The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-08-24 ~--""'-- '- UUEENSBURY PLRNNING BORRD MEETING SECOND REGULRR MEETING RUGUST 24TH, 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. 1. Site Plan No. 32-93 Guido Passarelli 10. Subdivision No. 17-1993 SKETCH PLAN James R. Doyle 23. Site Plan No. 40-93 Oscar Schreiber 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. "",..-"'-\ "--- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24TH, 1993 7:00 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS PRESENT EDWARD LAPOINT ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: RT. 9, LAKE GEORGE RD. SUBMISSION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS. TAX MAP NO. 36-2-7 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay, Mr. Lemery, would you like to address the Board? MR. LEMERY-I'd be glad to answer any questions. I don't have any presentation, other than the one that was made at the Workshop Session. I could put the flip chart on the board, or I brought the Schemat ic. MR. BREWER-I don't know. Does anybody want to see it, or need to see it again? MRS. PULVER-We were all there. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions at all? MR. MARTIN-Paul just wanted resolution carefully, as it point forward, to complete project. me to make sure that you read the really lays out the steps from this the environmental review of this MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe we can take a minute. Do you want to read it for us, Jim, and we can go through it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. record. Yes. Maybe 1'11 just read it right into the MR. LEMERY-I'm just asking that you accept, if you find it to be complete, that you accept it as complete. I'd be pleased to get on the Planning Board agenda for the meeting of the 21st, and we have submitted a site plan application and all the drawings in connection therewith. I have those two with me, if someone. MR. MARTIN-The Board will take that up next month. MR. LEMERY-Okay. MR. MARTIN-IIRESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - 1 - ......- -- STATEMENT REGARDING ROLLER COASTER WHEREAS, Attractions Land previously submitted an application for site plan approval for a certain roller coaster entitled, The Comet, and WHEREAS, on Apri I 10, 113130, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury assumed lead agency status, reviewed the application, environmental assessment form, and other documents and information presented to it and issued a positive declaration under SEQRA, and WHEREAS, on July 11, 113131 the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury accepted as satisfactory, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which was submitted by Attractions Land in response to the positive declaration and scoping held by the said Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the aforesaid submitted DEIS on August 3, 113131 and entertained comments on the DEIS through August 23, 113131, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board notes that the comment period has expired and that Attractions Land has submitted a Final Environmental Impact Statement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been submitted in connection with the application of Attractions Land for site plan approval of the roller coaster and hereby determines that the aforesaid FEIS is complete and adequate, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Notice of Completion of the FEIS presented at this meeting is hereby approved and authorized for use, and BE ,IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Notice of Completion shall be filed: 1. as part of the papers and documents maintained by the Planning Office as part of the application of Attractions Land for approval of the roller coaster; 2. the Notice of Completion must be sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233- 001 for publication in the ENB; 3. The Notice of Completion and Final Environmental Impact Statement must be filed with the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 4. The Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed with the appropriate regional office of the Department; 5. the Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed with the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury; &. the Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed with Attractions Land; 7. The Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed with all other involved agencies; 8. One copy of the Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed with those persons requesting it and one copy of the Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed at all agencies where the DEIS was previously filed and/or made available to the public; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that prior to the Planning Board's decision on the action which has been the subject of the FEIS, it shall afford agencies and the public a reasonable time period of ten days from the date of filing of the Notice of Completion and FEIS in which to consider the FEIS, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, hereby also notes that the lead agency's filing of written findings and the decision on whether or not to approve the action which has been the subject of the FEIS shall be made within 30 days after the filing of the FE IS. Dul y adopt ed th i s 24th day 0 f August, 113133, by the following vote:" MR. BREWER-I've got one question, Jim. Back on Page 2, the first paragraph, it's probably right, but I just want to make sure. It says, "The Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been submitted in connection with the application of Attractions Land for site plan approval." Should that "approval" be in there, or just "for site plan"? MR. MARTIN-That might be a good change, just say "for site plan". MR. BREWER-Because that almost reads, to me, that we're giving them an approval. MR. MARTIN-Right. - 2 - ,"- "'"""-- -- MR. BREWER-So can we delete that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. You certainly can. MRS. PULVER-And I have a question, on Page 3, Number 8, where it says, "one copy of the Notice of Completion and FEIS must be filed with those persons requesting it." Who else has requested this? MR. MARTIN-We'd have to check through. MRS. PULVER-In the private sector. MR. HARLICKER-The only other involved agency was the Department of Labor. MR. MARTIN-And if somebody from the public formally requested a copy, we'd have to check through any comments made during the comment peri od, and see if that, in fact, was request ed. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-But they would be added to the list. MRS. PULVER-Yes. All right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Has anybody else got any questions, or subtractions or additions? MRS. TARANA-Are we going to discuss this? MR. BREWER-Yes. If you've got questions, go right ahead. MRS. TARANA-Yes, I have some quest ions. My bi ggest quest ion is, regarding the night hours. The comment is that you don't plan on having night hours. You don't anticipate having night hours, but you do have night hours now for fund raisers, and the Park is, parts of the Park are open, true? MR. LEMERY-I think that the only time the Park is open at night are for these kinds of fund raisers, and I don't know that, I mean, I can't speak for Mr. Wood, but I don't th i nk there are more than two or three of those a year, or season, if that. MRS. TARANA-I think they actually said, five. MR. LEMERY-Five? MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think I read that some place. I don't remember where, but I guess my point is that it didn't seem to me as though the FEIS really addressed that issue, in lieu of the fact that there are evening hours for these fund raisers, and it would seem to me that the noise study should have included a study of sound at night. MR. LEMERY-Well, it's not open for business at night, and it's not contemplated being open for business at night at the present time. If any contemplation was going to be made regarding opening a business at night, they would have to have a serious commitment of capital involving all kinds of lighting, all kinds of security, probably a different staff. So, I spoke to Charlie Wood about that at some length. He's not here. So I can only report to you what that conversation was. He does not intend to open this Park at night at this point in time. I can't say that this would be forever, that at some point he comes back and says, I want to open the Park at night, but we didn't know how to answer it in any other fashion. It's only available for these kinds of fund raisers. Most of the rides aren't available at that time. There are only selected areas of the Park that are lighted for the fund raisers. I know that the Hole In the Wall 3 - --- is going to be located at the Circus Area, where the bleachers are located, for the auction, and then one of the big tent areas for the dinner, and then two or three rides, as far as I know, and that's it, and then it's lighted, or it will be lighted, to bring people in and bring people out, but that's all that's contemplated, and frankly, we didn't want to be put in the position where we had to agree that the Great Escape would not be open at night. That's not something. I mean, if that's going to be the case, I think that's got to apply to all kinds of different businesses, recreation businesses in the Town, and the best way we could answer it was, it's not contemplated at this time. I don't think he contemplates it in the future. I think he would have said so, but we didn't know how to answer it in any better fashion than that. MRS. TARANA-It would seem to me that, whether it's open for business or if it's a fund raiser, if the rides are available at night, in particular the roller coaster which is in question, that that should have been addressed, because it is already operating at night, on occasion, on these five occasions, or whatever, a year. MR. LEMERY-Well, I suppose that it's possible that if he has two or three fund raisers a year, it's possible that the roller coaster could be operated four or five times a season. If he decides to do that, and has fund raisers, for the Hyde or for the Hole in the Wall camp, or for whatever other fund raisers he has, these are fund raisers for the community. MRS. TARANA-And I think the point is just, it doesn't matter what the function, what the reason. It seems to me that it should have still been addressed in the noise study. It's noise, no matter whether it's for profit noise or not for profit noise. MR. LEMERY-There was no way we could address the noise study, because it's just, it doesn't have any, it doesn't have any effect. There's no way, Mrs. Tarana, to measure it. There was literally no way to measure noise at the parameters of the Great Escape. Even during the day, it just doesn't register. Cars go by and register more than it's possible to register. MRS. TARANA-But don't you think that could be different at night, when you don't have the surrounding noises? I mean, that's the point. MR. LEMERY-It's possible, but we felt that the mitigation here is in where the Coaster's going to be located, and it is located, as you know, in this area of the Park where the only noise is likely to drift back towards, other than is involved with the Park, is likely to go back where the subdivision is, but we've addressed that, and we've asked that the owners of this new proposed subdivision be mindful of the roller coaster, and I don't think there's anything we can do, other than what we've tried to, either by way of giving them notice that we intend to put the roller coaster here, and that the subdivision came after, and that it's possible that on four or five nights a year, if Charlie has a fund raiser, it's possible that up until probably nine or ten o'clock at night, depending on, there could be some noise. It's no different than sort of if somebody has a family picnic, a family reunion once a year and has noise out there. It's not contemplated on a regular basis, and it's not contemplated to be part of the business at the Great Escape. MR. STARK-To help you out, Mr. Lemery, in conversations with Tommy Wages, the roller coaster cannot be operated at night as it's presently proposed, because there's no lights on the track going up. It can't operate at night, period. He can have a fund raiser all he wants, and that thing can't operate at night. MRS. PULVER-Another question, and I talked about the noise when I - 4 --- --../ was up there, and talking about at night, is that you would have to have the Park in full operation, with maximum capacity of people, just, everything would have to be the same as it would be in the day time, in order to measure what it would be 1 i ke at night wi thout, you know, all the surround i ngs, and that's impossible when you don't have a Park that is open at night, to do that, and that this Park, when it is open, is very limited use, because of the lighting situation and the safety regulations for the rides. MR. LEMERY-I, frankly, don't think they want the security hassle. I think that's one of the big reasons why they wouldn't open this Park at night. MRS. TARANA-I had some small questions, and to tell you the truth, maybe Staff can advi se me. I don't know that they're important enough to determine whether or not the FEIS is complete. I thought there were some questions that really didn't, at least I couldn't find that answers got down to answering the questions, but they were fairly small, and I don't know how important it is to, I mean, I don't know at what point you decide the FEIS is complete. I guess that's what I'm asking. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think every question is important, though. Why don't you just ask your questions, and then. MRS. TARANA-We 11, I' 11 tell you a coupl e of them that I came across. I felt that the question which was raised a couple of times about the daily peak attendance, that was never answered. You had attendance for, it may be answered. I couldn't find it. There was attendance for each year, and I suppose you can take the number of days they were open, but that's really not daily peak attendance. So I didn't find an answer to that. I'll just tell you what they are, and if you want to respond after to all of them. I didn't know if the several questions that were asked regarding ride recycling, or cycling, taking a ride out, putting in a new ride. They call it ride cycling. I didn't know if there were adequate responses to that. The response, I think, is on Page 23. It didn't seem to me as though that. I think it's down at the bottom, if you've got Page 23, it's under Response A. The last paragraph says, "i tis the concept of ride cycl i ng, or attraction alternation which will renew interest in the Park which applies to the removal of the camp ground use, and the proposed installation of the Roller Coaster". I guess the question is, removing a camp ground is not removing a ride, and replacing it with a roller coaster doesn't appear to be ride cycling, which is mentioned by Rist-Frost's letter, in Comment A. So, I didn't know that that was answered adequately. MR. LEMERY-I think they're just mutually exclusive statements. One, bas icall y, answers Tom Yarmowich's comment s, and bas icall y describes that the camp ground didn't meet expectations, and in order to keep the Park attractive, there's this need for changing rides. MRS. TARANA-But the camp ground isn't a ride. MRS. PULVER-No. to the Park. I I read it as the camp ground was an attraction mean, like Disneyland. MR. LEMERY-The camp ground was an attraction. The camp ground was not successful as an attraction, which required them to stop using that land as a camp ground and dedicate it to rides and other attractions that were contiguous with and in synch with what's going on at the Park as an attraction park, and that the camp ground was a failure. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And the concept of cycling, which he mentions in that - 5 - ---L same paragraph, is the removal of rides and replacing new rides. You're saying that that's not the case? what ride cycling is? them with That's not MR. LEMERY-No. I think what is here is the fact. The concept of ride cycling, or attraction alternation which will renew interest in the Park applies to removal of the camp ground use, and proposed installation of the Roller Coaster, as it would to the removal of a merry-go-round and the installation of some other kind of ride. So I think what we're saying is that the campground was an amusement. That amusement didn't work. So we're replacing that amusement with another amusement. MRS. TARANA-Have there been other rides taken out of the Park? MR. LEMERY-Yes, ma'am. MRS. TARANA-Can you name some of those? MRS. PULVER-The one in front. MR. LEMERY-There was a ride that I, because I had to get a release of lien from the bank, there was a ride this season, I can't remember the name of the ride, that was taken out and another ride from Gaslight Village was brought down. I don't know what the ride was, but it was a riding attraction. I don't have the name on the top of my head, but one of the rides at Gaslight was brought down, and a ride that was there was sold. MRS. TARANA-Okay, and the question of daily peak attendance. I think that was answered on Page 10. MRS. PULVER-Now, I have a question, Corinne. Why, on the daily peak attendance, what is your reason for wanting to know that, in relation to the Roller Coaster, to how many people would ride the Roller Coaster? MRS. TARANA-Well, because their whole study is based on daily peak attendance, apparently, the increase in the attendance, and I don't see where daily peak attendance is ever defined. MRS. PULVER-Well, I thought that the study said that actually they're not looking to increase their attendance. MRS. TARANA-Their study indicates that they are going to increase their attendance. MRS. PULVER-Well, the possibility was like two percent percent or something. or ten MRS. TARANA-Ten percent. MR. HARLICKER-That was the increase in the traffic. That was the increase in traffic. They were saying five to ten percent increase in number of people, and that translates into about two percent increase in traffic. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's what the two percent was, okay. MR. LEMERY-The peak attendance was in '87, and that was almost 100,000 people less in '91. So obviously one of the purposes of the Roller Coaster is to try to get the attendance back to the peak attendances that were reached, or the attendance levels that were reached in '8b and '87. I'd have to look at the comment. Who made the comment? Mike O'Connor? MRS. TARANA-O'Connor's letter of August 23rd, 1991. MR. LEMERY-I don't know what it was in relation to. - 6 - - MRS. TARANA-In relation to the required parking. MR. LEMERY-Yes. Well, his issue had to do with the wetland, and the parking on the wetland. MRS. TARANA-Right. I realize that, but several of the commentators did mention ample parking, without using the Bavarian Palace parking, and you can't tell if you've got ample parking if you don't know what your daily peak attendance is at the Park. This only tells you your peak attendance for a year. MR. LEMERY-I think at the Workshop Session, I think Charlie and Tom said something like 4500 a day is the peak attendance at the Park. MR. MACEWAN-I think the number was closer to 6,000. MR. STARK-He's open 105 days. MRS. TARANA-I think they did that by dividing 106 days into. MR. LEMERY-Take the 426 or 505, divide it by 105, the daily attendance. would give you MRS. TARANA-But that's not That's how you get average you take the number of days how you get daily peak attendance. attendance, your ~ attendance, if divided by the people that attend. MR. BREWER-Not to interrupt you, Corinne, but I think what we did was we took the average daily attendance and then added half of what that would be to come up with a number. I think it was 4,000, and we took half of that, we said,6,000, worst case scenari o. MR. LEMERY-The purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is not necessarily to give you an answer that you're looking for or agree with. It's to address every single comment and answer every single comment, and provide mitigation. We've described a mitigation measure. We've removed the parking on the wetland, which was an issue that was raised by this Board and by the commentators, and we've provided that in times of peak traffic we would ask the employees of the Park to park over at the Bavarian Palace, and so far that has not been a problem this summer, and there's no parking prohibition, in any of the Town Ordinances or Codes prohibiting parking at the Bavarian Palace. So that's how we've mitigated it. That's how we've answered the quest ion. MRS. TARANA-I don't think it answers the question, I have to tell you that quite honestly. I don't. MR. LEMERY-What answer are you looking for? MRS. TARANA-I'm looking for daily peak attendance. Daily peak attendance is not taking your attendance from the year. MR. LEMERY-Well, what's the point of asking? MRS. TARANA-Because you don't know if you have ample parking on your peak days if you don't know what your peak attendance is. MR. BREWER-I guess, what would be the scenario if all the parking lots were filled, across the street, in front of Story town. MR. HARLICKER-According to what they had in the EIS here, they've got 2,270 spaces, on both sides of Route 9. I did a quick figure. If you put four people in each car, which seems reasonable, three or four people, you come up with 9,080 people coming to the Park. That's how much they can handle, if there's four people to a car. - 7 - MRS. PULVER-If you're interested attendance would be 2,200, whatever person comes, they're turned away. have to be turned away. in parking, to me, peak that is, because if one more There's no parking, so they MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's not including, like Mr. Stark said, the people who come in groups of buses, and that sort of thing. That boots up the attendance level even higher. MRS. PULVER-Right, and they also take up X amount of parking, and when all the parking is used, then no one else can come into the Park. MR. MACEWAN-How many spaces did you say? MR. HARLICKER-Two thousand two hundred and seventy, seventeen hundred and seventy on the west side and five hundred on the east side. MRS. TARANA-I did have one, and maybe you can find this one. I couldn't find this, but then I don't understand the sound study anyway. There were certain sound receptors identified, but when the study was done, the study wasn't done at those sound receptors. The microphones were put some distance away from those receptors, specifically one and two is what I gather from reading this, and I don't find where the FEIS addresses why they did that. MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure what you're looking for. MRS. TARANA-Okay. If I'm understanding this correctly, there are four receptors, you'll see them on your map, maybe fi ve, I can't remember. One was, like, the Whalen property. One was Twicwood, Glen Lake, wherever they. MR. LEMERY-Where they took sound readings? MRS. TARANA-They were described as your sound receptors. they took the sound readings. Then MR. LEMERY-Could you refer me to the Page? MRS. TARANA-Page 17. Well, I'm looking, first, at Mike O'Connor's letter, maybe that'll give you a clue as to what's happening here, when he discusses noise. I don't find an answer given to his concern there. I think it's on Page 17. If you just go to Page 17, you'll find the comment that he made about it, Comment G. He says, monitoring sites appear to be further from the Great Escape than the closest residences which are Recept ors One and Two. I gues s t he quest ion just is, why wouldn't? MR. LEMERY-We believe we've answered it in the response. I don't know how we can be more articulate than what's contained in the response, because there's reference to, Receptors One and Two were specifically analyzed, with respect to the composite noise ratings. MRS. TARANA-It says that the monitors were not at One and Two. MR. LEMERY-Who says? MRS. TARANA-That's what Mike O'Connor says. MR. LEMERY-But the answer, you don't find the answer adequate, or it doesn't answer, or it doesn't answer your question? MRS. TARANA-Do you say that the monitors, the microphones ~ at Receptors One and Two? I didn't find that, but maybe it's there. - 8 - .'- -- '---- '--" MR. LEMERY-Well, there's nothing in here that would indicate that the receptors weren't where they were described in the map. So I'm assuming that the receptors were placed where it's described in the map. I don't know what Michael's referring to. He's saying that there may be a need for additional monitoring. MRS. TARANA-Because weren't. MR. LEMERY-Not necessarily because Receptors One and Two weren't where they were supposed to be, but that there might be a need for additional monitoring. MR. HARLICKER-Corinne, in the Draft EIS here, I think that the sound receptors that they're referring to, One is that house, I'm not sure who lives there, on Round Pond Road, and the other one is a residence off Birdsall Road, that's just north of Mr. Passarelli's proposed Round Pond subdivision, and those are the two closest residences to the proposed site of the roller coast er. MRS. TARANA-But were there microphone studies taken at those two sites? MR. HARLICKER-Not at the time of the Draft EIS. Prior to doing the Final EIS, they did do another sound monitoring, right on the property line between Mr. Passarelli's property and the Roll~r Coast er. MRS. TARANA-And at the other sit e as we 11 " at sites? both of those two MR. HARLICKER-No, because where they did it, on line, is closer than either of the two residences. that's probably why they felt they didn't have to go places. the property So I suspect to those two MRS. TARANA-So you're satisfied that that is? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They were only 200 feet away from the Roller Coaster when they did those. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got to ask Jim one question. The public hearing was left open on this. Should I close that now? MR. MARTIN-No. plan. You leave the public hearing open on the site MR. BREWER-Yes, but won't there be another public hearing at site plan? MR. MARTIN-No. The site plan was started, the application was started, and they opened the publ ic hearing, as I recall, and they left it open, on the site plan. MR. BREWER-So, if this is accepted, there won't be another site plan. It's be a continuation of the other? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. make a motion? That's all I've got. Would somebody care to MRS. TARANA-Can you just tell me, I know you gave us a nice outline, which I can't put my hands on right away, with the determination of the, I've got it right here. The next step is site plan review, is that right? - 9 -- MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You're next step, you have to vote on findings, Corinne. You have to vote on a findings statement that according to this schedule, would be September 21st. That's the culmination of the SEQRA process. MRS. TARANA-And who's involved, who all is involved in that, just the Board? MR. MARTIN-Just the Board, as the lead agent. and have something prepared for you, as consider for that meeting, and then you anything from that you'd like. We're going to try Staff, for you to can add or delete MR. BREWER-And then after that, we'll have another meeting where public can come and comment. MR. HARLICKER-For site plan. MR. BREWER-For site plan. MR. HARLICKER-Then you'd pick up site plan review again. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I think you can pick up site plan, you can pick it up then, at that point, that same night, just as you would any other site plan that you do a SEQRA determination for. That would end the SEQRA process, and you would move on to your discussion and vote on site plan. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So it would be that same night. MRS. TARANA-The public does not address the EIS again. The public does not address the FEIS again? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LEMERY-If you could just make a, I'd just make note on the record that Attractions Land, the assets of Attractions Land, were acquired by Story town USA, Inc. So, it's Story town, USA, Inc. that's the continuing application. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO ACCEPT SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS FOR STORYTOWN USA, INC. FOR THE ROLLER COASTER, TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY READ RESOLUTION. WITH THE CORRECTIONS, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 24th day of August, v ot e : 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN OWNER: PROPOSAL NO. 32-93 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA GUIDO PASSARELLI SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: RT. 9, OPPOSITE KENDRICK RD. IS FOR A +57,575 SQ. FT. SHOPPING CENTER AND ASSOCIATED - 10 '- ..-" 263 PARKING SPACES. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE 93 8-18-93 TAX MAP NO. 179-23 D CROSS - 6-7-93 70-1-9 REFERENCE: AU # 60-1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9- LOT SIZE: 5.3 ACRES SECTION JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-93, Guido Passarelli, Meeting Date: August 24, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 54,940 square foot strip shopping center; the project also includes 263 parking spaces. The property is zoned highway commercial, is 5.3 acres in size and is located on Rt. 9 at the intersection with Kendrick Road. The applicant received a variance to allow for the rear access drive to infringe into the required buffer between the HC-1A zone and the residential uses behind it. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A., the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C., the proposal is being reviewed by the Department of Transportation regarding its impact on highways. DOT review of the project is required because of the access off of Rt. 9, which is a state highway. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 1. Existing drainage and runoff patterns will be impacted by this project; however any impact will be mitigated by on site drainage system. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code. 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; In order to ascertain the proposed shopping center's compatibility with adjacent buildings an architectural elevation of the center is needed. Signs in the shopping center should be of uniform color and design. Lighting should be directed so that it does not impact Rt. 9 or the adjacent properties. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The main entrance to the site will be via a 34' wide entrance opposite Kendrick Road. This entrance will consist of two 10' wide exit lanes and a single 12' wide entrance lane. A secondary access is provided by a 16' wide drive at the south end of the project site. Since this access is to be for right turn only, the curb cut should be such so that it does not allow for left turns. Property should be reserved on the north and south ends of the site to allow for future internalization of commercial traffic along Rt. 9. A traffic study was completed in 1990 for a previous proposal for this site. In light of recent and proposed commercial development on Rt. 9, DOT requested updated information regarding traffic counts on Rt. 9 and the proj ect' s impact on tho se count s. 3. The I ocat i on, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The parking provided conforms to the zoning requirements, 251 spaces are required and 263 are proposed. Ten handicap spaces are proposed. The rear access drive will allow for most of the deliveries to be done in back of the center. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Consideration should be given to reserve property along Rt. 9 for potential future use as a sidewalk. Other pedestrian access to the shops appears to be adequate. 5. The adequacy of storm drainage facilities; Rist/Frost comments have to be addressed prior to site plan approval. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal 11 - '-- --.../ facilities; Rist/Frost comments has to be addressed prior to site plan approval. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The landscaping plan was reviewed by the Beautification Committee and found to be acceptable. The existing vegetation should be retained to the maximum extent possible to provide additional screening around the property lines. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The issues identified in the letter from Brian LaFlure, Queensbury Central Fire Dept. have been addressed. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures should be identified and in place during construction. RECOMMENDATIONS: Engineering comments have to be addressed prior to site plan approval. A letter from DOT approving the traffic study and placement of the curb cut is also needed." MR. HARLICKER-There's a Rist-Frost letter associated with this, and it states that, "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the revised project data received August 2, 1993 and Aug. 19, 1993. Previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed." We also have Warren County Planning Board, and their comment was, "June 1993 decision still stands. Information still insufficient. The Board did not have sufficient time to review information received this afternoon. The Board will look at this again next month, if the Town returns it for review. The Board is also waiting to receive a letter from NYS DOT approving the traffic study." MR. BREWER-Okay. Can I just ask you to put a plan up, please? MR. MILLER-Sure. MR. BREWER-The first question is, do we have a letter from DOT? MR. MILLER-No, we do not. It had been submitted, close to six weeks ago, to them. At a point, in that period of time, they asked for revised numbers. The revised numbers they asked for made our case look better. They were worst case scenario than what we had, it made our traffic look better than our previous numbers, but it ate up time. Unfortunately, the person who has to write the actual letter has been on vacation for four weeks. We do have a letter from another member of DOT that says our analysis is correct, our numbers are correct, but we need that actual letter with someone signing off on it. MR. BREWER-Could I just ask you one other thing, please identify yourself for the record. MR. MILLER-I'm sorry. Jim Miller, Northfield Design. MR. BREWER-Okay. George, do you have any questions? MR. STARK-When do you anticipate getting this letter, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER-Two weeks ago. It's supposed to be any day. The fellow just got back into his office on Monday, and I guess he's faced, as most of us do when we come back from vacation, with a stack, and it's working it's way up the pile. If you have any questions about the analysis or the traffic study, Mr. Larry Levine is here, who is our traffic consultant. We've been working very closely with DOT to get to this point, and revise the numbers for different reasons, but I think everybody's in agreement and everything is going to be fine. It's just a matter of having that letter. - 12 - '- '- MRS. PULVER-Refresh my memory a little bit here. I'm looking at the old letter, November 1st, 1990. This letter from DOT was for the first shopping center? MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay, and they everything for that, and this first plan you had, versus this The configuration, I know, is a is there that much change in there's that much change. approved the traffic study and one is, and in relation to the plan, is this smaller or larger? little bit different, but I mean, the size of it? I don't think MR. MILLER-No, there isn't. The building is actually larger, but the traffic generation numbers are smaller, because they changed their formula of how to come about that. So actually our traffic study shows less traffic coming out of here than the approved version back in 1990. The main entrance is in exactly the same place. The exit to the south has moved about 14 feet. It's the same general configuration. So, actually two years have gone by, and we look better, in terms of traffic. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else, George? MR. STARK-No. MR. BREWER-Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Not right now. I just want to ask Larry, basically, isn't your traffic study the same as Wal-Mart's, the figures, the numbers, and everything? Wouldn't they have to be almost the same? MR. BREWER-That's where heard this once. it's interesting, Corinne. I already LARRY LEVINE MR. LEVINE-At the County meeting, I discussed this is as well. A lot of the reason why this has been kicked back and forth, the numbers, and why it's taken six and a half weeks, instead of, we had two weeks to begin with that no one was on vacation, was that, when I got into the study, I was told by DOT, use the traffic volume numbers that Transportation Concepts had in their report for Wal-Mart. When I started using those numbers for 1993, it was about that time that, I believe it was this Board that asked Wal-Mart to come back with 2003. So I didn't have 2003 numbers six weeks ago. I got those after everybody was on vacation already at DOT, but in the meantime, I tried to evaluate it anyway. What I found was that the traffic volumes in the Transportation Concepts' study, if you started at Route 254 and worked your way up Route 9, didn't add up. There's like a black hole there. Some of the traffic disappears. MR. MACEWAN-What do you mean, disappears? MR. LEVINE-Well, it goes down in front of Wal-Mart's and it goes back up past Sweet. So, if I was tot ak e the numbers and just balance them all out, it increased the numbers north, well, it would be north of Wal-Mart's, in front of our site. Even so, looking at my 1990 Traffic Report, the volumes reported in the Wal-Mart study were, to some extent, lower than my 1990 volumes, which would indicate that 1990 traffic had gone down. It could also indicate that when I took my counts in 1990 I took them on a more conservative day, possibly, I don't know, but the numbers didn't add up. So when I gave my numbers to DOT, I balanced out the Transportation Concept numbers, submitted it to the DOT. The numbers were very high, very conservatively high, I thought, and were similar to my 1990 study. DOT came back, and basically Mike Huralchu had been on vacation when Wal-Mart's was reviewed, the 13 - '-.. --- Wal-Mart's traffic study was reviewed, and his new assistant had looked at it. He came back, and his assistant went on vacation, when my traffic study was evaluated, and tried to match up the numbers. Obviously, they didn't match up, and Mike called me up and said, what's going on. I said, the numbers don't add up, and we had to come to some kind of terms as to what DOT would accept, and basically they reduced what I had. I gave you a study with high numbers, and they knocked them down, and they told me only evaluate the intersection at Kendrick and at Sweet, don't bother going any further, because they have a new rule now that they don't want to look at intersections where our site does not dump 100 cars or more onto anyone approach, okay. That's just a rule they've made up. It used to be a 10 percent rule. If it was more than 10 percent, at any intersect ion. So in the process, I'm bouncing back and forth the numbers, I did the traffic analysis about 15 different times, 15 different ways, until they were happy, and that's what the final memorandum from Mike Huralchu was. While everyone else was away on vacation, he's in charge of the analysis of the report, and it came back, really nothing changed as far as the Level of Service, as far as my results, in front of my site. It went up or down a few cars, as far as the Level of Service, but really didn't change any of the results. MR. STARK-The bottom from DOT? line is, what's the letter going to say, MR. LEVINE-I can't speak for DOT. I've talked to Don Robertson. I've talked to Mark Kennedy today. He just got back, and he has to be the one signing the letter. Mark Kennedy wouldn't commit himself because he hadn't even looked at it. Don Robertson, in my conversations with him, at DOT, at 84 Holland Avenue, well, I had a meeting with Don Robertson, Mike Huralchu, and Joanna Brunso, and I got the feeling that they didn't think there was any problem, and I still feel that way. It's the same, nothing's changing out there, because of this development that isn't already a problem, or already going to be a problem, in terms of the intersections out there. There was some discussion as to whether the signal that's proposed for Wal-Mart's should be relocated at the Sweet Road intersection. That was discussed, and I find a lot of merit to that, but I have no input into whether that happens or not. If a signal goes in, wherever a signal goes in on Route 9 there, it's going to help Kendrick Road people get out, and it's going to help my site. It'll improve the Level of Service, but the analysis methodology I use, and what is available, I can't tell how much it will improve it. The reason I say a Sweet Road signal should be considered, and maybe realigning Weeks somehow, I'm not sure if it's possible, is because Sweet Road is the natural cut through to Quaker, and I think if you've got Wal-Mart's at one end of Sweet, and you've got K-Mart's at the other end of Sweet, on Quaker Road, somebody's going to cut through there to avoid the 254 intersection. I may be wrong, but. MRS. TARANA-Well, I think you're absolutely right, because that's happening now. You can't get out of Sweet Road, to go either way. MR. LEVINE-Yes. Right. In my, I sent people out before I had Transportation Concepts' numbers, and I counted Sweet's and Kendrick Road, and I thought Sweet is a very busy intersection ri ght now. MRS. TARANA-Very busy, yes. MR. LEVINE-In the Transportation Concepts study for Wal-Mart's, I was just looking in it, they say that Sweet Road doesn't need signalization, and it'll be okay in 1993, and I don't know whether they addressed it in 2003, but in my report, I mention that I think Sweet Road should really be looked at, in any plans - 14 - '- --/ they're doing, because it is, it's a natural cut through road. I know I use it. MRS. TARANA-I don't think Kendrick is, to such an extent. Do you? Because it doesn't really go any place. MR. LEVINE-No. Yes, but there's no If you're in Kendrick and you're Sweet Road, when you don't have a well go out Kendrick. reason to go any other way. a homeowner, why go down to signal there? You might as MRS. TARANA-Now, are you suggesting a signal for the Mt. Royal, any place? MR. LEVINE-No. You don't need a signal for Mt. Royal. I don't think that's necessary. Only one signal is needed there. It's just where it goes is the question. MRS. TARANA-And you feel that if it goes at the, well, you feel it would be better at Sweet Road, obviously, than the Ponderosa. MR. LEVINE-Well, I think it would help more of the community at Sweet Road. Al so, if there's some way to connect Wal-Mart' s to that intersection, it would make sense, too, but I can't address that, because I really don't know all the ins and outs of it. MRS. TARANA-Did we make a decision on Wal-Mart's based on the signalization? Is that what I'm hearing? I mean, I don't want to get into Wal-Mart's. I don't think it's fair to our applicant to do that. MR. STARK-Any break in the traffic for the light. MR. BREWER-And their traffic that Larry's wrong, and I'm wrong. engineer could come back and say not debating who's right or who's MR. LEVINE-The results in either case are the same. In the Transportation Concepts' study, their recommendations are, find a way to reduce traffic on Route 9, basically. They say, put a signal in front of Wal-Mart's, but there's really nothing you can do at the other side streets. There's a lot of traffic on Rt. 9, and in order to get out right now, if you're turning left, you're going to be held up. It's not an unreasonable delay in other areas. I think, in Glens Falls, people are getting used to accepting smaller gaps in the traffic stream to get out. That's what's happening, and that's what I found out there. I went back out, because the Levels of Service seemed very low, but people are still getting out, and what that's an indication of, at an unsignalized intersection is that the gaps, people are accepting smaller gaps in traffic. They're getting used to more congestion, is what's happening. Instead of taking seven and a half seconds to look around, they're only using four. MR. BREWER-Anything else, Corinne? MRS. TARANA-No, Scott's notes? not right now. Are we going to go through MR. BREWER-Yes, we can. I just want to get and then we'll go down through them. Craig? our questions out, MR. MACEWAN-Not right now. MR. BREWER-Carol? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. address them? Do you want to go down through the comments and - 15 - ',-- - MR. MILLER-I believe all the comments have been addressed satisfactorily. There weren't any new comments this month. MRS. TARANA-Do we have the architectural elevation? MR. MILLER-Well, we've had that at the previous three meetings. I didn't bring it tonight. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. these were written, That's why I didn't read it into the. they have brought in. Since MRS. TARANA-What you skipped here has been satisfied, then? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. BREWER-All right. What about, consideration should be given to reserve property around Rt. 9 for potential future use of a sidewalk? MR. MILLER-Right. Again, this was an earlier comment. I think it came up in one of the first meetings, and we have allowed the room to do that. In the same light, our access road is a natural connector for that, interconnect from Weeks through to potential development. So that was addressed previously. MRS. TARANA-Before I forget about it, what happened with that paper road? Remember there was a paper road, they said, in the back. Was that ever resolved, the question of that road? MR. MARTIN-We couldn't resolve the ownership, right? the problem with that? That was MR. MILLER-No. It had, I believe it was 1927, taxes hadn't been paid on it since 1927, and we were able to do a title search and find the owner at that point, but the question became whether it actually reverted back to Town ownership or who owned the thing. There was opposition made, I believe in the second meeting, to using that road from the Harris family, and we just dropped the issue. It seemed like it would be too difficult to pursue, at that point. MR. STARK-I think the question is moot, now, isn't it, Mr. Miller, because you've got an access road around the back. MR. MILLER-Right. That is what promoted the access road all the way around, and the total redesign of the project. MR. MARTIN-See, what happened was, the second time around, when this came in, they had no access road back there at all, and we had a problem with the fire company with that. So, that's when we started looking into the idea of accessing from Weeks Road down that paper road, and they ran into problems with the ownership. So that's when they then pulled the book building forward and ran the road all the way around the back of the building. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MILLER-And also at that time we reduced the size of the building, in that stage. MR. MARTIN-You will agree to erosion control during construction, I presume? MR. MILLER-Yes. It shows up on our grading plan. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? The public hearing was left open. Is there anyone in the public - 1& '- --- who would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-And we have to do a SEQRA, or did we, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-No. We've got a Short Form. MR. BREWER-That's what I thought. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Do you want me to read it? MR. BREWER-Yes, would you, please? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 32-93, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: 9, and is presently before the Planning Board an a 57,575 square foot shopping center, on Route WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel - 17 - --- MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion on the project, or with any stipulations, or no stipulations? MR. MACEWAN-Before we approve this, letter from DOT? shouldn't we wait for the MR. BREWER-It's up to the Board. MRS. TARANA-That would be my feeling, but I'd like to ask, did we get any minutes from Warren County on this project? MR. HARLICKER-Minutes? No. MRS. TARANA-Other than, I'm just wondering what the insufficient information, was that just the DOT letter? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I can tell you that I was at that meeting, and that was pretty much all they wanted was the letter. MR. MACEWAN-When do you anticipate this letter? MR. LEVINE-There actually is a letter, that I guess you have it. It was a fax to me, just that all the analysis was there. All the numbers are correct and accepted and the analysis, the Level of Service, everything else. The only thing that it's going to have is whether my recommendations are okay. Whether they would want more mitigation measures, and to tell you the truth, there really aren't any more mitigation measures that you can do there, except left turn lanes. I mean, DOT does not want more signals on Route 9. So if anything, they're going to tell me that they don't want to do something, not that they do. MR. MACEWAN-When do you anticipate the letter? MR. LEVINE-Should get the letter, Mark Kennedy told me today, maybe in a week. MR. MACEWAN-The fax transmission that you got, did you give it, do you have? MR. LEVINE-You have a copy. MR. MARTIN-That's the one you have. MR. LEVINE-It's from Mike Huralchu who reviews the analysis. MR. MARTIN-That was the best they could at the time, given the fact that Kennedy was on vacation. MR. MILLER-The other point to be made is that, the first time around, where we came up with where the main entrance should be, and the right turn only out, that was at DOT's dictate. So there was a previous workshop session to get to that point. I think it's pretty much a shoe in for the curb cut, if that's something that's on your mind. I don't think they're going to take issue with where or curb cut is. So as Larry said, there's really not much that they can react to, at this point. MRS. PULVER-Jim, how much trouble is it for you, if we gave a conditional approval on the DOT letter being satisfactory? MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MRS. PULVER-I mean, but you have to watch for it. MR. MARTIN-Right. We'll have to watch for it anyhow, it's tabled. We'll have to make sure that it's here, that, apparently, is the last remaining piece on this. even if because So it's - 18 - '-- not any trouble. MR. LEVINE-You need that to get a driveway permit anyway. MR. MACEWAN-No offense to the applicant, but my position is I don't want to do a conditional approval. This Board's been down that path before, and it comes back to sting you on occasion. Not that you would do it, but I made up my own mind a couple of months ago that I, personally, wasn't going to vote for anything on conditional approvals anymore. That's just my position. MR. BREWER-Okay, and wi th that st at ement, I th i nk we have to have a five zip vote. MRS. TARANA-Could I just one question. one opposite Kendrick Road? Is your only curb cut the MR. LEVINE-No. There's one other curb cut, further to the south, which is a right turn only. MRS. TARANA-That's the right turn only. MR. LEVINE-Right. MRS. TARANA-How far is that, then, from Sweet where your trucks will be coming out? Road? Is that MR. LEVINE-Possibly. trucks. It could be both. Both entrances could be MRS. TARANA-The trucks would also be using the main entrance? MR. LEVINE-It's quite a ways. MR. MILLER-Again, the point would be that they approved those curb cuts in almost exactly the same location as before. MRS. TARANA-I'm just wondering if it were closer to Sweet Road, that would be a better reason to put the light at Sweet Road, than at the Ponderosa, because that means more traffic coming out, fairly close to Sweet, where it narrows right into that funne 1. MR. LEVINE-I guess what all the recommendations are saying, mine, Transportation Concepts', is when an overall look is taken of this corridor that, and maybe it should be done, you know, Wal- Mart's is the signal approved, and you've got a signal paid for there. You don't want to put one at Wal-Mart's, then one at Sweet. . MRS. TARANA-No, I agree wi th that, t otall y. MR. LEVINE-It should be an overall rather than just at Wal-Mart's. look at the whole thing, MRS. TARANA-And that's what the right, with your project and that the best place is for that light, to be in front of the Ponderosa, you care about Wal-Mart. State should be doing, that's project, and determining where which would appear, to me, not and they even agreed, not that MR. LEVINE-See, it doesn't effect our project, theirs, and I don't know what status you have, but it does effect as far as. MRS. TARANA-But it might effect your project Road, because your traffic would move better. if it were at Sweet MR. LEVINE-Yes. Sure. Well, everybody's would, on all those side streets, because they could all go through Sweet Road, and access Route 9. It would take all the traffic out of those side - 19 ',,- road s, Sweet, coming on to Route 9, and it would dump them down onto because who would want to wait, if they've got a signal? MRS. TARANA-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-Okay. With that one comment, everybody else feel about voting? I guess, how does MR. STARK-Well, if we can't vote tonight, they have a special meeting next week. Put them on that, and they will have the 1 ett er, hopefull y, by next week. MRS. TARANA-Monday. MR. STARK-Next Monday. MRS. PULVER-The 30th. MR. LEVINE-Keep calling them every day. That's all I can do. MR. MILLER-I'd appreciate that. MR. BREWER-I guess we can table, then. MRS. PULVER-T abl e it, if you have it by have to speak to the Planning Department you have it by the 30th, we'll see it, them, and you won't be here. the 30t h , we I I , you' I I to be on the agenda. If and if you don't, call MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that agreeable with everybody? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. MR. BREWER-We have to have your blessing, somebody care to make a motion to that effect? I guess. Would MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Awaiting the arrival of the DOT letter. Duly adopted this 24th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. The 30th it is, 7 o'clock, Jim. It probably won't be necessary for ~ to be there at 7. Probably eight. MRS. PULVER-Seven in the Conference Room. MR. BREWER-Yes, downstairs. MRS. PULVER-By the Planning Department. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. BREWER-You know, it's probably not even necessary for you to be there, if you have the letter, and we get the letter. If we have the letter by that day, then we can look at it and know that we have it, and we can act on it. - 20 - -- MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don' t know involved. We can react to it that that it's going same day. to be that MR. BREWER-I'm sure that, my feeling is that you'll probably get an approval, but we just want to have that letter. MR. MILLER-I'll do my best. MRS. TARANA-Jim, you had written to DOT, maybe, hang around for just a second, and they had said not consider any light at Sweet and Weeks, in Mart. Larry, you could that they would regards to Wal- MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-But now if they looked at the whole picture, with Wal-Mart and Mt. Royal, do you think it would be worth having them reinvestigate that situation? MR. MARTIN-I can call them, personally tomorrow, and I'll talk to Mark Kennedy. MRS. TARANA-Because Ponderosa. I don't see the purpose in the 1 i ght at MR. LEVINE-What was the reason that they? MR. MARTIN-Their reason before was that their experience throughout the Capital District has been lights of that similar configuration, in similar situations, where intersections were off-set on major routes, like Route 9, that too much red time on Route 9, and that was an overriding consideration for the benefit. MR. LEVINE-It would be a split signal. MR. MARTIN-Right. You'd have to have individual signal time for Weeks Road and Sweet Road, and that would create a lot of red time on Route 9. MRS. TARANA-We do have some in Glens Falls that are working now, though, some off-set s. MR. LEVINE-Why that possibly is, on Route 9, remember I talked to you about Quaker Road, how Quaker Road didn't have any coordination between the signals? MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. LEVINE-Well, coordination. Route 9 is Quaker Road, without any MR. MARTIN-Well, Quaker Road, in the last, two or three months ago was re-timed by the County. MR. LEVINE-Right, and it's working pretty well, I'd say. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's working better now. MRS. TARANA-It's working much better, yes. MR. MARTIN-In terms of this study that the Town's doing for the intersection at Route 9/254, one of the recommendations that's going to come out of that is to take Weeks Road and wrap it around the other side of the Carwash, so it will align with Sweet Road, then DOT will be in a position to pull the permit on the Wal-Mart, like from that site, and move it up to the aligned i nt ersect ion. MR. LEVINE-That would be, that's the ideal. - 21 - '- MR. BREWER-Who's expense would that be at? MR. MARTIN-That's got to be determined, that will come out of the Study, I would imagine. Weeks Road is a Town road, isn't it? I'm pretty sure it is, it would be a Town expense, and there's some acquisition involved there. MR. BREWER-That time frame, doing that, would be probably, what, a year? MR. MARTIN-At best, that's if you got it budgeted and all that. Yes. MR. BREWER-A year, two years. without a light for two years. So then you're sitting there That just makes things worse. MR. MARTIN-Well, the light will be at Wal-Mart. north entrance, but. It'll be at the MR. BREWER-And then move it, you mean? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It'll be where it's under your approval, but then it would move to an aligned intersection at Weeks and Sweet. MRS. TARANA-But I think what they've got to look at at Ponderosa is before that funnel that happens Road. is the light right at Sweet MR. LEVINE-Yes. That's true. MRS. TARANA-That's going to be a major problem right there. It's a problem now, but it's going to be worse when they start funne ling. MR. LEVINE-I think you're right. MR. MARTIN-I think dri veways. it's poor practice to signalize private MRS. TARANA-What private driveways? MR. MARTIN-Wal-Mart. MR. LEVINE-I don't see why DOT couldn't signalize Weeks and Sweet, tie the two signals together with a hard, they don't like to do it, but they could tie them together with a hard wire, and coordinate, they could both work together off of one controller, and then just move one of the poles, well, we move two of the poles, and just move one pole, when they realign the roads. I don't see why you couldn't do that. MRS. TARANA-That makes so much more sense. MR. LEVINE-Because the signal at Wal-Mart's is just going to be a semi-actuated signal. That's all that's proposed in the Concepts' report, which means every time someone goes to exit from Wal-Mart's, it's going to trip the signal, and it's going to be a red light on Route 9. Every single time! There's going to be no coordination with other signals. It's going to work as an isolated intersection, and the side road is going to control it, just like it was on Quaker Road. MR. MARTIN-We're also going to try intersection study a signalization plan, and get out or timing plan. of our MR. LEVINE-Right, but the signals are pretty far apart there. MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, Aviation Road, by the hill on Route 9. they're talking about the signals along Mall, Route 9/254, and then going up the - 22 - ~ '~ '-- MR. LEVINE-Right. It all ties together. There aren't any signals, really, north of the Wal-Mart for quite a while. MR. MARTIN-Right. There'd be the one at Northway Plaza, and then the one at Wal-Mart. That would be all that you'd have. MR. LEVINE-Right. So there's nothing to the north of there, really. So you've got cars coming with really no break in the traffic stream, and that's why you have a tough time getting out of Kendrick. There's no, and no matter what you do at that signal, you're always going to have cars coming down from the north, go i ng south bound on Rout e 9, that are not go i ng to be spaced, like in gaps, for gaps, because the signal is too far away. So that's why, that's another argument for Sweet Road being signalized. It just makes a lot of sense, to me. From a safety standpoint, I think the State could pay for the whole thing, actually. I think it would be a big safety improvement to do that. When I looked at Sweet Road, there's a lot of cars coming out of there, turning left. MR. MARTIN-Well, I learned a lot about attitudes at DOT, and that Wal-Mart experience. I got to a certain point, and it was like, back off, man, I'm a traffic engineer for DOT, you're not. MR. LEVINE-Well, DOT doesn't have a lot of money, and they don't want to hear about problems on their road, and that's a fact. So keep that in mind. Their only, the fact of the matter is, they only wanted, from me and from Wal-Mart's, the analysis for 1993. I asked Mike Huralchu to review my 2003 numbers, otherwise, they don't care about 2003. They only care if it works in the year of opening. They don't care about 10 years from now, only you people do, and only you people ask for it. So that says a lot about what they're looking at. MR. MARTIN-The County does, too. MR. LEVINE-The County asked for it, too. MR. MARTIN-We've had a much more fruitful discussion on K-Mart down the street, and you Equity. You're the traffic engineer for that. involvement, it's a lot more, there's hands on exchanged. You have a direct input, and 1 ike listen, but. and meaningful will on American With the County information being Fred Austin will MR. LEVINE-Well, you're talking about, you're looking at the future. DOT does not want to look at the future. They only want to look at the year of opening, which is 1993 for any project. That is not planning. That is just crisis management, which is what they're in the business of doing right now. MRS. TARANA-Putting their finger in the leak, right? MR. LEVINE-Exactly. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, they're putting, the headquarters for the planning, the emphasis is coming off of and it's going on the MPO's. MR. LEVINE-Right. Well, Joanna Brunso is coming up think that's a great idea. I think it's a good hopefully it'll work out. here, move, and I and MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LEVINE-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE I JAMES R. DOYLE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: GLEN LAKE ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. PROPOSAL TO CONVEY PROPERTY TO EXISTING HOMES SO THEY HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV # 75-1993 TAX MAP NO. - 23 - 38-4-10 LO-t......,.jIZE: . 75 RCRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION \ -....; RTIONS MR. HARLICKER-I didn't really do up anything for this. It's just a, it's the property, I believe it's the Glenmore Lodge there on Glen Lake Road. I mean, he's got property along the frontage of Glen Lake Road and he's just proposing to divvie it up between his neighbors so they can have access to Glen Lake. It's requiring quite a few variances, because he's creating a, even though they're going to be given to the adjacent property owners, initially, he's creating a number of undersized lots there, is how we're looking at it. Providing he gets the variances, he'll be back next month for Preliminary approval on these four small lots that will be given, or sold. I don't suppose he's going to give them away. He'll sell them to the adjacent property owners. MR. BREWER-How do these other houses get out? MR. HARLICKER-Right now right -of-ways. Now, if have actual frontage on. it's just a series of this subdivision goes easements and through, they'll MR. BREWER-These bold understand th is. lines right here will be their, I don't MR. HARLICKER-The bold lines is how the property is going to be subdivided. MR. BREWER-So right now, this, all these, he owns that? MR. HARLICKER-Right now all of those bold lines belong to Mr. Do y 1 e. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's like a curved triangular shaped piece coming off of that one major parcel. MR. BREWER-I'm going to ask, but I probably shouldn't. they ever get those houses there, 100 years ago? How did MR. HARLICKER-Yes, back there at the dawn of time sort of thing. MR. MARTIN-I'm sure that was long before, I think the Planning Board came into e>eistence in '76, I think it was, and I'm sure it was long, long before that. MRS. PULVER-They probably had little camps there, or something. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody here representing the applicant? Anybody have any questions they want answered? MRS. PULVER-This is only Sketch. MR. MARTIN-It's going to the Zoning Board tomorrow night. MR. BREWER-Okay. Preliminary? Would anybody care to make a motion to go on to MR. MARTIN-It's a recommendation, at this point. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MOTION TO RECOMMEND RPPROVRL OF SKETCH PLRN SUBDIVISION NO. 17- 1993 JRMES R. DOYLE, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: He has proposed to convey property to his neighbors, so that they will have road frontage, contingent upon variances received 8/25/93. Duly adopted this 24th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following - 24 - '--- '- AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. St ark, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. T arana, Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-No action. Well, I think, in my opinion, there's nothing, I understand what you're doing, Craig and Corinne, about the contingency approvals, but I think to clean up a bad situation and make it better, the only thing we can do is grant this subdivision. That's just my opinion. MRS. PULVER-This is only Sketch. Preliminary and Final. So they have to come back for MRS. TARANA-I think the point is that they should have the variances, and then they come for Sketch. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MRS. TARANA-That's the only point. MR. MACEWAN-Right. I agree with her. MR. BREWER-Okay. come back. So it's a no action, and that means he has to MRS. PULVER-So, let s see, Sketch Plan approval now? what do we need, a motion to deny MR. MARTIN-No, just no action. You can leave it at that, and they'll have to resubmit a Sketch Plan application. MR. HARLICKER-Next month, providing they get the variances. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 40-93 TYPE II OSCAR SCHREIBER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A C.E.A. LOCATION: SEELYE RD., CLEVERDALE FACING EAST ON WARNER BAY PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE EXISTING STAKE DOCK AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 516 SQ. FT. CRIB DOCK. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 8-18-93 APA CROSS REFERENCE: AV .25-1993 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-30.2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-60 OSCAR SCHREIBER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-93, Oscar Schreiber, Meeting Date: August 24, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6 foot by 40 foot dock. The property is located on Warner Bay, Lake George. It will be a U-shaped dock with a 20 foot setback from one property line and 30 feet from the other. The dock will be approximately 576 square feet. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project was compared to the criteria found in Section 179-60 which contains the regulations regarding construction of Docks and moorings. The proposed dock complies with the regulations found in Section 179-60. If treated lumber is to be used it shall be a non-leaching type. The site plan should be modified, too, so that it corresponds with the detailed drawing supplied. The plot plan shows two single docks and the drawing shows a U-shaped dock." MR. BREWER-Okay. We do have someone here from the applicant? MR. SCHREIBER-I am the applicant, yes, and Sharon Davies is here wi th me. - 25 - '-- '-- ""--""" ..-----------'" MR. BREWER-That was my only question, on the plan, it does show two docks. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. mistake on the plan. There will be a U-shaped dock. It was drawn by somebody else. That was a MR. BREWER-Okay, and I would ask, nonleaching, treated lumber? also, that you'll use MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. A local dock builder, Charles Dwyer, is going to build it, and I know he's built numerous docks on the lake, and he said he will comply with any rules and regulations. MR. BREWER-And he's going to pull everything out of the lake? MR. SCHREIBER-I don't understand what you mean, pull everything out of the lake? MR. BREWER-Well, you've got, is there some sort underneath the dock that you have there now? of supports MR. SCHREIBER-There's an existing stake dock. MR. BREWER-You're going to take that whole stake dock out? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. That is not anchored by anything or any cribs. That whole thing will come out. MR. BREWER-Okay. Craig? Corinne? Does anybody else have any questions? George? Okay. Carol? MR. HARLICKER-Just for your information, Warren County reviewed it and approved it, "approve with local conditions". MRS. PULVER-My only question was that, because of the map, it did look. 1 i ke too, that what the drawi ng here of the U-shaped dock is what you have, right, which they're actually submitting? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. On the detailed drawing, it shows U-shaped. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I know, actually submitting? but I mean, that's what they're MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-What I might ask the Board to do is require the applicant to submit a new site plan showing a U-shaped dock with his building permit application. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Let me just ask one question. Is it 57b square feet, or is it 51b square feet, the size of the dock? MR. HARLICKER-I have 57b. MRS. TARANA-I just think we ought to get these numbers right, because the application has bib square feet, our agenda has 51b, and you have 57b. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I think 51b sounds more appropriate. ~MR. MARTIN-Scott took the two piers that measure b foot by 40. ~ That gave him 240 a piece, and then the center piece, the head of the boat there, near the shore, would be 12 feet by 8 feet, that gives him 9b. So you've got 480 and 9b, gave him 57b. MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you. - 26 - '-'- -.---", -- MRS. TARANA-So lets just make sure we read that into the record, that it's 576. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would site that number in your resolution. MRS. PULVER-They have a Short Form SEQRA here, too. MR. HARLICKER-That doesn't apply. It's Type II. MRS. PULVER-Well, I didn't think so. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-93 OSCAR SCHREIBER, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved ,for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: With the reflecteq and that lumber be following two conditions: That the site plan be at the time of building permit to show a U-shaped dock, the dock not exceed 576 square feet, and non-leaching used. Duly adopted this 24th day of August, v ot e : 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-I've got in the mail some consent forms, and I talked to you about them, Jim, one for consent for the Town Board to be lead agent. One is for 49 Glenwood Avenue re-zoning, which is, I think Seeley. It's just a consent for us to consent to the Town Board to be lead agent. MRS. TARANA-So you just have Board, with a motion from us? to sign this, on behalf of the Is that what you're looking for? MR. BREWER-I don't know if I've got to have a motion or not. MRS. PULVER-I think you have to have a motion from the Board, designating the Town Board, or consenting that the Town Board can be lead agency. In other words, we don't want it. MR. Ji m, BREWER-Right. Exactly, but we have consent forms to sign. do these have to be signed and sent in, these consent forms? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-By each one of us as individual members, or by us as a whole Board? MR. MARTIN-No. I would pass a resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign and we can have one. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's asking for you, as a Board, consent. as an agency, to MR. BREWER-Resolution No. 445-93, 431-93, 417-93, and 345-93, if somebody wants to put that into a motion. MOTION GIVING NUMBER Tarana THAT THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE CONSENT FORMS, THE TOWN BOARD LEAD AGENCY STATUS ON THE CITED RESOLUTIONS 445-93, 431-93, 417-93, 345-93, Introduced by Corinne who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: - 27 --- -....-r' ~"-- Duly adopted this 24th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. 5~ark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Does anybody have anything else? MR. STARK-Jim, I was down to the Harvest tonight. Linda counted 41 cars ne~t door, today. She counted 38 cars Friday. The paint smell is coming in her kitchen window bothering her. So she asked me to ask you, what are you going to do about it? MR. MARTIN-The applicant is coming back before this Board. MR. MACEWAN-When? MR. MARTIN-Within the ne~t month, by September, hopefully. MRS. TARANA-For what? MR. MARTIN-For a rediscussion of their site plan, because they're not in compliance with it. You limited him to a dozen cars, and it's way over that most days. MR. MACEWAN-A dozen cars, and also if I remember right in that resolution, it was no outside storage of wrecked vehicles waiting to be repaired. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-And what about the paint booth? The paint booth was, it was a special paint booth, too, wasn't it? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. They had a State of the Art paint booth. MRS. PULVER-Right, to contain the fumes. MR. BREWER-Well, I think that had to be inspected by Kip Grant, didn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and it was. MRS. PULVER-Well, maybe we should ask Mr. Grant to go back and re-inspect, just in case he missed something the first time. MR. BREWER-I think what they're talking about is the car fumes, right, George? MR. STARK-No. A lot of acetone is used, you know when you bind them up, and all this stuff. I didn't go out in the kitchen and smell the thing. MR. MACEWAN-I do know, from personal observations, repair work of cars outside the building, in the the overhead doors. I witnessed that today. they are doing dr i ve area, by MR. STARK-It looks like a junk yard out back there. MR. MACEWAN-I've been by there numerous times, and they are well in e~cess of 12 cars. MR. BREWER-I can just tell you that I spoke to Dave Hatin last night, and Dave Hat in told me it was unenforceabl e. So, I' m just passing that on. - 28 - -- MR. MACEWAN-You're the Zoning Administrator. Is it enforceable? MR. MARTIN-I think there could be a compromise reached here. I don't think 12 is enforceable, but I think 40 is excessive. MR. BREWER-I agree with you that probably 12 is not the number, but I have an awful problem with Dave Hatin saying condition that we make on an approval is unenforceable. the problem I have. right that a That's MR. MARTIN-Right, and I talked to Dave about that. I said, the Board does the best they can. They give the applicant every opportunity to indicate what is an acceptable number. The discussion was held, and they said a dozen. Now, if they're in violation of that, then they need to come back to the Board, because a site plan has the weight of law. Anything that you approve is law. MR. BREWER-That's, I guess, what I have a problem with is Dave saying, well, I just can't do it. Well, what's the sense of us even being here if he isn't going to enforce anything we ask him to? MR. MARTIN-Well, we need to have a discussion with Dave, too. MRS. PULVER-And what happens is, and I've seen it because I've been on this Board so many years, is that we put a restriction or something on a site plan, because Mr. Hatin, in the old days, would say, well, if you don't make it part of the motion, I can't enforce it, and so we start really trying to do his work, you know, with these stipulations, and then he still comes back and says, it takes to long. You've got to go to court, you've got to have this, you've got to have that. Sometimes you can just reason with them, and then we get applicants in front of us that say, we want you to, they want us to be the policemen. MR. BREWER-Yes. A perfect example is Frank Sears. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I can think of probably 10 things where they'll say, well, Queensbury has no enforcement. So you need to do this. Well, it doesn't matter if we do it or not, because. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we can invite Dave Hatin to our meeting, the first meeting next month and we'll talk to him about it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Is that the meeting that the applicant is going to be at, because I think he should be at the meeting that the applicant's going to be at. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. STARK-Who's the applicant, Tom Stimpson? MR. BREWER-Stimpson. Well, it was Eggleston. MR. MARTIN-Rich Eggleston, I think it was. MR. MACEWAN-If push comes to shove, what measures could you use to enforce something like that? Could you pull their CO, and if so, how do you go about doing it, and is it a court thing? MR. MARTIN-Yes. You go to court. That's the ultimate leverage you have over anything in this case. - 29 - ~ --.-" MR. STARK-He's parking the cars on property that he doesn't own, the junks out back. MR. MARTIN-As I recall, he had permission from the neighboring property, there's an easement that runs across there. MR. BREWER-I think, he owns the property, but there's an easement through it. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-As I remember. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but if I remember right, they were worried about that easement being blocked so that they couldn't gain access to their property. MR. MARTIN-That was resolved, though. the cars there. They allowed them to park MR. HARLICKER-As long as it's not a permanent right-of-way. blockade of the MR. BREWER-If they want to get back to the property, they've got acces s to get through there to get back to the propert y, if they just go right along the building. I think that's what they were worried about being able to get back there. If he were to put up a fence so that he couldn't get through there, gate or something like that. MRS. PULVER-That's right. That was one of the things. I mean, I have a problem when the Planning Board or any citizens board tries to regulate someone's business. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what Dave is saying. private enterprise. He said it to Tim. He said, this is MRS. PULVER-I have a problem with that, but in this case, the applicant said, 12 cars. I mean, he did it himself, would be more than enough, and I almost can remember saying to him, don't say it unless you mean it, because you're going to have to live with it. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, we've had this happen before. When I was on the Board, it was that aut 0 repai r shop up on Av i at i on Road there was one. The same thing happened. MRS. PULVER-Right, and he did. He said no more than six cars, and we said, don't say it unless you mean it, and what happens if your business gets bigger? I don't ever intend it to be any bigger, and within a month he'd outgrown his site, and he finally did go to a new site. Never say never. MR. MACEWAN-Well, A-1 Used Cars down there on the Boulevard, just past Zack's. They did the same thing and we gave them an eight car cushion. He hasn't exceeded it. I go by there once a week, and he hasn't exceeded it. MR. MARTIN-I was by there yesterday, cars out there. and he had, I think, six MRS. PULVER-So do we assume his business isn't good? MR. MACEWAN-No. that we passed. We assume that he's abiding by the stipulation MR. wise, STARK-Jim, with Dave how does this Barnes piece piece of property compare, size of propert y, because there's no 30 ~-, ------- stipulation on the number of cars Barnes can have, but I don't know if his property is bigger, or. MR. BREWER-Barnes, I think, has probably two acres. MR. MARTIN-I'd say it's larger. MR. BARNES-Barnes is larger? Barnes has two acres? MR. BREWER-Ye s. He's got about 10 bays there. MR. STARK-How big is this piece of property? MR. MARTIN-Half an acre, tops, I would say. MR. MACEWAN-No. It was a little bit more than that. MR. MARTIN-Was it? Maybe three quarters of an acre. MR. HARLICKER-Because it goes back a ways. but it goes back. It's kind of narrow, MR. MARTIN-Well, we'll have them back to you in September, and we'll have them, the ni ght they're here, Dave wi 11 be here. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else from anybody? MRS. TARANA-I would just like to know, am I right in that this Board approved Wal-Mart based on incorrect information? Is that what happened tonight? Is that heard tonight? assuming traffic what I MR. HARLICKER-That's what it sounds like. MR. MARTIN-I don't know. DOT looked at the information. MRS. TARANA-I mean, common sense told you their information wasn't right, if anybody wanted to really admit to it, and now New York State says it wasn't right. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if they ever said that. MRS. TARANA-Well, if he used those numbers, and they came back to him and said, your numbers can't be right. MR. MARTIN-I engineers, as a don't know. group. I' m kind of suspicious of traffic MR. BREWER-It's like I said. MR. MARTIN-Transportation Concepts will come back here and say, well, but Larry Levine wasn't considering the fact that we have this credit for this, and therefore that's why we did this. MRS. PULVER-What is the answer? opinion, then what's the answer? hire their own Traffic Engineer. If we can't take the expert's The answer is the Town needs to MR. MARTIN-I've gone on record as telling you before, we have little say on State routes. It's much better working with the County, or certainly Town roads, than it is State routes. MRS. PULVER-You know, how can we say to Larry Levine, you're a liar. I don't know the first thing about doing a traffic study, and I'm not a traffic engineer, and yet we have no one to really guide us through this traffic. Maybe the Town needs to bite the bullet and hire their own engineer to really review the eng i neers. MR. MACEWAN-You need to keep somebody on retainer. - 31 - ----- ,~~'-j MRS. PULVER-You know, I can't sit here and build a case against Larry Levine, because I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field of traffic study. I don't have the expertise. MR. MARTIN-My them to task, right-of-way, point is, even if you could build a case or take you have no jurisdiction over what happens on that in terms of curb cuts, lights, or any of that. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. MACEWAN-But, if the information given to us was misleading enough to make this Board think otherwise, that it was acceptable, and they based their passage of this resolution on all of part of that information, then that's wrong itself. MR. MARTIN-I can't say that's true one accepted DOT's analysis as being correct. I can't look at a traffic study. way or the other. That's all I can I do. MRS. PULVER-We 11, you see, that's kind of the way I fee 1. I fee I when they present the traffic study, I have to assume that it's correct. I don't have the expertise to say it isn't. MR. MARTIN-There's so many variables involved. MR. MAÇEWAN-I just said that I feel comfortable knowing that I voted no on it, because that's the very reason why I voted no. MRS. TARANA-And I did, too, because you don't have engineer to know that the traffic study was not right. have to know is a little arithmetic. It didn't add up. to be an All you MR. STARK-Jim, what's on the agenda for next Monday? MR. MARTIN-Next Monday? We have Round Pond is on. MR. HARLICKER-Wilson, Round Pond, and Mt. Royal. MR. MARTIN-So you might have three items. MRS. PULVER-What was Lucas Wilson? Remind me. MR. MARTIN-That was the apartment building at the end of Walker Lane? MRS. PULVER-Yes. That's right. MR. MARTIN-They're up for a variance tomorrow night. MR. MACEWAN-What ever became of that scenario? Was it ever found out who owned that chunk of land that he needs to get a right-of- way from, an easement from? MR. HARLICKER-Well, he's got the right-of-way. MR. MACEWAN-An easement from. MR. MARTIN-He's getting an easement across that property. MR. HARLICKER-He's already got that. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. I was always under the impression, they way they talked, that they owned that piece of property, right up to the edge of Walker Lane. Then it was found out that, woops, someone owns a strip between his property and Walker Lane. MR. MARTIN-The problem was Walker Lane, and if Tax Maps, Walker Lane goes up much farther you look on than it does the in - 32 - -...-. ,-,-. ----..- .., actuality. They looked at that, and they figured, well, we've got frontage on a right-of-way, and I can understand that, but it's not, in fact, a right-of-way. The Town right-of-way only runs to the point of the edge of the pavement. From that point on, I don't know who owns that strip. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It was never determined who owned it. It was like Pine Avenue, or whatever it was, behind Mt. Royal. It's one of these chunks of land that for some reason, nobody knows. MR. MARTIN-So he's got to get a variance from the 40 foot frontage requirement. MR. BREWER-Tomorrow night, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-My question during the variance proceeding, is an easement across property, does it have ownership? How do you do that? I don't know. MR. BREWER-And we're night, on George Ryan, going to right? get our determination, tomorrow MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Did we finally get all that worked out, I mean, exactly what we're asking for, what we're trying to determine? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-They know? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Sept ember. The pigs will be gone by the first week in MRS. PULVER-What do we need to do to make sure those pigs are gone now, for enforcement? MR. MARTIN-We'll be by to look. every weekend. I go by there to go to the dump MRS. PULVER-But I mean, what is Mr. Hatin, are you going to go out with Mr. Hatin? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, the 30th, Garth Allen is off our agenda. MR. MARTIN-George Ryan's going to be back to see you over the winter. Something's got to be done. MR. MACEWAN-Question. ton i ght ? Why was Seeley pulled off the agenda MR. MARTIN-The attorney couldn't be here. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Did you just, maybe at his drawing here. I'm wrong, but take a good look MR. MARTIN-I haven't seen it, no. MR. MACEWAN-Well, he's got it labeled and it's a drawing that they did business. It's not surveyed or meaningless. That might want to be back on the agenda. as a tax map of that thing, over there at their own anything. So to me it's pointed out before they get - 33 - '-- ""'-~'-- MR. MARTIN-That's got all the potential of being another Red Lobster type re-zoning. MR. BREWER-Okay. to adj ourn. Anything else from anybody? I'll make a motion On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 34 -