Loading...
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..:œ:, 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 -