Loading...
1993-09-23 SP -----, " QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review Randy Rivette/Mike Rivette 5. SEQRA Review Gary R. Cardinale 5. Subdivision No. 7-1993 Cindy Jarvis FINAL STAGE 6. Subdivision No. 19-1993 Hal Raven PRELIMINARY STAGE 8. Subdivision No. 20-1993 Dr. Koock Jung PRELIMINARY STAGE 10. Subdivision No. 21-1993 Garth Allen PRELIMINARY STAGE 13. Site Plan No. 44-93 Adirondack Coffee Service, Inc. 23. Site Plan No. 14-90 The Great Escape Theme Park 42. 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 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CAROL PULVER GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-Okay. Craig, I'm going to excuse myself from the first item that you people want to discuss. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is a discussion regarding the Hudson Point pro j ect. regarding specifically a letter the Board received. Corinne. would you read that letter into the minutes. please. MRS. TARANA-Yes. This is dated August 26. 1993. Town of Queensbury Planning Board. regarding Hudson Point Planned Unit Development. "Dear Planning Board Members: We represent Tim Brewer. Robin Brewer. Roland Aikens and Emily Aikens who are neighbors of the pr~posed Hudson Point Planned Unit Development. a 163 unit residential development in the Town of Queensbury. As you may recall. in September 1992. your Board recommended approval of this project. However. since that time. there have been a number of significant changes in the project. which we believe require the Board to re-review the project. These changes are as follows: One. the 94 acre recreational parcel originally proposed to be donated to the Town has been completely eliminated from the project. Two. most of the recreational trails have also been eliminated from the project. Three. it is our understanding that there were no docks included in the project when the Planning Board reviewed it. The project proposal now includes two 40 foot docks on the Hudson River. Four. the project proposal now includes a boat storage building a boat launch area for canoes on the Hudson River. Five. the project also now includes a picnic shelter at the bottom of the bluffs near the boat storage building and docks. Six. there will be a parking lot for ten cars near the top of the bluffs for those people using the proposed picnic and boat complex on the River. Seven. a trail has been added along the bluffs to provide access from the parking area to the proposed picnic and boat complex. Eight. the primary access road for the project has been changed from Sherman Island Road to a road through the McDonald subdivision. also known as the Southern Exposure subdivision. The Queensbury Highway Superintendent has apparently not yet agreed that the proposed roadway system is adequate. Nine. several lots on the point have been increased to three acres. and the area covered by the conservation easements has been expanded to include the bluffs. Ten. in February 1993. the Queensbury Town Board issued a positive declaration. Pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. a Draft EIS was accepted by the Town Board on August 23rd. 1993. No SEQRA determination of significance had been made when the Board reviewed the project in September 1992. We believe that these changes make the project a different project then the one reviewed by the Board last November. - 1 - -- ',--- and that this new project must be reviewed for compliance with that part of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. governing your review of Planned Unit Developments. for example. Section 179-57C(4)(a) requires that you find that the proposal meets the intent and objective set forth in 179-51B. Section 179-51B(2) requires that PUD's result in more useable open space and recreation areas. This project may no longer meet the objective for the elimination of the 94 recreational parcel. and most of the recreational trails. Similarly. 179-51B(3) requires that PUD's have a development pattern which preserve outstanding natural topographic. geologic features and scenic vistas. and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns. With the addition of the picnic and boating complex at the bottom of the steep bluffs along the Hudson River. these objectives may no longer be achieved. nor may the new project conform to accepted principles for roadway design. land use configurations. open space systems. and drainage systems. as required by Section 179-57C(4) (c). For all of these reasons. we respectfully request that the Bpard re-review the project. Thank you. Very truly yours. Jeffrey Friedland of Miller. Mannix. and Pratt" MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. Jim. Paul was not able to attend tonight? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. How does the Board fee I matter. or passing a resolution to discuss Attorney at the next available meeting? about tabling this with the this Town MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Has the Town Attorney not made any determination yet about a PUD allowed in WR-IA zone? MR. MARTIN-I don't think he has. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Yes. We do need the Town Attorney here. MR. MACEWAN-When's he available? MR. MARTIN-Tuesday. I asked him for tonight and he couldn't make it. MR. MACEWAN-We have a regular meeting scheduled on Tuesday? MR. MARTIN-That's the idea. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Do you want to table this. how does everybody feel. until Tuesday. or ask the applicant to come back. or what? MRS. PULVER-Well. I think I'd like both. but I'd like to speak to the Town Attorney first. MR. MACEWAN-All right. Why don't we table this matter until Tuesday. speak with him. and then if he feels that we should call the applicant back. we'll discuss this and we'll contact the applicant and set up an appropriate time to meet on this. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-All right. MRS. PULVER-I have one question. I would like the minutes to the Town Board meetings on this. on the Hudson Point issue. MR. MARTIN-All the minutes on this project? MRS. PULVER-No. I think just the first two. have the rest. just the first two. I think I probably - 2 - -' MR. MARTIN-The first two on this project? MRS. PULVER-Yes. It would have been right after. it would have been in September. MR. MARTIN-After the Planning Board passed it on? MRS. PULVER-Yes. after the Planning Board passed it on. not anything before that. no. MR. MACEWAN-For everybody? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Craig. did you say that we would have the Town Attorney present and the applicant? MR. MACEWAN-No. just the Town Attorney. first. MRS. TARANA-Just the Town Attorney. and then if the decision is made to re-review. then we would request the applicant to come in? MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-Well. if the Town Attorney determines that a PUD is not allowed. MRS. TARANA-Well. that's a whole new ball game at that point. MRS. PULVER-Right. it's a dead issue. So. I think we need to speak with him first. Okay. do we need a resolution to that effect. or just asking for it is enough? MR. MARTIN-Resolutions are always best. I would say. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION ON TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 28TH THE TOWN ATTORNEY. PAUL DUSEK. MEET WITH THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD TO DISCUSS THE LETTER DATED AUGUST 26TH. 1993 BY MILLER. MANNIX. AND PRATT AND THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD FOR A RE-ZONING ON HUDSON POINT. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer MR. BREWER-Okay. The first item. we made arrangements to have Mr. Stimpson come in. but we got a letter stating that he couldn't come in. and we'll have to reschedule the meeting. Would you just read that letter in. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Yes. September 22.1993. Chairman of the Planning Board Queensbury Planning Board RE: Stimpson and Eggleston at 299 Bay Road. "Gentlemen: I received a telephone call from my clients. Mr. Thomas Stimpson and Mr. Richard Eggleston. requesting that I appear as their legal counsel at your meeting scheduled for Thursday evening. September 23. 1993. I do wish to appear on their behalf. however. I am previously committed to a matter scheduled at the same time in another town. Accordingly. I am requesting that the matter be rescheduled at the Planning Board's convenience at a later date and time. Please let me know if my request for rescheduling can be favorably acted upon. Very truly yours. Carusone and Muller Michael Muller" - 3 - - '- MR. BREWER-Okay. Did you have any conversation at all with him. Jim? When does he want us to reschedule? MR. MARTIN-I was hoping for. I can call him. I was hoping for as early as Tuesday maybe. MR. BREWER-Okay. How does everybody else feel about that? MRS. PULVER-Sure. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Could I ask you. please. to contact Mr. Hart also. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Do we need a motion or anything? We just table it until Tuesday. MR. HARLICKER-I've got some additional information for you on this project. We got a phone call from DEC today regarding any applicable permi ts that they have to get for their ventilation system. There are permits that they have to get. or a permit that he has to get. but the representative from DEC said based on the conversation he had with the applicant. the ventilation system that he has in place on the project site fits all their requirements. and that the permit is just more or less a formality for them. There shouldn't be any problem with them issuing the permit. MR. BREWER-Okay. So he has no problem operating? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. based on the conversation that. MR. BREWER-How can they issue a permit if they never even saw the thing? MR. HARLICKER-Well. they haven't yet. MR. BREWER-I don't think it's a Town requirement. MR. HARLICKER-No. It's a DEC requirement. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is. too. I think this type of a permitting process. in the earlier conversation I had. just as a change in law. as a matter of fact. just this summer. and that's why a lot of these types of other facilities around Town haven't been notified yet. but they're going to be approached as well. and over the next several months. everybody will have to come into compliance with these permit requirements. and it appears it's really not going to have that much of an effect on odors and things like that. MR. BREWER-Okay. this? Would somebody care to make a motion to table MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled until next Tuesday. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint - 4 - RESOLUTIONS: SEQRA REVIEW: RANDY RIVETTE/MIKE RIVETTE RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF THE VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION. MRS. PULVER-I'll introduce it. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Site Plan for Randy and Mike Rivette RESOLUTION NO.: 19 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. Randy & Mike Rivette have submitted an application for a site plan in connection with a project known as or described as construction of a 24' x 24' two story addition. and WHEREAS. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for the purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Randy & Mike Rivette for a site plan: 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired: 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days: and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review: and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that when notifying the other involved agencies. the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation. together with copies of this resolution. the application. and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor. or where appropriate. the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint SEQRA REVIEW: GARY R. CARDINALE RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF - 5 - - -- QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE SEQRA REVIEW OF Area Variance for Gary Cardinale RESOLUTION NO.: 20 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED I~S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. Gary Cardinale has submitted an application for a variance in connection with a proj ect known as or described as construction of a single family home. and WHEREAS. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Gary Cardinale for a variance 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired: 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days: and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review: and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that when notifying the other involved agencies. the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation. together with copies of this resolution. the application. and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor. or where appropriate. a Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. JARVIS OWNER: INTERSECTION OF SUBDIVISION OF A MAP NO. 121-1-57 7-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA CINDY SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST MT. RD. & LUZERNE ROAD. PROPOSAL FOR A 6.78 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) LOTS. (APA) TAX LOT SIZE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JEFF MARTIN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 7-1993 Final Stage. Cindy Jarvis. - 6 - -- '- Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant received a modified preliminary approval on 8/17/93. The modification calls for three (3) lots. thereby eliminating the need for shared driveways. Lots one (1) and two (2) would be combined and lots three (3) and four (4) would be combined: lot five (5) would remain unchanged. Access to lot one (1) and lot three (3) would be from West Mountain Road and lot two (2) will be accessed from Luzerne Road. Lot one (1) has an existing house on it: lots two (2) and three (3) will be vacant. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant is actually proposing two new building lots. Access to one of these lots will be via a long private drive. This drive will be 20 feet wide within a 40 foot clear zone and meets the Fire Department's recommendation for emergency accessibility. During preliminary review it was found that there was no significant problems associated with this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It appears that this proposal follows accepted planning practices and staff can recommend approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-There are also comments on here from Rist-Frost. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have a letter from Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. Dated September 21. 1993 "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following comments: 1. Minimum setback lines for all property lines should be shown. 2. The fire and school districts should be noted on the Plat." MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have someone here from the applicant. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Yes. Jeffrey Martin from Morse Engineering. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any comments at all? I don't quite understand why this is even back? We did this once. didn't we? MRS. PULVER-It was a five lot originally. MR. BREWER-It was a five lot originally. and then you went to three lots. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-We started with five. and we cut back to three and came in with the modification of the Preliminary approval. MR. BREWER-You never went to final. MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-No. This is the next month. MR. BREWER-Did we have these notes. Tom. before last month. that these should have been done? MR. YARMOWICH-No. MR. BREWER-We didn't. All right. So these can be done before the plat is signed. these two items that Tom has? MR. JEFFREY MARTIN-Yes. We have no problems. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-They're just notations. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1993 CINDY JARVIS. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: For the subdivision into three lots of the 6.78 acre parcel. with - 7 - the two notes attached to the final plat. lines for all property lines should be school districts should be noted. One. the minimum setback shown. and the fire and Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. vote: 1993. by the following AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HAL RAVEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR- 3A/SFR-IA THE VISTAS ON WEST MT. RD. LOCATION: FROM AVIATION RD. GO SOUTH ON WEST MT. RD. TO 1ST ROAD RIGHT OPPOSITE PINEWOOD HOLLOW. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE EXISTING 2 LOTS INTO 3 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 87-1-10.5. 10.6 LOT SIZE: 6.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 19-1993 Preliminary Stage. Hal Raven. Meeting Date: September 23. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide two lots into three lots. The two lots that are to be subdivided are part of a previously approved subdivision: that subdivision was a seven lot subdivision known as the Berkeley Subdivision. approved on 2/6/80. The total acres that is proposed to be resubdivided is 6.334: lot 2 will be 2.93 acres. lot 3 will be 2.12 acres and the new lot. lot 8. will be 1.25 acres. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The property is split by two zones. Lot 3 is within the RR-3A zone: lot 2 is within the SFR-IA zone and lot 8 is split between the RR-3A and the SFR-1A zones. When the subdivision was originally approved the lots met the zoning requirements. However. the zoning has changed and lot three is now in the RR-3A zone and has become a preexisting nonconforming lot. Lot two is in compliance with the existing zoning requirements. and lot eight. which is the newly created lot. complies with the existing zoning. Even though part of lot eight is in the RR-3A zone. most of the lot is within the SFR-1A zone. Therefore. it was determined that it should comply with the area requirements of the SFR-IA zone. which it does. This subdivision will not alter the approved street layout. However. the proposed location of houses for lots 2 and 3 will change. Access to the proposed house location on lot 3 and lot 2 will require traversing an intermittent stream. Any crossing of the stream should be done so that it does not interfere with it's flow. The proposed locations for the septic systems will also change. The original subdivision was subject to DEC and DOH approvals. These approvals were for a seven lot subdivision. Since it is now an 8 lot subdivision. the original permits may have to be amended to reflect the additional lot. The DOH and DEC are currently in receipt of the new plans and staff is awaiting their comments." Yesterday we got a letter from Brian Fear at the Department of Health. and they doesn't have any problems with modified subdivision. We're still awai ting comment from DEC. "RECOMMENDATIONS: There does not appear to be any significant issues related to this subdivision. Any decision regarding this subdivision should be conditioned on meeting any comments made by DEC and the DOH." MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Steves. any comments from you? MR. STEVES-The only comment I would have is that I don't think there's any DEC involvement. DOH. yes. - 8 - MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. STEVES-But I don't know of any DEC involvement. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. STEVES-So I doubt. MR. HARLICKER-The original application. they had to issue a SPDES Permit for this. MR. STEVES-No. A SPDES is only over 1.000 gallons a day discharge. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Well. we can find that out between now and final. anyway. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Anybody on the Board have comments? MR. RUEL-In the future. if you would assign a drawing number to the drawing. so that it could be referenced. This drawing has no number on it. It just has a date. MRS. PULVER-Well. this is only preliminary. MR. RUEL-Yes. I know. but eventually. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. here to comment on this project? Is there anyone PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEVES-There's no public comment. I don't believe any public notification was sent out. MRS. PULVER-It didn't? MR. STEVES-No. MR. BREWER-All right. So then we have to table it? .. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. BREWER-Until next month? MR. MARTIN-Yes. because we have to have proper notification time. MR. BREWER-Okay. We have your consent to table. then? MR. STEVES-Table. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion to table this? MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1993 HAL RAVEN. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Until all the neighboring property owners have been notified. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE - 9 - ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DR. KOOCK JUNG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAY RD.. NORTH OF CANTERBURY DRIVE. PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 38. 5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS - ONE 36.81 AND ANOTHER 1.69 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1 39-92 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9-8-93 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-5.1. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5 LOT SIZE: +38.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK LEVACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 20-1993 Preliminary Stage. Dr. Koock Jung. Meeting Date: September 23. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision of a 38.5 acre parcel located on Bay Road. One lot will be 1.69 acres and the other will be 36.81 acres. The larger parcel has an apartment complex on it and the smaller parcel will have an office on it. The property is being subdivided in order so that the office will be located on it's own lot. Both lots will remain in the ownership of the applicant. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The subdivision does not involve the construction of any new streets or utilities. The 1.69 acre lot has a Planning Board approved site plan for a professional office: the larger lot contains an apartment complex and has enough acreage for future further subdivision and development. Access to both lots will be via an existing drive that services the apartment complex. An easement will be required to allow access across the smaller lot. This subdivision should not impact the previously approved site plan. RECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision and staff can recommend preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-And there's a letter in here from Rist-Frost with engineering comments. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. Dated September 22. 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following comments: 1. The zoning of the parcel and zoning boundaries within 200 feet are not indicated. 2. An easement for access to Lot 2 and easement for utilities serving Lot 2 is required. 3. Minimum setback lines in accordance with zoning should be shown for Lots 1 and 2. 4. The subdivision name on the application is not consistent with the subdivision map title block information. 5. The intentions for the residual 36.81 acre largely undeveloped Lot 2 are not established." MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have someone here representing the applicant. MR. LEVACK-Yes. Hi. My name is Mark Levack. I'm here as agent for the applicant. Canterbury Woods Management Corp. MR. BREWER-Would you care to address any of them. or all of them? MR. LEVACK-Note Number One. "zoning of the parcel and zoning boundaries within 200 feet are not indicated." I would refer that to the engineer. and he could make that conditional on approval. MR. BREWER-For final it can be done. MR. LEVACK-Right. Yes. it can. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LEVACK-Regarding the easement. I think that's going to be - 10 - '-- addressed approval. engineers. identified. well. in deed language. and that would be upon subdivision The setback lines have also been notified by the that we have the east and the west setback lines and they can add the north and south setback lines as MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LEVACK-Regarding the consistent. it should be Corp. fact that it's not. the listed as Canterbury Woods name's not Management MR. BREWER-And will be. MR. LEVACK-And will be. MR. MARTIN-In terms of comment two. that should be on the plat. that easement should be shown on the plat. MR. BREWER-I was going to suggest that afterwards. MR. LEVACK-Item Number Five. there currently are no plans for any additional improvement on Lot Number 2. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. LEVACK-At this time. I'd also like to ask for final approval. if possible. because of construction time window is really coming to a close. and the reason why we were delayed on doing this Board a little bit was partly due to financing in nature. and that held us up. It also leads me to ask at this time if we can have an extension on our site plan approval. MR. BREWER-Does that have to be formally done. Jim. the request for extension? MR. MARTIN-He can ask for it in the context of the meeting. MR. BREWER-We can undertake that. but I've got to believe that final approval tonight is pretty much out of the question. as far as I'm concerned. MR. LEVACK-Not even contingent final approval? MRS. PULVER-You have to submit all the paperwork. MR. BREWER-You have to submit a final application. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Well. then that's the answer to that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and regarding their site plan approval. their approval runs out tomorrow. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can address that tonight. I think. without a problem. How much of an extension do you want? MR. LEVACK-Three months. MR. BREW~R-Ninety days. Okay. No other comments? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 11 - -- MR. BREWER-We've got to do a SEQRA. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. PULVER-Should we do the extension first? MR. BREWER-Yes. two separate things. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 39-92 JUNG. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its seconded by Roger Ruel: DR. KOOCK adoption. For 90 days. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: - 12 - '-- . AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we need a motion for the subdivision. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 DR. KOOCK JUNG. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application. file #20-1993. to subdivide a 38.5 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.69 acres and 36.81 acres; and WHEREAS. the above referenced preliminary subdivision application dated 8/25/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet M-1. Preliminary Subdivision Map. dated 8/25/93 2. Sheet S-l. Site Plan. Revised 8/26/93 3. Sheet D-l. Details. undated; and WHEREAS. the above file is supported with documentation: 1. Staff notes. dated 9/23/93 management plan prepared by Morse Engineering. Short Form EAF. Dated 8/25/93 the following 2. Stormwater dated 7/92 3. WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 9/23/93 concerning the above subdivision; and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision has been appropriate town departments and agencies for comment; and submitted to their review the and WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form: THEREFORE. Be It Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision Koock Jung file #20-1993. with the condition that Number Two of the Rist-Frost comments we want to read. an easement for access to lot 2. an easement for utility serving lot 2 is required to be shown on the plot. Rist- Frost letter dated September 22. 1993. Comments One through four. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint ?J \ ()) ~\~ ./ SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I GARTH ALLEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: NORTHSIDE OF CRONIN RD.. APPROXIMATELY 1200' EAST OF BAY RD./CRONIN RD. INTERSECTION. A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 27 ACRE PARCEL INTO 91 LOTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 90 TOWNHOUSES AND A COMMON AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 12-1993 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5. 10 LOT SIZE: +27 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT - 13 - ./ STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 21-1993. Garth Allen Preliminary Stage. Meeting Date: September 23. 1993 II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 27 acre parcel into 91 lots. The subdivision will be for the construction of 90 townhouses with footprint only lot and the remaining property will be common land owned by a homeowners association. The project will require the connection into municipal sewer and water systems. Construction of an internal private loop road is also part of this application. PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1. Section 179-62 B requires that all nonpublic roads servicing multifamily proj ects have to be designed to meet town standards. 2. Section 179-62 D requires that all multifamily projects of 50 or more units provide a recreation plan depicting what measures are being planned to meet anticipated needs of the project residents and the plan shall be approved by the Planning Board. 3. Water service and sewer service are subject to approval by the Town Water and Wastewater Departments. Any comments made by those departments will have to be addressed and the required permits obtained prior to construction. as per section 179 -6 2 C of the Zoning Code. 4. Phasing regulations limit the number of units per phase to 35. 5. Since residents will be utilizing the golf course. adequate pedestrian access to the course should be provided. 6. Substantial amounts of vegetation will be removed as a result of this proposal. The applicant is proposing to provide limited landscaping around the front foundations of the individual townhouses. An overall landscaping plan for the project is a way of mitigating the adverse effects of removing the existing trees. 7. Issuance of the necessary wetland permits should be completed prior to the granting of final approval. 8. All engineering comments need to be addressed to the Board's satisfaction." MR. HARLICKER-In your packet here is a copy of DEC' s wetlands permit. So. Number Seven has been addressed. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom. we have some notes from you. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. Dated September 22. 1993 "Previously. Rist-Frost had reviewed the project and made engineering comments regarding site development and infrastructure under Site Plan 18-93. A freshwater wetlands permit application 1-93 was also reviewed and there were no engineering comments. Subdivision application 12-1993 was reviewed as well and engineering comments were provided regarding site development and infrastructure. Rist-Frost understands that so far the applicant has satisfied the Planning Board on these previous issues. Thi s review of the pro j ect is for a 90 unit townhouse subdivision of a 27.2~ acre parcel that is part of the overall 97.2 ~ acre site owned by Garth Allen. The enabling zoning change of the site to SRIA by the Town Board was granted for the concept of a clustered residential development adjoining established golf course acti vi ties. The zoning change further provided that the site remain largely open space by preserving the 70 acre golf course area in an undeveloped state. The townhouse development proposed is cluster development and we have the following comments regarding the subdivision regulations:" One. I think. needs to be withdrawn. Mr. Martin has corrected my comment. That applies to Halfway Brook Reservoir. "1. The cluster development proposed encroaches on the 500 foot setback from Halfway Brook stipulated in A183-34 D. 2. Subdivision phasing is required. with a maximum of 35 dwelling units per phase (A183-36). For this project it is recommended that phasing be considered relevant to internal traffic. emergency vehicle access. utilities and construction related impacts of ongoing site development in phases. 3. The drawing titled "Bay Meadows Homeowner's Association Inc.. Townhouse Layout" must be amended to include all applicable information required by A183-9 and A183-12 of the - 14 - Subdivision Regulations. particularly: - A street name - Zoning district and zoning district boundaries within 200 feet. - Property boundary of all Homeowners Assoc. lands and those areas identified as such on the plat. - Lot area tabulation - School and fire districts - Building and setback lines - Statements as required by A183-12 These requirements should be fulfilled before final plat approval. It is presumed that the plans filed under subdivision application 12-1993 with respect to drainage. SWM. roads. signage. landscaping. grading. etc.. will be fully incorporated by a reference note added to this plat." MR. HARLICKER-There was also a letter that we received today from Mark Schachner to Jim regarding this project. "Dear Jim: This is to confirm our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon regarding the Bay Meadows project and the issuance of requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Regulations regarding design standards for private roads and number of street entrances. Section 179-62B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance is entitled "Road Design" and states. 'all nonpublic roads used for vehicular circulation in all multifamily projects shall be designed in width. curvature. etc.. to accommodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all town standards for public roads.' The preliminary subdivision application which we submitted does show road geometry or curvature in one corner of the subdivision which does not conform to Town standards. Therefore. Dick Morse is revising the geometry of that corner to comply. We will present this revision to the Planning Board at its meeting tonight and request that it be made part of the preliminary subdivision approval. The only other road issue of which we are aware is not really a road design issue at all. but instead relates to the number of street entrances to the subdivision. We agree that the street entrance provision set forth in Section A183-23K of the Town Subdivision Regulations does not relate to road width. curvature. etc.. and is not a Town standard for public road within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-62B (1). Therefore. Section A183-23K is a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations only. and not of the Zoning Ordinance. and the Planning Board has the authority to waive strict compliance with that provision without the need for approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you for your assistance in the matter. Very truly yours. Mark Schachner" MR. BREWER-As I recall. we discussed the roads in detail when we had this. two months ago. or a month ago. whatever it was. Was everybody notified for this. Mr. Morse? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We got the cards. DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-I just handed the card to Jim this evening. and so I think we're on track. I think. for the record. my name is Dick Morse. Garth Allen is here at my right. and I think Mark is going to join us. He thought it would be more like eight o'clock. but I think we'll start. I won't review the project. unless anyone wishes me to. but I'll go through the comments. if that pleases the Board. We'll start with engineering /technical comments. The comment number one from Tom has been withdrawn. Comment Number Two. we do show a phase line on Sheet SP-l. but unfortunately the first phase is 16 units. We'll have to put an additional phase line in. a requirement. for final subdivision we will be here next week for. if we get through tonight. which we would put another phase line to show a phase two and three. On the drawing that Tom alluded to. the Bay Meadows Homeowners Association. Inc.. which is a new drawing that shows the outline of the 90 units. which will - 15 - actually be footprints after construction. most of the data that he's requested shows up on Sheet SP-l. However. I will note the items that are not on SP-l. and that is the street name that we will provide you. The zoning district boundary lines are not shown. The property boundaries of the Association are shown. Lot area tabulations are noted in a permeability computation. and also there's a generic note. because we have not physically isolated the footprint for this specific building. We have a building that we propose to you. Right at this point. we do believe that is a structure that we will be using. but until that is 100 percent firmed up. that. my problem is I don't want to declare that. and then have to change. refile the subdivision plat. The subdivision plat to be filed as the buildings are developed. and I believe that is traditionally how that is done. School and fire districts are not shown. but I do believe the Ordinance reads that school and fire district boundaries need to be shown. and we do not have a boundary on our property. but I will check that. and if. in fact. that is the case. we will show the school and fire districts. Building setbacks are shown on Sheet SP-l. and the statements are also shown on Sheet SP-l. and I believe those statements. I looked at that. and that's where you folks sign off. and basically we attest to certain things. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only thing that sticks out in my mind. that we discussed. was sidewalks. that was unresolved. Does anybody else remember that conversation? We talked about it. I don't think we ever made a decision on what we were going to ask for them to do. MR. MORSE-We had. I know we had a discussion on it. It was our position that we did not want to put additional maintenance on it. but we were willing to certainly consider that. if it was the Board's pleasure. We don't have a problem. MR. BREWER-Well. it's a new application. so we have to bring it up again. actually. It's a technicality. but we still have to do it. MRS. PULVER-I don't remember anything about sidewalks. MR. MORSE-Well. this was a conversation we had last month. and I think by the time we got on it. you had left. MRS. PULVER-That's right. I left. right in the middle of it. MR. BREWER-Maybe you could just. well. I can show her. Maybe you could show her on that map right there. Dick. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Maybe we could just kind of discuss it. I don't really see the purpose of having sidewalks out there. but maybe there is one. MR. BREWER-Well. there was conversation about the buses going there to pick up the people. MR. MORSE-Yes. well. we discussed bussing and decided that the buses would probably not enter the development. but be out in front. That lead to someone' s suggestion that we get a bus shelter. The bus shelter's are provided by the Transit Authority. and so we would certainly petition those. or have the homeowners association petition for that. I don't think we want to encumber. again. I go back to the market that we're trying to target here. It's a blue collar golfer that uses this facility now. that's the population. but one of the issues. of course. is that this is the area that we've kind of penciled out and reserved for the mailbox areas. but the Post Office will not designate that area until after we get through this process. So we would eventually put in the unit. a covered unit out here. So I think this is a focal point of where activity is going to be. an area. and this is a good place for a stop condition. intersection. I think it lends itself. So the only thing that we were discussing was a possible sidewalk from - 16 - this area to here. a distance of maybe around 250 to 300 feet. So that the people could walk from here. and get out to the road where there might be a bus stop. I don't believe that we'll ever get a bus to come in and circulate here. So that's my recollection of where we stood. I don't know if we ever put it to bed. I know we got involved in the subdivision issue. and maybe it never really got rested. We're always trying to minimize this HO at the Homeowners Association. So they're not burdened with additional cost in maintenance. MRS. PULVER-My only question is. when they put up this little hut here. they usually put it on like a cement pad or something. don't they. so there's something they would be. they wouldn't be standing on the ground. They would be standing inside some. I don't really see a reason for a sidewalk. but I'll go with the applicant and the rest of the Board. I guess. MR. BREWER-Okay. Board? Is there any other comments from anybody on the MR. MACEWAN-No. I think I was the one who brought up the sidewalks in previous meeting. Going throughout the whole development. I'd be willing to compromise with the developer here. I'd be satisfied if the sidewalks go as far as that first intersection. because that's going to be the most heavily traveled parcel of road right there. So that would satisfy me. if you had sidewalks just to that intersection. and then people can walk to the curb of the road into the building. MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-Two hundred and fifty feet of sidewalk is sufficient. MRS. PULVER-Considerable expense and considerable maintenance. Who's going to shovel it in the winter? MR. MORSE-Well. of course. those costs get shoved to the HOA. MR. RUEL-Who wanted sidewalks? MR. BREWER-We just had a discussion about it. and it came uP. and we suggested that maybe. because of the transportation. Possibly they're going to be retired folks. Maybe the buses would come in through there and stop. It would accommodate a bus stoP. a shel ter. and rather than having people walk in the road in the winter time or whatever. it would be nice to have a sidewalk. MR. RUEL-They're going to walk in the road anyway. on the rest of it. MR. BREWER-Fine. if that's how you feel. that's fine. but I'm just telling you what we discussed. MR. RUEL-And there's no assurance of a bus stop. MR. BREWER-You're right. There's no assurance of anything. really. but. MR. RUEL-So I say. the hell with the sidewalk. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's your opinion. Corinne? MRS. TARANÅ-I'm in favor of the sidewalk. in that one section. MR. BREWER-George. how do you feel about the sidewalks? MR. STARK-As long as they have a pad for the proposed bus stop. MRS. PULVER-If there's going to be a bus stop. We don't know. - 17 - - MR. STARK-If there is a bus stop. MR. MORSE-The pad and the bus stop are all provided by. MRS. PULVER-Glens Falls Transit. MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. BREWER-So you don't care if they have a sidewalk or not? MR. STARK-No. They have to put a pad for the mailbox at the first interchange. but that's all. MR. RUEL-No sidewalk. MRS. PULVER-No sidewalk. MR. BREWER-Well. I guess we're going to leave it up to you. If you want to put it in. you're more than welcome to. but I guess we're not going to ask you to. Okay. Mr. Schachner. now that you're here. do you want to go through Scott's notes? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-We've more or less addressed Number One in the letter that we submitted earlier today. Number Two. as far as the recreation plan. we think the Golf Course is that. I think that was stated. kind of. from Day One. although not exactly in those terms. We didn't refer to them as a recreation plan. but we did refer to them as a recreational amenity. a very significant one. that's open to the public. and obviously also used. heavily used, by the residents of the proposed project. Comment Three. I think. is the same comment that's been made throughout. and I think appropriately so. I think that those services are subject to the approval by those Town Departments. and we've. I think. said all along. consistently. that we would anticipate an approval being contingent upon those approvals. MR. MORSE-And we have received comment. on numerous occasions. from both the water and sewer. and all those comments, to date. have been incorporated into the plans. MR. SCHACHNER-And also read into your minutes. I believe. MR. BREWER-All right. So will we have a letter. at final. signing off. or? MR. MORSE-Yes. I can get a letter from Tom and Mike. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Can I go back to Two. Mark? I don't know if it's appropriate to assume everyone living there is going to golf. MR. SCHACHNER-In the sense of a formal requirement. I would agree that. it's not. MR. MARTIN-May I suggest something here. in this regard? This project is going to bear some pretty substantial recreation fees. as a result of just the shear number of units. Would it be considerable to maybe use some of that money. and buy some equipment for a common area playground or something like that. and reduce your cost of. and then use that as a credit toward your fee. whatever the cost of all that equipment would be? MRS. PULVER-If they're going to be senior citizens. though. why do they want a playground? - 18 - MRS. TARANA-The senior citizens could have grandchildren come. I mean. you're not restricting this to elderly people. MR. MARTIN-I know this is maybe a novel. might be something that may have to be run by the Recreation Commission. but. MR. BREWER-Jim. when you mention that. we have to think about. we have this month an application for re-zoning right next door to them. There's apartment buildings right across the street that are going to be done. The golf course is nice. but if they had some kind of a playground. I don't know if it would accommodate. other than just their own or not. I don't know. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's what we were just sort of whispering about. If I'm understanding. Jim. your suggestion would be a dollar for dollar credit against the recreation fee. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-And Corinne's correct. that although we're targeting principally senior citizens or relatively older home purchasers or townhome purchasers. correct in both respects. Number One. we don't have to. there's no requirement that you're a senior citizen or an older person. There's no requirement that you're a golfer. That's just. demographically. who we anticipate targeting. I'm not sure. well. I don't think Mr. Allen much cares. in terms of the dollars. expenditure of dollars would be the same by definition. but I don't think we envision a public facility open to the public. in terms of a playground and all that. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. It's just like the pool at Regency Park Apartments is limited only to tenants of that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. If you're talking about your preference to see some type of small modest playground facility. because. as you correctly point out. Number One. people that are grandparents have grandchildren. and Number Two. you don't have to be a grandparent to buy a unit. I don't think we have any problem with that. MRS. TARANA-I think it will keep children off the golf course. as well. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We don't have a problem with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-We don't have the authority. though. to request. MR. MARTIN-I think that request should be made of the Recreation Commission. if they would consent to that use of the fees. I mean. you're not talking about more than. I can't imagine. two or three thousand dollars of that. I don't know how much. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think we're talking a very modest. local on site use only playground. and I guess if you. I think it would have to. ultimately. be a Recreation Commission. if you all feel that's a very desirable thing. and you want to make that a condition. for example of your approval. subject to recommendation by the Recreation Commission. that would be okay with us. If the Recreation Commission says no. we don't want that to happen. then we'd have to pay the Rec Fee. We don't have a problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The phasing. has already been discussed. As far as Five. and that's the residents of the project. pedestrian access to the golf course. we talked about it earlier today. We had talked earlier. I think. in the project. about having some sort of path. I don't think the plan shows it specifically. correct? - 19 - ~~ MR. MORSE-No. MR. SCHACHNER-If we anticipate a path. we don't have any problem putting that on. for final. If that's. again. something you want to put as a condition of Preliminary approval. It's not something that the sponsor feels very strongly about. frankly. but we don't have any problem with it. Six relates to vegetation. I kind of think we discussed that before. and I think that comment is. slightly reworded, I think a comment that's been made by Staff previous I y. and basically. what is characteri zed here as the limited landscaping we talked about before. which we characterized. foundation planting is all that's proposed. I'm glad to keep it that way. You'll recall. one of the specific desires here is relatively low price range. so that the demographic group that I previously mentioned can afford these units. and that's all that we're proposing before. that's all that we're still proposing. MR. MORSE-I just would like to add to that that there is still a large amount of vegetation retained on the site that will be there in its natural state. buffer around the southeast and northern side of it. and the west side is going to be open. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I want to go on the record as saying. as Planning Staff to the applicant. I want to apologize for the manner in which this has been reviewed. There's been some mistakes made on behalf of our Department which have caused him delays and some concerns unnecessarily so. and I just want that on the record. It should have been caught earlier. MR. BREWER-Okay. questions? Is there anybody on the Board that has any MRS. PULVER-One question. I've probably already asked this. How long do you anticipate to take to complete buildout? GARTH ALLEN MR. ALLEN-We talked about that earlier. Five years at the max. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the publ ic hearing. here to speak on this? Is there anyone PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Jim. we do or don't have to do a SEQRA on this? I think it was already done. MR. MARTIN-It was already done. MR. SCHACHNER-The Town Board did it as part of the re-zoning. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. MARTIN-Mark. do you think you'd be willing to attend the next meeting of the Recreation Commission to present such an idea? Because I think that should fall between your next meeting of this Board. MR. MORSE-We're on Tuesday night. MR. MARTIN-You are? - 20 - MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We're on the second agenda for this month. MR. MARTIN-Well. the fees are the matter of site plan. so the fees. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not subject to site plan approval. MR. MARTIN-All right. Stricken. MRS. PULVER-Okay. For final approval we want a letter from Tom Flaherty. a letter from Mike Shaw. and you're going to address any outstanding issues that we've already talked to tonight. make any notations. etc., on the plat. Okay. MR. BREWER-I think we should tell them what they are. so when they come back. we all know that they were done. It's only fair to everybody. The playground they were going to look into with the Recreation Commission. and the path they were going to show. MR. MORSE-Do you want a sketch and location for the playground? Would you like to see it before we go to Recreation. or is it going to be in their court? MRS. PULVER-I think a location would probably be sufficient. and let the Recreation Department decision. MR. MORSE-We'll pencil in the location and just say that. MR. MARTIN-Because this is going to be catching them totally cold. So. they're not going to. MRS. PULVER-Yes. but I mean. this is a Rec Department decision. not ours. MR. BREWER-And you're going to show the path also? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MORSE-Yes. MRS. PULVER-You're going to add a phase line. MR. MORSE-Add one more phase line. MRS. PULVER-And you're going to adhere to all the DEC. MR. BREWER-I would like to see that in there. adhere to all the conditions. one through twelve. that DEC has on their. I mean. you have to adhere to them anyway. MRS. PULVER-We just want to add that to the approval. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1993 GARTH ALLEN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application. file # 11-1993. to subdivide a 27 acre parcel into 91 lots to allow construction of a clustered 90 unit townhouse development and common area; and WHEREAS. the above referenced preliminary subdivision application dated 5/25/93 consists of the following: 1. Townhouse Layout. stamped 8/30/93 2. Sheet S-l. Survey & Utilities Plan. revised 6/17/93 3. Sheet SP-l. Site & Utilities Plan. revised 6/17/93 4. Sheet SP-2. Site and Utilities Plan. revised 6/17/93 5. Sheet G-l. Grading & Drainage Plan. revised 6/29/93 6. Sheet G- 2. Grading & Drainage Plan. dated 8/3/93 7. Sheet P-l. Roadway & Uti I i tie s Plan. dated 4/28/93 8. Sheet P- 2. Storm Drainage Profile. dated 4/28/93 9. Sheet D-l. Details. revised 6/28/93 10. Sheet D-2. Details. dated 4/28/93; and - 21 - WHEREAS. the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Stormwater management plan. prepared by Morse Engineering dated 6/93 2. Engineering comments from Rist-Frost. dated 8/17/93. 9/22/93 3. Letter from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost Engineering. dated 6/22/93 4. Staff notes. dated 8/17/93. 9/23/93 5. Resolution of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. dated 6/22/93. 6. Letter from Jim Martin. Executive Director. to Garth Allen. dated 6/23/93 7. Letter from Mark Schachner. Miller. Mannix and Pratt to Jim Martin. dated 8/23/93 8. Letter from Mark Schachner to Planning Board. dated 6/30/93. WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 9/23/93 concerning the above subdivision; and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form; THEREFORE. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision for Garth Allen file #21- 1993. with the addition that the DEC Permit. the special conditions be added. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-Could I take that a step further and ask that that be stapled to the final plat. that permit? MRS. PULVER-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-I did say in my letter that. on the the corner of the road. that we would modify that. to add that provision. one curvature. You might want MR. MARTIN-He's talking about 100 feet back from the. it's a perpendicular approach to the curve. 100 feet back. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. it's up to you. MR. BREWER-Why are you changing it? MR. SCHACHNER-To comply with Town standards. MR. MORSE-We've talked about this for months. but the direction was that we had to comply with Town standards. that you couldn't give us a waiver on that section. that we would have to go to the ZBA for an area variance. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's a matter of the Zoning Code. not just the Subdivision. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-You might want to note the revision date in the resolution. so the plans keep straight when you review them. - 22 - MR. BREWER-We can note that at final. or do you want to note it now? MR. MORSE-Final will be appropriate. MR. BREWER-Yes. we'll note that at Final. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint SITE PLAN NO. 44-93 TYPE: UNLISTED ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICE. INC. C/O JAMIE HAYES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-IA LOCATION: 4 SOUTH WESTERN AVE. PROPOSAL TO CONVERT AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR USE AS A COFFEE SHOP SEATING FOR 20 PATRONS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1 67-1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9-8-93 TAX MAP NO. 117-11-4 LOT SIZE: 0.109 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 44-93. Adirondack Coffee Service. Meeting Date: September 23. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to convert an existing building. formerly used as a car dealership. into a coffee shop with seating for 20 patrons. The proposal involves replacement of a large area of pavement with grass. The property is located on the northwest corner of Western Avenue and Luzerne Road and is zoned LI-IA. The project was granted a variance to allow no on site parking. 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 1 79-38C.. the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. The site is on the corner of two very busy streets and a dangerous intersection. Problems will occur if customers park on Luzerne Road. One of the conditions of the parking variance was that no parking signs be put up along Luzerne Road. Traffic turning right onto Luzerne Road from Western Avenue currently cuts the corner and drives over the existing catch basin. As this area is proposed to be grassed and landscaped. provisions should be made to ensure that traffic makes an orderly right turn and does not continue to cut the corner. Such provisions might include the continuing curb around the corner and down Luzerne Road." Another method might be to place some sort of landscaping line of boulders or something around it. to delineate the landscaping there and to keep cars from turning. "In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 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: The project involves the conversion of an existing building: no new construction will be occurring. There does not appear to be any lighting proposed. Signage will be subject to a separate review and permit. The applicant should detail what exterior renovations are contemplated so that the Board can get a feel for what the renovated building and site will look like. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic - 23 - --- controls: No traffic access is proposed other than a 12 foot wide service parking area with access off of Luzerne Road. This drive is less than 50 feet from the intersection and could be a source of concern regarding traffic safety. Traffic making a right turn from Western onto Luzerne is another potential problem area. Traffic currently cuts the corner when making turns. The continuation of the curb around the corner would alleviate this problem and help ensure safe and orderly turns. as well as protecting the proposed grass and landscaping. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading: The applicant received a variance to the required off street parking requirements. Parking will be provided by 4 on street spaces along the western side of Western Avenue. and 3 spaces on the adjacent property to the north. This is a less than desirable situation. in that the vehicles using the three spaces on the adjacent property will have to back directly on to Western Avenue. It will have to be determined how the spaces on the adjacent property will be delineated and will they be included as part of the improved paved area. The applicant has to provide for handicap parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections wi th vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: Pedestrian access to the site from the proposed parking spaces should not be a problem. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: Any comments made by Rist-Frost will have to be addressed. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: The building is currently serviced by municipal water and on-site septic system is proposed. 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 the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The proposed landscaping has been reviewed by the Beautification Committee. Any comments made by them will have to be addressed. Staff believes that some type of screening should be in place between the adjacent residence and the project. It is not clear if the existing stockade fence will remain. Consideration should be given to replacing the existing fence with one that runs the entire length of the property. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: Emergency accessibility is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibili ty to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. Ponding, flooding or erosion should not be a problem. Erosion control measures should be in place during and after the removal of the pavement until the proposed grass and landscaping is in place. RECOMMENDATION: Providing the above issues are addressed to the Board's satisfaction. staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-There are comments from Rist-Frost. Tom can address those. Also. Warren County Planning Board. It was returned. "No action could be taken. due to the abstention of one WCPB member resulting in a no quorum situation." MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom. we had some notes from you? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, September 21. 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. The existing building water service should be shown on the plans. 2. The sewage disposal area does not comply with required separation distances of 10' from property lines and 20' from the building. 3. It is suggested that absorption bed laterals be 33' to maintain 2' of bed peripherally around laterals. 4. The disposal field installation notes refer to trenches (note 3). This note is not appropriate for the system - 24 - "--- "~ designed. 5. indicated." The slope of absorption bed laterals is not MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, Mr. Brewer and Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. representing the applicants. With us tonight Jaime Hayes and Mickie Hayes who are the two applicants. and Tom Nace. from Haanen Engineering. ,and Leon Steves. from Van Dusen and Steves. who did the surveying. Most of the issues appear to be technical. So I think it would be more appropriate if I have Tom answer those issues. I would just simply basically say this is a very unique si te. It's a preexisting site. It's small. I think an attempt has been made here to do the best that we could with the site. It's used. presently. as a nonconforming used car site. with very little green space. very little improvement to it at all. except for a small building. In general. to use the existing building. and to put extensive improvements in. in the nature of landscaping. green space. and some delineation, like a marking of parking spots. It's a little unique in that the east line of this property is right on the City line. So this parking that we show along Western Avenue is. in fact. in the City of Glens Falls. and is permitted on street parking by City Ordinance. Other than that. I'd have Jaime maybe explain a little bit about what they're going to operate from this site. the hours of operation. and have Tom do the comments. MR. BREWER-I've just got a question. Does Glens Falls have to look at this at all? I mean. it's in Queensbury. but the parking is in Glens Falls. It's a crazy situation. MR. O'CONNOR-That is the reason it was referred to Warren County Planning Board. but they do not have any review because simply what we're doing is utilizing on street parking. We're not doing any improvements within the City. and on the Warren County referral. I would note that it also went to Warren County Planning Board at the time of the variance application. and at that time. they recommended approval. I'm not sure what happened this past time. I think they didn't have a quorum. That was the reason they took the action. JAIME HAYES MR. HAYES-Basically. we're proposing to develop on the corner is a small espresso/cappuccino shop. We're in the coffee distribution business already. and particularly on the West Coast. and now on the East Coast. in Boston areas. the se shops are becoming very popular. and they're trendy. and it would compliment our business very well. We used to do our distribution out of the old church on Western Avenue there and we have since moved our operation. based on jamming up traffic and stuff. down to the Big Bay Road. which Mr. Martin can confirm. and basically we're looking to come up with something on that property that we can pay our mortgage and make the payments that we have to that's more attractive than a used car dealership. We've had problems collecting rent from type of individuals that run those businesses. and it's not a good compliment to our business. because we have vehicles already down there. and it would fit into our program very well. and we think it could be a great addition to the area down there. as well as our property. Basically. we're proposing to do a lot of visual improvements in the building. I can pass these pictures on to the Board members. We want to use a clear cedar siding format with maynard green trim. and basically part and parcel of having a successful cappuccino shop is to have a real upscale looking place. with a lot of nice fixtures. and you're just not going to be able to go up the middle of the road with the improvements that you make and have an upscale type business. The more expensive coffee. it's more of an upscale customer. and that's the look that we propose in our things with Tom and the other people involved. We're going to be looking for nice counter spaces. and everything else for inside. - 25 - ,,-...--- --.,/ but it's kind of a low impact thing to it. late hours or anything like that either. morning to early evening type of situation. We're not proposing It's pretty much a That's just about it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Okay. Engineering and Staff Comments. I'll start with engineering. Running quick down. the first item. the water service is shown on the plans. We are relocating. There is an adjacent water service to residents on Luzerne Road behind us. That water service. for historical reasons that I don't know. but it goes across the property in question. and we've worked with the Town and they are going to relocate that water service out onto Luzerne Road. The issues. Number Two. the sewage disposal. the setbacks. we are going to be looking for a variance from the setback off of the property line. adjacent to Western Avenue. We are not able. just because of the site. we are not able to maintain the 10 foot required. We have five foot. That will be. it's not a Town issue. It's a Department of Health issue. since they will be issuing the license. the operating license. for a restaurant facility. They take jurisdiction over the septic design. MR. BREWER-Does the Town Board act as the local Department of Health for that? MR. NACE-If it were Town jurisdictional. MR. YARMOWICH-The Town also has jurisdiction for all on-site sewage disposal. except for community systems. It doesn't matter whether it's a commercial or Health Department related approval. The Town jurisdiction piggybacks. and can. also has to be complied with. Now. if. I believe that if the local Board of Health should. my recommendation would be if the local Board of Health is willing to grant a variance here. I would think the Town local Board of Health ought to do the same. too. I agree with the applicant's engineer. It's a constrained site. What they're proposing to do has little likelihood of an environmental problem because of the public water supply there. from a public health standpoint. but I do disagree. and I feel that the Town's Ordinance is parallel with. and also applicable. at the same time the New York State Department of Health jurisdiction. if they need an opinion on that. you can talk to the Town Attorney on that. if you'd like. MR. NACE-Okay. I was under the impression that if DOH took precedent. the Town backed off. but if we need a Town variance. we'll get a Town variance. We'll apply for the Town variance. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I don't know anything. you know. I looked at the applicability section of the Town Ordinance. and I didn't see anything that defers it. but. MR. NACE-Okay. Then we will apply for both variances. then. MR. BREWER-I'm just wondering how we can give you an approval without a variance. or contingent upon the variance. MR. NACE-You can make it contingent. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. comes back. You can make it contingent. and then when it MR. BREWER-It won't come back. MR. YARMOWICH-That's right. building permit. It doesn't come back. For the MRS. PULVER-They have to get the permit. MR. MARTIN-The building permit will force that issue. The permit won't be issued until that's resolved. - 26 - MR. NACE-The 20 foot from the building is not required because we don't have a basement in the building. okay. Generally. Heal th Department and the Town. I believe. does not apply that 20 foot setback with no basement. MR. BREWER-Is that so. Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-The 20 foot does not. MR. NACE-Yes. no basement. there is a basement. but it's recessed back under the building. It's a dirt basement access for a boiler. and it's not under that end of the building. directly. MR. YARMOWICH-That's an interpretation you make from the separation distance? MR. NACE-Yes. and that's. I had Brian Fear. routinely. apply it that way. MR. YARMOWICH-I haven't heard that used before. I don't have an opinion for the Planning Board at this time. but nonetheless. it's something that the local Board of Health mayor may not need to address at the same time. MR. NACE-Okay. We'll lump those two items together. We'll resolve them. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town Board gave permission for a two foot separation on a septic system next to a building on slab. I was involved in that. and I think that they have the same interpretation. follow the same interpretation that Tom is suggesting. is that if it's not an occupied basement. MR. NACE-Okay. Items items we will correct. Three. Four. and Five are drawing We will take care of those. detail MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Staff Comments. Number One. I think we've already addressed what the building is going to look like. Number Two. there's two issues there. The service parking area to the south of the building. it's just a service access for deliveries. small panel trucks. It's less than 50 foot from the property line. but from the actual travel lane that defines the intersection. it is more than 50 feet. So I don't think that really applies. The delineation around the corner. we will work with something there to try to delineate that. I can't use a continuous curb because of drainage ditches. The catch basin is back behind where the curb line would be. We can either use a curb that's discontinuous. in the area of the catch basin. or maybe some mounding. I'd prefer. rather than boulders. that could be a liability issue. if somebody ran into them. We might better use some mounding. landscape mounding would define this a little bit better. MR. BREWER-Would you prefer the mounding. rather than the curb? MR. NACE-Yes. I think so. The curb is going to have to have a dip. a break in it to allow drainage to the catch basin. MR. BREWER-I'm just curious. Tom. how many mounds would you put in there. for a that size. how many mounds? MR. NACE-I' d make ita continuous mound around the corner. just build it up a foot. All you need to do is raise it up. so that the site line doesn't disappear between the pavement and the grass. All you need to do is get it raised. and if we raised that whole area it would probably be. it would still leave the catch basin area depressed but raise the rest of it. so that it defines the edge of pavement. Number Three. the three spaces on the adjacent. parking spaces on the adjacent property. we recognize that they - 27 - ø ---' will have to back out. however. if you'll look. the parking spaces are 20 feet long. There's about 20 feet from the back end of the parking space to what I call the edge of the pavement on Western Avenue. and beyond that there's an additional. probably about five feet of actual travel lane on t'festern Avenue. So that leaves somewhere between 20 and 25 feet for those people to back out and turn to head the way they want to head. and pull into traffic on Western Avenue. and that's as much. if not more than. an actual access lane between parking aisles in the parking lot. but it's more than adequate space for people to back out and move into traffic. Handicapped. we didn't actually label the handicap space. but we will label it as the last space in parallel parking along the sidewalk. The very southernmost parallel space. MR. BREWER-I just was. these three parking places. I was just wondering if they could be flipped like that. but they can't. There's not enough room. There's only 26 feet. It's got to be 27. MR. NACE-No. to get them at an angle? No. We looked at that. In fact. originally we had laid the site out with angled parking. and with angled parking you do have to end up backing back into the travel lane. With the large amount of space available between the actual travel lane and the edge of these parking spaces. there's more than sufficient room for people to move. to parallel park. and still allow traffic to get by. MR. HARLICKER-Are you going to be doing any sort of upgrading of that area. where those spaces are going to be? MR. NACE-Yes. You'll see new pavement delineated there. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. NACE-And that will be blended in with the pavement on. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. NACE-And we will label the handicap parking lot. parking space. It's the one furthest south. as I said. and you'll see an access ramp up on the sidewalk there. The last comment requiring a response is Item Seven. the fence. As I understand. part of the fence is stockade. and there is fence all the way along that property line. part stockade. part is chain link fence. and the owner will be replacing the chain link portion with the stockade fence. so that will all be stockade fence. MR. BREWER-Okay. questions? Is there anybody on the Board that has any MR. RUEL-Yes. Well. I have a question for Staff. Does the number of parking spaces agree with the Queensbury requirement. based on the number of seats? He mentioned something about Glens Falls. MR. O'CONNOR-It shows the calculations right on the map. MR. RUEL-Yes. I saw that. MR. O'CONNOR-It shows either or. and we designed it for the higher of the two. MR. RUEL-Is this based on Queensbury. or does this have anything to do with Glens Falls? MR. NACE-No. This is based on Queensbury. MR. RUEL-Because you have three parking spaces in Glens Falls. right. or four? MR. NACE-Well. okay. We applied for a Queensbury Code says on-site parking. okay. variance. because the So the variance is to - 28 - -----" allow the required number of parking spaces. but to recognize the fact that those parking spaces are actually off of the subject property. MR. RUEL-And what's this variance? MR. NACE-This is the variance that we received from the ZBA. MR. RUEL-Okay. expect there? My other question was. how many employees do you MR. HAYES-Two to four. MR. RUEL-And yet you have one parking space. MR. HAYES-Yes. There's going to be different shifts. MR. RUEL-You have one parking space. You have four employees. MR. HAYES-Yes. working. Basically one person at a time is going to be MR. BREWER-You're going to have four shifts. MR. HAYES-Well. I mean. you're talking. I meant cumulatively. Four people will cover two different shifts. six days a week. MR. RUEL-My concern is that if you have a real ongoing business. eventually. people will be parking in the mall parking lot across the street. and that becomes a safety hazard with people parking there and then crossing that very busy Western Avenue to get to your place. That's my concern. MR. HAYES-There's a very limited number of seats in the facility. We don't expect to have that much traffic. We're just hoping for consistently a little profit. MRS. PULVER-There's only twenty seats. MR. RUEL-Twenty seats. yes. You could have twenty cars. MRS. PULVER-No. There's only going to be probably four tables. So there'd be sixteen people in line. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-This is per the Code. MR. RUEL-AII right. My other question had to do with that corner. I see people cutting across that corner. kitty corner. right across. and you intend to have what there. grass? MR. BREWER-A mound. MR. RUEL-How high? MRS. PULVER-A landscaped mound. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be a landscaped. this was Scott's suggestion. that we either have a curbing or we put boulders. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. corners. Something to keep people from cutting the MR. RUEL-If you don't put anything. I know they're going to go right across it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what we're going to try and do is put a landscaped mound in there so they can't cut across it. - 29 - <.---- MR. RUEL-You've got to make it pretty high. Two feet? MR. NACE-Even a foot will discourage. MR. RUEL-AII right. Good luck. That doesn't stop a four wheeler. I'll tell you. MR. O'CONNOR-It would then be somebody's front yard. as opposed to a dilapidated type parking lot. which is what it appears now. That should be some encouragement for people not to cut across. If you take a look at the landscaping that we proposed to the Beautification Committee. there's some extensive landscaping. That is going to be a yard. then. and not a parking lot. Right now it looks like a parking lot. everybody would cut across the corner of the parking lot. MR. RUEL-Because it's run down. that's why they cut across it? MR. BREWER-No. years. People have been cutting across there for 100 MR. RUEL-It looks like a great improvement. MR. MACEWAN-I would just like them to go over one more time this variance that you're trying to seek for the septic. so that I understand that a little bit better. MR. NACE-Okay. There are two issues. and both of them are setbacks. There's a separation required by State and Local Code of 10 feet property line from the edge of the leaching system. There's also a required setback of 20 feet from the building to the edge of the leaching system. okay. We're encroaching two places. One is from the edge of the septic system to the property line at Western Avenue. okay. The other is between the edge of the building and the edge of the septic system. In both cases. the reason for the Code does not really apply. The reason for the Code between the building and the leaching system is because you don't want any polluted groundwater to possibly get into the basement of the building. The property setback is so that if your neighbor has a building that's close to the property. it doesn't get into his building. or if he has a well that's on his property. it doesn't get into his well. So we have routinely obtained variances from the Department of Health for those issues. MR. MACEWAN-This is a preexisting condition as it is now. MR. NACE-That's right. We're actually making it better. We had no idea there was a septic tank there. We had no idea there was a leaching system there. It's probably closer to the adjacent property than we're proposing. MR. MACEWAN-And what is the cellar arrangement? You said it was a dirt? MR. NACE-The cellar a. on that end of the building there's a walkway that goes down into the cellar. a cellar stair that goes down into it. dug. cellar. MR. MACEWAN-Like a crawl space? MR. NACE-Yes. It's between a crawl space and an acce ss for a boiler where you can stand up. an access for a heating system. MR. MACEWAN-Five foot. four foot? MR. NACE-About five foot. MR. MACEWAN-And it's like a block foundation. or something along those lines? - 30 - -~ '-- MR. NACE-Partially dug. partially blocked. partially field stone. MR. MACEWAN-A regular Little House on the Prairie. How does Staff feel about that? Do you have any problems with that? MR. MARTIN-In terms of the septic? MR. MACEWAN-Well. with the variances and the closeness that he is. existing situation. MR. YARMOWICH-That's up to the local Board of Health. MR. MARTIN-We don't usually deal with those at all. That's the local Board of Health. which is the Town Board. Often times we don't even see them. Somebody comes in for a building permit for a home that requires a Septic Variance. It goes to the Town Board and it's dealt with. and then it goes back for the permit. and we never see them. MR. MACEWAN-Is it just a technicality that they go through to get this? MR. BREWER-No. It's a regular. MR. MARTIN-There has to be reasons. such as the one's Tom stated. if there's practical reasons like that. MR. YARMOWICH-Private water supply proximity. nature. local groundwater conditions. local They all effect them to a certain degree. preserve public health and to also preserve. a reasonable life expectancy of the system. things along that drainage patterns. The intent is to to a certain degree. MR. MACEWAN-I guess what I'm getting at. would this be a routine kind of variance that the Department of Health would give. or not? MR. YARMOWICH-Variance and routine may not go together real well. but it does happen often. Craig. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I'm getting at. MR. BREWER-Is that it? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I've got one question. How are we going to prevent parking on Luzerne Road? It was mentioned in the notes about may signage. or. because there are two houses there. MR. 0' CONNOR-We. as part of our application for the variance. agreed to sign that. so that people would not park there. and we agreed that we will ask the Town Board to post it completely with Town signs for No Parking. MR. BREWER-And that would be enforced by the Sheriff's Department. MR. O'CONNOR-If it's posted by the Town. then it can be enforced. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We said that it's not necessarily under our control. We would say that we were amenable to it. as the adjoining property owner. We will ask them to do that. MR. BREWER-Okay. and you have asked them? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We are waiting to get our approval. but we will ask them. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got one other question. The houses that are - 31 - ---~- '---- ./ -. / -- here. are they in the same zone? Because I know the zone line splits somewhere in that area. I know it's Light Industrial. MR. 0' CONNOR-This is a Light Industrial zone. I think for that entire block. Western to Holden is all Light Industrial. MR. BREWER-Didn't Curtis just get some land re-zoned there? MR. HARLICKER-They were to the north. MR. O'CONNOR-They were to the north of Western. MR. BREWER-I know exactly where it is. but I thought. MR. MARTIN-They were across the street. to the west. back in there. MR. BREWER-So there has to be no buffer provided. then. It's all in the same zone. That's all I've got. There is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GENE DUCHANT MR. DUCHANT-My name is Gene Duchant. and me and my wife own the property right next to the Coffee Shop that's planned. I'd like to ask one question. first. Where is the stockade fence going? MICKIE HAYES MR. M. HAYES-There's a partial stockade fence. You have a stockade fence on your property line. That's a chain link fence. We propose to have a stockade fence all along it. MR. DUCHANT-The whole way from here? MR. M. HAYES-The whole way. all the way back. any way you want to. We could adapt it MRS. PULVER-Where are we? MR. O'CONNOR-The question is. would we extend it all the way to the street. We're amenable to extend it as far to the street as the Board thinks is appropriate. MR. MARTIN-There's Codes on this. This is a corner lot situation. So you're deemed as having two front yards. The height of the fence could be MR. BREWER-Four feet. MR. HARLICKER-Three feet. MR. RUEL-Three feet. MR. BREWER-I thought you changed it to four? MR. MARTIN-Well. in this case. there's two rear yards. and there's no side yards. according to the way the Ordinance reads. So they're allowed a six foot fence up to the near corner their building. and then from that point on. as of right now. it has to be three feet in height. There's currently a change working its way through. It should be to the Town Board the middle of next month. that would allow you a four foot fence. MR. 0' CONNOR-Our comment. I think. was in re sponse to Staff's comment. MR. MARTIN-Right. I just want them to be aware. before they. and - 32 - then the other requirement is there has to be a 35 foot clear zone from the edge of the corner. which I think they're all right there. but right now it's three feet in height from the edge of the road to the near corner of the building. MR. BREWER-Maximum. MR. MARTIN-Maximum. MR. RUEL-And then six feet. MRS. PULVER-Well. why don't you show us where you are. and what it is that you would like. MR. DUCHANT-Okay. They were proposing to put a fence in. all the way to Luzerne Road. and like this gentleman over here said. the end of the building. MR. MARTIN-And then it has to be nothing for 20 feet back. no fence at all for 20 feet back. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So there wouldn't be any fence. MR. BREWER-So there wouldn't be any fence at all then. MR. YARMOWICH-No fence for the first 20 feet. MR. MARTIN-For the first 20 feet. and then it can go to three feet from there to the edge of the building. corner of the building. Then it can go to six feet. MR. BREWER-But he's only got 20 feet from the road. Jim. to the. MR. RUEL-To where. the building? MR. BREWER-Well. no. he's got a little bit more than that. only got. like. He's MR. RUEL-About 10 feet. MR. MARTIN-The service area parking is 20 feet. So. from there to the end of the service area parking pavement. no fence. From that point to the corner of the building. he can have three feet. and from that point on. it can be six feet. MR. BREWER-So probably from the corner of the building run your fence. I mean. to make a three foot fence. MR. MARTIN-Pretty much from the end of the service parking. it can be six feet on. MR. MACEWAN-They're willing to work with you. MR. DUCHANT-Right. I have no problem. MRS. PULVER-I'd like to know what it is that you'd like. Would you like three foot of fence for about eight foot? MR. DUCHANT-I would like no more than three foot. MRS. PULVER-I mean. you want. MR. DUCHANT-So I can see over. when I'm sitting in my car. I think three and a half would be a little high. MRS. PULVER-Yes. here. Okay. What they're saying is there's no fence MR. DUCHANT-There's just a chain link fence there right now. - 33 - '--- MRS. PULVER-Yes. but there will be none. Okay. Then there will be three foot from here to here. Now. they don't have to have that three foot. MR. DUCHANT-No. That's fine with me. MR. BREWER-They don't want that. Carol. fence right here. They want to start the MRS. PULVER-He wants it. MR. DUCHANT-No. I don't. I really don't. Right now there's just a chain link fence there. If they put one there. that's fine with me. MR. NACE-Tim. why don't we. if we can. settle the issue. and just start the fence. as suggested. at the corner of the building. and no fencing there to the road. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-That's fine. Tom. MR. DUCHANT-One other argument. I don't see any measurements at all to show the existing road on Western Avenue. Right now. I'm pretty familiar with the area because I live there. it's three lanes because one lane turns into Shop N' Save to slow down. and then there's two lanes. Now. they have a nine foot parking space here. and then no other measurements to show anything or any distances. and I think this plan is very deceiving. I don't think that's the kind of room that's there. I think it should definitely be put onto print exactly. with the measurements of the road. and lane sizes. and all that. because I think there's a serious problem here. because when you pull up to this corner. and try to look up this road. if there's cars parked up there. plus if you look at the landscaping. there's a tree there. a pear tree. which is only three and a half feet tall. but it's still something else that a driver's not going to be able to see through to pullout. All the traffic isn't their fault. I mean. there's Shop N' Save. but it's still going to be a problem. I think the measurements should be put on the print. so that everybody could see exactly what's there. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Could I make a comment to that? MR. BREWER-Would you. please. For the record. my name is Leon Steves. I'm your Surveyor. The map is depicted in paths. Any dimension you wish can be obtained right off of it. It's not a problem at all. So that it's accurately located and accurately depicted on the map. Scale it. it's an easy scale. You can see that with parking lot that is adjacent to it. we are at least 20 feet from the. 25 feet off the edge of the pavement. The pavement width there shows the turning lane into Shop N' Save. It is approximately 30 to 35 feet in width. MR. BREWER-Where does it show it. Leon? MR. STEVES-Right at the top. MR. BREWER-Way up here. MR. STEVES-Shop N' Save entrance. I mean. we go to the trouble to locate this stuff. We also put it on the map. MR. BREWER-So how wide is the road? MR. STEVES-As I say. it's about 30 to 35 feet. to the pavement portion. - 34 - --- MR. RUEL-AII three lanes? MR. STEVES-Yes. It narrows down after that lane. after that turn in to the Shop N' Save. it narrows down. MR. O'CONNOR-Shop N' Save took part of their frontage and put a turn lane in on their side of the road. It did not minimize the actual travel portion of Western Avenue. when they put that turn lane in. MR. BREWER-So actually what you're going to have. if there's four cars parked there. you're going to have a turn lane and two lanes. Are you still going to have room for cars to park there? MR. STEVES-Just as depicted on the plans right here now. You have the four parking spaces shown. Adjacent to that. you'd have four parallel parking spaces where you pull in and out of those. without interfering with the traffic lane. MR. O'CONNOR-If you just talk about the four parking spots right here. there's approximately 10 to 12 feet between the parking spots and the beginning of the pavement on Western Avenue. and then there's about four to five feet. once you begin that pavement. before you get to the travel Iane. Then there are two travel lanes. and then on the easterly side of Western Avenue. there's the turn lane that goes into Shop N' Save. MR. STEVES-Their catchbasin is also shown here. MR. O'CONNOR-This is an actual depiction, the actual beginning of the pavement. MR. BREWER-Does that answer your question? MR. DUCHANT-I would still like to see a measurement put on there for everybody to see. If you feel you don't need to look at it. MR. MACEWAN-Is your concern that that pear tree is going to obstruct views there coming to that intersection? MR. DUCHANT-Definitely. MR. MACEWAN-I think I'd disagree with you. It looks like it's going to be well set enough back that it isn't going to be. MR. RUEL-This is zoned commercial. isn't it? MRS. PULVER-Light industrial. MR. RUEL-Scott. what does the Ordinance state. as far as the clearance on a corner? MR. HARLICKER-You need a 35 foot. MR. RUEL-Thirty-five? MR. MARTIN-A thirty-five foot clear zone from the corner in each direction. MR. RUEL-Thirty-five each way. and then clear across. right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Right. No obstructions. MR. MACEWAN-You're only concern is that tree. as far as that intersection? MR. DUCHANT-The cars parking right there are definitely a problem. MR. HARLICKER-Well. when you're going to be making that turn there. you're going to be turning up. almost to where the catch basin is. - 35 - '- I mean. that's where the corner's going to be delineated. CHRISTINE DUCHANT MRS. DUCHANT-Christine Duchant. I live right next door to the property that they're talking about. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets finish it with his comments. and then we'll go right to your comments. MR. DUCHANT-And like the Board was saying earlier. about people parking in Shop N' Save and walking across. and there's no crosswalks there. That's not their problem. but there's no crosswalks there. I walked across the street to go to Shop N' Save. I'm sure my other neighbor does. too. It's dangerous. There's a stop sign there. and people don't even stop at the stop sign. really. to tell you the truth. and with more cars. and the landscaping. it would look nice. Maybe they should think about putting some smaller things in the front. to alleviate blocking anybody's view. because as bad as it is right now. I mean. I don't have a problem with the business. It's going to look nice. It's just the parking problems. I mean. they're saying 20 people. There's definitely not going to be 20 cars. Now. if he says he doesn't plan on having that many cars. well. he's going to go out of business. because you'd need them. So I don't know what his plans are. but to just have seven spaces. and four of them are on Western Avenue. I mean. they're going to park in Shop N' Save. for sure. and that's another concern. There's a lot of questions about this project. and I think they should definitely be resolved before they start putting money into it. That's all I have to say. MRS. DUCHANT-The only thing I'm really concerned with is like you said. what is going to prevent these customers from parking in the two houses on Luzerne Road? Somebody pulls up quick. what's going to stop them from pulling in front of my driveway and stopping when I have to get out for work in the morning. my husband has to get out for work in the morning? What is my recourse going to be? If it's just a sign that they put up. like they say. if the Sheriff's Department doesn't. if it's not done by the Town. then it's not legally enforced. I would just like to see it definitely legally enforced before the coffee shop goes uP. so that I have a recourse. so that if I have to get out of my driveway in the morning. I can get out of my driveway. MRS. PULVER-Doesn't the Town have an Ordinance. something in the Zoning Ordinance that we have no parking on our streets? MR. MARTIN-It's not in the Zoning. but it is a matter of Town Board decision. They authorize signage. MR. BREWER-Well. they said if they got their approval they would be more than happy to ask the Town Board for the signs. and I'm going to ask that that be put into our resolution so that it is done. MR. DUCHANT-If we're not there. and somebody parks in front of our mailbox they're not going to deliver it. We're not going to get our mail. MRS. PULVER-Well. it will be illegal to do that. MR. DUCHANT-What are you going to do? I think they should just have other plans for parking their vehicles. and to maybe think about not putting them on the road. or if they have to. as a last resort. they'd still need more spaces. and definitely. the service parking in the front. I don't know if it's going to make somebody else park there also. and then you're going to have parking all over the place. but they should keep off of Luzerne Road as much as they possibly can. to keep the out of the front of our houses. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. - 36 - -- --.-" MRS. TARANA-What will the signage say. that you're going to request? From this point forward. you know that sign that says. no parking beyond this point. or something? Could that be put just prior to their property, something to that effect? MR. O'CONNOR-We would have no objection to that. I was thinking the only signage that we're entitled to put up would be signage that would be on our property. and that would effect our plan. They certainly can have no parking signs on their property. MR. BREWER-Leon. do you know how far it is from the corner of Western to the first corner? MRS. DUCHANT-The corner of Western to our fence line. MR. RUEL-About what. 300 feet? MR. DUCHANT-From corner to corner you're talking about. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Make that a no parking zone. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not trying to side track the comments that are being made. but this is a lot of the discussion that we had before the ZBA. as to why. when we went to the ZBA. we proposed two parking spots along Luzerne Road. We amended the application. or they said that they would not approve the variances with that parking. because they did not want to cause problems for neighbors. with people parking there and then being encouraged to park further to the west on Luzerne Road. We're going back to rehash a lot of that same discussion that we had. What we said is that we would go to the Town Board and we would petition the Town Board to make that a no parking area on that side of Luzerne Road. in front of our property. and the Town Board on its own motion. or if the neighbors come with us at the same time. they can petition that the property in front of their house also be made no parking. and maybe all the way to Holden Avenue. We did this with Glen Lake Road. from Sullivan Drive back to Ash Drive. MR. BREWER-I think that would be the best thing. if they went right from the corner all the way up to the next corner. MR. O'CONNOR-We're willing to do that. We don't necessarily have control over the Town Board. MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. I think stopping halfway between those two would be useless. because I think there's a distance. every so many feet. if there's going to be no parking. they have to put those signs. MR. O'CONNOR-We're very agreeable to do that. I think there's a separate Ordinance. al so. though. one. they cannot park on the pavement. and as you go further. I don't know. with your mailbox out there and everything else. whether or not there's actually space to park there. without being on the pavement. MRS. DUCHANT-You can just about park there. MR. DUCHANT-People do it. MRS. DUCHANT-They used to do it on the used car dealer all the time. They used to pull right up to our driveway and block the driveway. and we'd have to have ,them move to get in our driveway. It wasn't a real big deal. but I'm just afraid with the coffee shop. without any signs or anything. it's going to be a real busy. MR. BREWER-We'll ask for signs. MR. RUEL-You'll also have to accept the fact that you can't park in - 37 - -- front of your own house. MRS. DUCHANT-Right. MR. DUCHANT-We have a pretty wide driveway. I was wondering. the sidewalk in front? MR. O'CONNOR-Part of that business was to. we had a sidewalk along there. and the discussion with the ZBA was to just continue the sidewalks back to the point where our building was. and along here. so that we would encourage people to come up and park next to the curb that we've created. If we put a parking spot in there that looks like a parking spot. if we put a sidewalk in there that looks I ike a parking spot. I thought it was a good idea to have the sidewalks go all the way to the corner and then go west on Luzerne Road. and the discussion was that we would be encouraging people to do what we're trying not to encourage them to do. so Tom amended the plan. MRS. DUCHANT-What did we decide on the fence? MR. DUCHANT-They're going to stop the fence. MRS. DUCHANT-Right. but the fence is going to be sort of higher between. so we don't have to look at it? MR. BREWER-Six feet. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand the fence resolution. we will go from the southerly corner of our building. back to our property line. Daggett's main building. So we will go the whole. we will go from here all the way back. with one fence that is six feet high. if that's permitted. MR. BREWER-It is. from the corner of the building all the way back it is. MRS. WORTH MRS. WORTH-I'm Mrs. Worth. I live right next door to Chris. I have no problem with the coffee shop. but right now it takes us 10 minutes to get out of the driveway. to back out. even to go forward. They come around that corner. and you think you're safe. and you've got to pull right back in. and if they park on that Luzerne Road. there's no way in the world you're going to get out of there. That's a very. very dangerous intersection. and if they are allowed to park on Western Avenue. and they go to make a left turn. there's no way. You're going to have to get out in the middle of the road. even with the car dealer that was there. you'd have to get right out in the middle of the road before you could see. and Shop N' Save wasn't even there yet. The parking is our main concern. If they could post signs. MRS. TARANA-There is 35 feet from the corner to the parking. is that right? MR. BREWER-To the sidewalk. MR. NACE-Your question was about the parking and where it starts. and whether or not it's going to block the view. We have followed. in fact. more than followed. both DOT recommendations and the City recommendations. The City. because this is a major intersection. the City requires parking to start 50 feet back from the travel lane. and we have done that. from the adjacent travel lane. The DOT regulations will let you come closer. and in fact even with the cars right out to the edge of the travel lane on Western Avenue. the parked cars. the DOT typically looks at a nine to twelve foot parking width right off the travel lane. and we're set back from the travel lane an additional. I think it's about 10 or 11 feet at a minimum. and that gives much better site distance from a stopped - 38 - '- car here. even though there's not a stop bar. a theoretical stop bar on Luzerne. is more than adequate. I think. historically. if you remember back to when this was used as a used car lot. these cars were parked much closer out to Western Avenue then what our parking lanes are going to be. The other issue of traffic coming around this corner. we're going to actually help to make that a little safer. We're going to define that corner a little better so they don't cut across it at a higher speed. and make them slow down to take a little sharper corner. MRS. WORTH-I'd like to ask one question. Mr. 0' Connor has said that we would have to petition the Town to put signs for the no parking. They're creating the problem. why should we have to petition for it? MR. MACEWAN-They can only request petition. correct me if I'm wrong. here. for their property alone. For your property. they can't petition the Town to do it, but I think we can do a resolution requesting the Town to do it. so we can take care of it here. MR. O'CONNOR-I can answer that part. I can ask the Town to go from Western Avenue to Holden Avenue. They are not going to pay an awful lot of attention to me beyond our property line. unless those people beyond our property line also make an appearance. and make their desires known to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-I think. like Craig said. we can also ask them with a resolution. MR. MACEWAN-We'll put a resolution to the Town Board requesting them to do it. MRS. WORTH-Because even if you have signs there. I mean. you go to Shop N' Save and they've got places for people. you know. and they'll park there. MR. MARTIN-I think if the residents go on record. on this public record of this Board. it's going to have essentially the same weight as if they came before the Town Board and put it on that record. MR. O'CONNOR-I would be willing to ask the Town Board to do the whole street from Western Avenue to Holden Avenue. on the west side. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-We'll put our resolution together likewise. okay. MRS. WORTH-Yes. See our concern is. I have to get out in the morning. so does Chris. and another problem is the winter time. with the snow. if we can't get in the driveway. I'm hung up right in the middle of Luzerne Road. There's not going to be anywhere to go. MR. BREWER-We will ask the Town Board to provide signs from. MRS. WORTH-Like I say. it would make it look very nice. I agree. but parking would be very. very serious for us. As for the coffee shop i tsel f. we don't have a problem wi th it. as long as the septics. I know the septic system that's there now is not working. and we don't want it backing up into our yards. MR. BREWER-Right, and I don't believe they do either. MR. DUCHANT-I would say to have the no parking go to the other side of Mrs. Worth's house. people on the corner have corner lots also. and it's all pavement. and that's their parking. - 39 - -...-' MR. BREWER-Is it there property or the Town's property? MR. DUCHANT-It's their property. MR. BREWER-They can park there if it's their property. MR. DUCHANT-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. public hearing. Is there anyone else? Okay. I'll close the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do we have to do a Short Form on this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 44-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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 effect 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 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hr. Stark. Tarana. Mrs. Mr. Brewer Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion? - 40 - '-- MRS. PULVER-I had the continuous landscape. mounding around the catchbasin on Luzerne Road. comments from Rist-Frost letter to be addressed before a building permit may be issued. okay. and what do we want to say about this parking issue? MR. BREWER-The applicant's going to ask the Town Board to post no parking signs. but we're going to also do that with a resolution of our own. MR. RUEL-If the applicant does it. why do we have to do it? MR. BREWER-We don't have to do it. I just think we'd be better off maybe asking them also. MR. RUEL-If the applicant can do it in conj unction with the neighbors. MR. MACEWAN-We should do it. Roger. MRS. PULVER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-93 ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICE. INC.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS. the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file #44-93 to convert an existing building into a coffee shop with seating for 20 people: and WHEREAS. the above referenced site consists of the following: 1. Sheet 2. Sheet D1 details. dated 8/23/93 8/23/93; and plan application undated Cl site plan. dated 5/20/93 3. Landscape plan. dated WHEREAS. the above fi Ie is supported with the following documentation: 1. engineering comments. dated 2. staff notes. dated 9/23/93 3. Beautification Committee comments. dated 7/12/93: and 4. Short EAF. dated 8/25/93 5. Stormwater Management Report. prepared by Haanen Engineering. dated 8/93 WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 9/23/93 concerning the above project: and WHEREAS. the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS. the Planning Board has factors found in Section 179-39 Queensbury (Zoning). considered the of the Code of environmental the Town of WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and THEREFORE. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: 1. the Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve site plan #44-93 2. the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan 3. the applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution. with the addition. continuous mounding landscape around the catch basin on Luzerne Road. the comments from Rist-Frost. dated 9/21/93 be addressed before building permit be issued. The applicant requests no parking signage from the Queensbury Town Board. a six foot stockade fence. from the south corner of their building. to what would be the northwest corner of the property line. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following - 41 - -- --,.,.,. vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MARTIN-The other thing I want to inform the applicant is that the Certificate of Occupancy of the building be contingent upon all landscaping and all drainage being installed as per the plan. You're hearing it tonight. face to face. so it's not a surprise when I come there to visit this. MR. BREWER-Okay. and would somebody care to make the resolution asking the Town Board. MOTION TO THE TOWN BOARD REQUESTING THAT THEY PUT UP NO PARKING SIGNAGE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF WESTERN AND LUZERNE TO THE INTERSECTION OF LUZERNE AND HOLDEN. ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE ROAD. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 TYPE: UNLISTED THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: US/NY RT. 9 PROPOSAL TO ERECT A ROLLER COASTER ON THE FORMER CAMPGROUND SITE AT THE GREAT ESCAPE SEQRA REVIEW: CONSIDERATION AND PREPARATION OF A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS FOR A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A ROLLER COASTER. APPLICATION ALSO CONTAINS A REVISION WHICH INVOLVES RELOCATION OF THE ACCESS RAMP TO THE COASTER. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9-8-93 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 2.2 ACRES SECTION: 179-21 JOHN LEMERY. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MRS. TARANA-The public hearing was left open from February 27. 1990. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have a few letters I'd like to have read into the record. MR. MARTIN-Well. I think you should save those for the public hearing. You've got to deal with the SEQRA end of it. first. and then you take up the public hearing again. depending on the outcome of that. MRS. TARANA-The Findings Statement. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was going to. do you want me to read that into the record. Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes. would you please. MR. MARTIN-All right. We have a Findings Statement "Pursuant to Article 8 (Statement Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury. as SEQR lead agency. - 42 - -....- '-/ makes the following findings. Name of Action: Roller Coaster at the Great Escape Theme Park (Story town U.S.A.. Inc.) NYSDEC SEQR Project Identification No. P5-523400-00010 Town of Queensbury Planning Board Site Plan Review 14-90 Description of Action: Construction and operation of the "Comet" roller coaster and associated terminal service building within the existing 238 acre site of the Great Escape Theme Park (contiguous acreage east of New York State Route 9). Location: (Include street address and name of the municipali ty and county.) Wi thin existing si te of Great Escape Theme Park. east of U.S. Route 9. Queensbury (T). Warren (Co. ). approximately four miles south of Lake George Village. Agency Jurisdiction(s): Town of Queensbury Planning Board (discretionary approval - site plan review): Town of Queensbury (ministerial approval - building permit): New York State Department of Labor (ministerial registration - amusement park ride). Date Final EIS Filed: September 2. 1993 Facts and Conclusions in the EIS Relied Upon to Support the Decision: (Attach additional sheets. as necessary) 1. The new roller coaster will not have significant adverse visual impacts on surrounding properties or the community in general. As documented by visual simulations in the Draft EIS. the roller coaster will be seen only in the context of previously developed areas from U.S./New York State Route 9 and Round Pond. Because of the availability of vegetative screening and the site topography, the roller coaster will not be visible from other visually sensitive locations such as Warren County Bike Trai 1. Round Pond. the Glens Falls Country Club or ad j acent residentially-zoned properties. 2. Audible noise studies performed for the EIS also demonstrate that the roller coaster is not likely to produce noise significantly above background levels on adjacent properties and should not produce noise levels which are perceptible or objectionable to the community. using commonly accepted noise modeling methodologies and standards. 3. The anticipated simulation of park attendance from the addition of the roller coaster should not significantly degrade traffic mobility or "levels of service" on U.S. Route 9 or Round Pond Road. Preexisting traffic concerns with pedestrian crossing U.s. Route 9 between the theme park's parking lots and the park entrance have been mitigated in the review of this project through installation of two new pedestrian crossings, including pedestrian-actuated traffic signals. road striping and signage in accordance with the NYSDOT Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4. Impacts of potential parking requirements from the roller coaster on the Glen Lake Freshwater Wetlands buffer area has been mitigated by the project sponsor's agreement to prohibit "overflow" parking within the state DEC-regulated 100 foot buffer area on the east side of U.S. Route 9 as shown in FEIS Figure 3-2. The project sponsor has also documented that its existing parking lots should be sufficient to accommodate all parking requirements which are projected from the theme park expansion (40 additional parking spaces). 5. The project sponsor has documented that its proposed roll coaster and related expansion of uses within the existing Great Escape Theme Park are consistent with the district land use purposes. policies and regulations of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code RC-15 District where the proposed project is located. which zoning is intended to".. isolate. protect and encourage expansion of the recreation industry." 6. No rare. endangered or other protected species or other environmentally sensitive habitats or resources are known to exist within the Great Escape Theme Park or general project vicinity. 7. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement included in the Final EIS establish that the Great Escape Theme Park is a significant contributor to economic activity within the Town of Queensbury and that expansion of the Great Escape Theme Park will have a significantly positive economic and fiscal impact on the substantial existing tourism industry in the Town and Warren County. 8. In addition to the above. the following will serve to mitigate potential environmental impacts as they relate to construction generated traffic and visual impacts. a. Potential construction vehicle generated impacts to the NY Route 9 highway system will be mitigated by scheduling to allow for delivery of construction equipment and materials to the site during off-peak - 43 - '-- traffic hours. b. Construction will occur in a single phase which will reduce the length of time over which construction vehicles and activities will be present. c. The roller coaster is a preexisting structure which will be disassembled at its present location and reassembled at the Great Escape. Since the structure will be constructed in sections this will simplify the process and allow construction to occur within a shorter time frame than would otherwise occur. CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE/FUND/UNDERTAKE Having considered the Draft and Final EIS. and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9. this Statement of Findings certifies that: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; and 2. Consistent with the social. economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto. the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable: including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement. and 3. Consistent with social. economic and other essential considerations. to the maximum extent practicable. adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. Town of Queensbury Planning Board Timothy Brewer. Chairman. September 23. 1993" MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to introduce this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. a resolution to accept it. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to introduce it? MRS. TARANA-I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask on it. before we vote. MR. BREWER-Before we vote. go ahead. MRS. TARANA-The Statement of Findings. now this is just to determine that the FEIS is complete. and then we will go on to the site plan. Am I right? MR. MARTIN-What this does is it concludes the environmental review. This is the equivalent of your normal resolutions you do. This concludes the environmental review aspect of the project. You will. then, once this is concluded. proceed to the site plan. where you'll pick up with the public hearing. and then have your normal discussion and resolution or vote. MRS. TARANA-Okay. My questions. then. really apply to site plan. and I had raised questions. before. about the completeness of the FEIS which I don't think were really addressed here. So I will vote no on the findings. MR. BREWER-Anybody else have any comments? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by WHEREAS. the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file #14-90 to construct a roller coaster: and WHEREAS. the above mentioned site plan application dated 8/18/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet Sl site plan. revised 8/20/93 2. Sheet 2 plan/profile. dated 8/29/93 3. Sheet 3 twelve ton bridge. dated 8/20/93 4. Sheet 4 Dl detail dated 8/20/93: and WHEREAS. the above file is supported with the documentation: 1. Rist/Frost comments. dated 9/23/93 notes, dated 9/23/93 3. Draft EIS. dated 6/91 4. dated 7/93. and following 2. Staff Final EIS. - 44 - ~ WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 8/3/91 and 9/23/93 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS. the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning): WHEREAS. the Planning Board has factors found in Section 179-39 Queensbury (Zoning). considered the of the Code of environmental the Town of WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered: and THEREFORE. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve site plan #14-90 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on the compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process and the following conditions: 1. potential construction vehicle generated impacts to the NY Route 9 highway system will be mitigated by scheduling to allow for delivery of construction equipment and materials to the site during off-peak traffic hours. 2. construction will occur in a single phase which will reduce the length of time over which construction vehicles and activities will be present. 3. the roller coaster is a preexisting structure which will be disassembled at its present location and reassembled at the Great Escape. Since the structure will be constructed in sections this will simplify the process and allow construction to occur within a shorter time frame than would otherwise occur. 4. Existing topographic and vegetative features. primarily the slopes and trees to the east and south of the proposed coaster. shall be maintained. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Now. you would re-open the public hearing and proceed with your normal. MR. BREWER-Well. I want to go over Scott's notes first. and then we'll read the letters. and then we'll take public comment. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 14-90. The Great Escape Theme Park. Meeting Date: September 23. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a roller coaster. The coaster is 91 feet high and approximately 860 feet long. It is located on 2.2 acres of land wi thin a 237 acre amusement park. 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 - 45 - - 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 was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. It was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 _ (2) (b) Erosion Erosion control implemented during and after construction and prompt replacement of vegetation and landscaping will mitigate problems that are associated with erosion. (4)(a) Noise - the project's impact on noise was examined. Noise studies found that the project will not significantly increase the ambient noise levels on nearby properties. (5)(f) Wetlands - Even though the amusement park is adjacent to the Glen Lake wetland. the area of the coaster is approximately 600 feet away. The project should not have a negative impact on the wetland. The project should not have a negative impact on the wetland. The applicant has also agreed to eliminate existing overflow parking that currently exists within 100 feet of the wetland. (7) Aesthetics - The project's visual impact was also studied. Visual tests indicated that the coaster will only be visible from small stretches along Route 9 and Round Pond Road. The visual impacts were found to be insignificant. 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; The project should fit in well with the existing character of the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersection. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: Vehicular traffic access should not be impacted by this project. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking should not be impacted by this project. According to the traffic studies done for this project. the increase in parking (40 spaces) that result from the coaster can be supplied wi thin the existing available parking areas. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: Pedestrian access to the park itself will be improved. Crosswalks and signage will improve pedestrian safety across Rt. 9. Access to the coaster itself will be via a ramp. The ramp will cross above the existing water slide connecting the existing sidewalk system to the proposed terminal building for the coaster. The applicant should explain what measure will be used to ensure the safety of pedestrians on the bridge and those that are beneath it. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: Rist-Frost comments will have to be addressed. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: The project should not impact water supply or sewage disposal. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants: The applicant should detail proposed landscaping. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: Emergency access is adequate. Existing fire hydrants are located near both ends of the coaster. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion: Ponding. flooding or erosion should not be factors affected by this project. Erosion control measures will be implemented to reduce any erosion related problems. RECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be any significant pr05lems associated with this site plan and staff can recommend approval." MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom. your comment. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer. Dated September 21. 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the revised project - 46 - '-- - drawings. Previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed." MR. BREWER-Okay. Again. we have several letters that I'm going to ask the Secretary to read. MR. MARTIN-You have some also attached to your packet that originally came. and then some came today as well. MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. Why don't you read those that came in tonight. and then we can read the rest of them. whatever way you want to do it. MRS. TARANA-This is July 2. 1993 "Dear Mr. Brewer: I understand that there will be a hearing scheduled tentatively for later this month concerning approval of the installation of the famed Crystal Beach "Comet" roller coaster at the Great Escape. I would like to offer my views from my own experience to the Planning Department in favor of this excellent attraction. For the record. I am 45 years of age. a home owner. a manager at an electronics plant. and a roller coaster enthusiast. I grew up in this area. and have spent much of my summer time--and still do--in the Warren County/Lake George area. and therefore feel a strong sense of personal concern and attachment to the region. Based on experience and observations. the worries of some local residents as to alleged noise, etc.. are simply unfounded. which could be proved by a visit to most any park with an operating wood track coaster. as it was also confirmed by the Park's environmental impact study. I have spoken with a few of those Glen Lake residents who opposed it at the most recent hearing. I discovered that they were for the most part well-meaning people who did not really have any concept of the proposed site's location or surroundings. or of the nature of the ride. As you may know. while the height of the ride is oft quoted as 91'. the surrounding hills--not to mention forest--are taller than this on three sides. the site being around 600 feet from Round Pond Road. and several hundred feet from the wetlands. Yet some people spoke of "visual impact" even tho the ride will be virtually hidden from view from outside the park. Aside from the initial hill. much of the "Comet's" track and structure is at or near ground level. As any visitor to an amusement park--or hiker in the Adirondacks--can confirm. trees and hills--in addition to the visual block--are one of the best sound deadeners around. It is ironic and mystifying to me why a few local residents. with limited or no knowledge of the ride. would single out this one attraction when there are no local standards imposed to remove the considerable noise of high power speed boats. sea planes. lawnmowers etc. on Glen Lake. Concern was expressed by a few over "runnoff" of rain water--rainwater which falls there today. A coaster is an open structure. That same rain falls through the structure to the same ground that's there today. It is no different than the rain which runs off the roofs of houses at Glen Lake. or off the roof of the Glens Falls Country Club. Roller Coasters are a non-polluting structure--no smoke. no effluents or byproducts. No such complaints are offered by these few residents about the runoff from their neighbor's roof or septic tanks. A roller coaster is a safe. fun ride--the former supported by insurance statistics. the latter by the millions of Americans who love them. It's a two minute adventure in a controlled environment. through a magnificent structure. an engineering masterpiece. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw referred to the roller coaster as "the ride of the 90s". with respect to its popularity. More people patronize parks and ride roller coasters each year than attend major league baseball games. It's been my observation of the amusement/theme park business that continuing improvements are the vital part of survival. It may be easy to get a customer once, but often takes something new to get repeat visitors. Wood track coasters are enjoying a tremendous comeback. and are one of the most requested new attractions at parks. It would ask that you strongly consider the positive impact the Great Escape and Mr. Wood have on the area through employment. taxe s. and the tremendous - 47 - ,,--. ~.- support the park brings for the tourist business upon which Warren County and the town are so heavily dependent. A Great Escape customer is usually a customer of several other businesses. One has only to visit the site of the former Crystal Beach Park. as I have recently. in Ontario near Buffalo. After that much smaller park closed in 1989. every--I do mean every--surrounding business folded and is currently boarded up in that little community. That park did not inve st in its future. and fo lded. Mr. Wood's commi tment to this area and the future of the Great Escape in planning a major investment in such a classic attraction as the former Crystal Beach "Comet" is to be commended as far as I'm concerned. It should be a source of excitement. not unfounded worry. The "Comet" is a fine and proven family ride. which was considered in the top 10 in its final years. Before too much credence is given to a few complaints based on lack of knowledge and misinformation. please consider the joy that a fun ride like the "Comet" would bring to thousands. Those that chose not to ride it don't have to. Look around at the Great Escape. It is one of the most beautiful and well run parks in the country. Everything is first class. Certainly the installation and preservation of this classic and historic ride will be no less than up to the park's usual high standard. If the "Comet" is approved. there are no losers. The Park's continued economic heal th--and the many business around it--will be bolstered. countless thousands of park patrons will be rewarded by a fun and exciting experience. and a classic roller coaster--part of our heritage--will be preserved. The nature of the ride and the proposed wooded location within the park are such that I cannot fathom how its operation could impact in the least way on nearby neighborhoods. hidden from view over a quarter mile away. The impact can be only positive. insuring the economic health of the park and area. Thank you for your time in considering my views. Sincerely. Thomas G. Rhodes" This is dated September 22nd. 1993. this is a record of a telephone conversation between Mrs. Michael Massiano & Pam Whiting of the Planning Office. the subject is the Great Escape Roller Coaster. "She will be unable to attend the meeting. but would like to go on the record as being opposed to the project. Also opposed are her husband Mr. Michael Massiano and Mrs. Margaret Shaw (10 Greenwood Lane) who she was al so call ing for." This is Septembe r 20. 1993. Birdsall Road. "Dear Board Members: We are writing to obj ect to the proposed roller coaster at the Great Escape. We are year round Birdsall Road residents and would be directly effected by its construction for the following reasons: 1. This very larger roller coaster would be in our back yard as our property line adjoins that of the Great Escapes old R.V. park. No matter what the studies show. we will hear this roller coaster as we already hear noises and people at the Great Escape. as do many people up and down Glen Lake and throughout the Glen Lake area. 2. We feel that property value will depreciate in our area as the noise levels from the Park increase. Our homes will be much harder to sell with this enormous roller coaster so near to our homes. 3. The Glen Lake area is the home to numerous types of wildlife. The growth of the Great Escape should be restricted and the original plan should be encouraged - a small "fun park" for young children that would not effect the surrounding residential community and would help protect the delicate Glen Lake area. If a large. adult facility is the goal. they should build it in a less sensitive. more commercial area. Sincerely yours. Kathryn S. Alberico. Thomas H. Alberico. David W. Stevens. C. Edith Orsini" "Attention Town Queensbury Planning It seems foolish that the Great Escape cannot expand and improve the operation that has been in existence for so many years in the same location. There are many more important things the Town can get involved with to keep the quality of life and environment as it should be preserved. The entire Town is being deforested and blacktopped before our eyes. Yet existing business that has been established for years is being stifled. Ben Aronson" September 22. 1993 "To Whom It May Concern: We would like to put in a good word for Charley Wood and "The Great Escape" as far as constructing their new roller coaster ride. Charley Wood has had a strong economic impact on our small family owned business for over forty - 48 - -- years. and we feel that he can bring even more revenue into the area by expanding his theme park. All of us here hope that the planning board will grant approval for this new project. Thank you. Very truly yours. Richard D. Leland President/CEO" September 23. 1993. regarding the roller coaster at Great Escape "Gentlemen: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association I wish to state that the Board does not object to your approval of the proposed Roller Coaster. The board believes that the applicant's acceptance in this application of a prior condition of this Board not to allow parking within the 100 foot wet land buffer located by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation satisfies the main concern of the Glen Lake Protective Association - protection from pollution to the Glen Lake wet land. There are other concerns that have been brought to the attention of the sponsor of this project. However. given the apparent spirit of cooperation of the sponsor these concerns do not rise to the level that the Board of Directors wishes to make them an issue in this approval process. The Glen Lake Protective Association thanks the Planning Staff and the Members of the Board for their cooperation. Yours very truly. Glen Lake Protective Association By: Michael J. O'Connor Board Member" September 21. 1993. regarding the roller coaster project at the Great Escape "Dear Planning Board Members: The Queensbury Business Association would like to go on record in support of the application for The Great Escape Theme Park for the construction and operation of the Comet Roller Coaster within the Theme Park. The Queensbury Business Association (QBA). by its membership. participated,in the combined public hearing for SEQRA and Site Plan Review held on August 3. 1991. The QBA also provided wri t ten comments dated August 21. 1991. in connection wi th the proposed roller coaster. Those written comments requested that you recognize the environmental impact statement as being very thorough and we. at that time. encouraged expediency in getting through the environmental impact process. We know that you have accepted the final environmental impact statement as complete and we believe that The Great Escape has addressed all of the issues raised by the public at both the hearing and pursuant to written comments. including traffic. parking. noise. purpose and need for the project. erosion control. land use. future expansion. and operating hours. The applicant has significantly improved the pedestrian crossings on Rt. 9. thereby providing safe ingress and egress to the Park. We also know that the applicant has mitigated the wetland concern expressed by the Glen Lake Protective Association by its agreement not to park any cars on the wetland buffer. That mitigation measure was adopted at the time the Noah's Sprayground and Black Cobra attractions were approved by this Board. The current zoning of The Great Escape provides for this kind of attraction and. as a matter of fact. the zoning ordinance emphasizes that in the RC 15 Zone(i.e. Recreation/Commercial zone). the town "wishes to isolate. protect. and encourage expansion of the recreation industry." We believe that the addition of this roller coaster to the Town of Queensbury. more particularly The Great Escape Theme Park. will provide our region with yet another attraction which all of the people who earn their living in the recreation industry in our area can point out when attempting to market the area. All of our businesses. whether in the recreation industry or otherwise. need to remain competitive and need to keep changing to meet customer needs. The Great Escape is no different than any other business and needs to keep upgrading its attractions in order to continue to prosper. Its prosperity contributes to all of our prosperity. This particular roller coaster has national significance. It is likely to be listed on the National Historic Register and we are lucky it will have Queensbury. New York. as its new home. There are very few roller coasters like it left in the country. and it is a tribute to Mr. Wood and The Great Escape that he is willing to make the investment to bring it here in these uncertain economic times. We strongly request that you give site plan approval for the roller coaster tonight so that construction can begin and be ready for the 1994 season. Sincerely. David Kenny President" Graycourt Motel September 23. 1993 Reference: the roller coaster the Great Escape "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This - 49 - -' letter is addressed to the Planning Board regarding the above application. We will be unable to attend the meeting today at 7:00 P.M. and therefore we are sending this FAX to advise the Board that as motel owners and residents of Twicwood. we have no objection to the above Roller Coaster being erected at the Great Escape. Alice Amoia Marianne McDonough Thomas J. McDonough John Whalen. September 23. 1993 "Queensbury Planning Board: I am a resident of Queensbury and own 40 acres of land adjacent to the Great Escape. and only 288' from the proposed roller coaster site. I would like to go on record at the September 23. 1993 Planning Board public hearing as opposing the proposed roller coaster. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was supposed to include sound monitoring at my property line. Instead. the Great Escape sound was monitored 600 ft. south of my property line (FEIS 3-4). and the data reported as being "representative of existing noise levels present at the Whalen property". (FEIS 3 Page 12). Using this data the FEIS reported that the proposed roller coaster would increase the noise level on my property to 70 decibels (FEIS section 3. Page 13). The FEIS arrived at this 70 decibels using a point source factor of 6 decibels loss per doubling of the distance. This factor is very favorable for the Great Escape. However a line loss factor of 3.0 to 4.5 decibels loss per doubling of the distance is probably more representative of the moving line of roller coaster cars. and would calculate to a noise level of 78 decibels on my property. In addition most of my land is lower (440' to 500' elevation) than the high point of the roller coaster (503' elevation). which would tend to carry the sound. I feel an increase in noise of 20 to 30 decibels. to a level of 70 to 78 decibels on my property. is a significant negative impact. which I feel is both unfair. and unacceptable. Obviously. this high level of almost continuous noise and screaming on my property would destroy its potential for residential. or quiet recreation/commercial uses. and drastically reduce its value. The proposed roller coaster would have a negative impact on hundreds of surrounding homes and properties. and should not be constructed. Sincerely. John Whalen" MR. BREWER-That's it? MRS. TARANA-That's it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any comments? MRS. TARANA-I want to ask a question before we get into the public hearing and everything. The notice that went out. did that come from the Planning Department. the notice that went out about the public hearing. that was in yesterday. distributed yesterday? MR. MARTIN-Among the neighbors? I don't know. I don't think so. MRS. TARANA-I'm curious about this. because someone presented one to me. asking why I sent them that letter. and I didn't know what they were talking about. and it's here somewhere in all my papers. It's on Queensbury letterhead. but it's copy. because I think your letterhead is blue on toP. isn't it. the "Q"? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So this was a copy. and apparently was put in mailboxes. which is illegal. It also requested. in big letters across the top it said "Roller Coaster". which didn't look like it would come from this office. MR. MARTIN-No. We don't usually do those. MRS. TARANA-In addition to which. it was signed by me on September 16th. and I knew nothing about it. I don't know who sent it. I just want everybody to know. I had nothing to do with it. and obviously the Planning Department didn't either. - 50 - '- MR. MARTIN-Especially if it was under your signature. MRS. TARANA-My name wasn't actually signed. It was just typed, and I'll give it to you. I just don't know what I did with it. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see that. but we did not send anything like that out. The public hearing was left open from a previous meeting. MRS. TARANA-And I don't know who it went to. This was a person who lives in Twicwood who got it in her mailbox. I've got it somewhere. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you care to make any comments. Mr. Lemery? MR. LEMERY-Mr. Brewer. Members of the Planning Board. my name is John Lemery. I'm here on behalf of the Great Escape. I really don't have any comments at this point. I think everything that can be said has been said. I'd just like to acknowledge that Holly Elmer is here with us from the LA Group. that worked on the site plan and Land Use Planning. Tom Wages from the Great Escape is here. Bobbi Wage s. who's Chief Financial Off icer for the Great Escape is here. and Tim Dunbeck. he was responsible for taking down the roller coaster out at Ontario. and will be principally responsible for erecting it here, if this application is approved. Tim is here. if you've got any questions you'd like to ask him about it. Other than that. I'd be glad to sit back and relax. MR. BREWER-Okay. The public hearing was left open. I guess we'll take public comment. Would anybody care to speak. for or against this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHUCK MCNULTY MR. MCNULTY-I'm Chuck McNulty and I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. Having sat here for this long, I've got to at least say something. I guess several points. measuring noise is very difficult to do. I'm not at all sure it's go ing to make any di fference in your decision. but I would like to point out that. One. the measurement was compared to ambient noise. A good deal of the ambient noise that we have now is from Great Escape. I will also say that I think that they've been trying hard the last couple of years to contain that noise. because I've been thinking about it today. that we really haven't noticed as much from this last summer as we have before. So they are cooperating. I think. in that extent, but just because noise is not necessarily loud does not mean it is not obnoxious. We have similar problems from places like Skateland. They have some real deep based speakers that drives you crazy at night. It's not real loud. but it's kind of hard synchronizing with the bass. I guess a couple of other comments. I know some of the business people feel a lot of the residents have been squawking and trying to curtail the business. but I'd make the point. too. that anything like this does affect our property values. My property on Twicwood Lane I'm sure has gone down in value because of additional noise that we're getting from Skate land and Great Escape. and the fact you'can now see Route 9 when you look at our backyard because Sokol's Market's been developed where it is. Nothing prevents them from doing it. but nevertheless. this development is impacting the value of our property in Twicwood. When we moved in in Twicwood, the Great Escape was not there. Story town was there. So to make the argument that we knew what we were moving into when we moved in. no. not true. The nature of the place has changed over the years. and I think that's one of the big concerns that's underlying a lot of people's objections out in the Twicwood area. It's not so much roller coaster or noise, it's just, where is this thing going. They're getting more and more big - 51 - ---/ --- raucous rides in there. Are they going to continue to be a family park. or is it gradually going to turn over to be more of a raucous place. and be more like the Lake George Village. which is something we don't like to see. So. I think that's why you're getting a lot of the concerns that you are. As I say. I think they're trying hard to cooperate. and I can appreciate that. and expect that they're going to continue. I'd make one plea with them, if they get this roller coaster put uP. that they not. like they did their other one. MR. BREWER-You won't be able to see it. I don't think. MR. MCNULTY-I'm not convinced. but. MR. BREWER-Anyone else? STUART FASS MR. FASS-Good evening. My name is Stuart Fass. I am a dentist practicing in Altamont. New York. I am a current member of ACE. the American Coaster Enthusiasts. and I am a former Board Member of the Gui lderland Chamber of Commerce. former President of the Al tamont Business Association. I'd like to put forth to you several factors that need to be considered here as well. The growth of the amusement industry is very well documented. Paramount Pictures is buying amusement parks. Walt Disney. who himself was opposed to roller coasters and thrill rides. nevertheless gave in. and put the Matahorn Ride in Disneyland before he died. and gave the final approval for Space Mountain and Thunder Mountain Railroad as concept rides at Disneyworld. which of course was not opened at the time of his death. Even he realized that they are part of the family park. and we hear a lot. roller coaster enthusiasts. my family travels every summer. We take 10 to 14 days. We take our trailer with us. This summer it was Pennsylvania. 15 roller coasters in 9. Last summer it was visit grandma and grandpa in Florida and hit every coaster down the east coast. We did 20 in two weeks. Yes. we all ride. My youngest is now 12. My oldest is 17. My wife and all three kids ride. There's a certain amount of nuttiness to it. maybe. but if you want to talk family values. roller coasters are our family values. MR. BREWER-You can probably get real close on a roller coaster. MR. FASS-You get kind of close with your kids. They don't do drugs. They get a natural high. The amusement industry has got to upgrade. It's no different than any other industry. If it doesn't compete. if it can't meet today's standards. the amusement industry is going to go the same way as everybody else. Cedar Fair. the Holding Company that owns Cedar Point Amusement Park. Dorney Park in Allentown. Pennsylvania. Cedar Point in San Dusky. Ohio. which currently has the record number of coasters in one park. at nine. That Park went publ ic. four. five years ago now. with a stock offering at seven and a half. They're currently trading at twenty- nine and a half. paying a dollar seventy-five a share dividend. Yes. I'm kicking myself. I didn't buy any. This is the way of the amusement industry. They are clean entertainment. They are family based entertainment. We've been in the inner cities in Pittsburgh. and been to Kennywood Park. right in the City of Pittsburgh. and the kids can walk around without having to worry. This is pretty much the rule of amusement parks today. It's a nice family industry. and as such. yes. it probably will grow some. and yes thrill rides seem to be the ride of the nineties. The last roller coaster at Cedar Point was the Mean Streak. World's Tallest Wood Coaster. To put the project here in some perspective. the main lift tail is 165 feet high from wood. It kind of dwarfs the 91 feet that we're dealing with. That. of course. is not a comparison anyway. but those ride s. at seven to eight mi II ion do lIars of investment. are paying back to the parks within a year or a year and a half. The Magnum 200 Tallest Steel Coaster at the time paid Cedar Point back in one year. one operating season. with ridership. - 52 - not local ridership. outside tourist ridership. families coming to ride. Kids. my kids. after waiting three hours to ride a roller coaster. and I quote "can we get on line again". They're dramatic rides. They're fun rides. They're very safe. I understand what local property owners feel. I myself live in very close proximity to the Altamont Fair Grounds. both my office and my home. I both live and work in Altamont. and. yes. the noise can be a problem at times. and yes. the ride people have worked with us to a noise abatement. As technology gets better. noise gets lower. but I wonder what property values might do if a Park like Great Escape doesn't keep up with the times. and does not draw the ridership. I wonder how local property owners might fair in a market where people come to see their property. and say. hey there's no local services around here. All your local stores have closed up. Your convenient are gone. There's nobody down at this end of town. So. I think that there might be some trade off in that aspect. In conclusion. we roller coaster fanatics. of course. are purists. We like our roller coasters. We all have our different favori tes. I've ridden the Crystal Beach Comet in Crystal Beach. I did my dental schooling in Buffalo. We spent many evenings traveling over to Crystal Beach. It's a dynamic coaster. It's a terrific ride. They're safe. They're fun. If anybody would like to come see my videos from the front car. I collect those too. and I thank you very much for hearing me this evening. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions. comments? MRS. TARANA-I have a question. My main concern about the roller coaster at this point is the parking. because when I have read what's transpired. it was said that if excess parking were needed. it would be done at the Bavarian Palace. That could be used as overflow parking. Is that still your intention to do that? MR. LEMERY-It's still available for overflow parking. sure. MRS. TARANA-Okay. When I read the FEIS. it said. your comment. in the DEIS. Dan Kane raised the question of parking there. and he says. traffic patterns in the DEIS. Page 19. indicates 200 plus vehicles can be accommodated in the Bavarian Palace parking lot. I believe when the final approvals were given for that project. parking was to be for activities strictly for the Bavarian Palace. MR. BREWER-That's the Final. MRS. TARANA-I know. That's what I'm reading. MR. BREWER-I thought you said Draft. MRS. TARANA-The Draft raises the question. The Final answers it. Okay. Activities strictly for the Bavarian Palace. and could not be used for overflow or employee parking. and could not be used as an entrance to the park. and your response to that was. I'm on Page 9. Section III. Response D. copies of all County and Town Planning Board meeting minutes. memoranda and letters. pertaining to the Bavarian Palace site plan review and approval were obtained and reviewed. and no such restrictions are indicated. On peak attendance days. it is likely that the Bavarian Palace parking area will be used for park attendee or employee parking. since the wetland parking was eliminated. Okay. So your response was that you didn't have any. no minutes indicated that there could be parking. and I remember this whole conversation being on the Warren County Planning Board that that question was raised. and I dug up - 53 - the Queensbury Planning Board minutes of September 7th. 1988. when you did receive your approval. September 20th. not September 7th. 1988. and this is. quoting from it. Mr. Judge confirmed to the Board that the parking area. this is referring to the Bavarian Palace. would only be used for Bavarian Palace parking. If there is an event at the Bavarian Palace. people can walk through the building to get into the amusement park. If there is no event at the Bavarian Palace. the parking lot will not be used for the purpose of entering the amusement park. No tickets for the park will be sold at this location. Isn't that contradictory to what you're saying. that the Bavarian Palace will be used for parking? MR. LEMERY-Our position is that there were no restrictions imposed on the parking at the Bavarian Palace by that Planning Board or by any Board. So no one has said that you can't park at the Bavarian Palace. I can't speak for what Wayne Judge said in 1988. MRS. TARANA-But I think the whole point is. Wayne Judge. very. very defini tely gave the impression that there would be no parking. It's in the Warren County minutes. It's in here. that there would be no parking for the amusement park at the Bavarian Palace. and that you were given approval. not you personally. they were given approval based on that assumption. because it was a very controversial topic. MR. LEMERY-Not so far as we're able to tell. None of the resolutions provided for any restriction in parking. MRS. TARANA-The resolution does not say that. It was given approval based on the fact you would not park there. MR. LEMERY-I'm not trying to be evasive. speak to that. I wasn't here. I can't MRS. TARANA-I know you weren't. MR. LEMERY-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I'm just. I'm telling you there are minutes that address it and say that clearly. MR. LEMERY-Our position is that it is not contradictory. If it was a condition to the site plan. then. obviously. our position would be it was a condition to the approval as set forth in the hearings. MRS. TARANA-It was not a condition. because it was presented to the Boards that there would be no parking there. MR. LEMERY-At that time. there was also parking on the wet lands fen. referred to as parking on the wet land. on these same days. The Great Escape mitigated that. and stopped that parking. So. we believe there's adequate parking there. and I have no other better way to answer it. other than. it's factually correct. as to what's de scribed here in our response s. and we looked through it. and could find no restriction. as parking at the Bavarian Palace. with regard to that. Now. as we've stated from time to time. I think it's the intention of the Great Escape Management that the parking would probably not be used for guests of the Great Escape. because they don't want. tickets to go in. and probably used by the employees. The Great Escape this year had a good year. and there were no parking problems. and there was no parking in the wetlands. So we don't see. Mrs. Tarana. that there would be a parking problem there. That's the only way I'm able to answer it. MRS. TARANA-My concern in addition to the parking at the Bavarian Palace is that the overflow parking from the Bavarian Palace goes out onto Round Pond Road. That was evidenced this weekend. if anybody went to the October Fest. and they saw the parking all along Round Pond Road. I believe that's a No Parking zone. Isn't it? - 54 - -_../.~ MR. MARTIN-If it's not posted. I wouldn't have any knowledge. MRS. TARANA-I believe it's posted. isn't it? MR. LEMERY-I have no knowledge of that. posted or not. I don't whether it's MRS. TARANA-Well. you know. this whole issue has come up before. and like I say. it was very clear. from the presentation of the lawyer at that time. that there would be no parking at the Bavarian Palace for the amusement park. MR. LEMERY-It is not intended that the Bavarian Palace is going to be used on a regular basis for parking at the Great Escape. It's intended here that the only time the Bavarian Palace would be used would be on those few days when there is a significant need for addi tional parking. We've already provided. in our. for 40 additional spaces. and I think the impact statement's pretty clear wi th respect to how many spaces there are there. and how many spaces that have been provided with respect to this ride. So. it's just not possible to determine. based on the information that we have. that there's going to be a problem here with parking. If there is a problem. the Great Escape owns the Bavarian Palace land. and is prepared to use it. principally for employees. but I don't think that it's a contradictory item. because what we're saying here is that no restrictions were provided at that time. and that was a question we asked. What is there. that the Bavarian Palace approval restrictions placed on parking? We're not intending to use this. and Tom Wages will speak to it if he has a different opinion than I do. but there's no intent. so far as I know. to use this as a permanent parking area for attendees of the park. because you'd have to reconfigure the whole ingress and egress of the park. You can't ask people to walk around the corner. there's no sidewalks there or anything. so that you'd have to bus the patrons over there. MRS. TARANA-Well. if you do use it for overflow parking. how will you get them over there? MR. LEMERY-They will be employees that it will be used for. and they would be going through the gate. MRS. TARANA-So. you would not be using it for overflow parking for the amusement park itself? MR. LEMERY-It's intended that the employees would be asked to park there. and it would be used by the employee. but that's hard to tell on a day to day basis. You don't know. on a day to day basis. what you're going to get until some time after the park opens and it starts to fill up. So it's not until some time in the late morning when you know you're going to face a traffic problem. At that time. I assume Tom talks to the employees and has them go over to the Bavarian Palace or whatever. I can't speak to it better than that. MRS. TARANA-Would you be open to a condition that there'd be no amusement park parking at the Bavarian Palace? MR. LEMERY-No. MRS. TARANA-Why? I mean. if you're not going to use it. MR. LEMERY-I just don't think it's relevant. MRS. TARANA-Well. I think it's relevant because in your original application you said you were going to park there. MR. LEMERY-What original application? I'm not trying to be. what original application? - 55 - --' -....-" MRS. TARANA-In the minutes, when it was first proposed. MR. LEMERY-What was first proposed, the Bavarian Palace. or the Great Escape Roller Coaster? MRS. TARANA-That the Bavarian Palace would be used for overflow parking. MR. LEMERY-Yes. we would intend that the Bavarian Palace. if necessary. would be used for overflow parking. It's there at the Great Escape. It's owned by the Great Escape. and if there's a need, from time to time, to have park some cars there. we'll park some cars there. consistent with public safety and all the other concerns that this Board should have regarding ingress and egress to the Park. and the safety of the patrons of the Park. and the employees of the Park. I don't have any better way to answer that. It's a day to day thing. Hopefully this Park will be filled. and they'll have to go buy some land somewhere to park cars. but at this point. it's not contemplated that we'll need that parking there for other than employees. but we don't want to make ita condition. because we don't know. The roller coaster's not there. We have no idea. If it's a problem. it's going to be a problem that's going to be faced by the management here and by the Town. and we'll have to deal with it. and the Great Escape will deal with it. and the Great Escape has certainly got the economic wherewithal to mitigate it and deal with it. and be responsible. and provide the Town with the kinds of protection to its citizens that is needed. but at this point. I can't answer it better than that. MRS. TARANA-Okay. and I would just contend that it was very clearly presented to the Warren County Planning Board that there would be no parking in the Bavarian Palace. That was part of their discussion. as I've said. and the only reason. one of the reasons that they did approve it at that time was because they knew there wouldn't be parking there. and that's exactly what Mr. Judge said. MRS. PULVER-You're talking about the minutes of the Warren County meeting. and not minutes of the Queensbury Planning Board. MRS. TARANA-And the minutes. he said that again in the September 20th meeting minutes of the Queensbury Planning Board. MRS. PULVER-But it's not in the motion. MRS. TARANA-It' s not in the motion. It was material that he presented saying there would be no parking. MR. BREWER-Anything else? MRS. TARANA-My other. I brought this up before. I'll just throw it out. because I still think the FEIS did not address noise at night. It never monitored. It didn't do anything about noise at night. and if you have noise. You know. it's a different situation if you're listening to all the cars and everything else that are going around during the day. but at night. it's a total different situation. if you hear people on a roller coaster and the Park open, and I don't think the FEIS addressed that at all, and they are open at night, on occasion. MRS. PULVER-I thought the roller coaster could not be operated at night because of the lighting. it didn't have enough lighting. Is that correct? MR. LEMERY-Well. our position is that the Great Escape is not open at night. There are two or three or four occasions from time to time. I don't know if there was more than one occasion this year when the Great Escape was open at night for a Charitable purpose. Was there more than one occasion? TOM WAGES - 56 - '-- -_/'- MR. WAGES-One occasion. and then the October Fest. MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. STARK-The whole park wasn't open at night? MR. WAGES-Only a portion. MR. LEMERY-Right. One thing you try and do in a Final Environmental Impact Statement is mitigate to the best you can. It's not erase every issue. and solve every issue 1Ø0 percent. It's not possible. MRS. TARANA-But the issue was raised. It wasn't answered. MR. LEMERY-Yes. it was answered. MRS. TARANA-How was it answered when no monitoring? MR. LEMERY-You can't monitor at night. if there's nothing happening at night. MRS. TARANA-And there's no sound that can be tested. I know. I've already heard this. Okay. MR. BREWER-Are you all set? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. MARTIN-We have a prepared resolution. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I have my own written. I think I'll just read all of this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by WHEREAS. the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file #14-90 to construct a roller coaster; and WHEREAS. the above mentioned site plan application dated 8/18/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet Sl site plan. revised 8/20/93 2. Sheet 2 plan/profile. dated 8/29/93 3. Sheet 3 twelve ton bridge. dated 8/20/93 4. Sheet 4 Dl detail dated 8/20/93: and WHEREAS. the above file is supported with the documentation: 1. Rist/Frost comments. dated 9/23/93 notes. dated 9/23/93 3. Draft EIS. dated 6/91 4. dated 7/93. and following 2. Staff Final EIS, WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 8/3/91 and 9/23/93 concerning the above project: and WHEREAS. the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); WHEREAS. the Planning Board has factors found in Section 179-39 Queensbury (Zoning). considered the of the Code of environmental the Town 0 f WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered: and THEREFORE. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve site plan #14-90 2. The Zoning Administrator is - 57 - ----- hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on the compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process and the following conditions: 1. potential construction vehicle generated impacts to the NY Route 9 highway system will be mitigated by scheduling to allow for delivery of construction equipment and materials to the site during off-peak traffic hours. 2. construction will occur in a single phase which will reduce the length of time over which construction vehicles and activities will be present. 3. the roller coaster is a preexisting structure which will be disassembled at its present location and reassembled at the Great Escape. Since the structure will be constructed in sections this will simplify the process and allow construction to occur within a shorter time frame than would otherwise occur. 4. Existing topographic and vegetative features. primarily the slopes and trees to the east and south of the proposed coaster. shall be maintained. Duly adopted this 23rd day of September. 1993, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Okay. Just one question before we vote. Warren County do with this? What did MR. MARTIN-They approved it. It was back in '90. or something like that. MR. BREWER-I just didn't have it. MRS. TARANA-Why did it say they were on the agenda for 9/8/90? MR. MARTIN-It was pulled, because at the time this was typed. it wasn't known that they were there before. It was checked. and they were. MRS. TARANA-Because I knew it had been approved before. MR. MARTIN-Yes. AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 58 -