want to know what the impact is at not just the nearest receptors, but also adjacent property lines. MRS. ELMER-Well, I can easily say that will be reduced. MR. CARTIER-I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The receptors are farther away than some property lines. We're talking at the property line of the adjacent property, Mr. Whalen, for example, Mr. Passarelli. MRS. PULVER-But the properties are not as close as the nearest residences that they. MR. CARTIER-Yes, they are. MRS. PULVER-No. That's what she just said. The residences are closer than the property lines. MRS. ELMER-Yes. I have a private property map, if you'd like to see it, with the Whalen property on it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. See, that's where a map would. MRS. PULVER-Well, there is a noise map in there. MR. LAPOINT-But does that include the adjacent properties? MRS. ELMER-There is a map on the noise study. MR. CAIMANO-We have a map on in the noise study, a huge one. MRS. PULVER-Yes, the noise study is in there with the map. MR. LAPOINT-With the adjacent properties on it and their distances? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. ELMER-The noise study is very explicit about the distance to the nearest receptors and the effect on people farther away. MR. CARTIER-But the receptors you refer to are people living in a home, correct? MRS. ELMER-That's true, existing. MR. MARTIN-You're talking about occupied residences. I'm talking about vacant pieces of property. 15 '-' MRS. ELMER-They're still farther away than that existing residence on Birdsall Road. MR. Ml\RTIN-You're going to tell me that there is no vacant adjacent land owners closer than occupied houses? MRS. ELMER-That's what Gulson Laboratories has said, yes. Gulson Labs did the study. MR. YARMOWICH-That would be inadequate, I mean, to base your decision on that. It's, in fact, the case, from tax maps and other information, that there are adjoining property lines closer to that. The reference for using adjoining property lines is typically the Town's use of property lines and all noise considerations such as Ordinances. That a receptor is in one particular location, is pertinent, and is relevant. The fact that the Board is concerned about a property line, I think, is equally significant in this study. MR. Ml\RTIN-And this is the proposed location, right here? MRS. ELMER-That's right. The proposed is right here. MR. MARTIN-You're going to tell me that this property line here is farther away than the nearest residence? MRS. ELMER-Well, it would be similar to this. Receptor One is referred to in the noise study as this property. MR. CARTIER-Here's what we're saying, that needs to be addressed, okay. Here's Receptor One, right here. There's an impact here. Here is, you know, this is 288 feet. MRS. ELMER-It's not going to change from this, but we can certainly say that. We could be very specific about that. That's fine. MR. CARTIER-It needs to be addressed. All we're saying to you is what needs to be addressed. MR. ELMER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Closest adjacent, even if it's vacant or not, that needs to be addressed. MRS. ELMER-Okay, but I can tell you right now, it will be similar to this. WAYNE JUDGE MR. JUDGE-Wait. Do you want the receptor from the ride, or do you want the receptor from the proposed location to the ride, or from the? MR. CARTIER-The park. whatever your starting point for your noise study was. MR. ELMER-The coaster. MR. JUDGE-The coaster. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. JUDGE-What we're considering is the coaster and the issue is whether the public has enough information about the noise effect of the coaster. So it would have to be measured not from Charlie's property line or IBC's property line. It would be from the coaster. MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying to you is, you put your testing equipment at the property line, to measure, okay. Do you follow what I'm saying? MR. Ml\RTIN-But the public is concerned about the noise levels here and here. They could be concerned. MR. JUDGE-Right. MRS. ELMER-This is all RC-15, all through here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. JUDGE-I think what Mrs. Elmer is saying is that, from the information that's already in the study, the public has enough there to be able to determine the impact. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe this Board is not agreeing with that. Here's what we're saying. Mr. Whalen, lets say, wants to put in a campground here. He wants to do some RC, whatever, Recreation Commercial. MRS. ELMER-You've got a 35 percent slope, right there. 16 ---- c____ MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. I'm g1Vlng you an example, okay. All right. What we're saying is, the noise may have an impact on what he puts on that piece of property in that place. MRS. ELMER-He's got an RC-15. I think it's a 15,000 square foot. MR. CARTIER-No. You're missing the point. MR. CAIMANO-We're getting into an area, here, now, that's far a fiel d from what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be determining whether or not there's enough information to make a decision, and the fact of the matter is no one has been more concerned, I think if you go back in the minutes of the meeting, about the neighbors than I have, and I spoke up for it, but, for crying out loud, if you have a microphone here and there's somebody sitting here and somebody sitting over there, the difference, in terms of statistical difference, is absolutely ridiculous. We're arguing over the glandular condition of mice. MR. JUDGE-Mr. Whalen may have a valid concern because he's right next door, but people two houses away also have a valid concern. That's another group. People three houses away would be a third one. My name is Wayne Judge, and I also represent the applicant. The issue is, is there enough information in the study from which the publ ic can draw conclusions as to the impact of the noise. The issue is not whether Mr. Whalen knows enough about, there's enough about noise on Mr. Whalen's property in the study or there's enough about noi se on the person once removed from the property in the study, and twice removed, and three times removed, and four times removed, because these are all people that have various levels of concern, but it's not the obligation of the applicant to address every single resident's concern. The purpose of this hearing, is there enough information, here, from which the public, generally, can come to a conclusion about the noise level. I think Mr. Whalen, it's fair to say, has already come to his conclusion about the noise level, and he hasn't even seen any studies yet. MR. CARTIER-Well, but what we're talking about, here, is essentially the same thing. Does this Board have enough information about the noise study to determine what the impact will be at Mr. Whalen's property? MR. CAIMANO-I do. MRS. PULVER-I do. MR. LAPOINT-If I hadn't seen this map today, I wouldn't know that that was Mr. Whalen's property, and I think it's perfectly clear that we pulled out a map that isn't even in the DEIS to answer a question here. That map is not the one that is in the DEIS. MR. CAIMANO-In actuality, I owe you an apology because I was here from the beginning and you weren't and we did know more and concluded more from what we saw than what you did. So, I apologize. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but this is the document, and this is the document that needs to be completed. I would not know that Mr. Whalen owned that property. I read this thing all the way through and did not know that he owned that. It is shown on the other map, but not on this one. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The question, I think, boils down, then, to does this Board feel that it needs more information about the impact of noise on Mr. Whalen's property, immediately adjacent to the Great Escape property? MR. HAGAN-I think it's a valid request. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I do, too. MRS. ELMER-Would the inclusion of that extra map be enough, in the final, so we can call it complete, today? MR. LAPOINT-Well, that, in combination with everything else we have to discuss. MR. CARTIER-Lets wait, about the question about final until we get through all of this, okay. MRS. ELMER-Okay. I think traffic was the next one. We included the Simhoff Study because it was an existing study, and we referred to it. His counts are lower than Levine's counts and I don't know why. I called Mr. Simhoff. He did not return my call. It could have been a couple of rainy days. I don't know exactly why his numbers are lower. He is a P.E., a traffic engineer. MR. CARTIER-Well, if memory serves, and that's not a good judge, here, I think this study may have been done in March. MRS. ELMER-No. It was July 27-28th, I think it was. MR. CAIMANO-Of what year? 17 '''-' MR. ELMER-1988. MR. CARTIER-Okay. '88? MRS. ELMER-Yes, but at any rate, it has all been updated with 1991 counts, and it's referred to because it's an existing study, but we have updated all the counts. The traffic study did identify one problem and that was with the pedestrian crossings and there is a list of about eight mitigation measures which we would like to do. We do have to get a permit from the State DOT to do that work. They would have to review it. They are not strictly an involved agency because it's not a discretionary approval. They would just need to review it and agree to the width of the crossings, that type of thing. As a result of the study, there will be some improved pedestrian crossings, channelized, is I think the word I saw in the earlier stuff. The only other thing was the weather discussions did come up. They did discuss high wind and the wind direction from the coaster. I don't think they discussed thunderstorms, but they discussed, you know, the worst case would be a wind coming away from the coaster toward homes. It was addressed in the noise study. MRS. PULVER-Well, it probably wouldn't be running during a thunderstorm. MRS. ELMER-That's true. MRS. ELMER-We do feel that a lot of these issues are not really substantive omissions and could be included in the final. Perhaps as a condition of your deeming it complete today, you could give us a list of conditions you'd like to see. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. What's the Board's druthers here? It boils down to, at this point, do we have enough to deem this DEIS complete and go to public hearing, or are there some other issues that we wish to see addressed further before we deem this document complete? MR. CAIMANO-You mean, other than the issues she's going to address? MR. CARTIER-What? MR. CAIMANO-You mean, other than the issues that are already going to be addressed? MR. GORALSKI-If I could jump in once more. What you have to do decide whether this document is complete and adequate for the purpose of commencing public review. In other words, can the public read this document and come to some conclusion as to what they feel the impacts of this proposal are? Okay. If you feel that it's not complete, you need to specifically list why it's not complete and what they should do to make it complete. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'm going to go with our Staff Comments and our engineer said he believes it's suitable for commencing public review and I believe Mr. Goralski did and I think the things that we are concerned with, they can be addressed at final. That's my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that, as long as the applicant understands what we do expect to be addressed at final. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Just a quick question. Where does the final come in, in reference to the public hearing, before or after? MS. CORPUS-This Board, if it determines that the Draft EIS is complete and determines that the public hearing is necessary, has to set a publ ic hearing no earlier than 14 days from now, no earl ier than that. The public has 30 calendar days from the first filing and circulation of the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIS to comment, and after that period, and evaluating that, that's when the final would be done. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So the final will take into our accounts and then the public hearing discussion, correct? MS. CORPUS-And comments from any agencies. MR. LAPOINT-And comments from any other agencies. MR. CARTIER-We're going to have a public hearing on the Draft version. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Prior to final. 18 '''"-'' MR. LAPOINT-Prior to final. MS. CORPUS-Prior to final, right. MR. GORALSKI-If you determine that a public hearing is necessary, it would be on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and before the Final Impact Statement is submitted. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have a question on whether or not a public hearing is necessary? Okay. Karla, I have a question. I had kind of anticipated some things, here, and sort of anticipated that we could do a public hearing on the 23rd of July, which is our second regular meeting for which we have nothing scheduled. MS. CORPUS-I don't believe the time frame would be adequate. It has to be 14 days. MR. CARTIER-No less than 14 days? MS. CORPUS-No less than 14 days from the time this Notice of Completion is circulated, which wouldn't be tOday. MR. YARMOWICH-That also includes publishing in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. MRS. PULVER-Karla, 14 work days? MR. YARMOWICH-Calendar days. MS. CORPUS-Fourteen calendar days, and we would have to get it down to Albany for publication. MR. YARMOWICH-It comes out Tuesday, and they have to have it on the Friday before. MR. GORALSKI-And they won't get it tomorrow. Well, they may. MR. YARMOWICH-It's likely that the next Environmental Notice Bulletin will come out the week following Tuesday, with, in fact, any decision you make here, if it's for completeness. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, but we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves. Let me just be very clear, here, that, am I assuming that this Board is going to, by motion, deem this complete? MR. CAIMANO-Well, I just want to ask a question, here, before I answer that. There were several of you who were concerned about the noise study not being complete, due to the Whalen property. What is the appl icant supposed to be doing if we accept this tonight? Is that supposed to be part of the next one? Where are we here? I think that's kind of left up in the air. MR. LAPOINT-I think the applicant has a pretty good read of what our concerns are and they should address them. Again, they have their feeling on what's necessary and they got our input today. MR. CAIMANO-So, we're tell ing the appl icant that we're accepting this Draft EIS. However, prior to it being completely final, the noise situation has to be addressed on Whalen's property? MR. CARTIER-They're going to have to address that in the Final EIS. MR. GORALSKI-Can I just jump in, again? The Final EIS will be the Draft EIS, plus it will reflect any issues that are raised at the public cOIIIII'ent period. I assume that Mr. Whalen will address the noise on his property, if you do not decide, now, that it should be addressed in the Draft. MR. CARTIER-At that public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-And at that point, Mr. Passarelli or anybody else could also bring it up, correct? MR. LAPOINT-Exactly, which he can't do now. MR. YARMOWICH-The Board, themselves, may also have requirements of completing the Draft. The public may have requirements or raise issues with the Draft. The Final Environmental Impact Statement will reflect the Board's satisfaction that all issues are suitably addressed. It will no longer be merely the applicant's statement of the issues. It will be, in fact, what the Board has endorsed. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, and just so there's no question, so that Mr. Passarelli or nor anyone else feels as if they're being slighted, the fact that we are discussing the Whalen property is a result of previous meetings, not of what came up tonight. He have been a voracious and vociferous opponent of this ride. MR. LAPOINT-And Mr. Goralski brought the Whalen. 19 '----' '''-'"' MR. CAIMANO-I just want to make sure, because the question was asked from the audience, and I want to make sure that everybody understands this. MR. LAPOINT-Right. The applicant has the record of the other property owner to take into consideration a 1 so. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. LAPOINT-That, unofficially, they heard tonight. MR. CARTIER-It was in the scoping document, Nick, which addresses that. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. I just want to make sure. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are we at a point where we can talk about a potential date for a public hearing that we will include in whatever motion is going to come out of this? MR. GORALSKI-We11, I think the first thing you should do is to deem it complete or incomplete. Once you deem it complete, then you can discuss whether or not a publ ic hearing is necessary and a date for a public hearing. Why don't we do it that way. This way we don't miss anything. MR. CARTIER-So, you want two motions then. Okay. MOTION IN THE ~TTER OF SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEIT, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: The Board has determined that this Draft EIS prepared by the applicant is adequate for public review. This Board, as Lead Agency, will file a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIS and a copy of the Draft EIS in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 617.10 Letter C and Letter D of this part. This Board will provide a public comment period on the Draft EIS to be not less than 30 calendar days from the first filing and circulation of Notice of Completion. Duly adopted this 11th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Now, we need to set a date and our Secretary has been working on a potential date. How about July 30th? MS. CORPUS-The earliest possible date would be August 6th or 7th. MRS. PULVER-The earliest? I thought you said it had to be 14 days? MS. CORPUS-After the publication. MR. GORALSKI-The Notice probably will not be published in the ENB until Tuesday, July 23rd, which means 14 days from then, which is Tuesday, August 6th. MR. CARTIER-Is that the soonest we can do it? That assumes everything works right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, and that's with no glitches. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we want to leave a week's cushion time? MR. CAIMANO-I will not be hear from the 6th through the 13th. MR. CARTIER-The 6th through the 13th. MR. YARMOWICH-We11, usua11y public cOllll1ents are merely received in a procedural fashion, with the exception that the Board has the right to ask for clarification from the publ ic. So, the attendance of the whole Board may not be critical. MR. CARTIER-Do you have a problem not being here for that, if we can do it the 13th? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're talking August 13th. MOTION TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 13TH, 1991 7 P.M., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: 20 ------' '-0-/ Duly adopted this 11th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MRS. ELMER-Could we please have a comment deadline, just to get that number out to. MR. YARMOWICH-It will be 30 days from the filing of Notice, whenever that day is. MR. CARTIER-Is that automatic, or do we need to? MR. YARMOWICH-It's a minimum of 30. You can extend it if you desire. MR. GORALSKI-Would you like to include that the comment period will end 30 days from the filing of the Notice of Completion? MS. CORPUS-It was in the motion. MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. YARMOWICH-Nick said a minimum of. MR. GORALSKI-Nick said a minimum. MS. CORPUS-Minimum. MR. CAIMANO-Say again? MR. GORALSKI-Your motion read that the publ ic comment will be a minimum of 30 days from the Notice being filed. Would you like to give a specific date? Would you like to make it 30 days from the Notice being filed? Right now, it's ambiguous as to when the public commentary will end. MR. YARMOWICH-It will be 30 to 60 days, without anything further. MR. CAIMANO-Are you asking me? I don't care. MS. CORPUS-Yes. It's up to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think it's appropriate, a 30 day time limit on that. MR. GORALSKI-It can be a maximum of 60. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Lets make it, then, it will be 30 days from the date of filing. IIJTION TO AMEND PREVlOOS JlJTION REGARDlfIG THE DRAFT EIS TO READ THAT THE COMMENT PERlOO WILL BE EXACRY 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILlfIG, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 11th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CAIMANO-Now, to be really correct, of course, I should go back and say that I bel ieve I should go back and vote on the original motion as amended, just to be correct. MR. CARTIER-So, we've voted on the amendment. Now, we need to vote on the motion as amended. MR. CAIMANO-As amended, that's correct. JlJTION TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL IIJTlON AS AMENDED, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 11th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 21