1994-11-15
"--"
-----
"-"
-..-'
QUEENSBURY PLANNlNGBQARD MEgE[N~ i
FIRST REGULAR MEETING " , ;
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
INDEX
Subdivision No. 5-72
FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION
John & Theadora Koke 1.
subdivision No. 24-1993
FINAL STAGE
Garfield Raymond/Ronald Newell 7.
Site Plan No. 37-94
Michael Beckwith 9.
subdivision No. 16-1994
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Columbia Queensbury Group 24.
Site Plan No. 36-94
Story town, USA 42.
dba Great Escape
;1
Site Plan No. 40-94
David J. Kenny
75.
, ,
,
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SVaJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPRQVèL OF, SAID
MINUTES.
I,
,f
I'
01
I,
II \
¡:'! ;
, .i
"
',:! ,;',
~
-........,,/
\.....,.
--
ENSBURY PLANNING' BdAAO 'MEETIING '
ST REGULAR MEETING
EMBER 15, 1994
o P.M.
PRESENT
OTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN
RGE STARK, SECRETARY
HERINE LABOMBARD
ER RUEL
ERT PALING
IG MACEWAN
ES OBERMAYER
CUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
NNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
NNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER
INEERING-RIST-FROST, BILL MACNAMARA
NOGRAPHER-MARIAGAGLIARDI
OF MINUTES
1994: NONE
20, 1994: NONE
27, 1994: NONE
ober 18, 1994: NONE
o 1994
by
Roger Ruel:
Du y adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
vo e:
$: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,
Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
NONE
SS:
DIVISION NO. 5-72 FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION JOHN & THEODORA
E BEDFORD CLOSE, PHASE I OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A
ATION: BEDFORD CLOSE MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DIVISION, BEDFORD CLOSE, PHASE I TO ALLOW A LOT LINE
USTMENT TO LOTS 48 AND 27. TAX MAP NO. 125-4-27, 48 SECTION:
DIV. REGULATIONS
es from Staff, subdivision No. 5-72 Modification, John &
odora Koke, Meeting Date: November 15, 1994 "PBOJECT
IPTION: The applicant is proposing a modification to a
nning board approved subdivision, Bedford Close - Phase 1,
s 27 and 48. The modification involves a lot line adjustment
1,700 square feet between the two lots. Lot 48 has a house on
and lot 27 has a gazebo on it. It appears that lot 27 will be
uced in size and lot 48 will gain area. The adjustment will
vide a 15 foot rear yard setback for the house."
- 1 -
"'--.-
~
--
'......../
MR. HARLICKER-It looks like what happened, I dug up the old
building permit from 1972. It looks like the house was
originally built, it was approved to be up, right near the corner
of Revere Road and North Church, but it appears, at least
according to the survey that Mr. Steves did, that thé house was
actually placed right on the lot line between Lots 48 and 27, and
this modification is an attempt to remedy that situation.
MR. BREWER-I guess the only' question L would have is how did a
building permit get issued if he was right on the lot line?
MR. HARLICKER-You'd have to ask somebody in 1972.
MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe it was one lot at one time.
MR. HARLICKER-It's always been, it's been two lots. Mr.
Carusone, the previous owner, owned both lots at one time. So he
probably put the house right in the middle of them, is ~ guess.
He didn't want it where it was located. with thé building permit,
and decided to move it back. That's ~ guess.
MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves, from Van Dusen
and Steves, and has Scott has said, Mr. Koke has owned the
property since 1975. He bought Lot 48 at that time, and he
bou.ght the adjacent lot, 27, in 1977, and this is an attempt only
to ~t him back into having the samé potential he had prior, to
hav~ the two lots.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Leon, was there a minimum square footage that the
lots had to be, back then?
MR. STEVES-I believe 20,000 square feet.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It was 20,000. It wasn't 30,000?
MR. STEVES-No.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So the will the new boundary setback still allow
for the new lot, or the lot that's not béing built on, the lot
that doesn't have the house on it.
MR. STEVES-The minimum size?
MRS. LABOMBARD-YeS, Lot 27.
MR. STEVES-Yes. Lot 31, for instance, is 20,138 square feet.
That's in the next door lot, to just give you a comparison of the
neighborhood.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Now the way that it's a pie shape there, I'm just
concerned that there's some deed restrictions up there, that the
first floor haè to have a minimum of 1200 square feet, and there
has to be a two car attached garage. Is that going to be able to
go in and still keep those setbacks?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I believe they will.
MR. BREWER~It'll have to, or they won't be able to get a permit.
MR. STEVES-That's right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, yes, they have to. All right. The next
thing is, I just, when I look at your sketch here, on this, off
to the side, what part, that's not the whole house that you've
sketched in there?
MR. STEVES-No, no.
That's all that is.
That's just the southerly portion of it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that the addition part, because it looks so
- 2 -
"-'
......,,;
'-
'---'
s all. I mean, I think that that sketch is deceiving.
M . STEVES-Well, I didn't intend to deceive.
M S. LABOMBARD-I know you didn't.
M . STEVES-The lot linel itself runs just, if
s uthwest corner of the building, some one foot
f ot south of the line. The building is clear
t e other ,end of the line, it's just ~ the
1 t line between Lots 27 and 48.
you will, at the
north of the, one
at that point. At
line, the original
M . RUEL-What she's saying is that the house is not to scale.
M STEVES-Yes, it is.
M S. LABOMBARD-It's not the whole house. It's just the addition.
· STEVE$-Just the southerly portion.
· BREWER-I think all of the intention was to show where the
was on the lot line, is pretty much what he was trying to
STEVES-That's right, and we're trying to, now, because Code
lIs for 15 foot side line setback, we're pulling it ~own 15
et from the existing building, and creating that dog leg, if
u will, on that line.
S. LABOMBARD-But, see, I just don't understand how the house
s put there at the beginning, if the two lots weren't
nsolidated into one, but I know that's not your.
STEVES-What was the date of that building permit, Scott?
· HARLICKER-December '72.
OBERMAYER-What was the zoning when it was subdivided, do you
ow? Was it SR-1A? It couldn't have been SR~lA, right?
· HARLICKER-No. I think it was R-3 or something, R-2. It was
der the 1967.
BREWER-It was probably 20,000 square feet.
M . OBERMAYER-Yes. It must have been.
S. LABOMBARD-Yes. That was the phase that was half acre lots.
M . STEVES-Yes.
OBERMAYER-I guess some of the concerns, maybe, from the
ighborhood, is that now you're subdividing into a 20,000 square
ot lot, which is really only a half acre lot, when most people
there probably have an acre or two. It's zoned for an acre.
M. STEVES-In the newer sections, that's true. In this section,
n , it isn't true. For instance, on the adjacent lot, to, 48,
9 ing easterly, is Lot 31, and that is 20,138 square feet.
M . STEVES-What's Lot 26? 22,940 square feet.
M . BREWER-What's Lot 26?
M . BREWER-So they're all similar in size.
M S. LABOMBARD-In other words, the conformity is, it's staying.
M . STEVES-Yes, it is.
- 3 -
'--~
--.-/
'---'
---
MRS. LABOMBARD-It's just that if you go up there
take a little walk around there, it really looks
wedge of pie type property now.
and physically
like a little
MR. STEVES-Yes. It was pretty much similar to that to begin
with. They only enlarged it a little bit on the back from the
piece of pie. A piece of pie is a tough lot. It really is.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It is. I mean, what he has there right now, to
me, is very aesthetic and very beautiful. I can see the physical
reasons for wanting to do that, but I think that the way it is
now, it's so much nicer.
MR. STEVES-I understand that. Economically, I understand his
problem. He can't get double the lot value out of it, because of
the location of his house. So he has diminished the value of his
property.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. The only thing is, you had, the signs were
up, and the neighbors were just concerned that there is enough
land there to build the deed restrictions for the first floor.
MR. STEVES-Yes, there would have to be, as Tim said. Absolutely.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Jim, any questions? George? Bob? Roger? Craig?
There is no pUblic hearing scheduled, but if there is anybody
here from the public who like to comment, feel free to just come
up and identify yourself.
MR. STEVES-Isn't there a public hearing?
MR. BREWER-No, not for a modification, I don't think.
MR. STEVES-We've notified all the neighbors.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All the neighbors were notified.
MR. BREWER-It says, "Public Hearing: not scheduled". There's no
public hearing scheduled, but if anybody wants to speak, I don't
have a problem.
MR. STEVES-They all got letters.
MRS. LABOMBARD-They all got letters that said there was. That's
why I don't understand that.
BOB POLLOCK
MR. POLLOCK-My name is Bob Pollock. I live on North Church Lane.
It's rather confusing for me to identify where I live because
you're looking at maps that I'm not real sure are all that
accurate. I don't know what you're looking at. I know from
having lived in Bedford Close for over 18 years that we were
subjected to a number of lot changes and lot number changes. I
didn't intend to say anything tonight, but I do want to speak for
my point of view, and perhaps that of other neighbors, and that
is we're very disappointed that this is going to be approved. It
isn't because we resent new neighbors. It's because we've looked
at this lot, L have, for 18 years, and never thought of it as a
piece of property on which anything would be built, and I'm very
disappointed if this is approved. When this lot was originally
offered for sale by Northern Homes, it and one other piece of
land were the only two lots that were never purchased.
Eventually one of those lots was purchased and has remained for
sale for 18 years, and this lot was divested, sold off, by
Northern Homes just prior to them going out of existence, and at
the time that it was purchased, M,-. Koke who bought it indicated
to myself and to other people in the neighborhood that we were,
- 4 -
"--"
'-'"
~
-.....-I
i a sense, lucky that he made this purchase, that it was going
t prevent a house from ever being built, on a lot that's
e tremely poor location for the construction of any kind of
r asonable home on it. Following that, John went ahead and put
a addition on it, which, I have no knowledge. I can only tell
y u what, you know, living there, I see, and I thought, when he
b ilt the addition, it moved over onto or within that lot, that
h further reduced a lot that was already small and made it even
aller, you know, but we all were confident that it was a lot
at had vanished as a lot to have something built on it, and I
n't tell you how flabbergasted I was to see the signs go up,
ggesting that somehow or other a house could be built on that
t. We also face a problem with the fact that we have some
venants, and the strength and worth of those covenants has been
allenged, and with the going out of existence of Northern
mes, we're left without a, we don't have a homeowners
sociation or anything of that sort. We have just the concept
being a good neighbor, in part, and we're at the mercy of the
al estate market. We're at the market of builders who see an
portunity to put, up structures that are less than what the
ructures were that were originally built there, and I don't
ow if you're familiar with it or not, but we're presently
volved, I think, to a certain extent, with a situation of a
ilder coming in and putting up a house that does not comply
w th the covenants, and I know from ~ perspective on this, my
q estion is, what's to prevent another builder from buying a lot
t at's extremely ill-shaped, extremely small, and coming in and
b ilding a less than traditional kind of home that's in our part
o the development, and offering it for sale significantly less
t an the homes that are in that section, and taking advantage of
a 1 of us? I mean, nobody's going to come in there and build any
k·nd of, to my mind, decent kind of house. I mean, it's just not
g ing to go on that lot. I mean, we already have too many homes
f r sale in Bedford Close. I mean, there must be 20, 25 homes
f r sale in our development. What we don't need is another home,
a d what we don't need is a home that further diminishes what
w 've all invested our lives in. So I hope you will think about
t is. I appreciate the comments that I've been hearing from you,
a to the fact that it appears to me that you've done, some of
y u, your homework. You've gone out and taken a look at this
p ece of property, and I think when you do, you say to yourself,
w at can go in here? Thanks.
M. BREWER-Thank you.
c mment?
Is there anyone else who'd like to
M . CRETE-I just want to back up what he said. Mary Crete. I
1 ve directly across the street from that.
M . BREWER-Is there anyone else? Okay. There's no SEQRA.
M . STEVES-I think I'd like to answer the response that I've been
c allenged to.
M '. BREWER-O kay .
M . STEVES-I told you, and for the record, if you wish, I can
g you copies of the deeds dated 1975 and 1977. Mr. Koke did
n by them on the recent demise of Northern Homes. He's owned
t for a long time.
M . BREWER-Okay. Thank you, Leon.
M. POLLOCK-In case you don't know, Northern Homes went out of
b siness twice. It's my understanding that Northern Homes went
o t of business twice. They went out, they went under Chapter
1 and they reorganized. Then they resurfaced as a business,
a then they went out of existence a second time. I'm not here
- 5 -
'-
to quibble the dates, but I think if we want to do this, weneed
to investigate what we're talking about here, and that is that
Northern Homes went into Chapter 11 in the mid 70's, reorganized
themsel ves, came bac k into busi ness, and the, eventual! y went out
of business totally, and I didn't come prepared to argue the
history of Northern Homes with you, but be careful that that's
something that's of any consequence.
MR. STEVES-None at all.
MR. BREWER-Okay.',: Sir, I just would li'ke to say something to
clarify, so that' you understand what our job is to do here. If
the Code requirements are met, we really don't have a right to
prevent a person from selling a piece of property. It's not
within our power, any more than if you owned two acres of land
and ~ wanted, to sell a piece of property, we don't have a right
to stop you from doing that. He shows us a map that conforms,
and we take your comments into consideration, but if he meets the
size requirements, I don't, personally, see anything we can do to
prevent him, unless it shows us that there's going to be a
detriment to the community, and I don't, in ~ mind, see a
detriment if a man wants to sell a piece of his property. I
wouldn't want anybody to tell me I couldn't sell a piece of ~
property if I owned it, and that's just my own personal opinion.
I can't speak for everybody, but I think that's what our job is
to do, is to make sure that all the Ordinance is met.
MR. OBERMAYERr-'The lot has been. subdivided previous t<¡>" it was
subdivided tn the 70's, really. There's two lots there.
M~S. LABOMBARD+$ee, I think the contention 'arises when Mr. Koke
lived,for 18'year,s and put his dwelling where he wanted it, fo,-
his enjOymént and his pleasure ~ Now rthat he doesn"t live there
anymore, he's now, after the fact.; I've enjoyed ~ property
around ~ house. Now I want to make it two pieces. So now I
want to sub, re, put a new boundary on, and, see, that's what L
have the problem with.
MR. RUEL-He's not saying he wants to make it two pieces. That
It:!-ª.§. done in the 70's. All we're doing tonight is just realigning
one line.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MRS. LABOMBARD~But the thing is, if somebody else owned that lot,
if somebody else had owned Lot 27, he never would have been able
to put that addition on so close to the boundary of Lot 27.
MR. RUEL-That part I don't understand at all, and it should not
have been done, but right now we're trying to rectify something.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problem with him selling his property
the way he bought his property, but now he's altering his
property to fit his needs.
MR. RUEL-AIl he's doing is modifying the lot line so that it
conforms to the 15 foot setback. That's all this whole
discussion's about tonight. It has nothing to do with building
on it or the type of building or anything like that. It just has
to do with the change in the lot line on one side.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right, Roger. I just want it on the record
that I just feel that this is, now that we've enjoyed our two
lots for 20 years, now it's time to alter lot number two, or Lot
Number 27, so now I can sell something lesser than what I was
used to living on for 20 years.
MR. BREWER-I know, but, Cathy, you can't predict the future.
Maybe somebody will buy this house and buy the other lot and keep
it the way it is.
.... 6 -
\..,
'--"
'-...-'
"
../
S. LABOMBARD-You're right.
at's true.
I just want that on the record.
. BREWER-I mean, there's no way for us to know that.
S. LABOMBARD-So you're right.
There's nothing illegal about
. BREWER-Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion?
VE
troduced by Rogér
orge Stark:
F r a modification to a previously approved subdivision at
B dford Close, Phase I, to allow a lot line adjustment to lots 48
a d 27.
D ly adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
v te:
A ES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer
N NONE
A Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
S BDIVISION NO. 24-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GARFIELD
R YMOND/RONALD NEWELL OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: $FR-1A, UR-
1, MR-5 LOCATION: BETWEEN COUNTRY CLUB ROAD & BAY ROAD
P OPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 30.81 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF ~5.72
A., 14.09 AC. & 1 AC. CROSS REFERENCE: FWl-94 PETITION/ZONE
C ANGE: Pl-93 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-16, 41.1, 44 LOT SIZE: 30.81
A RES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGULATIONS
G RFIELD RAYMOND, PRESENT
S AFF INPUT
N tes from Staff, Subdivision No. 24-1993 Final Stage Review,
G rfield Raymond/Ronald Newell, Meeting Date: November 15, 1994
" 0 CT D SCRI TO: The applicant is proposing to take four
1 ts totaling 30.81 acres and subdivide them into 3 lots of 15.72
a res, 14.09 acres and 1 acre. The property has a large DEC
fagged wetland on it. There is 1.64 acres of lot 1, fronting on
C untry Club Road, that is zonedSFR-1A with the remaining 14 +
a res zoned UR-1A. The front part of lot 2 including lands from
ByRoad back to the flagged wetlands is zoned MR-5 and the
w tlands are zoned UR-1A. Lot 3 is zoned MR-5. Preliminary
a proval was issued 'on 4/26/94 with no conditions, as was the
w tlands permit. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding
panning or engineering concerns and staff can recommend approval
o this subdivision."
M . BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions or comments?
M. PALING-This reference to zoning is not for us to act upon
t night. That's been done. So we're just acting on the
s bdividing.
M . BREWER-Correct.
M RUEL-This is the final stage, right?
M . BREWER-Yes.
M MARTIN-I have a question for Mr. Raymond. I've had, I think,
t 0 calls, I think, in the last several months from Ron Newell,
e pressing an 'interest to do some clear cutting along the front
p rtion of this lot, or Lots Two and Three, based on what he told
- 7 -
'", '
,
--..,../'
'r-'
me on the phone. I'd just
clarification if that plan is
like to get a definition of
forward.
like to get some sort of a
intended to go forward, ,and I'd
the extent of that if it is to go
MR. RAYMOND-As far as ~ aware, there's not going to be any
clear cutting. It's my understanding Mr. Newell contacted you to
discuss what was defined as clear cutting. If there's going to
be any cutting done there at all, it's going to be just removal
of shrubs, and I don't believe that that would constitute clear
cutting. I think you're dealing with. trees of four inches or
less. I think you're allowed to remove from the property, but
I'm not even aware of any of that being done. As far as the two
lots that front Bay Road, the one acre lot I know, definitely,
nothing will be done on that lot. As far as the other one goes,
he hasn't said anything to me. I'm not aware of, that it's going
to be. He has discussed that with me, and I told him I didn't
want anything done in there.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So the extent of it would be, if it were to be
done, would be on Lot Two, and it would be just the underbrush
and that type of thing?
MR. RAYMOND-Yes, strictly underbrush.
MR. BREWER-So, if we were to put that into our motion, that
wouldn't be a problem?
MR. RAYMOND-No.
MR. BREWER-If a plan were submitted for cutting, we could review
it. Is that a problem?
MR. RAYMOND-I don't have a problem with it. I think, as far as
the statute goes, clear cutting.
MR. BREWER-Or at a minimum, maybe Jim review the plan?
MR. RAYMOND-But, I mean, we
Isn't there an Ordinance
approval?
already have a statute in
prohibiting clear cutting,
effect.
without
MR. MARTIN-Well, it prohibits clear cutting from the standpoint
that you can't subdivide anymore for five years after that, but
that's really the only prohibition.
MR. BREWER-This would be after the fact, subdividing.
MR. MARTIN-Right. That's why I'm asking.
MR. BREWER-Maybe we could ask that Mr. Martin gets a cutting plan
if you decide that you want to clear cut it, or anything other
than the undercutting of brush?
MR. RAYMOND-Yes. I have no problem with that, because anything
that's going to be done to that is going to have to come through
site plan approval anyway.
MR. MARTIN-I '·d 1 kke it as a Ciondi tion of the approval:. ' That way
it gives 'at least some notice of what's going to happen.
MR.
Okay.
BREWER-Okay. Craig, any questions? Cathy? Jim? George?
I guess a motion's in order, with that one condition.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 24-1993 GARFIELD
RAYMOND/RONALD NEWELL, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
As written, with the condition that a plan for clear cutting be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator, for cutting other than
- 8 -
'-./
\
"-'"
--....--
"/
e gineering and underbrush, surveying, prior' to the cutting
b ginning.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final
s bdivision application, file #24-1993, to subdivide a 30.81 acre
p rcel into 3 lots of 15.72 ac.~ 14.09 ac., and 1 ac.; and
Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision application
d ted 10/18/94 consists of the following:
1. sheet 1, map of Lands of Raymond/Newell revised
10/15/93; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
d cumentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 11/15/94; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
a propriate town departments and outside agencies for their
rview and comment; and
Whereas, the modifications and terms contained in the
p eliminary subdivision approval have been complied with.
Therefore, Let It, Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
m ve to approve subdivision plat, Raymond and Newell, file #24-
1 93.
Let it be further resolved,
1 .
Prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of
Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid
that within 60 days of the date of this resolution
applicant shall have the signed plat filed in
Office of the Clerk of Warren County.
the
and
the
the
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in
this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance
and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
ES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel,Mr. Paling,
. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NONE
SS:
S PLAN NO.
S AS ABOVE
I TO BUILD A
3 ,000 SQ. FT.
37-94 TYPE:
ZONE: SR-1A
PIG CORRAL.
SECTION 179-19
UNLISTED
LOCATION:
TAX MAP
MICHAEL BECKWITH OWNER:
20 PASCO AVENUE PROPOSAL
NO. 121-2-10 LOT SIZE:
PRESENT
INPUT
from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-94, Michael Beckwith, Meeting
te: November 15, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant is
oposing to construct a corral and structure for housing two
- 9 -
~
,/
pregnant sows. This is a rather unusual site plan application so
the standard site plan criteria are not really applicable. Staff
has contacted Cornell Cooperative Extension and received
information regarding the raising of swine. Issues that seemed
important and which require further information from the
applicant are smell, size of sheds and heating of the sheds,
manure management and drainage. Because of the proximity to
residential housing, smell could be a problem. The applicant
should provide more detailed information on the construction of
the housing facilities and how they will be heated. A
temperature of 80 degrees is recommended for winter room
temperature. The applicant should provide information on what
will be done with the manure. Drainage will also have to be
explained. The lot should be sloped so that water does not back
up into the pen but it also must not drain onto neighboring
properties."
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you care to address any of the comments
from Staff?
MR. BECKWITH-Sure. Okay. My name's Michael Beckwith, and the
shed's a wooden shed. It's a 10 by 10 with a peaked roof, and
for heat, it's electric heat, and the drainage, the ground is
sloped, it's slightly sloped, and then it levels out. It's sand
ground, so everything would absorb. The manure, I'll be turning
some into compost and trucking the excess off, and the smell, the
smell's directly related to the feed. If you feed a pig garbage,
the manure's going to smell like a dump, and I feed it grain, and
we have no problem with the smell, as far as what we're doing
right now. I mean, I hear a few of you laughing and snickering,
so I guess I'm wasting my time, pretty much, but there's, I've
found nothing that says I couldn't have them up there. I was
just told I have to come here.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess my reason is, the understanding that
I'm under is, you had them in Fort Edward and you need a place to
move them?
MR. BECKWITH-Yes.
MR. BREWER-How many pigs do you anticipate to have?
MR. BECKWITH-Well, I sold off what I had, and I'm only looking to
have three, now. I mean, I'm a member of Cornell Cooperative
Extension myself, and I've called, and I was talking to a Mr~ Lee
Wilson, and I was going over all my stuff right here, what I've
told you, and he said, my corral would be a 40 by 40 corral.
That would be plenty big enough fo~ pigs, and as far as the
smell, as far as you don't feed them garbage, then their manure's
not going to smell, and it would be basically clean. Do you know
what I'm saying?
MR. HARLICKER-Is this a permanent situation? You mentioned
previously that it was just going to be for the winter?
MR. BECKWITH-Well,
I'd like to get it
over to Fort Edward
and stuff.
yes. It was just going to be the winter, but
to be permanent. I mean, it's a long drive
every night, especially in the winter time,
MR. HARLICKER-What about the increase, do you plan on increasing
the number of them, or just maintain what you have?
MR. BECKWITH-No, three would be fine. I mean, Mr. Wilson was
telling me they have no more manure than, say, three dogs, or a
horse, or something like that there, and there's plenty of dogs
up there and our neighbors had horses, too, you know.
MR. BREWER-Okay. George?
- 10 -
\.../
'---'"
~
'/
M STARK-So you've raised pigs in the past?
M . BECKWITH-Yes, I have.
STARK-So you're familiar with, I mean, how much waste is
nerated and so on?
· BECKWITH-Yes, I am. We have, well, over at my father's in
rt Edward, where I was keeping these, we had nine of them over
ere. I mean, I'm familiar with it, and I'm capable of raising
em and stuff.
· STARK-Have you talked to your neighbors? I mean, nobody has
problem with it?
· BECKWITH-No, I haven't talked to my neighbors yet. I mean,
tters were sent out, so I'm sure someone's here. Like, Mr.
nley is back there. I don't know what he has to say, but he's
re.
M . BREWER-Okay. Jim, any questions? Cathy?
M S. LABOMBARD-I just didn't quite catch everything, Michael. Is
t is a business, again?
M. BECKWITH-No. It's for, we're raising them, well, we're
rising them, yöu know, my kids they're sort of like a pet, but
w en they get old enough, the kids understand that we take them
t the slðughter house. I mean, we just took one to the
s aughter house, and the kids understand all this, and it's
r ally good for them~
LABOMBARD-Where you raise them in Fort Edward, is there a
oblem with the, were they on a farm type of situation, at your
ther's, or was that in a residential area?
M BECKWITH-No. It was just, my father lives out in the
c untry, in Fort Edward. We were raising them over there, and we
h d a little family dispute. So I need a place to raise them
m self, yo~ know.
M . MARTIN-I think for purposes of the Code, this is classified
a a Class D Hobby Farm, 179-63A(4).
· MACEWAN-Does it matter? He's got neighbors in 360 degrees of
is place.
M. BREWER-Does anybody know which way the prevailing wind is up
t at way?
M . RUEL-All the way around.
M . BREWER-No. The reason I say that is because, when we had an
a plicant up on, I can't think of the name of the road. Two
p aces, actually, 149 and Pickle Hill Road. The prevailing wind
w s towards one of the neighbor's houses, and the neighbors
b hind it didn't smell it, but the guy that lived in front of
t em did, because the wind blew constantly in his direction.
T at's the reason I asked that.
M
RUEL-I've got a couple of questions.
M . BREWER-Okay. Craig, have you got any questions?
M . MACEWAN-A couple. Yes. You stated on your application that
y u had two pigs that were both pregnant that you wanted to house
t ere?
M . BECKWITH-Right.
- 11 -
"'"<'
'-...--'
------
'".-/
MR. MACEWAN-Now you're up to three pigs.
MR. BECKWITH-No. Right now I have none. I sold the two pregnant
sows. I sold them and their piglets.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. BECKWITH-Now I have none, and I'd just like to be able to
purchase some more and raise them up there.
MR. MACEWAN-How often would you use the manure control?
how often is the stuff going to be trucked away?
I mean,
MR. BECKWITH-Every month.
MR. MACEWAN-Every month. So it hangs around for a month before
it's trucked away.
MR. BECKWITH-Well, it's not like it hangs around. I
talking every month as in cleaning out the housing. unit.
on the ground it just gets trampled into the ground.
mean, I'm
I mean,
MR. MACEWAN-And you say that the shed that they're going to be
kept in will have electric heat?
MR. BECKWITH-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-will that be insulated?
MR. BECKWITH-Yes, it will. When it's finished, it will be.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I did ask one of your neighbors, and he had
no problem with it. The gentleman across the street had no
problem with it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Craig, anything else?
MR. MACEWAN-Not at the moment.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Roger?
MR. RUEL-Yes. As Jim mentioned earlier, this falls under
Agricultural Use, in Chapter 179-63, and, Mr. Beckwith, do you
consider these animals to be farm animals?
MR. BECKWITH-Well, I'm raising them for meat, yes.
MR. RUEL-It's a farm animal?
MR. BECKWITH-Okay. Yes.
MR. RUEL-Well, in this Chapter, we have different classes, A, B,
and C, and in your class, because of the size of your property,
it falls under Class D. Now, would you consider what you're
doing a hobby? Class D is a hobby.
MR. BECKWITH-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Because of the size of your land, under five acres,
you're allowed to raise agricultural products, or keeping large
or small animals, etc., as a hobby.
MR. BECKWITH-Okay. Well, I mean, I don't know what you'd call
it. I mean, I want to raise them for meat and to let my kids
have them for pets, like, you know?
MR. RUEL-Well, I'm just trying to meet the requirements of the
zone, here, right?
MR. BECKWITH-I mean, it's not a business.
No, it's not a
- 12 -
"'"
"-/
'--"
"/
so I guess it would be a hobby.
· RUEL-Okay. You also indicated that it was a, it was a farm
imal.
· BECKWITH-Right.
RUEL-Under this particular Code, Farm Animals
a lowed on farms in excess of 25 acres. That's under
1 032.
are only
C(l) Page
PALING-He's under D, though.
RUEL-But, to me, because of the size of the property~ it
s ems that you're allowed to have, I think the intent of this
dinance that it would be for a hobby, for someone to have dogs,
cats raise things like that as a hobby. I would never
vision a hobby as having swine, you know, pigs. So I don't
actly consider that it would meet the requirements of this
em, as hobby, and secondly, it certainly doesn't meet the
quirement for farm animals, bécause it's under 25 acres. Maybe
can get some direction from Planning Staff, here. It just
ems to me, it'sa small piece of property. It's in a
sidential area. To me, it doesn't fit into this agricultural
e, you know, like a farm, especially pigs.
· BREWER-Okay, Bob, any questions?
PALING-From that standpoint, though, Roger,
d·sagree. I think it's a mammal, and as such,
bby, it can be there. Mr. Beckwith, are you
ere?
I'd have to
I think, is a
going to live
BECKWITH-Yes, I do live there.
PALING-You live there now?
BECKWITH-Yes, we live there.
PALING-Okay. Go back over the drainage again for me, would
please?
BECKWITH~Okay. Well, it's slightly sloped where the pen is.
PALING-Where are you sloping to?
· BECKWITH-South.
PALING-You're sloping south. Okay. The south would be
ward where the street is. You're not going to hit the stréet,
t that would be the direction?
BECKWITH-No. South would be toward, I think it would be
ward the end of my property, the opposite of my house.
MACEWAN-Toward Sherman AVenue.
BECKWITH-Right. It's slightly sloped and then it levels out
wn there, toward the end, probably 30 feet away from 'the
operty line, it levels out down there.
PALING-Okay. What are you going to do to arrest it if
ere's rain and that kind of stuff that pushes on that?
BECKWITH-I really don't know. I mean, everything just seems
seep in. It's all sand. I mean, there's never any flooding
er there or anything.
. PALING-Well, you get rain, like all of us do, and it's going
have an affect to wash this stuff in some direction, and I
- 13 -
'.....,.
-....../
- f/
"
think, as I read the Staff Notes, they would like to see it
contained, not wash back to the corral nor wash toward the street
or another house.
MR. BECKWITH-Right. Well, what we found over at my father's is,
with the corral itself, it just seems to wash up and stays, it
just builds up and levels out everything.
MR. BREWER-All right. Anything else, Bob?
MR. PALING-I don't think so.
MR. MARTIN-Tim, just to address the issue Roger raised, the title
of 179-63 is Agricultural Uses, okay, and then the definition of
Agricultural Use, I'll read it into the record "Any management of
any land for agricultural, the raising of cows, horses, pigs,
poultry and/or other livestock, truc~ gardens, horticulture or
orchards, including the sale of products grown and raised
directly on such land and including the construction, alteration
or maintenance of fences, agricultural roads, agricultural
drainage systems and farm ponds". So I think as Agricultural
Use, if that's the title of the Section under which this is
classified Class D, and pigs are referenced as an agricultural
use.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Has anybody else got any other questions?
MR. PALING-I guess I'd like to add a question, and that's the
smell. In another place we lived, although we didn't live near a
pig farm, friends of ours did, and that was an impossible
situation. They were in court for two or three years, and I
never heard the bit about corn versus garbage. Is there any way
we can get that verified?
MR. BECKWITH-Yes. You could call Mr. Lee Wilson.
MR. PALING-I can't call him now.
MR. BECKWITH-Well, no, not now, but that's the only way I could
verify it.
MR. HARLICKER-I can right it down and give him a call.
MR. BECKWITH-Okay.
MR. HARLICKER-And who's he with?
MR. BECKWITH-He's with the Cor nell COQperative Extension.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. PALING-I have a problem with the drainage and the smell.
MR. BREWER-I agree with you.
MR. PALING-And maybe neither one is going to be a factor, but
that's what ~ questions are.
MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a public hearing, Mr. Beckwith. I
would ask you just to step back ,and let anybody that would like
to comment on that, on this item.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NORMAN CONLEY
MR. CONLEY-My name is Norman Conley. I'm the next door neighbor.
ELIZABETH JOSEPH
- 14 -
y
"-"'
'-..-/
..r'
M s. JOSEPH-I'll identify myself, too. My name is
J seph, Mrs. John Joseph. I live two houses over
B ckwith, on Sherman Avenue. I'm Mr. Conley's
n ighbor.
M . CONLEY....I object to having this pig corral. It's right next
t my line. Now my onlY objection, really, on the start was the
s ell. A few years ago, one of our other neighbors had pigs, and
i the summer time, the wind blows straight from the, it's kind
o northwest, straight to us. We had to close the windows. To
g t rid of it, we just spoke to our Supervisor, he went out
t ere, and the pigs disappeared. Now as far as drainage is
c ncerned, this water, or everything that comes from that
p operty, has got to go down south. It has to drain south. All
t at water that comes from the hill goes down to Sherman Avenue,
wether it's in my property or his property. Those junkyards
t at are there, the water comes right down through them, full of
o 1, all down to Sherman Avenue. That's where the drainage, the
b ggest problem is the smell. Now, that was our biggest, and the
p evailing wind, three quarters of the time, it blows from the
n rthwest down over us.
Elizabeth
from Mr.
next door
M . BREWER-Okay. Thank you.
M JOSEPH-My problem, of course, is the smell, also, and the
f that it's my information that it's difficult to contain
p They root. They dig things up. I mean, that's part of
bing a pig, and they do get loose from time to time, and I don't
w nt pigs on ~ property. Norm mentioned the drainage. It does
c me ,down out of Pasco Avenue to Sherman Avenue, and any time it
r ins, you can see this happening. The drainage then proceeds
e st on Sherman Avenue, past his driveway, and then in unless we
g t out there and dam up our driveway, it's like as not come up
o r driveway and it'll cross our property and get, finally go
i to the ground underneath the pole line, the Niagara Mohawk pole
lOne, there. So any water draining out of that property is going
t go a long distance, and is going to cause a problem. Pigs,
watever you feed them, do have a very distinctive odor, and
t at's just all there is to it. No matter what you feed them,
y u, you've got to, in order to prevent an odor, they must be
k pt scrupulously clean. That means they must be maintained on a
c ncrete, asphalt, bedded in straw, that is removed regularly.
I it's kept in a manure pile, that manure pile has got to be
sipped away on a regular basis. The minute you put pigs in a
c nfined area, on dirt, as Mr. Beckwith mentions, it may appear
t at that ground is very absorbent, and that's the problem. It
w'll absorb. I mean, we're talking about the Glens Falls sand
fats here, and it will absorb, and the pigs will trample the
m nure into the, how much pig husbandry are we going to have to
g t into tonight? Will trample it in, and once that manure is
t ampled into the dirt of their corral, it's there, and in order
t clean it, and properly clean it, you've got to dig out the
d rt. It's not like a horse. I mean, horses don't root around
a d dig things in. Their manure will lie on the top of the
g ound, mixed in with the shavings or straw or whatever they're
b dded on, and you can go in there with a pitchfork and pick it
u. I don't know whether you've ever cleaned a horse stall or
n t, but that's the way it works. It doesn't work that way with
p gs, and we're looking at two pregnant sows here. So suddenly
w 're going to have 15 pigs that are going to be rai~ed up, you
d n't slaughter them until they're 15, 20, 20 pounds. You're
t lking about a lot of pigs, all of a sudden, a good deal more
t an two. How big is this piece of property? It seems to me we
h d somebody, their farm is 25 acres, five acres was mentioned
f r something or other.
M . BREWER-No, I think it was under five acres was the.
M S. JOSEPH-Under five, I see. I think this lot is a good deal.
M . BREWER-Three hundred by one hundred, this lot is.
- 15 -
'"--"
'--
--..-/
MRS. JOSEPH-Yes. We live two lots over, right in the prevailing
wind. We spend, we're accustomed to spending all day every day
out of doors, ,in the summer time. We have grandchildren come
over. We don't have air conditioning., Our windows are open all
the time. I like them like that, and the smell is a really
serious concern to me, and if this were approved, and there were
~ problem with smell. I would be here. I would call, you
know. I would be a real nuisance.
MR. BREWER-You're forewarning us.
MRS. JOSEPH-I think that Norm mentioned that there were pigs a
number of years ago in the lot just toward Sherman Avenue, and it
was an unacceptable situation, absolutely unacceptable.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Jim Martin just gave me this
letter. It's what I was reading. It's from the Cornell
Cooperative Extension. I'm going to ask the Secretary to read it
into the record. It's Site Selection for Swine Facilities, if
you can believe it.
MR. STARK-"Site Selection for Swine Facilities Residential
Housing Locate swine facilities for easy access by farm labor,
but isolate their dust, noise, and odor from the family living
center. In small to medium operations, where swine managers
spend much of their working day elsewhere, place the facilities
convenient to the farm service area. As a rule, locate high-
labor facilities, such as farrowing and nursery buildings, at
least 300' away from the family living area. Put the large
animal facilities, such as finishing and gestation, at least 500'
away. Locate larger operations with full-time personnel even
farther away from the living area because of the greater dust and
odor problems and because labor movement back and forth to the
rest of farmstead is not as important. Production volume and
direction of prevailing summer breezes affect location of swine
facilities with respect to neighbors. Odors from swine units are
often detectable 1/2 mild downwind. Odors from large swine units
are noticeable up to 3 miles away. Some practices affect the
frequency of odor complaints. Open lot systems and irrigation or
broadcast spreading of liquid manure generate more odor than
environmentally controlled buildings and soil-incorporated manure
application. Overloaded or improperly managed lagoons also cause
odor nuisances. Some areas have legally established separation
distances. Regulations may restr ict l,ocati ng swi ne operations
near: Neighboring residences. Public buildings and recreational
areas, Built-up residential areas. What your neighbors see
affects their attitude toward swine operations. A neat, well-
kept operation usually receives fewer complaints than those in
disrepair. Use visual screens, such as trees or buildings, to
hide lagoons and other 'unsightly' areas that remind people of
odor."
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
comment?
JEFF WILD
MR. WILD-My name is Jeff Wild, and I live at 25 Ferris Drive,
Queensbury Forest, which is, according to the prevailing winds,
downwind. The winds come off the Mountain and come across Pasco
Ave. and into Queensbury Forest, and I, and along with 35 other
people who have signed this petition, object to this pig corral,
based on the smell, the noise, and further concerns, now, about
how long the manure will be there. Michael has said that he is
planning on composting part of the manure, which means there will
always be manure on the property, and as far as the noise and the,
smell and the devaluation of our houses, according to it, we
object, and I'd like to submit this for the record.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
- 16 -
'-'
'-..,./.
j
--""
---
R CH DERBISHAW
M . DERBISHAW-My name is Rich Derbishaw. I live at 23 Ferris
Dive, and I've got a prepared thing here, but just if you hear
m out before you stop' me. My property's located di rectl y to the
r ar of the property located on Pasco Road. I've lived here with
m family since 1991, and over the last three years, we've had to
1 ve with all that's associated with living near a junkyard,
w ich is also located on Pasco Avenue. Those things include the
1 ud ringing of telephones, all times of the day and night,
c nstant yelling and screaming from people that either work or
1 ve in that area, and the onslaught of swearing that some times
b gins as early as seven a.m. and continues until evening and
s metimes late hours of the night. We've had to live with the
c nstant revving of car and truck engines for hours at a time,
t e continued squeal of tires and burning rubber as if it was a
r cetrack. In addition to these things, we've had to endure the
n verendi ng bar ki ng' of dogs. These dogs are part of the junkyard
a well as belonging to many residents on Pasco Avenue. One
n ght, we even heard a shot ring out from one of the residences,
s lencing one of those barking dogs. Another incident occurring
j st last Friday, as I raked in my backyard. I looked at my
n ighbor, Jeff's, house and saw approximately five dogs, four of
w ich were pit bulls, standing on my neighbor's front lawn. By
t e time I was able to enter my house and retrieve something to
poteet myself, they had run to the rear of Jeff's property and
o t of site towards Pasco Road. I invite any members of the
Bard here to come to my back yard at any time of the day or
n ght and experience all of what I've just revealed to you. Now
t ere's a proposal for a variance for a pig corral. I don't know
a out the membèrs of the Board, but I've had the unfortunate
e perience of having to live near several pig farms when I was
s ationed overseas when I went in the service. The smell was
u bearable and almost indescribable. In addition to all these
t ings I've stated to you, that we've had to deal with, we're
g ing to compound the problems by possibly allowing a resident to
c nstruct a pig corral. Now I understand that most of these
c mplaints that I've made are something that L:ll have to deal
w"th because I purchaèed a residence at this location, and that
p ople tend to live their lives differently than others. I don't
m an, nor intend, to criticize people for living life the way
t ey do. However, when these people's lives infringe on both my
f mily and my neighbor's lives, I do feel that the line has been
c ossed, and that the Town needs to look out for the best
i terest of the majority of the people, and I do feel that this
p'g corral wbuld be a detriment to the majority of the residents
t at it will affect, and the benefit, if any, would be limited to
a definite minority of the people residing in the area. I feel
t at if this individual wishes to raise livestock, he should be
a le to do so, but not in a residential area. If he desires to
rise livestock, he should relocate to a farm or an area that
w uld permit him to pursue his agricultural interest. The Town
s ould thoroughly review this application for a variance, and all
t e detrimental affects that it would have in the area, and rule
a ainst this application.
M . BREWER-Just one note, it isn't a variance. It's a site plan.
DERBISHAW-Oka~. I stand corrected.
M
M . BREWER-Just for the record, that's all.
LURA WINSLOW
M S. WINSLOW-My name is Laura Winslow. I live at 31 Ferris Drive
i Queénsbury Forest as well. I'm thrée houses down from Jeff
W ld, and though we are not directly behind Pasco Ave., we do,
a so, feel the affects of what is going on on that street. We've
o ly lived on our property for a little over a year, and we have
s all children, as well as most of our neighbors that are
- 17 -
"--"
'--
--.../
directly affected by Pasco Ave. One of my major concerns is not
only the smell and the other obvious affects that these other
people have spoken of, but also the other things that go along
with the garbage and the grain or whatever, the manure, is also
flies and rodents. Again, we have very small children. We've
got enough black flies and every other fly in the area. It's a
lot of forest and wooded area, and that concerns me, too, when
you have manure and grain and things on the groUndi YPu'regoing
to start to attract, who knows, possibly rats and other rodents.
Definitely raccoons. There are things up in that area, skunks,
those are all things that do concern me, especially with rabies
that are going on in this area, and as I said, I have two
children that are three and under, and most everybody else up
there does have very small children, and that really scares me to
think that this could bring in God knows what, and, again, I
agree with everything else that these other people have said, and
I definitely don't want this in my back yard either. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank YQU. Is there anyone else?
STEVE DETFORD
MR. DETFORD-My name's Steve Detford. I own the adjoining
property to the north, and the only problem I see is I'm having
trouble, now, getting finances from the bank because of the
junkyards. (Lost word) somehow provide, let him have his pigs if
he could provide a fence in order to hide them from public view.
That would be satisfactory with me, and that's about it, short
and sweet. Thanks.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Scott~ have you got a
couple of letters?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I've got a few letters here. This is to the
Planning Board Town of Queensbury, "Dear Sir: As a property
owner bordering an application to place a pig corral on Pasco
Ave. I wish to object to this proposal. This is residential
property and only our fence separates these properties - from
which we are down wind. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. (Calista) Norman Conley" This is one from,
it's "As an owner of land near Pasco Avenue, I object to the
proposal. This area on Pasco Avenue should be cleaned up rather
than further degraded. A pig corral is a totally inappropriate
use of land in this area. I wonder how many members of the
planning board or town board have ever driven on Pasco Avenue?
Let's improve the liveability of this neighborhood. Thank you, A
Near-Neighbor Anne L. Betters" This is to, regarding the same
application, "Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for advising me of the
November 15, 1994 Public Hearing regarding Mr. Beckwith's
application to build a pig corral at 20 Pasco Avenue.
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the hearing so I'm writing
to express my strongest possible objection to this proposal. It
is incomprehensible to even consider approval of this sort of
operation so near such large residential neighborhoods as
Queensbury Forest and Pheasant Walk. Pasco Avenue itself is
already a pigsty but that does not mean we should allow real
four-legged pigs to reside there! When was the last time you
drove down Pasco Avenue? I would bet money you would not venture
out of your car. In my younger days, I worked on a farm in the
Midwest and I can tell you from experience that pig manure is one
of the most foul smelling odors imaginable. My residence backs
up to the property in question and I can guarantee you that my
back yard and deck would be useless all summer long. In fact, on
warm summer nights we wouldn't even be able to have our windows
open, especially if there was a slight breeze from the south. It
is not just my residence that would suffer the consequences of
such an operation. As I mentioned earlier, all of Queensbury
Forest and Pheasant Walk residential areas would be affected by
the stench. I am confident you will hear from other residents of
these communities voicing similar objections. I look forward to
- 18 -
--.
~'
'--
--.../
t is proposal being nipped in the bud immediately. Thank you for
y ur assistance. Sincerely, Ronald J. Lais, 27 Ferris Drive
Q eensbury, NY 12804"
M. BREWER-Okay.
haring's closed.
Last chance, anyone else?
Okay.
Public
P SLIC HEARING CLOSED
M . BREWER-Okay. We've got to do a SEQRA.
M . ' MACEWAN- "Could action result in any adverse affects
a sociated with the following: existing air quality, surface or
g oundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
p tterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for
e osion, drainage or flooding problems?"
M . RUEL-Yes.
M . BREWER-We have to explain what we're talking about.
M . MACEWAN-Do you want to go each one?
M . RUEL-'Yes.
M MACEWAN-All right, the first one, then, Existing air quality?
M . RUEL-Yes.
BREWER-Air quality would be affected by the odor from.
MACEWAN-Manuré.
BREWER-Just put pig pen.
MACEWAN-Surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
PALING-Yes.
M . MACEWAN-The same reason.
BREWER-How can you say the same reason why they're not even
same question?
M. MACEWAN-Existing air quality, the results, it would be
a fected because of the existence of thé pig corral.
M . RUEL-And the manure.
MACEWAN-The potential for the groundwater would be from the
me result.
M . BREWER-All right.
M
MACEWAN-Noise levels?
M . BREWER-No.
M . MACEWAN-Existing traffic patterns?
M
BREWER-No.
M . MACEWAN-Solid waste production or disposal?
M
PALING-Yes.
M . MACEWAN-The same reason.
M. BREWER-So we're saying, solid
d·sposal. All right.
waste production and/or
- 19 -
'-'"
~
--
-,--,,'
MR. MACEWAN-Potential fo.
problems?
erosion, drainage,
or flooding
MR. BREWER-I would say, not.
MR. MACEWAN-C2 is "Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological,
historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or
neighborhood character?"
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Yes, it would be affected.
MR. PALING-Aesthetically.
MR. RUEL-It affects the community, the area, the character of the
area.
MR. BREWER-The character of the neighborhood, I mean, it goes
right back to, One, the Air quality. So it would be, I think, a
negative affect.
MR. MACEWAN-"Growth, subsequent development, or
activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?
related
MR. PALING-Does that say, growth?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. "Growth, subsequent development, or related
activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?"
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RUEL--Yes.
MR. BREWER-You would say yes? No.
affected by a pig farm?
How is growth going to be
MR. PALING-Moving in to the neighborhood.
MR. BREWER-That's not growth. That's an existing neighborhood.
It's not going to prevent growth, I don't think.
MR. RUEL-Why not? Aren't there some empty lots there?
MR. BREWER-I think not.
MR. MACEWAN-No. I don't think it would be affected. "Is there
or is there likely to be controversy .elated to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Explain.
MR. BREWER-I would say, yes.
groundwater quality. I think,
would say air quality.
The existing quality of
not groundwater quality,
ai r ,
but I
MR. MACEWAN-Now we need to go back and determine whether they're
substantially large or they can be mitigated, or what, on Cland
C2. Cl is Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality
0'- quantity.
MR. RUEL-I say it cannot be mitigat~d.
MR. MACEWAN-Solid waste production or disposal?
MR. RUEL-It's possible it could be mitigated.
MR. BREWER-That could be mitigated by, continuous removal, I
- 20 -
'"--,,
'-../
,-"
-...-J'
'-'~
· HARLICKER-Okay. If you continue the removal of manure, would
at also impact air quality?
· PALING-Air quality?
MACEWAN-Based on what the applicant's saying, that it would
feet the air quality, because you're constantly upkeeping the
n and taking care of it, but from the information we got from
rnell, and that fax that was read into the record, they're
ying just the opposite. They're saying no matter how well you
ean it on a daily basis, it doesn't matter. You're still going
have the odor there.
· HARLICKER-Yes.
· MACEWAN-So I think that you can get rid of the solid waste,
t you're not going to get rid of the odor.
we're saying air quality would be affected either
· STARK-Even when they said that it was a small operation, this
(lost word) municipal operation, as far as, you know, you're
ly talking one or two pigs.
· BREWER-Yes, but they're both pregnant, George, and if they
th hàve six.
MACEWAN-No. He sold them.
BREWER-He sold them?
MACEWAN-But he is talking three.
PALING-He has no pigs now. Those were sold.
STARK-I don't know what Cooperative Exchange means when they
y a small operation, 50 pigs, 100 pigs?
BREWER-I don't know. How many pigs did George have up there?
· HARLICKER-Half a dozen or so.
MARTIN-Yes, I think he had between six and ten, that
ighborhood. It changed from day to day.
M . MARTIN-And I know Keith Harris wasn't that much either. He
d"dn't have that many. He had between six and ten, I think.
T ose are our only two previous precedents to draw on, here.
· MACEWAN-But from the standpoint of the Assessment Form, it
esn't matter whether it's a business, it's a hobby or
o herwise. We're just going by what he plans on having there
w"th what he told us in his application. So, basically, I'm
g ing through this, and in ~ mind, I'm basing this 'on the Tact
tìat he wants to have three pigs.
BREWER-I don't know, George.
's small, medium or large?
How do you determine whether
· PALING-I don't think it makes any difference.
· BREWER-By no means is it medium or large.
S. LABOMBARD-It's small. It's not a business. It's a hobby.
· BREWER-Yes, but if we do this, we can't limit it, can we? I
an, don't we have to do this on the worst case scenario, Mark?
- 21 -
'---"
---,'
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but isn't the application, I haven't seen the
application, but I thoVght it specified a number?
MR. BREWER-It doesn't say to be limited to.
MR. RUEL-What's the quantity of pigs have to do with it?
MR. BREWER-Well, description of project, build a pig corral and
housing. That's all it says. It doesn't say a number, so we
have to go on the worst case scenario. I mean, he could have 50
pigs there, George.
MR. RUEL-No. They wouldn't fit in there.
MR. BREWER-All right. Lets move on.
MR. MACEWAN-Did you satisfactorily answer Cl?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
Can be mitigated?
C2 was aesthetic or neighborhood character.
MR. BREWER-Aesthetically it could be.
MR. PALING-It could be, but it would be very difficult.
MR. BREWER-Neighborhood character? I would say, yes, it could be
mitigated.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. C3, C4, C5 were all fine, right?
MR. BREWER-That's it.
MR. MACEWAN-C6 also was a no. C7
there likely to be controversy
environmental impacts, was a yes.
was a no. D, Is there or is
related to potential adverse
MR. BREWER-And that was air quality.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Right.
MR. BREWER-This means we're going to make them do a full EAF for
a pig corral?
MR. MACEWAN-It looks like where it's going. I can't see how you
can circumvent it.
MR. BREWER-You don't, I guess.
applicant what this means?
Jim, could you explain to the
MR. MARTIN-The Board just went through an Environmental
Assessment of your proposal, and the way their headed is they're
looking for more information from you as to the way you would
address some of their concerns, and a Way by which that could be
done is there is another more longer form that you can fill out
that gives you an opportunity to address those concerns in
detail, and I think that's the next option here, short of an
Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. BREWER-We can do that, or we can go on and make a motion, or
do we have to wait and get this EAF?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, under law, you have to make some type of
SEQRA determination, and I agree with whichever Board member just
said that the direction you appear to be headed is that you're
not finding, based on just ~ Short Form EAF, that there are no
potentially sig~ificant adverse environmental impacts. So,
therefore, if you determine that some of these impacts ~
- 22 -
"----'
--....../
-J
"'-
p tentially significant, you have two choices, and they are to
r quire a Long Form EAF, or to require a Full Environmental
I pact statement, but you have to do something, in terms of SEORA
c mpliance, before you make your motion to approve or deny.
M . BREWER-I think if we do a Long Form EAF, I don't think it's
g ing to change the outcome of the SEQRA; myself. I think if we
9 to an Environmental Impact Statement, I think we're kind of.
M OBERMAYER-Putting too much on the applicant.
M . BREWER-I've got to believe so.
M RUEL-We have indicated here tonight that some items cannot be
m tigated. How does the Long Form help, or how do the applicant
h ve an opportunity to do anything about that?
M. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm not suggesting that the Long Form does
h lp, and I have no idea if the applicant can or cannot provide
y u with any information to satisfy those concerns. I'm just
t lling you what the law says.
M . BREWER-If we determine that we need an EAF, can we go ahead,
t en, and make a motion?
M. SCHACHNER-No, because you
p nchline.
won't have reached a SEORA
. RUEL-That doesn't make sense to me.
M PALING-Would an alternative be to poll the Board so the
a plicant knows what the thinking is, and then let him possibly
t ke some action which would avoid that process?
. BREWER-Sure, but I think that he has to understand that I,
go ahead, Bob. You start.
PALING-Okay. My inclination would be to vote asainst, and
the following reasons, that the applicant hasn't demonstrated
firm way to control odor~ drainage, containing the pigs
emselves, has not stated a number, a maximum number of pigs, I
n't think, that would be there at one time, and does not seem
comply with the Cornell Extension recommendation and it
esn't seem to fit the character of the neighborhood area.
ose are the doubts I have, and if I were going to change, I'd
w nt to see some action taken to correct them.
BREWER-Roger?
M. RUEL-I would deny the application, and the
p"edicated on possible odors, etc., emanating
c rral, located in a residential area.
denial would be
from the pig
BREWER-Okay. Craig?
M . MACEWAN-I agree with everything that Bob said, and to top
t at, I would like to know from the applicant, I'd like to see
d sign specifications for not only the corral but for the
s ructure that will house the pigs and how it was going to be
b ilt, how it was going to be maintained, and I also would like
t know from the applicant a maximum number of pigs that you plan
o having on this property. That's it.
M . BREWER-Cathy?
M S. LABOMBARD-I would be inclined to vote against it, on the
p emise that there were an awful lot of people that did express
t eir concerns, and the concept where we have to really watch out
f r the majority of the citizens. We just can't let them
e perience discomfort because of a few others, and I agree with
- 23 -
'-
,-,'
'-.,
----'
all the things that Bob said at the beginning. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Jim?
MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with everything everybody has said so far
on, theaq~~d~ and I would vote to deny this also. I feel that
pigs do not belong in residential areas.
MR. BREWER-George?
MR. STARK-I'd go along with everything Bob said. I think that,
for the applicant to go ahead and do an Environmental Impact
Statement would be fruitless.
MR. BREWER-Okay, and myself, I agree with everything that's been
said. I don't think it's in harmony with the general
neighborhood. Although that particular neighborhood, that
particular street is kind of run down and there are junkyards
there, who are we to say that they can't have junkyards, but on
the same hand, behind there is development of some nice houses,
and I don't think it's beneficial to them to have a pig corral
there. I think a place could be found, and there's plenty of
places in. the Town, and I just don't believe that they belong in
the neighborhood. So I guess, I think you have a sense of where
the Board wants to go with this.
MR. BECKWITH-Well, personally, I don't think these guys know very
much about pigs, but since there are so many people that are
opposing it, I guess I can understand that.
MR. BREWER-If you want, we can go on to a Full EAF. You can fill
that out and gather more information, if you'd like to, and bring
it back to us, and if you can convince us, or show us, that it
won't be a negative affect on the people, then possibly you could
have them.
MR. BECKWITH-No. That's all right, because, obviously, these
guys aren't knowledged on them, I guess. You just sit there and
pass judgement, like these two guys here sit here laughing before
I even had a chance to say anything. As soon as I walked in, I
could tell they were saying.
MR. BREWER-Sir, I guess, our lack of education, this would give
you the opportunity to educate us. I don't have a problem with
anybody raising pigs, but I just don't think it's appropriate in
that neighborhood. That's ~ opinion, and if you'd like to, we
could go on, or whatever you'd like to do.
MR. BECKWITH-I'm finished. I mean, I don't want to have all
these neighbors all steamed up and stuff.
MR. CÖNLEY-I don't want to have him call me ignorant about
raising pigs. I was raised on a farm.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
each other, you
to run. Thank
application, sir?
Lets keep the debate, if you want to debate
can go outside afterward, but we have a meeting
you very much. Are you withdrawing your
MR. BECKWITH-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we note that for the record.
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
COLUMBIA QUEENSBURY GROUP OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A
LOCATION: SOUTH OF CAREY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A +/- 34
ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS' OF 19.08 ACRES AND 14.28 ACRES. TAX MAP
NO. 146-1-6 LOT SIZE: +/- 34 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV.
REGULATIONS
- 24 -
',---,
'--./
-.-/
''-'
L ON STEVES
tes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE,
lumbia Queensbury Group, November 15, 1994 "PROJECT ANA~Y$IS:
aff's main concerns relate to access to the rear parcel.
cording to the Zoning Code Section 179-70, the 40 feet of
ontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot
be built upon, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the
t by emergency vehicles. It is difficult to imagine how the
oposed frontage will satisfy this requirement because of the
ep ravine. The applicant has indicated that daily access to
e site will be provided via a deeded ROW across the front
operty but that ROW is not shown on the plat. The Town must
so give permission for the applicant to construct an extension
the existing road so that they can meet the frontage on a
blic road requirement. Because of the lot's location, it could
difficult to get water service. The existing ravine will pose
oblems for development as well as access. The Native Textiles
ilding was iequired to be 100 feet from the ravine so the same
s andard should apply to the rear parcel. When this is combined
w'th the )-equired 50 foot buffer, the developable area is
s gnificantly reduced."
AFF INPUT
HARLICKER-There was also a resolution from the Town Board.
HARLICKER-Yes. "NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town
ard hereby agrees and affirms that the portion of Town property
c nnecting the un-named Town road to the southeastern boundary of
C>lumbia's proposed Lot is held for the purpose of being used as
a Town road, and be it further RESOLVED, that such property shall
b reserved for this purpose and be it further RESOLVED, that
t e Town Board indicates that Columbia may construct a road on
t e property if needed for the development of the subdivision
p ovided the same is built to Town specifications in effect at
t e time the road is constructed and provided further that
propriate certificates of insu,"ance are furnished to the Town
that the Town reviews and approves the construction of the
ad, and be it further that the Town Board hereby requests that
e Planning Board approval of Columbia Subdivision includés a
ndition that no development will occur on Lot 2 u~less and
til such road is completed, and be it further Resolved, that
thing contained in this resolution shall be interpreted as
eventing the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury from
ranging for construction of the road should it ever decide to
nstruct such road and it is also recognized that nothing in
is resolution shall prohibit or prevent the carrying out of the
evious agreement with Columbia and QEDC that a small portion of
e road that exists on this parcel will in fact be built by
lumbia. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1994"
BREWER-Can we put a copy of that in for the record, in the
le?
HARLICKER-Yes, it is.
BREWER-And, basically, that motion says it's okay to.
MARTIN-Well, why don't we read the resolve clauses, at least.
BREWER-Yes, would you please.
. BREWER-Okay.
mments made?'
Leon,' do you want 'to address any df the
,
,
. STEVE9-1 think Scott -just did~ and in addres~ing the access
the frontage on the Town road, the Town hàs granted per~ission
r Columbia to build that.
- 25 -
'--
'----'"
'-
--.-/
MR. BREWER-Okay.
As far as Scott's other comments about the.
MR. HARLICKER-How are you going to provide access to that rear
parcel?
MR. STEVES-Okay. That could be, well, either I or Mr. Rosen, who
is here tonight, could answer that question.
RICH ROSEN
MR. ROSEN-If you don't mind, I could just quickly. Basically,
what we would do is we would grant an easement, along the
property this way, and to the rear of the site that way, and
that's how access would be gained. Due to the ,-avine, obviously
the contours shown on the map that you have before you show that
to cross back here would. be virtually impossible. So then we
would grant easements to access the rear site, through this side
of the property, and the basic reason we're here for this
subdivision tonight is we're going through a process right now,
with different financial institutions. First of all, we have a
construction loan to build the Native site, and, eventually, we
will have a long term lender come in and finance the project.
This way, Marina Midland, right now, is the construction lender.
They have what's called First Position on the entire piece of
property. So if there ever was a foreclosure, they would get the
entire piece of property and whatever structure was there. Now
if we subdivide it, first position would be given to US Life, who
is going to be the long term lender, and then the QEDC would have
Second Position. So, if there ever was a foreclosure, the OEDC
would be second, and then our lender would be first. So if there
was any claims or such, US Life would have them. This way, if we
subdivide the property, and we have two separate parcels, QEDC
would have First Position on the undeveloped piece of property
back here, and they would be the only mortgage on that piece of
property. So that's basically why we want to subdivide the
property.
MR. PALING-Then you'd have shared access? The two parcels would
share the access, then?
MR. ROSEN-As far as, we would grant ourselves an easement along
this property, if we ever did want to gain access to the rear of
the site.
MR. BREWER-So what you're doing is, you're subdividing it so QEDC
can have first option on this 19.08 acres if?
MR. ROSEN-Yes, the undeveloped parcel in the back, that's
co,-rect.
MR. BREWER-Why would QEDC want an option if you were paying them
for the land? Did you pay QEDC for the land?
MR. ROSEN-No.
for 20 years.
They're holding a note.
They're holding a note
MR. BREWER-So why wouldn't you
we have a right, even, to get
that's none of our business.
want them, well, I don't
into the finances of it.
know if
I mean,
MR. RUEL-Could you kindly repeat what you said, the purpose of
this subdivision, perhaps in different terms? I'm lost.
MR. ROSEN-Sure. Basically, instead of having one piece of
property, you would have two pieces of property, and the reason
there would be an advantage for having two separate pieces of
property is you would have one piece of property with a developed
building on it, and you'd have a second piece of property that
would be undeveloped. Now the OEDC has a, you know, has given us
a 20 year note for the entire piece of property. If we don't cut
- 26 -
'--'
.........,-
"-"
--../
t e property into two, the long term lender for the majority the
m ney that is being used to build this facility would have the
r ght to the entire site. In other words, they would have the
d veloped area and the undeveloped area.
M . RUEL-And what's wrong with that?
M . ROSEN-Well, it's not to QEDC's advantage.
M . OBERMAYER-But isn't it to Columbia's advantage to subdivide
i so they can develop the other parcel?
M . ROSEN-In the future, if that was, yes, if that was to happen,
y s.
M . BREWER-So that's the bottom line, not really to protect the
Q DC.
M ROSEN-Well, there's two things here.
M BREWER-I'm kind of confused as to the reason. I don't really
k10w if you have to have a reason to subdivide, do you?
M
OBERMAYER-No.
BREWER-So I don't think that really comes into play here.
M MACEWAN-I guess the only question L would have is, why
w ren't we aware that there was a potential that there was going
t be a subdivision taking place at the time of Site Plan review?
BREWER-We asked about that, and they said there was.
MAtEWAN~The answer we were given because they wanted to
tain that back portion of the property to put on a couple of
ndred thousand square foot warehouse facility in the future.
M . ROSEN-Well, I can assure you that at this time, there is no
panned development for this rear piecé of property. It's not
l"ke we're going to be in Thursday or next week.
BREWER-Three months ago, what we we're saying is three months
a 0 there was no plan for a subdivision, or future development.
ROSEN-Well, it's kind of tough to get your financing in line
d your commitments without an approved Site Plan. So this is
mething that, you know, it's a snowballing effect as you get
rther and further down into the project. These details come
u .
M . BREWER-All right. If you were going to develop that back
p"ece of property, how would you get across the ravine?
ROSEN-That would be something that we'd have to address in
o r next Site Plan approval, if we ever came in.
BREWER-I guess my thought to that is, that we work so hard to
poteet that ravine, and I think the only way to access across it
i" to fill it. I think we talked to Nature Conservancy and they
c me up with a plan to protect the Lupine and whatever else is in
t ere, and now we're saying, okay, lets split it up so that you
c n cross it some time and fill it in, and I think that
d teriorates the plan that we had with Nature Conservancy, in ~
m·nd.
. ROSEN-Okay, and I would just say that, again, this is just a
bdivision. We're not coming in for a Site Plan approval.
're not here to discuss filling in the ravine. We have no
tentions. As you know, we work very hard, along with Nature
nservancy and the Town of Queensbury, to protect that ravine,
- 27 -
.~
~
....-'
to protect the Lupine, and basically what we're
financial purposes.
here for is for
MR. BREWER-Okay. George, any questions? Jim? Cathy? Craig?
MR. MACEWAN-I
creating flag
frowned upon
cha nged?
guess for Staff. What is our current policy on
shaped lots? I know at one time it was severely
creating those kinds of lots. Has our position
MR. MARTIN-It's still not preferred. I can tell you that. When
I was on the Board, I was one of the biggest ones against that.
I can't deny that, but nonetheless, this does meet the
requirements. That's all I can tell you. There's nothing in the
Code that disallows them or anything like that.
MR. MACEWAN-No, but we have denied previous applicants flag
shaped lots, and the one I can think of is the Walker Lane.
MR. BREWER-I don't think we've ever, I don't know if we've ever
denied them because they were flag shaped,
MR. MACEWAN-We told them we wanted it restructured, redesigned.
MR. BREWER-Not many times.
myself.
I agree with you.
I don't like it,
MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm perplexed as to why this plan, all of a
sudden, has developed in the span of three months.
MR. BREWER-Financing.
significantly reduce
would you be talking?
Scott, when
the developable
you say that it would
area, how significantly
MR. HARLICKER-Well, you've got to imagine, what is this scale,
one to one hundred. So imagine a one inch on the west side of
that, top of the ravine, all along that west side of the ravine,
and then a half inch line going along the property line on the
left there. That's how it would be restricted, if you follow the
same guidelines that were set forth with Site Plan review during
Native Textiles.
MR. RUEL-Plus having to have access to it across the ravine
somewhere, right?
MR. BREWER-I just think, bottom line, it's an undevelopable piece
of property. Okay. Anything else, Craig?
MR. MACEWAN-No.
MR. BREWER-Roger?
MR. RUEL-No, just the question about the 100 feet from the ravine
for building, and a 50 foot buffer, you indicated would leave
very little buildable area, and then it would be the problem of
crossing the ravine, which is about, what, 30 feet deep?
MR. BREWER-I think it's only 20, isn't it?
MR. PALING-No. It's 30 or more.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's a 50 foot drop.
MR. RUEL-That's the buildable area? I see.
MR. HARLICKER-Inside it.
MR. RUEL-And plus you'd have to gain access to that area.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
- 28 -
'",--, .
--../
'--"
~
M RUEL-Yes. That's not part of this application, though.
M . BREWER-Why would we want to fill it in, though?
M S. LABOMBARD-Ravines have been filled in before.
M . BREWER-But I think, hand in hand with the plan from Native
T xtiles, we've tried to preserve what's in that ravine.
M S. LABOMBARD-I understand.
M . BREWER-So, what was the sense of having them preserve it?
W y didn't we just tell them to fill it in back then?
M . RUEL-Well, he's not going to fill it in now. You mean to
c oss it?
M . BREWER-No. I'm saying she's saying to fill it in.
M S. LABOMBARD-I'm playing the Devil's advocate, here.
M . OBERMAYER-There's no plan, right now, though. We're just
1 oking at the subdivision and saying, (lost word) the property.
right back to the plan that we just
You have to look at the worst case
M . BREWER-Right, but go
1 oked at before, Jim.
s enario.
M . OBERMAYER~Was the Queensbury Economic Development Corp. aware
t at the property was going to be subdivided, (lost word)
p rchased, they were aware?
M . ROSEN-Yes, they are. They are now.
M OBERMAYER-Okay. Were they aware when they sold the property
t Columbia?
ROSEN-To be honest, I don't know.
M OBERMAYER-Of course, that's an important factor, really.
C lumbia's now going to turn around, subdivide, sell of the other
1 t, payoff the Note to the Town of Queensbury.
ROSEN-I don't think we can do that.
BREWER-I don't think the finances should come into play,
re, Jim. I think that's none of our business, and I think
w 've been advised of that before.
this moment, this is
strictly a subdivision
RUEL-At
plication.
BREWER-Right.
RUEL-If, later on, you come in with a site application, then
ese other factors~that we mentioned would probably come up.
ROSEN-That's correct.
RUEL-It's hard to ignore at this time, however.
M
M. BREWER-Okay. Has anybody else got any
b fore I open the public hearing? Okay. I'll
h aring. Is there anyone who wishes to comment?
other questions,
open the public
P
HEARING OPENED
PINEY TUCKER
M . TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road, Oueensbury. I guess the
tOme was about three months ago that we were all here when this
- 29 -
-'-'
-..-/
----"
'-"
project was first talked about, and I believe these two ladies
were here. There weren't very many of us here, but I believe at
that time we were told that the entire piece was going to be
obligated to Native Textiles, and these ladies were concerned
about the buffer zone that backed up to their property, and we
were told that it would remain a buffer zone. Now, if the
Economic Development Corporation has gotten themselves into a
situation where their investment isn't going to be protected, I
don't think that landowners and tax payers in this area of the
Town should be required to bail them Qut, and that's what looks
like is happening here. Does anybody know who this Columbia
Queensbury Group development is? The. original application was
Columbia Development Corporation. Who's in this Queensbury
Group?
MR. MARTIN-Rich would have to answer that. What is that?
MR. ROSEN-First of
Corporation. There is
Queensbury Group is, I
the property right now.
all, there's no Columbia Development
a Columbia Development Group, and Columbia
believe, a limited partnership that owns
MR. TUCKER-Do you know who they are?
MR. ROSEN-Who they are?
record.
No, but I'm pretty sure it's public
MR. BREWER-The finances are none of our business. I just want to
stress that, that we have no control over what they do with their
money. It's their money. It's not ours.
MR. TUCKER-Well, the point I'm bringing up, we dealt with one
group on the original thing. Now we're dealing with another
group. Does this mean that what we were told by the other group
doesn't amount to a hill of beans, or what?
MR. BREWER-I can answer it. I mean, Léon Steves has said before,
always leave your options open, and that's what they've done. I
can't hate them for that. I don't have to like what they're
doing. I don't have to agree with what they're doing, but they
have a right to do it. It's just a fact of life.
MR. TUCKER-And you've got a right to stop it, the facts of life.
MR. BREWER-That's right.
MR. TUCKER-Thank you.
DAVID COLVIN
MR. COLVIN-My name is David Colvin. I live on 474 Merritt Road,
which is on the end of, right off the property that Native
Textiles owns now, where they built the plant. I live right on
the very end house, Now, they have a little buffer zone, on the
map it's very deceiving, maybe 100 yards, if that at the most.
Now he's talking about going in to the main road that the Town
constructed for them already, and going up the side of that
property, then going across the back of it, then to go across
where the lupine is and that. If they go across the back of
that, they're going to be going right across, almost, the back of
my property with a road, with their building. I have two small
children who are just a year old now, and all the neighborhood
kids have had a bike trail there for at least 20 years. If they
do that, that no longer ex ists.. Plus, like they said, when they
first bought the property, what we heard, they can't get to the
other property without crossing th~ ravine and that, so why would
they, they're actually cutting off the property to develop it.
They're making a dead lot, if they can't get across that ravine,
and that's why it was (lost word) across. I mean, it was right,
that's what the Board decided, that you would not touch that
- 30 -
''---'
--../
---'
--../'
r vine. There was supposed to be a 50 foot buffer zone. They
c n cut it in half. I mean, you said, they have the right to cut
t at property in half, but it does not make any sense for them to
d it if they can't get to it to develop it. So why should it
9 , I mean, why would it happen? They're not bargaining in good
f ith. That's why I would say right there. I work~d for Native
T xtiles. I know what they do out there. If you go out there
rOght now and look what they do, where they're parking the
tucks, where they've got the new building plant, right now, you
c n not back a 45 foot trailer across that. I drive a truck. I
k ow this. They'd have to go way out to the woods, this is my
b ck yard, and for them to try to, I m~an, the bridge they would
h ve to construct for me to drive a semi across that ravine would
b like the overpass on the Northway, more or less. I mean,
t ere's no way they should be able to do that.
M . BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
C RISTINE SEARS
M . SEARS-Christine Sears. I live on Stevens Road. My property
b rders the back edge of this, and I was here at the first
meting, when we were told, and I very clearly remember being
t ld that they had no intent of subdividing that lot, and that it
w s all going to be left natural, and that that was not a
c ncern, and I fail to understand how they are given an okay for
a site plan on that basis, and then later they can come down the
r ad and say, well, we've changed our minds. We're going to
s bdivide it. What about the other residents here? I mean, I
a ree with you. That ravine has some of the most gorgeous
f liage. It's a beautiful place. Those woods are just gorgeous
b ck through there, and to see it just destroyed, eventually, by,
G d forbid, as he suggested, a concrete overpass, or whatever. I
m an, I find it hard to believe that they didn't know that they
w re going to subdivide this to start with, whatever the reason.
I don't even care what the reason is, but if it's going to be
d ne, I mean, maybe there's nothing we can do to stop it, but I'm
g ing to put in my two cents on it anyway.
M . BREWER-Thank you.
B RBARA MELVILLE
M. MELVILLE-Hi. I'm Barbara Melville. I also live on Stevens
R ad, next door to Chris Sears, and my property backs up to the
1 nd Native Textiles bought. I really do feel a sense of de ja
v Three months ago, I was here saying that Queensbury Is a
p ace of natural beauty, and we put it on our stationary, and
i 's our Town letterhead, and that this piece of property that as
s ld to Columbia Development happens to be one of the lovelier
sots along the Hudson River, with a good native woodland, and it
h s been used as an informal and very pleasurable recreational
a ea for probably more than 20 years. I've been here 20 years,
a d people were using it avidly before then, everything from
h nters to Sunday families to kids on dirt bikes and ponies and
y u name it. So I was unhappy when this was threatened in the
fOrst place, but I realize that the sale has gone through, and
t is property belongs to the people who bought it. There is not
m ch I can do. If I had a vote, I would vote no, but I don't
h ve a vote. The one point I would like to mention~ in view of
t e good faith or'bad faith of this company has somewhat to do
w·th the abruptness of which the site plan was changed, and the
p rposes were shifted from the original, when we were told about,
m house mate works from home and noticed, back last spring,
b fore the snow was off the ground, surveying teams working
b hind my property and busily tagging the 'woods and putting up
m rkers. He was amazed because they were there so many days and
wen, later, we found out that the property was being sold, I
fOgured out that was why, and he said it was his feeling that
t ere was much more surveying work being done then than was
- 31 -
.'-"
.------
'--'
-'
necessary to establish a line, say, between my property and the
property that would be sold to provide for Native Textiles, and I
can't say anything about this. I don't know, but I just wonder
if this was, perhaps, in the works that far back. If so, the
tags are still there in the woods, we could see how much was
actually done. I do feel that this company, which two weeks
after that first hearing, three months ago, went in and clear cut
a huge swathe of woodland, and was then required to pay for the
lumber they had disposed of before the deal went through, this
company has acted in bad faith. I feel if this particular site
change is okayed today, in another three months, they'll be back,
and we'll all be a lot less happy, and there'll be a lot less we
can do about it. Thank you.
MR. STARK-Ms. Melville, back when this originally went through,
there was a lot of concern on the Board, by the Chairman and
other people, about that ravine and keeping it the way it is, and
these guys would do this and that, and so on and so forth. Even
if this went through now, they would have to come back for a site
plan review for any further construction back there, and I know
the Board would take a very negative view of anything happening
to that ravine, period. I don't know whether or not that
alleviates your concerns that much or what. As far as I'm
concerned, nothing would ever interfere with that ravine.
MR. BREWER-Then I would say to you, George, that if nothing would
interfere with the ravine, the only piece of property they could
use is that right there.
MR. RUEL-It's useless.
MR. BREWER-I'm just making a point. That's all.
MR. STARK-As far as I'm concerned, there's no property on that
other flag shaped lot that they can use.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. STARK-I can understand the reasoning for the splitting of it,
for reasons that are not our concern, but I can't see any
construction going on back there at .ll.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment?
GEORGE HAVILAND
MR. HAVILAND-Good evening. My name is George Haviland. I'm a
resident of Stevens Road. My property is a little bit north of
the subdivision. I wasn't at the first meeting. My concern,
here, is that, what's to prevent them, over time, of subdividing
that left lot into another parcel, and while not touching the
ravine, maybe developing around it, so that it eventually loses
any value it had, as a natural beauty spot, so that, over time,
they can say there's really no value left, that we've developed
on both sides of it. There's really no reason why we shouldn't
do that, and I guess I'm just asking the question. I'm not su"e.
If they took the left hand lot, the one that they're trying to
subdivide, I'm not sure where that ravine runs.
MR. BREWER-It runs the whole length of it, the whole length of
the property.
MR. HAVILAND-Okay.
MR. RUEL-You can only gain access by crossing it, on that
prope,-ty.
MR. HAVILAND-On ~ end of that?
MR. RUEL-Right.
- 32 -
"---
'-""
',,-,
....J
M HAVILAND-Okay.
M . BREWER-Or, it's possible that they could buy.
M HAVILAND-Yes. What about the lots in front of that?
M BREWER-What's the name of this street here?
M . MELVILLE-Merritt Road.
M MACEWAN-No. That would be over on Eagan Road.
M
BREWER-It's possible.
MACEWAN-They could get in off Eagan Road.
M . RUEL-On the west side?
M . BREWER-Yes.
M. HAVILAND-I'm just concerned that the possibility of, over
tOme, kind of eroding that whole area, piece by piece, so that
t e ravine really doesn't have any value to it.
M
BREWER-Okay.
HAVILAND-So then it's easy to say, fill it in, if the thing
no value. It's just a hole. That would be ~ concern.
M
BREWER-Okay.
HAVILAND-Thank you.
BREWER-Thank you.
mment?
Is there anyone else who would like to
ROLYN COURVILLE
. COURVILLE-My name is Carolyn Courville, and I live on Merritt
ad. I live on the very end. As a matter of fact, I can see
e back of the building through my lot out there, and I am very
ch concerned that this road where I live on may be used as an
cess to their building, and I deeply disapprove of it, and do
t want it to happen. I've lived there for 20 years. It's been
nice, quiet neighborhood, until they moved in, and we've had a
t of problems since, with the noise that's been going on, with
em cutting down thé trees. You can feel the vibration of them
p unding, building their building, and I'm just very much in
d"sapproval of it. Thank you.
PALING-Ms. Courville, where are you located?
COURVILLE-At 475, the last house on the end.
PALING-Along here. Okay. Thank you.
BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment?
TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road, Queensbury. I,
rsonally, think that Columbia Development Group got a very nice
x deal on this total package, and my question is, if the
operty becomes, or you subdivide the property, that the piece
at is no longer associated with Native Textiles will go back on
e tax rolls. Can anybody answer that?
OBERMAYER-Can it go back on the tax roll for that?
M
TUCKER-Yes, it no longer, the tax package that they've got
r their development, or for the factory, it's the total piece
land, the 34 acres plus or minus, and I'm wondering, if you
~ 33 -
'~
'----'
'--'
should subdivide it, if the piece that you take out of this Lot
Two goes back on the tax rolls.
MR. BREWER-I don't know that that has anything to do with the
Subdivision, but, Rich, you might be able to answer that, or Mr.
Lemery. I have no idea. I really don't. It does, John? It'll
go back on the tax roll.
MR. TUCKER-I would think so. Of course, the Assessor could tell
us. That's all I'd like. Thank you.
MR. PALING-We ought to have that clarified.
MR. BREWER-Mr. Lemery said it will go back on the tax roll.
MR. COLVIN-I'm Dave Colvin, again. To stress the point, like he
was just saying, if you just split it, like I was saying before,
that causes a dead lot. Because if you're not going to let them
go across the ravine, what's stopping them from just stopping on
paying on that lot, letting it go back on to the tax rolls, and
then having Queensbury having to pay the taxes back on it again?
Because it's causing a dead lot. It's like owning the top of the
mountain and not, and having all the land around the bottom of it
owned, and not be able to get to it. It's all landlocked. The
only other way they could do it, to get in, is come in off
Merritt Road, and then they ~till have to cross the ravine.
MR. BREWER-No. They wouldn't have to cross the ravine to come in
Merritt Road.
MR. COLVIN-And they'll have to, if they come off that, and that's
the only way they're going to do it, and they're going to come in
off Merritt Road, then.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. COLVIN-That's the only thing that's bothering us. It's a
dead end road now. The kids have a playground. ,I mean, any side
of Corinth Road over, the kids don't cross the road. It's a busy
road. That's their playground over there. They've got a dirt
track. They ride their bicycles and all that right there. It's
going to be dangerous, more or less. Now, if they're going to
make that a thoroughfare for the trucks and that, like I said, I
drive the trucks for Native Textile. It's going to be a busy
road. The road is not wide enough for main trucks to go down
through there. It's a dead end road. It's not heavy enough for
a tractor trailer to go down through. It's not even, for a
straight job, it's hard to go down through there with that. By a
straight job, I think you know what I mean, like a little Hertz
Rent-A-Truck, and I drive both of these, and it sounds stupid for
them to subdivide it like that, unless they're going to do one or
the other, and I don't think it should go through.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else? Last chance.
I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Any comments or questions from anybody on the Board?
MR. RUEL-Yes, I have some. Queensbury donated this property as a
gift, right, to Columbia?
MR. BREWER-No. They sold it, and that has nothing to do with the
subdivision, in their defense.
MR. RUEL-I would deny the application for subdivision since I see
no reason for the subdivision. The applicant, in ~ way of
thinking, hasn't given me a valid reason for the subdivision, and
it certainly can't be for the buildable area that might be
- 34 -
"---'
~
~
',-,
a ailable, in view of all of the problems that came up about the
r vine. So, I certainly would strongly recommend that the
p operty be maintained as one lot, since it has no value any
o her way, and I don't know what the ulterior motive, financial
o economic, is, but I certainly would deny it on that basis.
M . BREWER-Bob, anything?
M . PALING-I don't really have any questions. I don't think we
c n deny it on that basis, I doubt it, but I don't have any other
q estions.
M . BREWER-Okay, George, you had a comment?
M STARK-Only that Merritt Road is not Highway Commercial or
L ght Industrial. Any project that would come back for any
d velopment of that flag shaped lot that would be created has to
c)me in front of us, this Board, and wouldn't be looked upon
f vorably, I know that. I mean, that's no reason to deny the
plication to divide the property. I can understand that, but I
nalso say that wouldn't be any (lost word) development on that
operty.
. BREWER-And I guess I'm going to just say my speel. I don't
ow if they've proven or shown to me that it's a feasible
s bdivision. How are they going to access the back piece of
p-operty? I'll ,-efer to Staff comment, how are they going to get
ter back there. My concern is, again, and I had the same
ncern back when they first went in for site plan, is the
vine. The only way I can see to get to that property and the
bdivision is to cross it, and I think ~ point of view has come
ross pretty strong when we were here before, and I'm going to
sand on that position, that I don't see how it's a developable
ece of land. Just because a land is 30 acres, it doesn't
cessarily mean it should be subdivided, and I'm against it.
at's ~ opinion. Jim?
OBERMAYER-Well, for once, you and
mething, because I feel that the property
r is it buildable, the way it stands right
the way. To subdivide it is no benefit
veloper, as far as I'm concerned.
I are agreeing on
is not subdividable,
now, with the ravine
to the Town or the
S. LABOMBARD-I don't think I would, I'm not in favor of
bdividing it, because of the following reasons. It isn't
cessible. I don't have a reason for the subdivision. It is a
ag shaped lot. Merritt Road is residential and, mainly, when
1 this was in contention a few months ago, Columbia Development
rporation did reassure us that industry and the environment
uld collaborate for the good of all involved. Once Columbia
esn't own Lot Number Two anymore, that's where all the ravine
a d the wildlife and the flora and fauna is, and who's to say
t at the new owner would be as environmentally sensitive as
C lumbia made us feel that they were, as Native Textiles said
t at they were too? And once they don't have control of that
p-operty, who knows? We're not going to be in there every day
k eping an eye on them. .
M . MACEWAN-I think it's all been said.
BREWER-Craig?
M
M BREWER-Okay. Well, we can go through the SEQRA, and then a
m tion will be in order.
M . ROSEN-I would just like to say that, again, we're here for
s bdivision only. We're not here with a site plan. We don't
h ve any plans on doing anything to the ravine. As far
c nstruction on that rear lot is concerned, if we ever di.Q. come
u with something, we would obviously have to come back in front
- 35 -
~
"----
----'
'-'
of the Board. All these items that were brought up tonight would
have to be addressed and discussed, and it would be a very, very
difficult site to do anything with. We realize this. It's not
like we're going to make plans and say, okay, we have this new
piece of property. Lets go out and build something on it. We're
basically doing it as a paper transaction, for our own financial
purposes. Now I've heard everyone say, well, that's not a reason
for a subdivision. Well, I haven't heard any real r~asons to not
give the subdivision, if I can't give a reason for subdivision.
Now we have the easements that we're proposing. We have the road
frontage required. Yes, it's a very difficult site to access.
Yes, it's a very difficult site to develop, but we're basically
just here to ask for subdivision.
MR. BREWER-And I guess what we're saying is, we don't think it's
a developable piece of land. Therefore, of no benefit to the
community. So why should we create it? And I think that's the
end of the conversation, as far a$, I..:Å“:, concerneq.
MR. PALING-Well, let me just make a comment, because I'm going to
be in disagreement with the Board, I'm afraid. I could visualize
a bridge across the ravine, and I don't think that's something
that we could say tonight we wouldn't permit, and if that's the
case, then that would be~, 'qevelopab¡~;, 'although di fficul t, piece
of land, and we're here to act on a subdivision, not on what it's
going to be used for. Are you telling me he can't put a bridge
across that ravine?
MR. BREWER-I didn't say he couldn't put a bridge across there.
MR. PALING-Well, then it's a developable piece of land.
MR. BREWER-That's what we have to think
think, can he preserve that, and we have
can't. We have no basis to say that he
feeling is that he can't.
about, Bob. We have to
no basis to say that he
can, and I think my gut
MR. PALING-Then I don't see how you can deny the subdivision
request.
MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. I respect your opinion.
MR. STEVES-The developer realizes that, in asking for the
subdivision, he has the burden of proof on him for any site plan
approval in the future. He knows he's got to come back to this
Board for that review. So that if his intent is to subdivide and
construct a bridge, he will have to provide a good strong bridge
across that ravine, one that is approvable by this Board.
MR. ROSEN-And then I'd have to re-address all the environmental
impacts. Some of the issues that were brought up, such as water,
I mean, there's a lot of things that would hav~ to happen for
that ever to be a developable piece of property. I'm not saying
it could never be, but, again, the Board would have every
opportunity to review and comment on whatever we try to plan on
doing out, there, and all I want is, basically, subdivision right
now, to differentiate between the two pieces of property for our
own financial purposes.
oi
MR. BREWER-It has to be a consideration. Okay. Are we ready to
do the SEQRA?
MR. MACEWAN-"ls there or is there likely to be public controversy
related to potential adverse environmental impacts? II
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Do
MR. RUEL-Yes.
you want to do that last one again?
- 36 -
'-'
~
--../
."-'
. BREWER-Yes, there has been comments. That doesn't put us
i to a Pa,-t III.
M . MACEWAN-No?
M BREWER-No.
M.. MACEWAN-What ~dverse environmental impacts, then?
RUEL-How about density of land use?
MACEWAN-No action on the property.
BREWER-Okay.
MACEWAN-Okay. No to that.
10
IS MADE
who moved for
EREAS, there
a plication for:
is presently before the Planning
COLUMBIA QUEENSBURY GROUP, and
Board
an
this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
oject and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
ate Environmental Quality Review Act,
W, THEREFORE, BE IT
R SOLVED:
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.
D ly adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
v te:
A ES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,
Mo. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
ES: NONE
. BREWER-Okay. Have we got a motion?
MARTIN-If this is the
rongly suggest that you
way I think it's
get counsel present
goi ng, I would
to assist in
- 37 -
-
'-.
'--,
~
drafting a resolution. It's up to you. It's just a suggestion
on my part, because I think you need something that's defensible.
MR. BREWER-How do we do that, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-I think our back up counsel in a case like this would
be Paul Dusek, and it's your decision to make, obviously.
MR. BREWER-I would feel comfortable with that.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I would feel that's a good suggestion.
MR. MARTIN-I just suggest that. We can give him a copy
minutes to review, and I'll try and get him here at
meeting.
of these
your next
MR. BREWER-How about Thursday?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have a meeting Thursday. I can try, see what
his schedule is.
MR. BREWER-How does everybody feel with that?
MR. RUEL-It's okay by me.
MR. STARK-Jim, why do we need counsel's approval of the
resolution, and we never asked for that before on any approval?
MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying that you do. I'm just suggesting that
this is the first time ~ can remember, and I've been around the
Planning Board since 1990, that there's been a denial of a
Preliminary subdivision application, or even a discussion of
that. So, I looked through the Code, and it just says. the Board
has to put on the record its reasons for disapproval. That's the
extent of it.
MR. BREWER-I think we all have put our reasons on the.
MR. STARK-You have to do it when you vote, but you're assuming
that we're going to deny it.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I prefaced my remarks by saying, I get the sense
of where this is going, and if it is, in fact, a denial, I would
suggest maybe that you get counsel's advice as to how you draft
that resolution. You can take that or leave it for whatever it's
wor th.
MR. RUEL-Can this be denied on the basis of anticipation of site
application?
MR. BREWER-No. I think that's why he's suggesting that we get.
MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. We've denied site plans before, and
the Ordinance is a little better, and it sets forth some reasons
for that, or a basis, but it's a little less clear in terms of a
disapproval of a subdivision, is all I'm saying.
MR. RUEL-But if that's the case, then I really see no reason for
denying it, because it seems to me that the denial was predicated
on what we anticipate to happen later in the site application.
MR. PALING-I don't think we have a right to do that.
MR. RUEL-If we don't have the right to do that, and we just have
to look at this strictly as a subdivision application, there's no
way to go, except to okay it.
MR. MARTIN-The action before you right now is the splitting of
the parcel.
- 38 -
',--,
-...../
./
"---'
M. RUEL-We just went through the whole SEQRA application.
E erything is okay, and apparently there are no other reasons,
e cept what people think ~ happen in the future, and since that
c n't be considered, then I have to reverse my original stand on
i , and say, yes, it must be approved.
HARLICKER-I can Tead you something from Section 18310E, which
subdivision, submission and review procedures, and this is E.,
's study of Preliminary plat. "The Planning Board shall study
e Preliminary plat, taking into consideration the provisions of
ese regulations. Particular attention shall be given to
rangement, location and design of streets and their relations
the topography, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot
zes, arrangement and placement of utilities, the future
d velopment of adjoining lands, as yet unspecified, and the
r quirements of a land use plan and Zoning Ordinance and the
r quirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act." So
tìat's some guidelines as to what.
· MARTIN-Yes, and then it goes on, in the very next paragraph,
e action on the Preliminary plat, where it references approval,
dification, or denial.
RUEL-Is this for subdivision you're talking about?
· MARTIN-Yes. It's in the Subdivision Reg's.
RUEL-It sounds more like site application.
MARTIN-To some extent, there are similar considerations.
BREWER-Well, lets find out what everybody wants to do. What
d you want to do, Bob? Do you want to go ahead with a motion,
o· do you want to wait and get legal counsel?
· PALING-If I were to make a motion, I would make a motion to
prove. I think I stated my reasons for that a little while
0, and I'd be very nervous voting against it, because I don't
ink we have substantial reason to do so. This is not an
developable piece of land. They may not, the owner may not
nt to go to the extent they need to do develop it, but that's
ir problem, not ours. When this comes back here, then we have
exercise our right in a site plan review, as to whether it's
cessible or it's damaging the ravine or whátever, but I don't
ink that's the question that we have to answer tonight.
think we can do it at subdivision. I can recall
where we told the subdivider to go back, and Mark
c n vouch for one particular application, had many, many flag
s aped lots, and we went month, after month, after month, after
nth and redesigned that thing so that some engineer or
aftsman got real rich, and I'm just saying that in light, but I
an, they redesig~ed the project, and if that would make
erybody comfortable, maybe they can redesign it. I don't know.
· PALING-Tim, are you saying that, lets see, because it would
a flag shaped lot it would be, lets say, less than desirable?
at makes you think they're going to do it with a flag shaped
t shape? Why couldn't they come across the middle of the lot?
M BREWER-I'm not saying they couldn't, but the only thing that
I'm saying is, the flag shaped lots that were frowned upon back
t en, Jim was on the Board. We frowned upon them because of the
1 ngth of the driveways and the incline going up them, and that
w s our reason for asking for redesign of it.
SCHACHNER-You know I can't advise you on this, and I'm not
ing to, but since you threw me in, only to the extent of saying
could vouch for that past experience, I think I feel compelled
make the record clear, and point out that that was an
- 39 -
',-
'-......-
---./
-'
extremely different situation, very much apples and oranges, for
one simple reason. That project was a residential subdivision
which was not subject to site plan review afterwards. So in this
case, I just want to point that out for the record, fo}- ~ all
to think about this clearly. In my mind, it's a very, very
different situation, where here we have a commercial entity that,
if they want to do anything on the property in the future, they
would definitely, as I understand it, need site plan approval,
and I think the Town Board resolution that was, I think, read
into the record by Scott, actually includes as one of the
resolved paragraphs, the request that if you approve this
subdivision, you include a specific condition stating that any
future, that any actual development of the property occur only
with your blessing, in the form of site plan approval.
MR. BREWER-But we already know that that would have to happen
anyway.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'm only mentioning that because I was at the
Town Board meeting when they insisted that condition be added.
MR. MARTIN-It's good to put that condition in, though, in the
event that the zoning district for a light industrial is changed.
MR. BREWER-If Bob feels comfortable making a motion, you make a
motion, we'll vote.
MR. HARLICKER-I'd like to also refer you to Section 183-1, Plat
Approval Authority and Policy Title, Part B., and I'll read, "It
is declared to be the policy of the Planning Board to consider
land subdivision plats for residential, industrial and commercial
uses as part of a plan for the orderly, efficient, economical
development of the Town. This means, among other things, that
land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be
used safely for building purposes without danger to health or
peril from fire, flood or other menace, that proper provision
shall be made for drainage, water supply, sewage and other needed
improvements, that all proposed lots shall be laid out and of
such size as to be in harmony with the development pattern of the
neighboring properties, that the proposed streets shall compose a
communion system, conforming to the official map, if such exists,
and shall be properly related to proposals shown on the master
plan, and shall be of such width, grade and location as to
accommodate the prospective traffic, and to facilitate fire
protect and to provide access of fire fighting equipment to
buildings and the proper provision shall be made for open spaces,
parks and playgrounds. There's a little more.
MR. BREWER-That's reason enough for ~ to deny it.
MR. STEVES-Tim, if I may, before the Town built this road from
Carey Road to this project, this was a flag shaped lot.
MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that there aren't flag shaped lots,
Leon.
MR. STEVES-No, I'm just saying.
MR. BREWER-That was preexisting. We're creating.
MR. STEVES-This is one of them.
MR. STARK-Tim, poll the Board to see if we want to have a motion.
MR. BREWER-Sure.
motion.
Anybody that wants to make a motion, make a
MR. PALING-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1994
COLUMBIA QUEENSBURY GROUP, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved
- 40 -
\....-.-
',...../
-,.,/'
\......-
f r its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
A proved as submitted, with the stipulation that any development
i the future of either proposed Lot Number One or proposed Lot
N mber Two will bè resubmitted to the Town Planning Board for
S·te Plan Review. To show the septic system for Lot One for the
b ilding that's under construction on the plat and also the
z ning for the zoning districts for this parcel as well as the
s rrounding parcels.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of
p eliminary subdivision application, file # 16-1994, to subdivide
a 34 acre parcel into 2 lots of 19.08 and 14.28 acres; and
Whereas, the above referenced preliminary
a plication consists of the following:
subdivision
1. Sheet 2, location plat showing adjacent property
owners, dated 10/19/94
2. Sheet 2, preliminary plat of proposed subdivision,
dated 10/19/94; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
d cumentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 11/15/94
2. Resolution of the Town Board confirming that portion of
Town property will be utilized as a town road at Native
Textiles site.
3. Long EAF, dated 10/25/94; and
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/15/94 concerning
t e above subdivision; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
a propriate town departments and outside agencies for their
r view and comment; and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
R view Act have been considered; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision is subject to the
f llowing modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat
i final form;
Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
ve to approve preliminary subdivision, Columbia Queensbury
oup, file # 16-1994.
ly adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
te:
ES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer
BREWER-Four to three, denied.
ROSEN-And do I get to know the reason of the denial?
. BREWER-You sure do. No. When there's a motion to vote yes,
d you vote no, you don't have to give a reason, George. I'll
II you ~ reason is the Article Scott read, Article I.
RUEL-Yes, mine, too.
BREWER-General Provisions, Page 8, 1$305, Letter B. I don't
ink it meets those criteria. That's my reason~ It was read
- 41 -
......-
----
~'
''-'
into the record.
I don't want to re-read it. That's my reason.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And that's my reason, too.
MR. MARTIN-Again, just to be in compliance with the regulations,
I think I'd suggest that you.
MR. BREWER-I would feel comfortable if we went to counsel and
asked him for advice pertaining to that, for a motion to deny. I
wou.ld be l.:Jilling to introduce it, but I would like to talk to
counsel, first.
MR. STEVES-Wajt a minute. You've already made a motion.
MR. BREWER-To approve, and we voted that down, Leon.
MR. STEVES-That's right. You made a motion, and now you live
with it. Okay. That's what we're sayi~g.
MR. BREWER-I can live with that.
MR. MARTIN-All I know, I can't remember, it varies with vaTiances
and subdivisions.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we just give the minutes to Paul Dusek, let
him examine them, and if we did something wrong, he can come back
to us and we'll let you know. I don't think we have, but we'll
give him the minutes, let him review them, and if we need to make
a motion to deny, then that'll be my stance.
MR. ROSEN-Just that whole section?
"
MR. BREWER-That whole section, and what I previously said, Rich.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It's on the record, my reasons, his reasons.
MR. ROSEN-Okay. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 36~94 TYPE: UNLISTED STORYTOWN, USA DBA GREAT
ESCAPE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: EAST SIDE
OF US RT. 9 IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF ROUND POND RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR
APPROVAL OF TWO AMUSEMENT PARK RIDES - ADVENTURE RIVER AND TUBE
SLIDES. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3.1 LOT
SIZE: 3.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-21
JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-94, Story town, USA/dba Great
Escape, Meeting Date: November 15, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to construct two new water rides. One
is a river ride and the other is a water slide ride. Both will
be located just to the east of Noah's Sprayground. PROJECT
ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with
Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38B, Section 179-38C and to the
relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and find the project
to be in compliance. The project was compared to the following
standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The
location, ar~angement, size, design and general site
compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed
rides will be compatible with the existing structures and rides.
The project does not involve lighting or signs. 2. The adequacy
and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation,
including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers
and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access is not an issue.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-
street parking and loading; Off street parking and loading are
not issues. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian
traffic access and circulation, walkway structures. control of
- 42 -
',-,
'-..-/'
y'
~
i tersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
c nvenience; The rides will be accessed from the interior of the
a usement park. There will be no direct public access to these
,-odes from outside the park. 5. The adequacy of stormwater
d ainage facilities; Stormwater drainage is being reviewed by
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal
The park is serviced by municipal water and there
no new sanitary facilities proposed with this project. 7.
e adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other
itable plantings, landscaping and screening constltuting a
sual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining
nds, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
intenance including replacement of dead plants; Interior
ndscapin9 is being provided around the rides. The existing
getation will be preserved as much as possible. New plantings
elude deciduous and coniferous trees as well as reseeding and
namental shrubs. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
ergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The rides
ve access via an existing paved serviced road that connects
th Round Pond road. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures,
adways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
nding, flooding and/or erosion. Proper erosion control
asures shall be in place during construction and until the site
s been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend
a proval of this application."
M . HARLICKER-Warren County voted to approve, and that's it for
S aff comments.
M BREWER-Bill, have you got comments?
. MACNAMARA-Yes. These are review comments, from the site
ân, essentially, stormwater comments. Basically, there's no
crease in runoff area that we'd seen, because much of the area
bé developed was preexisting as an impervious surface, be it
a phalt or campground type activity. Moreover, the site plans
s ow a number of infiltration areas to be provided. The
s ormwater we.have no comments on. Erosion and sediment control,
i looks as if their activities' are; for the most part, being
f>tted to the existing topography. Where cuts are required,
t ere appears t6be a sequence fashion, in selectively, and there
å. e accèpted è-rosion control measures being proposed. They're
petty clear on ,the site pla.ns. Régarding u'tilitiès, water usage
plans are similar to those in place fo~ the existing adjoi~ing
w ter attractions the Town of Queensbury Water Department is also
r viewing, and lastly we asked for some additional data for the
s ptic disposal facility which is immediately adjacent to the new
rides. Late this afternoon, I did get some data, and I h~d a
c ance to review it real quickly. The only thing that looked to
b missing on that was, essentially, there was a sizing given of
9,obo ~allo~s per day for the system, which is a pretty
significant septic disposal system, and, essentially, I'm just
c rious to see what type of underground system it is, is it
s epage pits, is it absorption trenches, and if so, how would the
9,000 gallons per day be arrived at? Other than that, their
u age figures look to be consistent with standards. One quick
q estion. You talk about a number of users, based on the water
s rface, and it's not clear if that's total per day users, or
'u e~s at one time, and that would certainly go to how much of a
d sign capaci tyi t was, but these are quest;iof1s" tha't could be
swered in rather quick discussions with their engineer if I
uld have gotten to him ahead of time.
you think in'arelatively quick time, you could do
M. M~CNAMARA~Y~s~ the missing data., assuming it's out there,
should be very éasy to provide.
BREWER-All right;'
We also have a letter from Frank
- 43 -
~
~
--/
Brenneisen. Cathy, do you want to read that in?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "To whom it may concern: I am writing this
letter in reference to the Great Escape Fun Park's plan to build
a new water ride on its property in the Town of Queensbury,
Warren County, New York. I am concerned that the Great Escape
may be improperly using, diverting and storing New York State
protected wetland waters, and I believe the Great Escape's use of
water should be investigated and any findings made public before
they be given the go ahead to build any new water rides. The
Great Escape has come up with a new idea to recycle the water
used in their water rides, water slide, and pools. It this 'new'
idea to use New York State's wetland waters? Wetland waters flow
into the Great Escape from Rush Pond, which is to the west of the
Northway. These waters run through the Great Escape west parking
lot under their parking lot bridge and into the park. It is at
this point that the water comes under the control of the Great
Escape. I have been a resident of Glen Lake for twenty years,
and I am a member of Glen Lake's Dam Committee. I have noticed
over the years that the only thing that ever effected the flow of
water from Rush Pond into Glen Lake was the beaver dams. At
times the beavers have built dams at the culvert pipe to the west
of the Northway (west of the Great Escape) at Rush Pond. The
Glen Lake Dam Committee has removed these beaver dams three
times, always with the o.k. from the DEC office in Warrensburg,
New York. However, from August 1994 through October 1994, I
noticed that there has been no water flow into Glen Lake from the
wetlands behind the Great Escape Fun Park, and yet the stream was
flowing normally from Rush Pond into the Great Escape. The water
is not coming out of the park! Is this part of the 'new' idea
the Great Escape has to recycle the water? Is the Great Escape
using the New York State wetlands water that, in my
,understanding, is supposed to run free and untampered through
their property. Since November 2, 1994, the Great Escape has let
the water run freely and Glen Lake again has water flowing in
from Rush Pond. Unfortunately, I have also noticed pollutants in
this water coming in to Glen Lake. Pollutants could be seen in
the water from the bicycle path bridge at the inlet to the lake.
Could it be the Great Escape has a Gate to control the water
coming into the park through the wetlands from Rush Pond? Could
it be the Great Escape is using this water to flush out its rides
and pools and then return this polluted water into the wetlands
and Glen Lake? If so, this should be stopped and corrected by
the State of New York and the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely,
Frank Brenneisen"
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that all the correspondence we have?
MRS. LABOMBARD-And copies were sent to the Queensbury Town Board,
the New York State Wetlands Division, and the Glen Lake
Association.
MR. BREWER-Mr. Lemery?
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is John
Lemery, Counsel to the Great Escape. I have with me tonight
representatives of the Aquatic Amusement Associates, Wayne
Clairmont, who's sitting with me, Bob Scarano, who's in the
audience, who have been involved in the design of the facility.
This is an application to add two new attractions to the park
within the park. The Great Escape has been operating as the
Great Escape/Storytown USA, since 1954. The zone is an RC-15
zone, and the purpose, as defined in the Ordinance, is to
isolate, protect, and encourage expansion of the recreation
industry within the zone. The zoning statute was not drafted
very well when it comes to this kind of a zone, because it would
seem to imply that site plan review is required for these kinds
of accessory uses which are wholly within the park, and wholly
confined within the parameters. Nevertheless, it's been the
policy of the Great Escape to apply to the Town Planning Board
- 44 -
'--'
---./
v
"---
r site plan review for these projects, the last two that, the
actually, that this Board approved were the Comet
ller Coaste,- last year, and before that Noah's Sprayground and
e wet/dry ride, which became known as the Black Cobra. The
eat Escape has a 270 acre parcel, over 100 feature rides. It's
cated on the easterly side of US9, immediately north of Round
nd Road. The two rides which a,-e proposed here tonight are
th aquatic oriented, consisting of an adventure river ride, and
tree flume slides, which go down into the area where the river
r·de is located. Both of these rides are going to be confined to
a 3.6 acre area near the southeastern corner of the theme park.
I you'll permit me, I had our engineers bring with them the
o erall large map, I don't know if everybody can see it, it's
k nd of hard to put up, of the Great Escape and the rides and
tractions in the Great Escape. The attractions that we're
esking of tonight are located here, in the southeast corner,
jacent to Round Þond Road, actually at the farthest, the
stern co)-ner, southeastern corner of the park. The attraction
about 1500 feet away from the Glen Lake Wetland. If you'll
call when you approved, this Board approved the Noah's
rayground ride and the attraction for the Black Cobra, there
s a condition imposed at that time which required that the
eat Escape not put any attractions within 100 feet of the
tland, and that buffer has been maintained, and protected by
e Great Escape. The initial filling of the river and slide
nding pool require about 500,000 gallons of water. This will
water that will be taken from a four inch main, Queensbury
ter. There is no watér taken from the creek that runs through
e park that you're all familiar with. There's no hose that
es down there and takes the water out to put it into these
tractions. They are taken from the main, and the Great Escape
ys its water bill to the Town for extracting the water from the
in. Like your pools at home, if you have one, there's a daily
keup to balance the evaporative losses out of the area, and
's estimated that some 7300 gallons per day will be put back
, and again, out of the main, to back up, or to replace the
ter that comes out as a result of evaporation. Onc~ the water
put into the ride area, the Great Escape is required, of
urse, to get Department of Health permits to use the rides.
e rides are provided with chlorine to protect the purity of the
ter. Lifeguards are in attendance in the pool area where the
s ide ride lets out. As far as the, at the end of the season,
d keep in mind the Great Escape operates 105 days a year,
ughly from Memorial Day through the second weekend in
ptembe,-. It's closed the other eight months of the year. The
r utine dumping of the pools at season's end will follow the
p-ocedures already in place at Noah's Sprayground and the Raging
ROver, which consist of loading the back wash leaching pits at a
c ntrolled rate until the pool contents are dumped. The
o eration will not be commenced until testing confirms that the
w ter in the area has remained for a sufficient time to get rid
o the chlorine, at which point, it's dissipated into the
1 aching pits. It's pretty clear that the soil around the Great
E cape is very porous, as provided for in the information
n rrative and documentary information that you have. It
i mediately goes into the soil and dissipates. The site plan
p ovides for two rides, as described. The river/rafting ride,
w ich is a tube ride around an area which provides two
a tractions for people, one is a slow ride that goes around the
p ol area, and another, there's a wave action in there which
allows people to have a more vigorous run through the pool area.
T e inner tube slides are to the west 'and empty into this pool,
w ich is Toughly 40 inches deep. Again, lifeguards are at the
pol, and kids take the tubes and ride them down and adults take
t e tubes and ride them down. So that's what the rides are made
u of.
. BREWER-John, are the inner tube slides, are they going to be
a tube similar to the existing ride that is there now, like a
be you run down through, or is that open?
- 45 -
~'
'--"
,-----"
"-'"
MR. LEMERY-It's an open ride, Tim. The facility, as I mentioned,
is in addition to what is there, the rides that are there now.
The area where these two rides are going to be located, again, is
within the RC-15 zone, is presently unused. Patches of scrub
growth are there, abandoned asphalt concrete paving is there.
The soil is of a clean, granular nature, with porosity so great
that the surface runoff is basically virtually nonexistent. This
is all part and parcel of the Great Escape's plan to rejuvenate
the park, to keep it competitive, so as to keep it attractive.
There has been, as we've pointed out to this Board, when we were
before you seeking the approval for the roller coaster, and
before that for the other rides, more action is required in these
parks, these theme parks, to keep them attractive, to keep the
people coming, and so this is a part of Mr. Wood's plan to keep
the Great Escape viable, to keep it open, to keep it attractive,
to keep people coming, and to make it a principal economic engine
for the Town of Queensbury and Warren County.
MR. RUEL-I have a question related to a statement you just made.
You have a map of the whole area there now?
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. RUEL-Could you possibly indicate on that map what areas could
be used for future rides? In other words, this is the third time
I've been through this for applications for various rides. How
many more rides would fit into that area, in the RC area?
MR. BREWER-He's got another 11 acres, or whatever, back in here.
MR. RUEL-There has to be a limit, and have you reached the limit?
MR. LEMERY-Well, the limit is going to be based upon what is
within the zone.
MR. RUEL-Yes. Is there a large area available for additional
rides? How long is this going to go on?
MR. LEMERY-Well, I guess it will go on as long as the Great
Escape has available real estate within the RC-15 zone to develop
attractive rides. I can't speak to what attractions, I can't
speak to what they will or won't do. They may come, there may
come a time when they get rid of a stationary ride and put in
something more thematic, something more involved with an action
kind of ride, Mr. Ruel, but I can't speak to, there are a few
more acres available down in this area, and there are other rides
and attractions which Mr. Wood hopes that over the next few years
will become available, that the Great Escape will do well enough
economically so that he can afford to buy them and put them into
the park, possibly replacing some, possibly adding others, but
there are no attractions which are contemplated to be located
anywhere but within the zone, and it's not easy. It's very
difficult to try to figure out, on some sort of long term plan,
because you don't know what is going to be attractive to the
people who come to the park. Mr. Wood goes to these shows every
year and tl-ies to take a look at what's attractive, what people
are looking to get involved with. The Coaster was a success,
Thank God, because the area didn't do all that well economically
at the lake, and what the Coaster did was allow the Great Escape
to retain some of the numbers, in terms of patrons, that had been
lost over the past few years. So the Comet, basically, kept the
place viable and attractive, and I guess as long as Mr. Wood has
his health, he plans to keep moving and do more things. So,
hopefully.
MR. RUEL-So the answer to my question is, yes, there is available
space for future rides?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
- 46 -
"--'
,--",'
-......./
"-
Thank you.
OBERMAYER-Where are the, are you planning on using the
existing seepage pits, the water seepage pits, or do you plan on
ilding new onés, to dump the water at the end of the year?
. LEMERY-New ones. New ones are being built to provide for
is facility.
OBERMAYER-Can you indicate on the drawing where those would
Do you know where they'll be?
YNE CLAIRMONT
M . CLAIRMONT-Well, we can't say where they'll lead, because we
h ven't gotten into that design process. We'll get into it,
d pending on how everything goes, tonight. I can give you an
a proximate location, if you'd like. My name is Wayne Clairmont,
a d I'm with Aquatic Amusements. This is Bob Scarano, who's the
e gineer on the project, and the filter building we're proposing.
OBERMAYER-I see the filter building there. Right.
CLAIRMONT-Is here.
OBERMAYER-What, to filter it, what are you going to use, like
filter process?
BREWER-Just like a regular swimming pool, isn't it?
CLAIRMONT-Yes. The drywells that we're talking about are
lated to the backwash from filtration. The filters will be
essure or vacuum sand filter tanks, and they will, the backwash
ter will go into drywells which will be located somewhere in
is area.
. OBERMAYER-Now do you plan on using like an algicide in the
ter to keep the algae down at all, or what kind of chemicals
e you going to be adding to the water?
CLAIRMONT-In the pools?
OBERMAYER-Yes.
CLAIRMONT-Well, it'll be chlorine and an acid combine.
OBERMAYER-How do you keep the algae down, though?
CLAIRMONT-In the pools themselves?
OBERMAYER-Yes.
CLAIRMONT-With a combination of chlorine and a.
BREWER-Just like a swimming pool, isn't it?
CLAIRMONT-Yes.
BREWER-Just like you'd treat a swimming pool.
OBERMAYER-Okay. What's the ph balance, though? What are you
ding to it?
CLAIRMONT-Carbon Dioxide.
LEMERY-The sanitary facilities at the Great Escape are
equate. The existing facilities will handle the traffic, the
n's and ladies area, the Johnny Appleseed Restaurant, former
staurant, is there. There are restrooms there that will be
ilized. There's not, it's not suggested that there would be
- 47 -
',-/
'-'
-./
--
any need for any additional facilities to handle the traffic that
comes into the park and that might come over to these particular
attraction. These are the kind of things that are used for half
an hour, one ride, two rides, and then people move on to the next
ride. So there's a fluidity in the park. It's not as though
there are people staying at this particular ride or attraction
for a significant period of time, putting an undue strain on any
of the sanitary facilities at the site. There's not anticipated
any traffic issues here. Route 9 is Route 9. There's not
anticipated any traffic issues with Round Pond. There's no
ingress or egress to the park from Round Pond.
MR. RUEL-How about parking?
MR. LEMERY-There's no parking planned on Round Pond, other than
the existing parking area that's there.
MR. RUEL-Willthe existing parking area handle it?
MR. LEMERY-Yes. It is possible that the, and we had them do an
elevation sketch of the pirate ship and the castle. It's
possible that the very top of the mast of the pirate ship, as
pointed out on that drawing, could be visible from Round Pond
Road, but that's the only visible area that you'd see here, the
only way you'd see any part of this attraction from either Route
9, it can't be seen from Route 9, and that's the only area that
it could be Seen from, Round Pond Road.
MR. RUEL-How tall is it?
MR. CLAIRMONT-The mast is approximately 28 to 30 feet.
MR. LEMERY-I'd be glad to answer any other questions, Tim.
MR. BREWER-I just have one question. We were out there Saturday
morning, and I guess my question, where you come up to the top of
the hill, when you start to go down, how much of that bank are
you going to be taking out, where it's all treed right now on the
left. If you were going down to the roller coaster, I presume
the ride is going to be to the left. How much of that bank is
going to come out? Is it going to come where the top of the
slope is, or half of that?
BOB SCARANO
MR. SCARANO-It's pretty generally at the top of the slope.
MR. BREWER-At the top of the slope. So
that pavement area, then there's a drywell
something? Okay. So then a good portion
to stay then, more than you're taking out?
then it would be where
up there, I think, or
of that bank is going
MR. LEMERY-Yes, most of it is a natural berm, sure, That's part
of what's provided for.
MR. BREWER-And by the way, there was nobody there Saturday, so we
just took it upon ourselves to go up in there, and everything
looks great. Okay. I guess we'll open the public hearing. Is
there anyone who would like to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS MOZAL
MRS. MOZAL-My name is Chris Mozal, and I am President of the Glen
Lake Protective Association, and a property owner on the lake.
I, along with other members of the Association, as well as
property owners, have many concerns about what two additional
water rides to the Great Escape will have on our lake. We have
approximately $43,000,000 of assessed property values on the
- 48 -
-....-
--./
~
~
lake, and many of us drink the water. Maintaining the quality of
our water is very important to us. We had the opportunity to see
t e plans for the two additional rides last night at a Board of
Directors meeting of the Association, as well as the Officers of
e Association, and they were obtained from Mr. Lemery's office.
have several questions about the plans, which we didn't see on
t e plans. Mr. Lemery was invited to attend this meeting, and
g·ve us a short presentation and be able to answer some of these
q estions. We were told by Mr. Lemery that he did need
p rmission from Mr. Wood to come to the meeting, and since he
d"dn't come to the meeting, we can only assume that he did not
9 t that permission to come. It would have been nice, because he
w uld have been able to answer a lot of the questions that you
w"ll eventually hear from other members tonight. We are in the
p ocess, right now, of doing extensive water testing in ou'" lake,
a d one of the problems that we are seeing is increased milfoil
g owth. As many of you know, this can destroy a lake. One of
t e areas that we are testing is the inlet of the lake. Water
f om the Great Escape comes into our lake from that inlet and
t is summer I went out with a gentleman from Warren County Water
a d Soil Conservation, his name is Dave Wicks, and we were out
t ere for a couple of hours observing the lake, and we were
1 oking for the milfoil growth. We found the heaviest
ncentration of milfoil to be at the inlet. In the future, if
sting of our water proves to be negative, who is going to take
e responsibility of our lake? Are you, the Board, going to?
r giving approval to this project without further information
the environmental affect of what this project will have in a
ry sensitive area, or is the Great Escape going to take
sponsibility? We live there. We see this lake every day. We
e the changes, and we're very, very concerned with what you do
th this tonight. I know sometimes we're judged as a group that
e against everything the Great Escape wants to do as far as
panding, but I have a letter with me tonight that we submitted
st year, September 23, 1993, in regards to approval of the
ller coaster. We didn't see any negative affect that it would
ve on the lake, but tonight we are concerned with the affect
at two additional water rides will have on our lake. Thank
u.
you explain, I'm just curious as to what effect it
I mean, he's not going to be pulling water from Glen
not going to be putting water into Glen Lake. What's
do to it?
S. MOZAL-I think, Tim, we're concerned with additional water
dumped, and he just pointed out where they'll be doing
I think we're concerned with what the affect that would
ve on the lake, because water does pass through the Great
cape from Rush Pond, through the Great Escape, and eventually
to our lake, and what will that carry to our lake. As I said,
are doing water testing, and we can show you the results, and
person that will speak after I do can give you more information
that.
. BREWER-Okay.
MOZAL-Thank you very much.
PALING-The wate,- that passes through the park won't change
the addition of these two rides, I wouldn't think.
MOZAL-We're worried about that it's saturated already, and
t at this is two more water related rides. I don't think anybody
in our gròup has a problem with expanding rides at the park, but
these are water related, and since we live on the lake, that's
why we're concerned.
M . BREWER-Okay. I don't know myself. Can we look on that map
and maybe have someone point out where the water passes through
- 49 -
~,/
'--'"
'--'
the park, in relationship to where the rides are going to be,
what's the distance, separation, of them?
MRS. MOZAL-I don't think that's what we're concerned with. I
thi nk we're concer ned wi th what happens to the wate)- from tll the
water rides in the park at the end of the season.
MR. RUEL-The water table, is that what you're concerned with?
MRS. MOZAL-Okay. I'd rather end my comments right here, and we
do have people from our Environmental Committee and Dam Committee
that will give you answers to those questions.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MRS. MOZAL-Thank you very much.
VIRGINIA ETU
MS. ETU-My name is Virginia Etu. I'm a member of the
Association. I also live on Glen Lake~ and I have a number of
problems pertaining to the addition of these two rides, some of
which, again, address water quality as well as other
environmental issues. We haven't seen any estimates on the
capacity for the number of people that this park will be handling
as a result of this additional rides being put in. We heard,
when the Comet went in, we heard a conservative estimate of a two
percent increase in the park's attendance, based on the Comet,
going in. Last year, there was over a 10 percent increase
because of the Comet. We haven't seen any numbers on how many
people these two water attractions are expected to bring in. The
other thing that concerns me is that now the Great Escape does
offer a two day pass, and I disagree with Mr. Lemery's comment
that people are going to use these rides for a limited amount of
time and then they're going to pass on. I think, quite frankly,
what will happen is many people will go in on the first day and
they'll use the mechanical rides, and they'll use their second
day pass and spend all day using the water rides. We don't have
any numbers or any figures on what the anticipated increase of
the traffic inside the park will be as a result of this ride.
That brings on is~ues of additional parking, due to the increase
in the number of people. The additional parking that will be
required by additionsl employees to help staff these rides and
maintain the employment level at the park. We already know we
have traffic problems on Route 9 that are very serious, both
related to this and additional development along the route. I do
have a problem with the water issues. I think that, right now,
they're very preliminary. There hasn't been enough water
sampling done. However, in July of '94, the Town of Queensbury
did approve the formation of a Watershed Management Committee,
basically a technical advisory board. That Board had a goal, and
that goal was to identify any environmental problems within the
watershed, as caused by point andnonpoint source pollution, and
to protect and enhance the water quality within the shed. The
watershed itself is a 7,000 acre water shed. It's not specific
to just Glen Lake or the Great Escape, but all the waters within
that shed are interconnected. Because our results of the water
testing are fairly preliminary, we don't have the necessary data
to support any issues about whether the water is or isn't coming
out of the rides, whether it is or isn't going into the lake, but
I think we need a little more time to take a look at it. We
began a water testing problem rather late in the summer this
year, due to a lack of funding, and we'd like to continue doing
that so that we can be assured that there isn't going to be a
problem, or water contamination problem. I'm not too concerned
about where the water is going to come from. I understand it's
going to be the Town of Queensbury water. It's coming from a
four inch main. I do have a problem, though, when that water is
finally discharged at the end of the season, in regard to that
chlorine dissipation and eventually the ultimate discharge. I
- 50 -
"---"
--
'V
"-'
don't know who's performing the sampling or who's doing the
sampling to say when that chlorine has dissipated. I think we
need to know how chlorine reacts with other materials once it has
b en discharged. We're talking about over a million and a half
gallons of water throughout the season. We're talking about a
1 5 day season. That's a lot of water to be concerned about.
I'm not sure what type of water sampling testing that the Great
E cape uses, who does it, whether it's an inte,-nal control, and
wether they would be willing to cooperate with this watershed
t chnical advisory committee so that we can be assured that this
million and a half gallons of water that's going to be used on
1 4 days is truly chlorine free before it is set into the holding
t nks, and ultimately leached. I think that those issues are
t ings that we haven't seen any information on. I think that the
o ly thing we saw basically a two page draft. I think that we're
1 oking at a very large project. Three point six acres, right
n w, is seventy-five percent of water rides in that park. My
f'rst guess is that we've approved, the Town has approved water
r'des from 1992, starting with Noah's Sprayground, and I'm
c ncerned, at this point, at what point are we going to stop and
t ke a look at where we've reached, and are we having an impact
o that? So thos~ are some of my environmental concerns.
DERBY-"This letter is in response to the Great Escape's
oposal to build two new water rides -- the Adventure River and
be Slides. My wife and I bought a home on Glen Lake a year
o. We have become active members in the Glen Lake Protective
sociation; we both sit on the environmental committee, and I am
ading the newly formed sub-committee to address Glen Lake's
oblem with Eurasian Milfoil. We are concerned about any
tential negative effects these proposed rides and the further
pansion of the Great Escape, may have on the environment.
rticularly, we are concerned as to how these rides may effect
e protected and delicate wetlands that exist on and around the
operty at the Great Escape. The stream from Rush Þond and the
tlands are major water feeds into Glen Lake. These streams and
tlands run through the Great Escape property before entering
e lake. Any alterations to these will effect the water quality
Glen Lake, as well, and any negative effect to Glen Lake's
ter quality also effects our homes, our property values, and
t e health and life of Glen Lake. Glen Lake residents have
wlrked hard to build and maintain their homes and the lake. We
a e concerned that too rapid an approval on this proposal will
l.ad tó serious future problems to the environment and ultimately
t our homes. I am not against new rides at the Great Escape. I
u derstand the importance of this business to our community. I
a not against anyone making a profit, and I certainly support
a y activity that builds up Queensbury, and clearly the Great
E cape is our best known commodity. But I get the sense from
t lking with several people around Glen Lake and the area that
t,e operations at the Great Escape are somehow veiled from the
p blic. I have heard several disturbing stories concerning the
G eat Escape's attitudes towards our shared environment. I hear
s ories that the Great Escape may be taking and using waters from
t,e wetlands that it had previously agreed to leave unhindered.
I hear stories that the Great Escape may be dumping chemically
tinted and/or polluted water from its water rides into the
w tlands; I hear stories of breeches of previous agreements by
t,e Great Escape to maintain a 100 foot buffer zone to the
. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to
mment?
. DERBY-My name is Paul Derby, and I'm a resident of Glen Lake.
d written a letter, but then I decided to come in and read it.
if I can enter a copy also.
BREWER-Sure. Thank you.
- 51 -
'--'
"---'
-...I
wetlands; I hear stor ies that the water levels at Glen Lake a"e
being seriously effected by water gates within the Great Escape.
That is the Great Escape is able to block the flow of water in
the streams that run through the Great Escape and into Glen Lake;
I hear storie~ of animal cages and pens that are washed out into
the wetland streams. I do not know if any or all of these
stories have validity, but it is clear to me that many people
have questions about happenings at the Great Escape and its
effects on our shared environment. And it is even clearer that
many residents of Glen Lake have suspicious and uneasy feeling
about their relationships with their biggest, neighbor, the Great
Escape. The issues I have raised are not separate from the
discussion of the proposed rides. I am concerned, and I know
many residents of Glen Lake are concerned, with the specific
effects these rides will have on qlen Lake. There are many
questions to be answered. For example: Where will this water
for these rides come from? What exactly is the Great Escape's
plan to recycle its water? How are these rides to be cleaned?
Are they drained from time to time into the streams? Is the
water dumped into the ground? I would assume chemicals, such as
chlorine, are added to the water for the proposed water rides.
what happens to this water? Is it treated before disposal?
There are also other related issues. As I drove by the Great
Escape this past summer. I noted that the parking lots were
filled to capacity almost daily. with expanded growth in the
park and, hopefully, increased patronage due to the new rides,
will additional parking be needed? Where will it be? I have
heard speculation that the area in the north west corner, behind
the Trading Post, may become a parking lot. This area clearly
drains directly into the stream and wetlands that run through
that area. From conversations with persons from the New York
State Department of Conservation, I learned that the parking lots
are particularly hazardous to the environment because of the run
off from them. Preliminary reports of the water testing on
tributaries that run into Glen Lake have suggested that
phosphorus levels in our tributaries are increasing. Over
abundance of phosphorous is the principle factor in water quality
deterioration, and water run off is the number one factor in
phosphorous accumulation. What is the cause of this increase?
What effect, if any, does the Great Escape have on this? There
are too many important questions that need to be answered, and
the very real concerns of negative effects to our environment,
and thus to our homes, must be earnestly and critically evaluated
before construction of these water rides should begin.
Therefo,-e, I urge -çhe Town Planning Board to not grant approval
of the proPo$ed building permit at this time. I ask them to
differ a decision until these issues can be adequately addressed.
At this time, I also ask representatives from the Great Escape to
meet with concerned residents from Glen Lake. I suggest that
Great Escape operators walk us through the park so we can ask
questions and you can show us how you use the waters. Such a
meeting and demonstration will do much to remove unfounded
speculation and gossip, but more importantly, such a meeting will
greatly improve neighborly relations. I believe this action is
important to all concerns and failure to address this request may
only lead to deeper misunderstandings in future relations. On
this point also, I ask the Town Planning Board to put off
approval of this proposal until after such a meeting between the
Great Escape and Glen Lake residents can be arranged and carried
out. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Derby II
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
HERB KANE
MR. KANE-My name is Herb Kane. I live on Fitzgerald Road, and I
have, in addition to some of the questions that have already been
brought up, I'm a little concerned about traffic congestion. I
assume that by adding additional rides, or whatever, will enhance
the attendance of the park. Those people have to get there
- 52 -
\.....-
'---
......--'
-/
somehow. pretty congested there right now, or not right
the summer. Also, I agree that the parking lots
go through there quite often, and very often,
t I'm concerned with the runoff, as has been
d scribed before, and I'm particularly concerned, living right
o f Round Pond Road, as to it being definite that that entrance
or exit will not be used to service the park. That's been argued
b fore, and it's always been indicated that it would not be. One
o her question I have, I don't know what kind of an EAF form was
f"led in this particular case, whether it was Long or Short Form.
I was my understanding it was a Short Form.
M . MACEWAN-It is a Short Form.
KANE-That concerns me a little bit, because four or five
I screened in a deck on my house, which is located on
I was required to have a Long Form.
M
y
G
M BREWER-Because it was in a CEA.
E vironmental Area. It doesn't make a
w th you, but you're in a Critical
a ything that's in that area requires a
Correct? A Critical
lot of sense. I agree
Environmental Area, and
Type I Action, Jim?
M . BREWER-And this is not in a tEA?
MARTIN-No.
M
MARTIN-Yes.
Any unlisted action's a Type I action in a CEA.
M
M . BREWER-That's the reason, sir.
M . KANE-It's as good as any, I guess.
BREWER-It's not a good reason, but that is the reason.
MARTIN-That's the law. I don't know whether it's a reason or
t. That's the way the law reads.
· KANE-But it did concern me, the fact that L had to go through
whole bunch of nonsense for a screened porch on an existing
M . BREWER-I agree.
KANE-And this thing can go on with a Short Form. It doesn't
ke sense. So, those are the issues that I have. I assume
ere's been a perc test, either on this application or previous
éS, that satisfies everyone. With that amount of water going
to the ground, it's got to go somewhere, and we're going to get
in Glen Lake, eventually. Thank you.
· BREWER-Thank you.
CHELLE MAYER
· MAYER-I'm Michelle Mayer. I'm also a Glen Lake resident.
on the Milfoil Committee, the Environmental Committee, and
I'm a member of the Queensbury Water Quality Technical Committee
at was just formed. One of the things, well, I have several
ncerns. When we were talking about the Long Form Environmental
pact Study, the man who wanted to bring in three pigs. You
ld him he'd have to come back with one, and, I mean, this is
ing to use 500,000 gallons of water. You don't think that's
ing to have, you think that's going to have less of an
vironmental impact than three pigs?
· BREWER-I don't know what to tell you, ma'am.
SEQRA yet. So I don't know.
We didn't go
really think that this just needs to be looked at
- 53 -
'--/
-..-/
--'
~
more. I thought the man who came up here to talk about the
holding tanks for the water, he was very vague about where
they're going to be. Who monitors, does anybody monitor this?
MR. BREWER-Monitor what?
MS. MAYER-Do we just take their word that the chlorine's out
before this water goes? Does the Town of Queensbury monitor this
at all?
MR. BREWER-I don't know that the Town does, but we can ask Mr.
Lemery, when everybody else gets done. I'll ask him that.
MS. MAYER-That's a concern.
MR. BREWER-I have it written down here somewhere, water testing.
MS. MAYER-I've been involved in some of the wate,- testing. One
of the problems, you know, we've been testing for sediment and
phosphorus, and that's from runoff, and large quantities of water
released at one time cause runoff. Phosphorus feeds the milfoil.
We're trying to clean the lake up from milfoil, and it's going to
be a losing battle if we're not getting any help from the other
end of this wetland. I'm not opposed to this, you know, just
flat out. I just think there should be more information before
this is approved.
MR. MACEWAN-Can I ask a question of you? What are
your information on, that you think that the milfoil
the high level of phosphorus in the lake are coming
the inlet and potentially from the Great Escape?
you basing
growth and
in through
MS. MAYER-I didn't say that. What I said was that an increase in
phosphorus will increase the milfoil, because phosphorus is one
of the things that milfoil likes to grow.
MR. MACEWAN-Due to large runoff?
MS. MAYER-When there's a large amount of runoff, there's an
increased sediment, and there's increased phosphorus, and I would
be concerned that this might happen from adding, you know,
500,000 gallons of water into rides. That has to, the water has
to be changed at some point.
MR. MACEWAN-All right.
lake, high levels of
milfoil on the lake?
Are you experiencing that now
phosphorus and a steady growth
on the
of the
MS. MAYER-There isn't a high level of phosphorus in the lake
,-ight now. There is a steady growth of milfoil because it's a
plant that will keep growing until we get rid of it, but what I'm
concerned about is, we're trying to get rid of the milfoil in the
lake, and we don't need more problems from outside of the lake,
and I just want to make sure that.
MR. MACEWAN-I guess that's where I'm trying to go with this. How
do you know, or what basis of information do you have, to tell
you that the problems are coming from outside the lake?
MS. MAYER-I didn't say the problems are coming from outside the
lake. What I'm saying is, I think there should be more testing,
before you add these water rides, to make sure that this doesn't
make a problem coming from outside of the lake. I mean, this
definitely has the potential to make a problem coming from
outside of the lake. It's 500,000 gallons of water putting in to
these rides. It's got to go somewhere.
MR. MACEWAN-What kind of testing would you like to see done?
MS. MAYER-Well, I'd like a long form environmental impact study
- 54 -
"--'
"--'"
.
"-
~
fore this is done, before this is approved.
· BREWER-If you tell us what kind of tests you want done, maybe
can accomplish that.
· MAYER-I don't understand why you don't feel that you need
re environmental information before this is done.
· BREWER-I don't know what kind of tests we need. We're asking
r your help. I'm not saying that we won't ask for anything
se.
· DERBY-There's no denying that our heaviest milfoil growth is
ght there at the inlet to the lake. That's right at the
ginning of Glen Lake. That's coming out of the wetlands, right
om the Great Escape. That's physical evidence.
· MACEWAN-In all fairness to the applicant, the wetlands travel
the Great Escape.
· DERBY-That's what I mean.
MACEWAN-Their origin could be beyond the Great Escape.
· DERBY-I'm not saying that they're not. !'m not accusing them
doing that, but I'm just saying that there is physical
idence that that's our highest concentration of mil foil. What
need to have are phosphorus tests in that wetlands before the
eat Escape, in Rush Pond, inside the Great Escape, and on the
her side, and also at the beginning of our lake, and at points
wn, so we can compare phosphorus levels, here, here, here, and
e if there are inordinant amounts of phosphorus, or other
trients.
· BREWER-I don't mean to cut you off, but didn't the Town just
something with a grant or something for testing?
· MARTIN-It's through this group that the testing started, but
s basically, there wasn't enough of it done to draw any
nclusions from. It was inconclusive. So it's going to start
again come this spring. We're at point in the year, right
w, where it's not a good time to undertake that type of
sting.
DERBY-It started too late for us to make any, ki nd of
nclusions from thosé tests.
MARTIN-Just to add about the Long Form comment, what kicks
is into a Type I Action, from a SEQRA point of view, is water
age in excess of two million gallons a day.
· OBERMAYER-Do they require a SPDES Permit to discharge that
ter?
· MACNAMARA-I don't believe that they have
of the questions I had about their
in the ground now and what's the
ere may well be a SPDES Permit out there.
indicated in the submittal.
a SPDES Permit.
septic facilities
design capacity.
There just wasn't
· OBERMAYER-Yes, but don't you have to provide an addendum to
SPDES Permit when you're adding additional water sources?
MACNAMARA-See, I'm separating the septic facilities for the
r strooms and the sanitary issues from the draining of the pools,
which is a different item, and they're using the same concepts
that were previously reviewed and approved for their last ride,
which is essentially dechlorination of pool water, and subsurface
disposal.
- 55 -
',--
...........
'-/
~
MR. BREWER-I'm not positive, but I think I recall us asking about
the testing of the water at that time. When the place is closed,
they have to let it set for a certain period of time, and I don't
recall exactly what that was, but I do recall asking about that,
maybe not me, particularly, but.
MS. MAYER-Does anybody monitor it, or check it?
MR. BREWER-We'll ask. I've got water testing down here.
Mr. Lemery comes back up, we'll ask him that.
When
MR. RUEL-Tell me something, how does water testing, today, give
an indication of the new proposed water rides later? What's the
relation here?
MR. BREWER-I don't know. That's why I asked them what kind of
tests they want us to do.
MR. RUEL-You can test all you want to now.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I think there's an important thing to be looked
at here. Li~e, for example, on Lake George, the Lake George Park
Commission Regulations, before they were thrown out for waste
water, cited a separation distance of 200 feet as an acceptable
distance for leach beds from the shore of the lake. So, I mean,
lets look, you know, what are the separation distances from the
discharge points here, of the drywells, from the shore of the
wetland or the lake. That would be a relevant question.
MR. RUEL-Does anyone know the elevation of Glen. Lake?
Escape is 240. I want to know what the difference
anyone know?
The Great
is. Does
MR. DERBY-I don't know.
MR. BREWER-I'm sure it's downhill.
MR. DERBY-The water definitely runs that way.
it's down hill.
I don't know if
MR. RUEL-If it went the other way, you'd be in trouble.
MR. DERBY-That's right.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I guess, we had the engineer up there showing us
the area of the drywells, where they're going to be located for
the discharge point. How far is that from the edge of the
wetland or the lake?
MR. SCARANO-In the order of 1500 feet.
MR. MARTIN-Fifteen hundred feet. Okay.
MR. RUEL-That certainly sounds like it's adequate, 1500.
MR. MARTIN-According to standards that we've seen up at Lake
George. That's for sanitary septic discharge.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Next?
ROBERT CANTERBURY
MR. CANTERBURY-I'm Robert Canterbury, and I live right behind the
Great Escape. I've owned the property there for more than 35
years. When I first went to Glen Lake, I could take a boat and
go out and look at the bottom for a great distance out. For
hundreds of feet out, I could look down and see the bottom. I am
right near the inlet, and if you want to ask me, I'll tell you.
I'm not a scientist. I didn't bring any written notes, but I can
tell you just exactly how I feel, and I believe I can give you
- 56 -
\--
~
'-...-/'
..J
s me information that I believe is authoritative. In the first
place, they're on higher ground, much higher ground. Behind my
place is a bank that goes up and up and up, and it comes down in
t e Great Escape. Now, water, I'm not a scientist, but I'll tell
y u, the water runs down hill. It doesn't run ~hill. It runs
d wn hill, and naturally the inlet comes right in, right in to
o r area, and the water is coming down. It runs down there
feely, and you can see the stream of wate)", and when the ice
b1eaks in the spring, you can see where the water flows right on
o t into the lake, coming from that direction. I have seen
t rrible deterioration in the lake, and I'm alarmed, and the
Bard must realize the fact that there's a lot of income coming
f om Glen Lake. We pay our tax money, and the taxes have been
g ing up, not down, and yet the condition of the lake is getting
t be deplorable. Milfoil was so bad out at the end of my dock,
i was 10 feet of water, 10 feet deep, and it goes down deèper
t an that as you go out further, and there were some times when I
w s really concerned about diving into the water because of
g tting tangled in the mil foil, and that's not fiction. That's
a actual fact. If you want to see milfoil, you come up there in
font of ~ place, and you'll see it. Now the question is,
were is this coming from? I'm not an enemy of the Great Escape.
I think they've done wonderful things there, and they have a
~ogram. They have finances to keep on adding to and so on, but
t e question is, where is the end of this coming, and the fact
i , the water, the drywells, and everything else, the chlorine
a d everything that goes in there from the Great Escape is going
d wn into the ground, and I'm right near the water level. In
f ct, when the water level rises in Glen Lake, I get water in my
c llar. We have to get our water from Glen Lake. I had to put a
I ne out there. I could go out and see the line. When we first
m ved there, and we put a line in there to get water out of the
1 ke, I could go out and no problem finding where it was. Now,
the fall, or any when I want to see if everything is in
ntrol, I can't hardly find the end of the line. It's almost
possible to see it because of the milfoil and the
terioration, and the thing is, water's going down, and the
ing is, in our water system, we have the filter, we have the
ys to control, to try and destroy all the, anything that gets
the water, and yet my wife will not have anything to do with
except to boil the drinking water that we drink now, and the
oblem is really very crucial. I'm a member of the Glen Lake
sociation, and we've been there and we've seen this. My
ncern is, we do not oppose the things they're doing at the
eat Escape. They're entitled to do this. This is business.
's brought a great many benefits to our area, but the whole
ing is, if this is an instrument that's going to destroy the
tire lake, everybody's going to feel it, and the community's
ing to feel it. If it keeps on going the way it is, there may
t be anybody interested in going to Glen Lake, because of the
c nditions that can exist, but after the 35 years of the
s·tuation there, I have noticed the situation, and I live near
t,e inlet, and I want to tell you that there have been times when
t ey were having some projects theré, you could see the result of
i by looking over the bridge that we have to go out, and see
t at there are, there is a flow that comes there from the Great
E cape, and my concern is that with the additional use of so many
g lIons of water, thousands of gallons of water that are going in
t ere, it's all going down there. The more people you have, the
m re sewage you're going to have. They don't have a public
s urce of sewage. It's all in the area. It's going down into
t e ground. All these things that are going down are going to
s ttle into the ground, and believe me, ladies and gentlemen,
w 're getting the benefits there, and I'm a resident there. I
c n see it every time I go out and look at the lake. I know it's
t ere, and so I'm concerned, not in just trying to destroy some
things that are may be benefits so people can have a good time,
and people have a right to their business enterprises, but the
q estion is, where is this going to stop, and what is it going to
t ke before we finally realize that these things are dangerous?
- 57 -
~
~
---
---
You cannot see, in the future, what this is going to do, but I
can tell you, from 35 years of being a resident there, near the
inlet, I can give you first hand information of what it appears
to be, from my perspective, and many times we've protested.
We've protested on some things, and of course the idea, most of
the folks that are there don't have a lot of money. We have to
rely on appealing to the Board and giving you the facts, and if
the facts are ignored, then, ladies and gentlemen, we're all
going to be the benefactors, and so this is my concern. I
believe that the use of extra water and putting these things in,
these pools in there, and getting people in there. There's so
many areas, so many things to think about that I believe it's
going to be very detrimental, and I certainly am not in favor. I
think that, many things. These are the folks that have appeared
before me here, before you, they've given you some statistics.
They've given you some facts, and there ar. problems. There's
traffic problems. There are some times when I have a hard time
getting out of the Glen Lake Road, and sometimes go up through
the community center so that I can get to a traffic light so that
I can get out and go somewhere, and that comes in the summer time
when things are very busy, but besides that, I'm not concerned so
much about that as I am the conditions of the lake that is really
going down the drain, unless something is done for Glen Lake, and
to protect it against some of the things that are happening,
we're going to be in trouble, and you folks are going to see the
benefits of it, just as we do. The whole thing is, there's no
question in my mind where there's all these wells and all this
water being disbursed, and everything that's going on that's
going to go down in the ground, and it is eventually coming right
down to Glen Lake, and I don't see any other area. Okay.
MR. BREWER-Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
MR. CANTERBURY-Thank you.
FRANK BRENNEISEN
MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes. My name is Frank Brenneisen. I live on Glen
Lake. I wrote you the letter, and I'm on the Dam Committee.
I've been living on Glen Lake for 20 years, and I've watched the
level of that lake go up and down, and the only time it went
down, we maintained the level, like I told you, and the only time
I've eve,- seen it go down, which wasn't because of OU1- doing, was
because the beavers built dams in the culverts. We called DEC.
They said they didn't have the manpower to remove them, but we
could do what we wanted to, so we did. . We've done that three
times. I was there each time, but now I see the water coming
through from Rush Pond, very clear, very nicely, but yet it's
held up as it goes into the Great Escape. Somehow or other, it's
slowed down. It comes out the other side like somebody turned
the tap down three quarters of the way, and we're only getting a
slight flow through. This past August, the latter part of this
August, we had complaints of people on the lake. Their boats
were sitting on sand, and I investigated that right away. It
went right to the dam. Our boards are in the dam. The water
level should have been right up, but it wasn't, and the reason it
wasn't, because there was no water coming in. I say no water, I
mean, there's an amount coming in. It's not held up completely,
but quite a bit. Okay. Each time this happens, I run over to
Rush Pond. I make su,-e that those culverts, that water is comi ng
through, and the only place I can't check is, of course, is
inside the Great Escape. So it's going through, straight to the
Great Escape, and not coming out the other side, like it should.
While, all of a sudden here, November 2nd, we got the flood. We
got all the water coming through. I guess they let the water
through somehow or other. I don't know how this is being done,
but the water came through, and with that, we got all the silt
that came through with it. We got algae, which I've never seen.
Glen Lake has algae in it, of course. On the other side of the
bridge, the bike path bridge I'm talking about, that leads up
- 58 -
'~
'-'
'-..../'
....-'
i the wetlands, leads up into the Great Escape, I've never
algae up in there before. I see it by the abundance right
n w. You just have to go by the bike path, and look on thè left
a d look on the right, and there it is sitting right there. What
e se has come through, this is clogged up there. In my past
h"story, I've never seen anything coming through there except
c ttails, (lost word) things like that. Maybe you'll find a
b ttle somebody fishing, but now all of a sudden we'll get this
undance of water. November 7th, somebody must have jumped in
e stream there or something in the Great Escape, because they
d a back log of water up in their parking lot. It came over
bank, which is two and a half feet up, and then 65 feet into
tl e parking lot, which is adjacent to the Red Coach, and it went
in there probably, maybe 200 yards. By that evening it was
wn again. When that was backed up like that, I went back down
e bike path. We had no water coming through again. You'd take
little branch and throw it in the water, and it would take
most five minutes to go on the other side of the bridge, but
en they exposed the water, and let it go through there, boy,
u throw that branch in there, it's gone. It's in the lake in
ve minutes. It goes right through. Now people tell me, they
n't hold up the water. They can't stop the water. Well you
II me where the water is going, and why, and in the parking lot
the Great Escape on the west side there, toward Rush Pond,
ere's three culverts underneath there, drive across the bridge,
d they're always right up to the top. Right now you can see
derneath them. When the water's being held up, somehow, oddly
ough, that water comes right up in there, and we don't get any
ter through. We get some, but very little. If Glen Lake
sn't supported by springs, we wouldn't have any water this past
mmer. Thank you.
M . BREWER-Thank you.
ED NICOLSON
NICOLSON-This is Fred Nicolson. We own this bridge that
ank was just talking about, and that's our roadway into our
ace. I've heard a lot of things about the water. We've lived
the water. I go over on the bridge a lot. You can always
II when the Great Escape is under construction up there,
cause there's black, mucky mud coming down that outlet into the
ke, and, boy, sometimes I've even taken a pail, taken an old
il, and scooped some of the oil and crap off the top of 'the
ter, and I took it to, I don't know, somebody up at the County
nter, but anyway, I showed it to Frank, and it's allover, and
y u can do that every once in a while. You just go over to that
b-idge and look. There's no way you're going to look down
t Irough the water to see the bottom of the brook. It's that
black muck, and you go on over to the Great Escape, and you'll
s e they're digging over there, doing something, and that's all
I've got to say. I guess everybody else has had talk about how
t e water is, but I guess nobody's mentioned about the muck in
t,e Glen Lake and where it's coming from. It's coming right down
t at brook.
BREWER-Thank you, sir.
NICOLSON-You're welcome~ Thank you.
DALY-Good evening. My name is Lindy Daly, and I'm a life
ng resident of Glen Lake. While my concerns echo Reverend
nterbury's, about the water quality, I'm also very concerned
out the parking and the runoff. We've learned a lot about
p rking lots and things that drip out of cars, and when it rains
it washes into the stream, and we're concerned with additional
rides to increase the admission there, and also a two day pass to
h ve repeat admissions, what's that going to do to additional
- 59 -
'--'
'--0/
"~"'-
'--
cars, additional parking, additional cODgestion, and it's very
difficult to get out of the Glen Lake Road onto Route 9. It's
very difficult to get home coming down Route 9, and we're just
very concerned about, you know, more runoff, more parking
problems, more congestion, along with the water quality.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
comment?
JOHN HAKO
MR. HAKO-Good evening, members of the Board. I'll try to keep my
comments to 100,000 words or less. My name is John Hako. I'm an
attorney in Guilderland, NY. We have been asked by the Glen Lake
Protective Association to say a few words on its behalf. We do
continue on our representative capacity of M)-. Victor Thomas, who
is a Town resident, as well as Gary and Dawn Koncikowski, who are
residents of Lake George. We had a chance to discuss some of the
ins and outs of this particular project with the members of the
Association, prior to the onset of tonight's meeting, and I think
the great concern that the members really have is the posity, the
scarcity of substantive information that's been provided,
regarding this project, especially when considering the
relatively detailed materials that the applicant submitted two
years ago, or a year and a half ago, rather, for the Noah's
Sprayground, and the Black Cobra Ride. Now some of the problems
we had going through, and we received the information submitted
to the Board, the site plan application and the supporting
materials from the Great Escape, through a foil request from the
Planning Department, and it appears that, I have questions, just
basic threshold questions, of whether, for technical and
substantive reasons, the material submitted even constitutes a
complete site plan for ability to review, and that's based upon
some of these, some minor, some major issues. There are no
building setbacks given for any of the improvements. There's no
boundary dimensions. There's no setbacks from existing zones or
neighboring zones. There is, in fact, a residential zone less
than 50 feet from the filter building, that is at the end of the
Adventure River ride, The site location map is relatively
insufficient to show the actual projects that have been
constructed in this particular area of the park, which was, at
one time, the campground, and at one time the subject of a
complete conversion over to what was known as the Tahitian
Tempest Water Park, which was not pursued by the applicant. The
application materials, and specifically, the site plan does not
contain the source of water supply, exactly where is this four
inch main coming in from? Sewage piping and disposal, stormwater
drainage flow, none of these things are indicated on the site
plan. The inflow and outflow pipes to and from the filter
building to the Adventure River ride. No indication of where
these are. We found out tonight that everything, as far as
drywells are only at conceptual stage. I think the applicant has
the obligation to show the Board the entirety of the site plan,
not some things that are conceptual and some things that are
concrete or cast in stone. I think it's the obligation of the
applicant to quell any of the concerns that the members of the
public have, especially the neighbors have, as to environmental
concerns. I don't think it's their job. They don't have the
resources, and they're not applying for this project to prove
that, indeed, the Great Escape is or isn't causing the problem.
I think the Great Escape has an obligation to show, certainly
based upon the comments made here tonight, that they are not the
source of the problem. That is part of this Board's supervisory,
or overseeing, role. I would just note the plans don't appear to
be signed, sealed, or dated by anyone. So I'm not exactly sure,
the information presented on these plans, where they come from.
Was there another survey that was used as a source? I assume
USGS topographical information was used for the topo on the
grading plan, but there is absolutely no indication if that
really is the source of that information. There are no ride
- 60 -
...............,...
'\.--
',....../
"-'"
,.,...,./
profiles given. There's no cross sections. There's no elevation
drawings. I don't know if that particular drawing of the castle
s available, or seen by any of the members of the Staff before
night, but it certainly wasn't in the materials on file.
isting water courses, and I guess that's a major issue that
me up tonight. They're not shown on the plan. It just boggles
mind that this could be considered a complete site plan
plication simply because it raises more questions than it
swers. To compare to site plan 10-93 for the Black Cobra and
e Noah's Sprayground, which was presented by a licensed
ndscape Architect, Jeff Anthony, of the LA Group, there were
isting conditions and demolition plans laid out in three feet
four feet, for the Boárd to see. Each ride, each of the two
tractions, had a layout and materials plan, a grading, drainage
d utility plan, a planting plan, and a detail plan and cross
s ction profile, elevation drawings. They submitted a Long Form
vironmental Asses~ment. They also submitted a drainage report
r a 50 year storm event. Each map had a 20 foot scale, as
posed to a 40 foot scale. The information was just simply not
mparable to what is being proposed tonight for a project that
twice the size of those particular attractions, and uses and
sposes of 10 times as much water, if not more. Simply put, I
ink the Board has to require that the applicant complete the
plication, show where these leach pits are going to go, show
ere the drywells are going to go, put some numbers on the map,
d give us a better indication of where this is. I mean, we
ve a general statement of where the wetland is in reference to
is, but because we only see what is proposed, and the entirety
p of the Great Escape was never put on file for this
plication, with the Planning Department, I really think there's
obligation to give us a much bigger picture than what's being
esented, and to that level, I really have to get into some of
e substantive issues which have been raised by the members of
e Glen Lake Association Board in order to bring those thoughts
gether. In particular response to the Planning Office memo. I
n't impugn the Planning Office's ability to review any of these
ings when they didn't have anything to review, and it's fairly
s mple to conclude that the proposed rides will be compatible
w·th the existing structures and rides when they haven't been
9 ven any profiles, elevations, cross sections, or details to
r view, in relation to these particular structures and buildings.
H ware they going to blend in with the remaining rides, or the
e isting rides, we don't know, because we've never been shown
e actly how that'll happen. The traffic and parking issues, I
t ink, are especially crucial, in that the applicant hasn't
sated how many patrons, what is the capacity for these two
rOdes. It looks like. if that's a 1200 foot ride, and there's
t 0 or three rafters every 10 to 15 feet, there could be a pretty
g od capacity for patronage on that one ride alone. There's no
m ntion of the number of employees that will be needed to take
c re of the patrons on these particular rides and to run the
a tractions. The roller coaster EIS, which we have a copy of,
a d would incorporate by reference, into this application,
c ncluded that there would be a two percent increase in the
t affic and parking. Our traffic, I'm trying to say the trip
g neration, would only be increased by two percent, when in fact
M . Wood stated in a trade, or an industry guide, that we will
p-ovide a copy of the article to the Board, that in fact if it
w sn't for the rain in July, that the Comet would have brought
a out a 20 percent increase in patronage, not to mention the fact
that it actually did bring about a 10 percent increase in the
p tronage. Already we have a flawed conclusion from the EIS,
that we are, we should not overlook, or we should not give the
a plicant some opportunity to correct, complete more accurate. I
think given the distance, also, of the two day pass, and the fact
that there will be substantially more repeat business as a result
of that, is obviously going to affect the number of patrons in
the park and the parking and related traffic and trip making that
is going to result from that. I don't think there's any way
those changes, and that's a relatively new program that the Great
- 61 -
'---,
~
.....-
Escape has, the two day pass, I don't see any possible way that
can't affect the parking and traffic situation. To further
address the Planning Office memorandum, as to stormwater drainage
facilities, Rist-Frost reviewed, but it did not get any
information as to whetherperc tests were done, any study as to
the groundwater flow direction, groundwater flow quality. There
don't appear to be the storm drains or actual recharge basins
proposed for this project that were proposed and installed for
the original two water attractions, the Sprayground and the Slack
Cobra. So, again, information that is lacking and plans that
appear to be lacking when they were in fact quite a bit more
complete a year and a half ago. The adequacy of the water supply
and the sew~ge disposal facilities, municipal water, and there
are no new sanitary facilities proposed with this project.
However, there was a conversion of the Johnny Appleseed building,
which is now used as a restroom, and I heard stated tonight that
there is a 9,000 gallon per day usage of waste water, and I
assume that's usage of the public water supply prior to it
becoming waste water. If you add that to the amount of water
used in the existing rides, plus the million and a half gallons
that is to be used over the course of the summer on the two
proposed rides, it would appear that the average water supply, or
average water use per day would exceed 20,000 gallons a day.
That is not a threshold issue for a Type I Action, but that is
certainly one of the elements in determining whether something
reaches a Type I Action on the Long Form EAF. That specifically
refers to, does the project use more than 20,000 gallons per day.
The LA Group's planting plan was also considerably more detailed.
I really don't have any idea, other than four types of plantings
that are shown in clumps, really what their function is, what
they do, and how they are going to be phased in. The impact of
structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and erosion. No figures have
been given on existing erosion and sedimentation, and tonight
you've heard some testimony that a member has seen considerable
siltation and, in fact, sedimentation and pollution, when
construction was taking place at the site. It should also be
mentioned that when the Tahitian Tempest was proposed, in early
1989, that the EIS finding, or the positive declaration for that
project, did raise some flood zone concerns as the lower lying
areas were indeed in a flood zone. So, some of these things, if
not all of these thing, really are required to be addressed by
the applicant. I believe that is the applicant's obligation, and
I'll get on to the second phase of my presentation here, in the
hopes of wrapping this up without too much agony to the members
of the Board. I have prepared a rather lengthy letter that I'd
like to distribute to the members of the Board and will also
supply to the applicant's counsel, as soon as I've had a chance
to highlight some of the points we're making. I think it's
important, as this Board in 1993 when I was here last to voice
our concerns with the other two water rides, that there are now
five members here that weren't here that night, and I think it's
important for those newer members to understand some of the
historical perspective that has led us all here tonight. I think
the most important nexus with tonight is the Tahitian Tempest
Water Park that was proposed in 1989. This consisted of the
conversion of the former RV/Campground site, which now houses the
two water rides and the roller coaster, to the Tahitian Tempest
Park, and in fact all 39.1 acres of that parcel was proposed to
become the Park, of which 7.6 acres would be utilized for the
actual construction of the amusements. Now these amusements at
that time were to include 12 water slides, 4 kiddie slides, a
wave pool, a surf pool, a tube hill, a lazy river ride, a junior
lazy river ride, and a 900 foot long Colorado River Rapids ride,
as well as a changing room, a rental area and a restroom. At
that time, the applicant also proposed 450 additional parking
spaces, some of which were to lie adjacent to the protected
wetland, and some were also proposed to be located within an LC-
42A district, and in fact, the applicant sought an interpretation
that it was allowed to use some of that zoned property as an
- 62 -
~
""--' '
"--"
...J
a junct, or as an accessory to the proposed water park. On April
19 of 1989, this Board, as lead agency, issued a positive
d claration on the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
d termining for 11 enumerated reasons, that that proposed Water
P rk would have a significant impact on the environment. The
Great Escape was req~ired to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact
atement, due to the following 11 reasons, being the sloping on
e site, the water usage proposed, the portions of the project
ing in a flood zone, the project being adjacent to a regulated
tland,and the significant habitat located in the wetland, the
ck of mitigation relative to the proposed parking adjacent to
e wetland, the historic and archeological sensitivity of the
te area, noise impacts, the demand upon community services,
rking and traffic impacts, and the existing zoning and also
sthetic impacts. We will give the Board a copy of that
sitive declaration.
BREWER-That Positive Dec was for what, Sir?
HAKO-For the Tahitian Tempest Water Park, which proposed a
mber of rides, which I listed earlier. In June of 1989, this
plication was withdrawn, and later the Great Escape, for a time
yway, was sold to International Broadcasting Corporation. Now
s nee the withdrawal of the Tahitian Tempest, there has been no
tempt to have this project reinstated in total, but it has to
our conclusion, and it was our conclusion when we were here a
ar and a half ago, that the applicant is attempting to arrive
the water park on a piece by piece or segmented basis.
early, it is not permissible for an applicant to try to back
or, as Michael O'Connor put to this Board a year and a half
0, a water park that originally had an EIS required for it, and
now being proposed in two, three, six acre chunks~ It would
pear that this is somewhat of an attempt to get around the more
tailed information that is required as a result of SEQRA
view, as a result of a positive declaration and the need for an
vironmental Impact Statement. We are not saying that is what
required in this instance, but we are saying that the
formation provided is not even sufficient to have the Board
ke a determination whether such a statement, or whether such an
pact statement needs to be filled out and filed. The Comet
R ller Coaster was then proposed, late in 1990, and for that
p-oject, a positive declaration was also issued from this Board.
M . BREWER-Sir, I don't want to cut you off, but I don't know
w1at relevance the roller coaster has to do with this ride.
· HAKO~The roller coaster is located in the former campground
reel, which, in fact, is now located upon where the Tahitian
mpest was going to be located, in part. I will just state that
ere was a DEIS that was open after the public hearing on same,
the Comet hearing.
· BREWER-They did do an EIS on the roller coaster, and it's not
levant to this.
· HAKO-Well, I think it is relevant, and I think that's why I
ntioned it in the letter and why I'm trying to bring it as part
this presentation. Thereafter, the Noah's Sprayground was
p oposed, and was, in fact, built in May, through July of 1992.
T1ereafter, our client brought an appeal before the Zoning Board
o Appeals, which found that this should not have been built upon
a building permit issued without prior site plan review, and
r quired the site plan for that project to take place before this
Bard. So, in 1993, the applicant came back before this Board
with the Noah's Sprayground application, together with the Black
C bra application. These two attractions take up approximately
1.85 acres of lands that were formerly to be used for the
T hitian Tempest Water Park. In fact, the information given to
the Board by the LA Group has a site location map, and we will
file that information filed by the LA Group for that application.
- 63 -
----....
-------
-..-'
It clearly indicates that these two attractions were to be
located on the proposed water theme park, and that language is
clearly on the application materials for the 1993 application.
At that time, we expressed concerns that, obviously, there were
future plans for expansion of this water theme park, but as the
applicant did not set forth any of those concrete plans at that
time, the Board did not feel that our argument that this was a
segmentation of the environmental review process was a valid
argument, and, in fact, did not consider the impact of, or did
not believe it was necessary to consider the environmental impact
of these two rides, the Sprayground, the Black Cobra, with the
roller coaster. The roller coaster was later approved in late
1993. We think there has to be some kind of a detailed and
coordinated SEQRA Review, simply based upon what history has
shown us. There has been a new attraction added every year.
There was no indication from the applicant, in 1993, when we were
before it, that there was going to be any further expansion of
the water park, and the water park seems to be expanding on a
piece by piece basis. The usage, the demand on public services
grows. The demand on parking and traffic grows. These are all
accumulating impacts. We state that Mr. Wood is attempting to
get his water park by this route, through a jigsaw puzzle
process. I think he knows what the jigsaw puzzle looks like when
it's done, and I think the Board and the public has a right to
see that, too. Right now, if this is approved, we're going to
have a five and a half acre water park, not too much less in
capacity than the 7.6 acres which were proposed to be disturbed
for water attractions four years ago, five years ago. So I
really have to pick up on Mr. Ruel's comment, that there is a
considerable amount of acreage left, running back from this
project, parallel to the roller coaster and going back toward the
fen. It is not a few acres, stated by Mr. Lemery. In fact, it
exceeds 31 acres, if my calculation of the 39.1 acres less the
land used by the proposed rides, the roller coaster and the two
already approved water rides, is correct. There is a
considerable ability for the applicant to expand, in not only the
water park, but also mechanical rides, but I believe the intent
is clear, that this is a water park that is being proposed. To
tie in some of the comments made, again, by the members of the
public, of the Glen Lake Protective Association, we, again,
stress that parking is a critical mass issue at the Great Escape.
There have been a total of 40 parking spots carved out of
existing parking areas since 1990. Only 40 spots have been added
for Noah's Sprayground, the Black Cobra, the Comet, and these two
proposed rides. They can't use the Bavarian Palace parking lot
because that parking lot was restricted for users of the
restaurant, by specific fiat of this Board when it approved the
Bavarian Palace. So it appears that the applicant has got to go
somewhere with the parking, and issues regarding where that
somewhere is came up before this Board tonight. The applicant
realizes this is a critical problem, and I think the Board has to
recognize that also. Again, there is an undoubted affect on the
Glen Lake Fen. We have a letter from the Department of
Environmental Conservation which was issued in relation to the
Tahitian Tempest project. That indicates that the project site
is located uplands from the drainage into the Glen Lake Fen.
Reverend Canterbury can certainly testify.
MR. LEMERY-Excuse me, Mr. Brewer. We keep making reference to
the Glen Lake Fen, and the Tahitian Tempest project, as though
this is the Tahitian Tempest project. It's unfair, inappropriate
and not before this Board. I don't want to impose on this
fellow's right to speak.
MR. HAKO-It's located in the same general area, and upland.
MR. BREWER-Lets not argue. I'm going to end the meeting if we
continue to argue, okay. Lets just pick it up and move on.
MR. HAKO-This is not the exact same location. He is correct, but
- 64 -
'---'
"---"
"-..-/
---./
i is still upgradient.
M . BREWER-All right. Well, I don't think what happened in 1990
a d 1988 and whatever is relevant to this. Lets talk about this
p oject and move on if we could, please.
. HAKO-I think I've really touched upon everything that we want
touch upon, and I don't want to put the members of the Board
sleep, but I would like, and I would really appreciate it if
e members of the Board could take the time to try to digest our
tter, try to digest the materials that we believe are very
levant to this project, given the history of the project to
te, and possibly, and we would, in fact, formally request that
be adjourned in order for the Board to have an opportunity to
view the materials we have presented, to review the materials
esented.
BREWER-Have those materials been presented to Staff?
HAKO-They have not been. I am about to pass them ,up to you,
well as the two letters given to the Board by the local
sidents, and I thank you very much.
. BREWER-Okay.
speak?
Thank you. Okay. Anybody else who would like
D VE MENTER
MENTER-My name is Dave Menter, and I'm a resident of
eensbury, and I just had a couple of quick comments. One thing
think that I'd like to ask the Board to consider, as something
at stands out, to me, is that you need to keep a perspective on
at it is we're looking at, here, and not a lot of peripheral
sues. While some of these things are very important and big
sues, the water issue is a big issue, and if this project is
ing to be detrimental to the lake, that's important.
BREWER-Agreed.
MENTER-Although, you know, I think the evidence to that is a
t ugh one. Fifteen hundred feet is a long ways, and I think this
p·oject has to be looked at as a separate project. It's not part
o Tahitian Tempest. There is no Tahitian Tempest. Mr.
K ncikowski's attorney just tied everything together, and I'm not
s re what the tactic was, but I think that was a tactic. As far
a· the residents go, a lot of the issues that they have are real
i sues. The lake is polluted, and it's probably not getting
b tter. Is this project going to make the lake worse, is the
sue as far as that goes. If this is going to increase parking,
r sure, then I think parking may be an issue, but I think what
u need to do is keep a perspective on what is affecting what,
d there's a lot of other things that may be brought into it
t at aren't relative to this specific project. I support the
p-oject. I think it's environmentally responsible, and I think
i will be a great addition to the Park and to the Town. That's
i .
BREWER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else?
VID KENNY
M . KENNY-David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. The
one thing I'll say is that I am in support of the project. I
t ink the issues have to be examined and taken care of, but,
erall, I think the Great Escape has been a big benefit to the
mmunity. Thank you.
. BREWER-Mr. Wood?
ARLES WOOD
- 65 -
',,--,
',--/
-......./
,-,'
MR. WOOD-I feel bad for you folks that have had to sit through
all of this. I thought we had enough problems with the pig farm,
but now with this water park I must apologize, and I'd like to
say that, this time, I have nothing against Glen Lake Association
for coming with their comments. I'd be most happy to help them
finance any findings, any testings they'd like to do on the Great
Escape property or any other place. The whole area has the same
problem that they have. I own a large piece of property on Lake
George. My dear friend Wilbur Dowl did his utmost to get people
to support, to try to stop milfoil in Lake George. They have a
bigger problem in Lake George than they do on Glen Lake. It is a
situation that exists allover, and anything I can do, I'm most
willing to do. I do resent, though, a man from Lake George
sending an attorney down here to fight competition. I'm not
afraid of competition. I don't care whether it's the Fort
William Henry or Riverside Park or any other Park, or anybody
that wants to come into the area. I welcome it all, but I do not
appreciate when somebody hides behind the Glen Lake Association
and comes down here and takes tour time and ~ time because he's
afraid of competition. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Mr. Wood, there was one comment, in the
Glen Lake Association, that if you meet with them and maybe go
over the questions that they had. Would you be willing to do
that?
MR. WOOD-There's no question, when they tell me, here tonight,
that they attempted to contact me, I left Friday, at 10 o'clock
in the morning, for the hotel show in New York City. Nobody,
prior to my leaving, contacted me. I would have been glad to
have Mr. Wages or somebody else on the Staff meet with them and
take them through the place and all. One thing, at this time,
I'd like to mention. I fought this year after year. They blame
everything on the Great Escape. Just take tests off the Northway
from Exit 20 down to the Rush Pond, and from the Glens Falls
School, Queensbury School, down to Rush Pond, both on the
Northway and Route 9. That highway, both highways, drain into
Rush Pond. There's gutters that take the water from those two
highways, with all the gas and all the salt, all winter long,
drain into Rush Pond, and I've just asked them, time and time
again, somebody take tests there and see what the salt's doing
that comes off those two highways. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anybody, for the first time, again?
ANTHONY MARESCO
MR. MARESCO-Anthony Maresco, resident of the Town of Queensbury.
I'll just make it short and sweet. I think what Mr. Wood and his
organization proposes here is a great idea, and I know they do
their homework very well, and I just want to support their
effort. I think they do great.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
MRS. MOZAL-Chris Mozal again, and I'd like to clarify that with
Mr. Wood about an attempt to reach him. If I may pose a question
to Mr. Lemery. Would that be all right? I was in Mike
O'Connor's Office when he was on the phone with you, and you
agreed to come to that meeting.
MR. BREWER-Mr. Wood said he'd be happy to meet with you, Chris.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Maybe you can contact Mr. Wood directly and get
- 66 -
''---'"
'---""
'--"'~
....-'
t
M
just wanted'to clarify where I was coming from.
M . BREWER-Okay.
S. MOZAL-I didn't say I was trying to get in touch with him.
. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment?
hn? Real quick, please.
. LEMERY-I'll try to be as brief as I can. Mr. Wood referenced
e storm drains on Route 9 and on the Northway, and there's
osphates and whatever comes down those roads and enters into
e creek at that area, I know we spoke to this the last time we
re here and this issue was raised, we spoke to it in the
vironmental impact statement, with the Coaster when those
sues were raised, and there isn't anything!:iê.. can do, or YOU
n do about that. I suggest that the Glen Lake Association talk
DOT or DEC and see if they can't get some help with respect to
at is going on there. We all know, we're all residents' of
rren County. We all know that the Lake George basin needs to
sewered. The Glen Lake area needs to be sewered, and the
s ptic systems that are around the lake, both Lake George and
en Lake, within 200 feet, or whatever, with the leachfields or
atever, are obviously contributing to the phosphate problem and
e milfoil problem. I'm not sure it's a fair statement to blame
on the Great Escape. I'm not a water quality engineer. I'll
st make a comment about the water that the Great Escape is
ing. The Great Escape takes the water from the Town main. It
es into pools, which are these gunnite, or fiberglass pools
at are decoratively put together and architecturally put
gether to provide these attractions. At the end of the season,
e water is shut off. The chlorine is allowed tó dissipate, and
en the water is discharged into the ground. The water that the
eat Escape is putting into Glen Lake through whatever's leached
going back into Glen Lake cleaner than what may be coming in
rough Rush Pond and coming down through Route 9 and the
rthway.
BREWER-Is that water, when it's dissipated into the ground,
that tested before it's dumped?
LEMERY-That water is tested very carefully by Tom Wages.
at was part of the last presentation we made. To determine the
from chlorine before it's put through the system, Mr.
M. BREWER-You must keep records of that or some, so they're
p'~bably available if we wanted to look at them.
LEMERY-They do. If I could just comment, for a minute, on
adequacy of the application, just so everybody's aware. When
t e application was put together, we asked for a meeting with the
Planning Department. Jim Martin was kind enough to meet with us.
e Cipperly. I think Scott was there. Other people were there.
met with them. We presented the form of the application, in
t rms of, here's what we're looking to do. Here's the
information we're looking to provide. We had Bill there from
Rist-Frost. We sat with them and we said, please tell us what yo
n ed so that our application can be deemed complete. We want to
g t it to the engineer as quickly as possible so that if there
a e any, and we're not, I mean, we've been here before. So we
know how careful we're supposed to be. If there were any issues
that were left troublesome, please let us know so that we could
r spond, and that hopefully by the time we got here they could be
flattened out. The last issue, which Bill addressed with you
today, we addressed. So we believe the application was complete.
I want to point out one more thing. This is not a separate and
distinct application, in terms of what's already been provided to
- 67 -
"---'
-----
-
"---'
the Planning Department and the Town. This is a theme park.
It's a 270 acre theme park. It's been the subject of an
Environmental Impact Statement, very thorough Environmental
Impact Statement, in connection with the Roller Coaster. All
that information is part of the Town record. The two other rides
that were subject to the site plan review process here two years
ago are all part of the record. It's a cumulative record. That
issue was discussed and addressed with Jim Martin and his Staff,
and so we assumed that everybody had that information which he
acknowledged was the case. One lady said she didn't get a chance
to see the application until last night, when it was presented to
the Glen Lake Association. The application was filed. It was a
matter of record. The Town Planning Board, as you're required to
do, had the notice of the public hearing. I received a call,
late yesterday afternoon, from one of the attorneys for the Glen
Lake Association, asking me if I would be willing to provide them
with the maps. I said absolutely. The maps went over. I got a
call to ask if I would be interested in going to a meeting. I
said, Mr. Wood is out of town. I'd have to discuss it with Mr.
Wood. I then decided, after talking to another representative of
the Great Escape, that I would not go to the meeting because I
had no way of knowing what was going to be a legitimate and
proper forum to discuss these issues, and I would rather deal
with facts, instead of innuendos and statements and so my sense
was that I'd rather be here and face it, than there and then face
it here again. So if anybody's at fault for not meeting with
them, it's not Mr. Wood. He wasn't here. He never got back here
until tonight. It's ~ fault, and I'm the one who decided not to
meet with them, because a lot of these questions I simply can't
answer. We can't address issues of water quality. The parking.
I'll just speak to the parking quickly, which was the subject of,
again, the Environmental Impact Statement with the Coaster. The
good thing about the Great Escape is that it's credit worthy and
financially able to deal with parking. If parking becomes a
problem, to the point where they can't take care of their
patrons, Mr. Wood and the Great Escape people have the
wherewithal to acquire land to provide parking. Just like some
of the big ski resorts do on busy days, they acquire sites that
are available. They shuttle bus and they bring people into the
Park, and then they take them out. That has been discussed from
time to time. It has not been necessary. If it becomes
necessary, the Great Escape certainly is not going to contribute
to congestion all up and down Route 9. They've been good
neighbors, and they'll continue to do so. With respect to the
Glen Lake Fen, this site is, for these rides, are over 1500 feet
away from the Glen Lake Fen. This is not the Tahitian Tempest
kind of ride, and I would like to point out that it is not a
water park either. It is a theme park, and these are two water
rides within the park. There's no segmentation going on here, a
couple of years ago. The Noah's Sprayground was just a pool for
little children to play in. The Black Cobra was a ride that Mr.
Wood acquired after he reacquired the Park, after it had gone
bankrupt, and then the Coaster was put in. In summation, the
Great Escape does not discharge any water into the Glen Lake
area. It does not discharge any water into the creek. Mr. Wood,
Tom Wages, any of the representatives are available at any time
to meet with any legitimate group, including the Glen Lake
Association, who wants to be fair and reasonable about their
approach and not make claims and make statements here that. can
get in the press, which a,-e misleadi ng at best, and not the
subject of scientific fact. We ask you tonight if you would,
please, to go th,-ough the SEQRA process. We ask you to approve
the site plan so that the people at the Great Escape can start
building these attractions so that they'll be available for the
1995 season. You've heard Mr. Wood say that he would finance an~
help the Glen Lake Association with their issues. I know him to
be a man of his word, as you do, and a benefactor to the
community, and I know he'll help, as long as everybody on that
side is going to be fair and reasonable and deal with the facts
and not claims that are far fetched and not based on reality.
- 68 -
'--"
"'--'
'---'
.........,.I
anks for you time.
· PALING-Could I ask you some questions? There were comments
de in three areas I'd like you to comment on. The Great Escape
pedes water flow and has a method whereby you can either pond
or retain it, and it doesn't get down to Glen Lake.
LEMERY-I don't hold that to be the case.
PALING-That was made by a gentleman here.
s. In that same line, they talked about mud
om the Great Escape.
I forget who it
and oil flowing
· LEMERY-Well, the gentleman said there was mud and oil he saw
the creek. He thinks it's from the Great Escape. The Great
cape doesn't discharge oil into, if there was an oil discharge
the Great Escape, the protocol required is to immediately
tify DEC, get DEC in there. The Great Escape is not going to
al with that kind of public relations problem. The oil
obably came from what's coming off Route 9 and the Northway.
· WOOD-If I can just make a statement. Probably five years
0, we got a permit from the APA to muck out the brook. They
pe,-vised the whole project, and we did disturb some muck,
owed through, probably into Glen Lake. I don't know how yOU
uld have stopped it, but it was under the supervision of the
A, and they had a person there all the time we did it.
PALING-That was five years ago?
WOOD-Yes.
PALING-Yes.
ing up another
atever? Is
llest thing in
Okay. Then the other one item, somebody did
point. What's the maximum height of the rise or
it the ship that's on the side? Is that the
the pool complex?
LEMERY-Yes.
The mast is about 30 feet high.
· PALING-And that may be visible from Round Pond Road?
M . LEMERY-It's possible that the top of the mast will be visible
f-om Round Pond Road, yes.
· PALING-Is there anything else visible of any of the rides?
LEMERY-We don't believe so, no.
· PALING-Okay.
· RUEl-Ju.st a matter of information.
l~vel of Glen Lake could be maintained
let from the creek?
Do yOU know whether the
if you didn't have that
LEMERY-I don't know the answer to that.
M. WOOD-¡ would like to state that if anybody from Glen Lake
c~.ck.d Rush Pond, it is going down. It is drying up. We have a
s rious problem, all of us, because we depend on the so called
river (lost word) swan boats that goes through the Park. If this
c ntin~es, in a couple of years, there won't be any river (lost
w rd) and it's nothing to do with the Great Escape, believe me.
J st look at the research, what's happening. We're not taking
the water (lost word). It goes to the Par k. We have a dam that
w got approval to put in (lost word) govern the level for the
s an boats.
LEMERY-The runoff from the Northway is having an effect on
Pond.
- 69 -
'~/
~
-~--""
"..---
MR. RUEL-Apparently, yes.
MR. LEMERY-Apparently a serious effect, and somebody's got to
address it.
MR. RUEL-Is the creek fed from Rush Pond?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I just have a comment, for some of the Glen Lake
residents that spoke up tonight. If I wasn't a life long
resident of this area, I would have inferred from your comments
that the Great Escape was the sole cause of those problems that
you're having, and especially, you know, Eurasian Milfoil is not
a native plant to this, to the aquatic environment in this area.
That plant was brought in from the outside, by your own
residences, or the people that use the lake, on the propellers of
their boats, and secondly, I know that Lake George has that 200
foot setback for their septic systems, their leaching fields.
I've been over at Glen Lake a lot, and I know that some of those
septic systems around that lake are pretty darn antiquated, and
you ought to go to your own residences along that lake and do
some dye testing, seriously. I just know that it's, it's a
mixture. It's a conglomeration, the problems of a lot of things,
and maybe phosphorus is one of them, but phosphorus is getting
into that lake, and nitrates are getting into that lake, from a
lot of sources. Thanks.
MR. BREWER-One question. The entrance on Round Pond Road was
brought up. It's not going to be used?
MR. LEMERY-Correct.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Emergency only.
MR. LEMERY-Yes. All the ticket booths and all of that, it's not
contemplated to be used at all.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. DERBY-Paul Derby, again. I just want to say, you're
absolutely right, and we're trying to take care of our own
problems, too, but what I did say about the milfoil is that the
largest bed of milfoil is on that inlet. There's got to be a
reason for that. Let me repeat that I think you should put off
the decision until we can meet with representatives from the
Great Escape, and maybe until we can get some more testing done,
and see what's going on. I mean, our mission is to take care of
our lake.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, the milfoil in front of Mr. Canterbury's
dock is pretty dense.
MR. DERBY-That is the inlet.
comes in.
That's exactly where the water
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment,
or any questions?
MR. HAKO-I think to some extent it's the spirit of competition
that has brought me here tonight, and it's not any veiled
attempts to hide behind the Association, here. The Association
did in fact contact us. We are, in fact, reta,i nod by them to
represent them and express their concerns this evening. I think
the function of the Planning Board, at this point in time, is to
require some assurances from the applicant that the problems
- 70 -
~......
"---'
"--../
--.,,'.
a being caused, in part, by the Great Escape. I think the
Bard is attempting to place this burden on homeowners who are
n t applying for any approvals and who do not have the resources,
i and of themselves, to do rather elaborate testing. I think
i 's clear to infer, at the very least, that some of the source
o the pollution seems to be the Great Escape. Why can the Board
n t require the applicant to rule out this possibility?
F rthermore, the Glen Lake Association would ask that the testing
r suIts for the drainage, for the dumping at the end of the
s ason, be made part of the record, prior to any decision, so
tlat the Board has an opportunity to review that.
BREWER-How can you ask for that, sir? I'm just confused.
can we ask for the record if they haven't even built it yet?
you talking about the records from the other rides?
HAKO-No, the dumping from the existing, and I would ask one
estion. Mr. Lemery stated that the testing is done by Mr.
ges. Is that the case?
T
WAGES
WAGES-No. We have an engineer from the staff.
M OBERMAYER-! thought Mr. Wood was more than willing to
p rticipate in any environmental studies that were required?
· HAKO-An approval based upon these conditions doesn't satisfy
t e interests of the Association, which appears to be the
d"rection that the Board is going, and I think it's important
t at we, again, adjourn, have an opportunity to review what was
r ised, and have the applicant address the concerns. I mean, the
c ncerns are not in a vacuum. The concerns are real. The
c ncerns have been expressed, and I think whatever you want to do
w"th ~ statements this evening, you should not discount the
s atements of the Association members. Fundamental fairness
quires that the applicant go through the process, and I don't
ink the process is being satisfied, when this application pales
comparison to that which was set forth for the Noah's
rayground, and the other former, the previously approved water
traction. We have a two page engineering report, one page on
osion and one page on a 25 year storm event. The LA Group did
50 year storm event, and it didn't take them one page to do it.
ey went through very serious hydro CAD generated results.
BREWER-Maybe that was overkill.
MACNAMARA-We're going to answer that.
HAKO-Well, at that time, the Planning Department thought that
terial was necessary.
· BREWER-All right. ' Lets not get into a debate. So you lay
t your issues, and we'll decide whether we want to go on with
em.
M . MACNAMARA-We'll answer all that stormwater stuff.
answer all the stormwater concerns, too.
We can
M . HAKO-I think we should rule out that the Great Escape isn't
p rt of the problem, and I think that really is something that,
in the spirit of fundamental fairness, should be made a condition
this evening prior to any approval, and I will stop there.
· BREWER-Okay. Anyone else? Last chance.
BLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-What's the Board want to do?
- 71 -
"---'
-....-/
, ,/
-'
MR. MACNAMARA-Tim, can I just answer a couple of questions he's
brought up about stormwater and the LA Group?
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. MACNAMARA-We actually did use that previous submittal quite a
bit, for Noah's Sprayground, that was done by the LA Group, in
the review of this, because they're essentially connected,
adjacent to each other. So a lot of data was gleaned from that
previous submittal. He talked about stormwater, and you
mentioned different year storm events. The data clearly shows
that there's not an increased runoff from a pre and a post
development aspect, based on impermeable areas. That's really
the important criteria in stormwater runoff. Over and above
that, you mentioned that the LA Group had done the elaborate
hydro CAD data also proposed, and I think you mentioned installed
stormwater facilities. That is not correct. Initially they were
approved. However, they came back with subsequent data saying,
well, we were over conservative. They showed they didn't need
any stormwater facilities. None were installed. Just for the
record, and regarding the septic system, if you read our notes,
it is clear" that we have requested some additional data on their
septic discharges, which we expect they're going to provide, but
all fairness to completeness of application, the items were
looked at. That's it.
MR. BREWER-Thank you. Bob?
MR. PALING-Well, I think that the issues that have been raised
tonight are all substantive, but they're late problems, and I
don't think, necessarily, caused by the Great Escape
specifically. I don't see any substantive reason to turn this
down. I'm inclined to go with the passing of it. I know that
there is the proposal that the Glen Lake Association meet with
Mr. Wood, and based on what I know about him, he will do that,
and he will do it more than satisfactorily, and with that the
only doubt in ~ mind, I'm willing to go ahead with the project.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Rog?
MR. RUEL-I would grant approval for the two rides at the Great
Escape. I somewhat agree with what Bob says, and I see no reason
to deny it at this time. If there's a battery of tests to be
made, etc., I, frankly, don't know what they are or when they
should be done. So, in lieu of that, I would grant approval.
MR. BREWER-Craig? Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'm inclined to grant approval. I think
just to keep with the spirit of good neighbors, it would be nice
to see some, and being a chemist myself, it would be nice to see
some written hydrology reports and water testing that the Great
Escape does that would be common knowledge for the Glen Lake
residents and for the Board, and some testing that, after the
rides are built, some testing in the future, to keep everybody's
mind at ease. Thanks.
MR. BREWER-Jim?
MR. OBERMAYER-No comment.
MR. BREWER-George?
MR. STARK-Do the SEQRA, and then make a proposal.
MR. BREWER-I
wai t and
appropriate
appropriate
agree. I
do testing,
time to do
time, in the
think we should move on. I think if
I think someone said it wasn't
testing right now. When would be
spring?
~.Je
an
an
- 72 -
"-/
-
',---"
--../
.-.1
M MARTIN-It's not an appropriate time for the non point source
t pe of testing. There have been a number of testing sites
i entified. A volunteer team has been trained by members of DEC
S aff, and they began that testing process. However, you know,
n t enough was done to draw any real conclusions from, and that's
t be picked up upon wi th the sP'" i ng runoff next year and go on
t roughout the spring and early summer, as I understand it.
. BREWER-Okay. I agree with the rest of the members that there
ould be some testing, but I don't think.
MARTIN-None of that is proposed within the boundaries of the
eat Escape.
BREWER-Right. I don't think Mr. Wood should be responsible
the testing that's done elsewhere in the Town. I think where
comes into his property and goes out of his property is
propriate. Lets find out if that is the problem. If it isn't,
en lets go find where the problem is, and Mr. Wood is more than
lling to help the group do that. I just had one question.
ve there been any rides taken out of the Great Escape in the
st two years?
M WOOD-We've taken out three rides and put new ones in.
M BREWER-That's exactly my point. You've taken them out and
p t them in. So it's not really, you're adding to the Park, but
y u've taken away, too.
M S. LABOMBARD-Updating.
. BREWER-Okay. I think that the records that Mr. Wages talked
out should be, maybe a copy of them given to the Glen Lake
sociation so they can examine them. I don't think that's any
deal, really. I think we should move on.
OBERMAYER-Me, too.
MACEWAN-I guess the only comment that I would have is that if
is project's approved, that the site plan map delineate on
ere exactly where the catch basins are going to be located.
cording to the application review process, they're supposed to
located on there, and the only other comment that I have, I
ess, is that, for the Glen Lake Association, is that Mr. Wood
s graciously offered to assist you financially to do this
sting. You, yourself, have admitted that your funds are
nning very low or have depleted. That's an offer that doesn't
me down very often. I would jump at the opportunity.
BREWER-Ready?
MACEWAN-Ready. Short, is that what we're doing, Short Form?
BREWER-Yes.
SCHACHNER-Tim, just one question before the motion, it's a
ry minor point, but just for the sake of accuracy, I note that
e proposed answer to question D, about is there any controversy
lated to potential environmental impacts, I think you're saying
It's entirely up to you. It's a discretionary call. I'm
ndering if the demonstration of some objection. I don't know
w at you typically consider controversy, but i n ~ expe,- ience
w"th this Board, you typically say, yes, to that. It doesn't
c ange the outcome here, but just for sake of accuracy.
. BREWER-Yes. I agree with you, Mark.
LABOMBARD-I agree with you, Mark. I thought about that,
- 73 -
'''--''
-...,.-'
"--'"
MR. MARTIN-I Just want to let the record show that's been changed
on the form Tim will be signing.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently
STORYTOWN, USA
before the Planning
DBA GREAT ESCAPE, and
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determinedthat the proposed
project and PIa nni ng Board action is 'subj'ect "to rev iew under the
Stat,e Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
¡\lONE
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 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Ruel, Mr_ Paling, Mr. B~ew.r
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-I would like to just stipulate that they use New York
State Guidelines for Erosion Control on that, entered on the plan
and in the motion.
MR. MACNAMARA-That's already on the plan, by the way, the
sediment control information.
MR. BREWER-All right, somebody has to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36~94 STORYTOWN. USA D/B/A
GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Obermayer:
Two amusement park rides - Adventure River and Tube Slides, with
the following stipulations: That the catch basins are on the
plat submitted to the Planning Office before a building permit is
issued, and the New York State Guidelines for Erosion Control
also be followed. That engineering issues will be addressed
- 74 -
----'
'-"
~
-t'
b fore the building permit is issued.
adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
D
A ES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling,
M . Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
N
NONE
TE PLAN NO. 40-94 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID J. KENNY OWNERS:
NNY/BROCK ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RT. 9 SOUTH
ROUTE 149 AND NORTH OF DAYS INN. PROPOSAL IS TO DEMOLISH
ISTING SHOPPING MALL AND CONSTRUCT A NEW MALL OF 52,458 SQ. FT.
CO. PLANNING: 11/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 37-1-33.1, 33.2 LOT
12.24 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE KENNY, PRESENT
BREWER-Fi,st and foremost, Scott, did Dave get a copy of that
x?
HARLICKER-No.
BREWER-Maybe he ought to. Okay. Do you want to go through
ur notes, Scott?
S AFF INPUT
tes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-94, David J. Kenny, Meeting
te: November 15, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed
e project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-
3 B, Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in
S>ction 179-39 and find the project to be in compliance. 1. The
p oject will have an impact on traffic and traffic congestion.
T ere could be between 2,184 and 4,264 end trips associated with
tle center on weekdays and 2,116 to 5,564 end trips on Saturdays.
T is is based on figures given in the ITE trip generation book
f r specialty stores and shopping centers. A common drive
b tween the motel and the proposed center, providing both ingress
a d egress, could provide a central access point to the center
w'th two or three points of access into the parking lot. This
w uld cut down some of the congestion generated by this project.
T e access between the Log Jam and the project could be utilized
b deliveries only and possibly be exit only. The proposed
terconnection between adjacent properties will also reduce the
p oject generated traffic impacts. The project was compa,-ed to
t1e following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning
C de: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general
s"te compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The project
a pears to fit in well with the adjacent buildings. With
c eative architectural treatment, the linear appearance of the
b ilding can be mitigated. Parking lot lighting will be located
poles placed in the landscaped islands. Signage will be
1 cated on the building and a freestanding sign is proposed for
O!t front; signage is subject to a separate permitting process.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
c"rculation, including intersections, road widths, pavement
s rfaces, dividers and traffic controls; As stated above, site
i provements can be made to mitigate project generated traffic
i pacts and promot~ access management. 3. The location,
a rangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and
1 ading; The project required 263 parking spaces and the
a>plicant is proposing 276. The applicant is proposing that 91
0" the spaces be kept as open space and utilized as overflow
p rking as needed. The applicant should provide more detailed
i formation regarding loading zones. 4. The adequacy and
a rangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway
s ructures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and
o erall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access appears to be
- 75 -
~
----
adequate. In order to provide for increased pedestrian safety,
parking aisles should be aligned perpendicular to the building
not parallel to it. However, with this proposed layout,
perpendicular parking aisles would not be practical. A sidewalk
along Route 9 would increase pedestrian safety and overall
pedestrian convenience; it is not clear if the applicant is
proposing to install one. 5. The adequacy of stormwater
drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage is being reviewed by
Rist-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal
facilities; Water supply and sewage disposal is being reviewed
by Rist-Frost. 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 plan for this project is adequate. The
proposed landscaping will be a strong amenity to the project and
will enhance the appearance. of special note is the extent of
the landscaping proposed along Route 9, the landscaped islands
and perimeter landscaping along the south property line. There
is also extensive plantings proposed for the front of the
building. 8. The' adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency
zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access is
being reviewed by the Fire Chief. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Grading and
erosion control is being reviewed by Rist-Frost. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends special attention be given to traffic and access
management. II
MR. HARLICKER-You should also note that this should probably go
to the Beautification Committee. They did not receive it this
month. So they didn't have a chance to review it. Warren County
approved it with no conditions, and there's Rist-Frost comments.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Bill?
MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. I'm going to refer to your comments that are
as of November 7th. They've been subsequently addressed, and we
have another letter, as of November 11th that indicates that.
It's all basically summarized, what the larger issues were.
Other than miscellaneous issues, which were all taken care of,
grading and erosion control was a primary focus. Some of the
notes regarding things like construction traffic, Tom and I
talked about. He's added some notes on the drawing about
construction traffic, grading easements for the, I believe it was
the south side. A bigger issue was where there was an existing
stream and a culvert system that runs through the property, where
would it discharge, and he's rearranged that so that it's closer
to where the original discharge point was. Stormwater issues,
again, they centered around that culvert, DOT discharge type of a
system. We had some notes about the rear drywells and the depth
of drywells, and he's added some notes to the drawings to reflect
those. Discharge velocity of the culvert were an issue, an he's
taken some steps to stabilize the discharge area of that, and
there were some notes about the septic system, regarding, if
there's food vendors, they need to have their own type of a
system. He's going to submit some additional data on some perc
rates for the seepage pits and some notes about gravel depths and
stone cloth.
MR. BREWER-Okay, and there is a fax we received from Joanna
Brunso today. George, would you read that into the record.
MR. STARK-To Tim Brewer, From Joanna Brunso, today. lilt's my
understanding that the new plaza being constructed by Dave Kenny
in the Million Dollar Half Mile Outlet Center will come before
the Town of QUéensbury Planning Board tonight, Tuesday, November
15, 1994, and that, furthermore, the new plaza will be more than
50,000 square feet. 80th New York State DOT Region One and I
- 76 -
'---"
'--'"
",--"
--./
w uld like to examine the site plan prior to the Town of
Q eensbury Planning Board's decision. It appears to me that this
i a major addition to an area that is already severely
c ngested. GFTC includes the area in a consultant study of high
c rridors in the GFTC area. In addition, two earlier studies of
t e area, a traffic impact study done for Dexter Shoes and an
e rlier study for a shopping district planned, point to a need
f r additional capacity in the form of service roads or
rculation within the parking lots, restriction on access to
ute 9, additional turning lanes on Route 9, and a rear bypass
the entire ares. With so many suggested solutions, at a
nimum, we should look at the site plan to see what
commendations we would make to the Queensbury Planning Board. II
. BREWER~Thank you. Tom?
M NACE-Okay. Let me make it real brief and quick. We think
t e main issues revolve around traffic access and the previous
t affic studies that have been done. I've got all of those
s udies from Jim. I've gone through each one of them, looked at
t e recommendations, and tried to make sure that what we have
p oposed here fits within those recommendations, and I believe it
des. We are providing a sidewalk up along Route 9. We're also
p oviding a sidewalk interior to the site that will allow people
f om this corridor, this new building, to go up to the Log Jam
C nter and also go out to the Motel and down to the other Factory
o tlBt Centers to the south. We've provided rear access
c nnection to the adjacent Days Inn and Adirondack Factory
o tlet. We've also provided rear access behind the Log Jam.
W 're going to do some site lighting, and Dave is working toward
gotting a street lighting plan that will encourage pedestrians to
w lk, park once, you know, pick where you're going, park once,
aid walk, and I think that is the major impact that we can have.
S I think we've addressed most of the issues. We've allowed
t,is future corridor in here for an access road that can tie into
a rear access or go on out to 149. Within the confines of our
s"te, I believe we've addressed all the previous studies. If the
G ens Falls Transportation Council wanted so bad to look at this,
t ey should have looked at it a week or two ago, but I think that
w have, in essence, done their job for them in reviewing the
p evious studies and making sure that we've addressed the issues.
Ware eliminating one curb cut. Presently on site, let me
c arify something. On site, there are two curb cuts, presently.
T ere's this one and this one. This curb cut that we intend to
m ke use of is really on the right-of-way owned by Tom McCormack,
o ay, and we're making use of the portion of that that's within
t e Route 9 right-of-way. We think it is important that we do
h ve two accesses here, in fact, to take into account one of the
T ansportation Council Study's recommendations, was that bus
c"rculation be provided, a way to quickly get off the road,
u load passengers and get back out, and we think this allows that
v ry readily. We have with us a couple, just for your curiosity,
a couple of renderings of what the building is going to look
l"ke. This is sort of a bird'seye view showing, in fact, we're
g ing to use a shed roof, sloped all toward the north, but with
o r setbacks of the building, we're going to increase the height
o the building as it goes on back toward the rear of the site,
a d try to make it interesting looking so it stands out from the
r ad, and then this is just sort of a view from the parking lot
o· what it's going to look like.
M S. LABOMBARD-Is that all glass on the top, Tom?
NACE-These are glass windows here, yes. Those are glass.
M
BREWER-It really is nice.
M. RUEL-That road that you mentioned at the rear of the
b ilding, is that one way?
- 77 -
.~
-----,'
--
MR. NACE-This road? No, this will be.
MR. RUEL-No, the one at the rear.
MR. NACE-Back here? No. This is two way.
MR. RUEL-Two way, to 149?
MR. NACE-No, no, no. That's, what we've done with the 149 issue
is that we, there's a 50 foot strip in here, including the 30
foot that's presently owned by McCormack that was given to him by
Dave Kenny. That strip in here, we've kept our development back
far enough away from that, so that if the Town ever wants that
for a right-of-way to connect out to 149, that is available.
MR. RUEL-That's tentative only.
MR. NACE-That's tentative only.
MR. RUEL-All right. Is there a buffer zone alongside that road
that you just mentioned?
MR. NACE-A buffer between the road and what?
MR. RUEL-The next property down.
MR. NACE-Between the road and the next?
MR. BREWER-There doesn't need to be a buffer?
MR. RUEL-There doesn't need to be?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. NACE-There's a zone line that goes back here, along the south
edge of that road, and we're required to have, south edge of this
right-of-way, this residential zone here, and commercial here.
We're required to have a 50 foot buffer, and we do. We've got 55
feet to the first hard surface.
MR. RUEL-So that road wouldn't connect anywhere until such time
as the proposed exit to 149 was built?
MR. NACE-Right. Any other questions?
MR. PALING-Yes. The internal traffic looks good to me, but one
of the questions that DOT hit us with specifically, or the Glens
Falls group, was the alignment of the accesses with those across
Route 9. Were we staggered or in line with them, and their
recommendation was that they be in line with one another.
MR. MACEWAN-And also be shown on a map that indicates that.
MR. BREWER-To be shown on a map they wanted to look at.
MR. NACE-We could show that.
MR. BREWER-We didn't have a meeting specifically about your plan.
It happened that we had a meeting and it was brought up.
MR. NACE-Yes. We could show that, but these are existing curb
cuts, that it makes sense to maintain. They fit in well with our
site, with the adjacent, and I'm not, one of the issues, you
know, they've made such an issue about limiting the access
points, if you look at their own study, their own study shows
that the delays encountered on Route 9 are primarily caused by
the traffic lights. The delays are not. caused, it's only,
depending on which peak period you talk about, whether it's a.m.,
p.m., weekend or weekday, I think the maximum delay that's caused
by turning movements, with all of the exits and entrances that
- 78 -
~
~
~
..J
are there now, is like 30 percent of the delays.
M RUEL-You have access from your parking lot to the Days Inn
p rking lot?
M NACE--Right here.
M RUEL-Okay. How about to the Log Jam?
NACE-Right here.
RUEL-At the rea ,-?
NACE-Yes. There is no way to connect in the front readily.
T ey have a big sign that they've just put out here now, plus
t~ey project, all these other properties, the setback has been
m intained fairly well. They actually project out here a little
c oser to the road. So it would be, you'd have to push out and
c t down this buffer that we've been able to establish, in order
t connect those up front, and again, our hope is that people
w 11 walk. Okay. Dave has been talking to the people that own
t lis about the future possibility of an overhead covered walkway
tween the two, and we can't guarantee that, but, you know,
w 're trying to see if it's possible.
. BREWER-Would you be amenable to table until we sent it, we
h've sent it to DOT, and let them examine it, and then maybe on
e 29th make a decision?
NACE--I can't conceive of any recommendations that they would
opose.
M . BREWER-I can't either.
w nted to see it.
They were very strong about, they
M\. NACE-Is there some reason that it wasn't sent to them
0- i g i na 11 y?
M BREWER-Jim, who were the people that were here from DOT?
Janna Brunso.
M MARTIN-Steve Munson.
M BREWER-Regional and Central office.
M . MARTIN-You mean the workshop session you just had?
M BREWER-Yes.
M
MARTIN-Yes. Steve Munson was from the Central Office, and
Robertson, Joanna was from Region One, and we sent this out,
pretty sure it was before the seventh of November.
NACE-So they've had a chance to look at it.
M
BREWER-Well, they said that they didn't get it.
M
HARLICKER-Yes. Joanna says she's never, she hadn't seen it.
M
LABOMBARD-Somebody didn't give it to her.
M STARK-Tim, okay, if that's what he wanted, across the street
i' the Small World Cheese Shoppe. The traffic in and out of that
p ace is very minimal, compared to traffic in and out of these
o'her places.
M . BREWER-I'm not disputing that.
w re adamant about seeing it.
a enable to the 29th.
I'm just
I'm asking
saying that they
them if they',-e
- 79 -
----- '
"-"
--
MR. STARK-You also have this correspondence here by Joanna Brunso
today. She talks about a right turn lane. She's the one that
threatened to hold up the money to put in a right turn lane. I
mean, he can't do anything about a right turn lane. Joanna
Brunso, the letter that she gave Jim a while back, a couple of
meetings ago, or a couple of months ago, threatened to hold up
the money for the right turn lanes if we didn't follow her
recommendations. Is that right, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Everybody was here.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I remember. She said that.
MR. STARK-How can he be responsible for a right turn lane when
she's threatening.
MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that.
responsible for that, George. I'm
it's only a week away, if they're
not, they're not. I mean, I'm just
I'm not
saying, let
amenable to
asking.
saying that he's
them look at it,
it. If they're
MR. NACE-There's another here, Tim. If you take a look, we've
got an aerial photograph that came out of one of the traffic
studies. Our property is right here. There's Days Inn. I think
that's the Cheese Shoppe, okay. Our southern access does line
up. The Cheese Shoppe does have two accesses, one there and one
there, okay, and other southern access does line up, pretty much,
with the one. The northern access doesn't, but you've got to
realize that these properties on the west side, these smaller
properties, they're probably going to redevelop in the next 10 to
15 years. So who's to say where the accesses are going to be?
MR. BREWER-I mean, I guess what my question is, does it make a
difference if it's a week from now? I'm asking you.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think it does. It's midnight and they've
been sitting around and I don't know how they're going to change
it up there.
MR. OBERMAYER-I think Dave Kenny's done everything possible.
MR. STARK-He's improved the area quite a bit up there.
MR. KENNY-I think, for one thing, this access can't be moved.
MR. BREWER-I'm not saying it can, Dave.
MR. KENNY-The only access we're talking about is this one. The
property across the street, you've got one acre lots with the
restaurant on it, a one acre lot with the Cheese Shoppe on it,
and they've got two access points that the restau,-ant, the other
restaurant, the Tropicana, or whatever, that has two access
points.
MR. MACEWAN-I think it's clear that, the State's position is that
they want a opportunity to review any and all applications that
are along their major corridors that they have to oversee through
their Regional Development Agency. They want an opportunity to
review it. That's all they're asking for.
MR. BREWER-I'm not disputing that the plan is great. I'm asking,
is a week going to make a difference? I mean, is it going to
stop the plan if you have to wait a week?
MR. OBERMAYER-I hate to add bureaucracy.
MR. BREWER-No, it's not adding it, Jim.
MR. MACEWAN-The only comment I've got for you, Jim, is that if
you had attended that meeting last week, you would have gotten a
- 80 -
"--'
--../
-..I
"--"
1 more insight. That's all I'm telling you.
M . STARK-Tim, poll the Board and
c ntinue. That's all I can say.
c ntinue are out voted, fine.
lets see if we
People that don't
want to
want to
M . PALING-We're between a hard place and a rock. We don't want
t delay the applicant, but we were subject to two meetings now,
w'th DOT, and they threatened us with the loss of funds and all
t is kind of stuff, and if there was a way that you could see to
d laying a little while, it would be appreciated.
M BREWER-Until the 29th, is that a problem?
a king you.
That's all I'm
M'. KENNY-If you're in a bind, my problem is, I've dealt with the
G ens Falls Transportation Council. I sat last year, or two,
w en they did this whole study. I think this is basically the
G ens Falls Transportation Council, from what I'm hearing.
Mf. BREWER-It's probably on her stationery, Dave, because she's
w rks there, but Region One and Central Office were here. We had
a workshop with them. They talked about it. They said they
w uld like to see it. George was there. I'm not lying.
Mf . MARTIN-I'm very sensitive to your plight, and I understand
were you're coming from and the untimeliness of her letter and I
a knowledge all that and I understand it, but I'm just saying, in
tIe long run, I don't think any of us are going to be well served
b just not giving them their duty.
M . KENNY-I mean, but one of the problems I have with them is
r viewing the site plan without the information, without being
h re to hear, I mean, they come in and give you all kinds of, I
m an, they're not even, I mean, they're not even, I mean, they're
g ing to look at something, and they don't even know what, unless
t1ey have a full site plan of the whole road, I don't know what
t,ey're going to address.
M S. LABOMBARD-I agree with you.
· BREWER-What I guess is my suggestion would be is send it to
em, which we have, call them tomorrow, tell them, look, we
layed the man. We've got to have the comments by the 25th.
PALING-How about by Thursday night?
BREWER-Whatever. Is that time enough?
· PALING-How long has she had the prints?
M
BREWER-I mean, that's two days, Bob, from now.
· PALING-How long has she had the prints?
M
MARTIN-Since the first week in November.
PALING-Well, come on.
BREWER-But, no.
em. So Pam sent
at's all.
She said that night that she hadn't received
them again. I just want to cover all bases,
M
RUEL-So make it the 29th.
PALING-Did Pam send them again?
M
M\. MARTIN-I'm sure she did. If she said she did, she did. She
t ld you that, Tim?
- 81 -
--./
~"
--
MR. BREWER-Yes. They were sent. So, if it all possible, if you
can't, you can't.
MR. KENNY-I want to see the Town cooperate with the State. I'm
not here to.
MR. BREWER-That's where we're coming from.
MR. KENNY-My problem is, my position is, I really don't think
that we can address any other issues, regardless of what they
say. I mean, if they only want one access, we'll give them one
access. We're putting the sidewalks in. We're doing exactly
what the study we have said to do. So, what other issues can
you, sure there's turning lanes required. We're giving them the
road that they, access for two years ago.
MR. BREWER-I agree with you 100 percent. I'm just trying to
accommodate them, what they ask of us. That's all I'm trying to
do.
MR. NACE-I agree with Dave. The bottom line is, we have no
intention of changing the site for some comments that may be ill
founded, okay, but if it means it's easier for the Planning Board
to interact with other agencies.
MR. BREWER-Not necessarily the Planning Board.
necessarily the Planning Department.
I think
MR. NACE-Then we'll delay.
MR. PALING-What date are we looking at now, then, to look, for us
to look at this again?
MR. MACEWAN-The 29th.
MR. BREWER-The 29th, bottom line, we're going to approve it, or
whatever happens.
MR. PALING-Is that okay? Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I appreciate you working with us on that.
MR. BREWER-The road here on the bottom, Jim, is a paper road,
okay. So that's not an access. The top road, the only had one
access, and you can't give them something that they haven't got.
MR. BREWER-Do we have your consent to table?
MR. KENNY-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Jim, for the members who weren't able to attend that
meeting with the Transportation Council and the people from the
State, can copies of those minutes be given to those prior to
that meeting?
MR. MARTIN-They're in the pipeline.
we'll have them to you.
As soon as they're done,
MR. STARK-At that meeting, Tim, I have
Craig also. Just because they came up
wanted this and they wanted that meeting,
with half the stuff she said, and with the
Office, half the stuff he said.
a few questions, with
with these, and they
I happen to disagree
guy from DOT Central
MR. MACEWAN-I didn't say L agreed with them. All I'm saying is
we want to give them the consideration that they asked for, to
have the opportunity to review the project.
MR.
just
BREWER-Nobody said that they
said that we heard what
agreed with them, George.
they said. We want to
We
get
- 82 -
',,----,
~
"--"
'-/
c operation from them to do the things we want to do in the Town.
KENNY-I would like to make one other comment about this
sue, is that you've met with them last week. They knew this
s on for tonight and they had a whole week, and they have not
ken, we want to review it.
· BREWER-We didn't have plans to give them, Dave.
an.
We had one
LABOMBARD-But they said they hadn't received them, as of
week.
· KENNY-Well, can they hold up any project in the Town, any
t me, by submitting a letter? I think a precedent, if this goes,
t ley'll think, well, now we can do it this way any time. That is
a other issue. I mean, if they were here last week, talked about
t is project, sat down with you.
MACEWAN-No, no, no. We didn't talk about this project, per
KENNY-But it was discussed.
MACEWAN-It was brought up in a cursory discussion.
KENNY-It was discussed. So they knew it was coming up. They
ew about it.
BREWER-Right.
KENNY-And they had plenty of time, at that point, if they
ally thought there was a problem, to come and address the
oblem. I just don't think, as an applicant, I may be willing
, I mean, I don't want to see a problem, but I don't want to
this become a Town policy. I think that at some point this
to stop.
S. LABOMBARD-I agree.
KENNY-I don't think it's fair.
M . BREWER-The policy should be at a certain threshold, the plans
should go to that agency the minute they go to Warren County or
t ey go to any other agency.
KENNY-They did go down. They were sent.
· PALING-Yes, they were sent.
KENNY-And they said they didn't receive them.
· BREWER-I don't have an answer for you.
LABOMBARD-What happened was, they got sent to the Office and
didn't get to the right hands.
M . KENNY-If they were concerned, I've seen them at plenty of
m etings, at Planning Board meetings, when they've had major
issues. DOT has been at Planning Board meetings in the past,
hen there was major concerns. Apparently, there's something
they want to review, and.
MR. MARTIN-I will relay those concerns to her tomorrow, that
an open calendar and you can simply pick and choose
going to decide to look at one of our projects. I
that message to her tomorrow, very clearly.
this
when
~Jill
PALING-And someone from the Board, by itself, should convey
Board's feelings too, that we don't particularly want to do
- 83 -
~
'--...-".
--
.....'h
this kind of thing again, and we think it's unnecessary.
MR. MARTIN-Well, Tim, you're in all the time, when you're in, we
can make that call to her. It will mean more coming from you.
MR. BREWER-I'll come in tomorrow afternoon.
MR. KENNY-I mean, this is an open meeting. They could be here.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
29th?
Do we have your consent to table until the
MR. NACE-Yes, you do.
MR. BREWER-Could somebody make that motion?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-94 DAVID J. KENNY, Introduced
by catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoptlon, seconded by
Robert Paling:
Until November 29th.
Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 1994, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ma~Ewan,
Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. HARLICKER-I gave you guys copies of a draft of
statement for Hudson Pointe that you should go over.
at it.
a planning
Také a look
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Timothy Brewer, Chairman
- 84 -