2011.11.17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 1.
TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 300.-1-19
Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 2.
TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Site Plan No. 71-2011 Lafontaine's Ice Cream & Grill, LLC 3.
Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3
Site Plan No. 72-2011 Dennis & Nancy Defayette 5.
Tax Map No. 289.7-1-40
Site Plan No. 54-2011 Hospitality Syracuse 6.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2, 3
Site Plan No. 76-2011 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 14.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20
Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch, LLC; French Mountain 28.
Bear Pond, LLC
Tax Map No. 278.-1-77, 13
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD KREBS
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN TRAVER
BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-1 will call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board on
Thursday, November 17, 2011. We have two administrative items. Before we get into the
agenda, just for members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. I
think all of our projects have public hearings scheduled. There's also a handout there for public
hearing procedures, and I'll talk about them later when we get into the public hearing. The first
item on the agenda is Subdivision 8-2005.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA-FOR FURTHER TABLING
CONSIDERATION
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any update from the correspondence that was in our packets?
MR. OBORNE-Not much to report. Obviously we got a letter from November 8t" from Mountain
Hollow H.O.A., Mickey Hayes, basically, and they're still waiting on the City of Glens Falls to
respond. They have not responded yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-So should we table that to January?
MR. OBORNE-1 think that that would probably be prudent, to be honest with you, Jon. Does that
work for you?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I can just quickly respond.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just identify yourself for the record.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. The County DPW approved the plan. The City
Engineer asked for some additional engineering design work that was submitted about a month
ago. They wanted some water tests, which Tom Nace, who's also here tonight, did and
submitted to the City. So everything that the City asked for is there and we're waiting hopefully
for a permit. Hopefully it's getting there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then why don't we table it to the 26t". Okay. I've got January meetings
on the 17t" and the 26t". Is that correct?
MR. OBORNE-The 17t" or the 24tH
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion to table.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A.
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and
proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to
an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval;
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/20, 9/28, 11/16/10; 1120111, tabled to 3/15/11
public hearing re-advertised, tabled to 5/17/2011; 7/19/2011; 9/27/2011 & 11/17/11;
Since the last meeting the applicant has submitted the following:
• 10/19/11 Letter from Mickey Hayes updating progress
Therefore, let it be resolved;
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
Tabled to the January 24, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR. HUNSINGER-I see that the Board of Health acted on it.
MR. OBORNE-They did. They set the public hearing for the 21St of November for the septic
variance on this application, and that is the first step towards the road of recovery for Ms.
Marshall.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it looks like it'll actually move forward assuming the Board of Health
approves it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There's a lot of moving parts to this now because of the changes to Ms.
Mozal's subdivision, and there's going to be additional variances as a result of that lot line
change. So, but we'll walk through that slowly and hopefully expeditiously, but make sure all
the I's and T's are dotted.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is January too soon to table this to?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think so.
MR. HUNSINGER-February? Should we move to February?
MR. OBORNE-No, I think January's fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-January?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We'll do the 26th on that one.
MR. HUNSINGER-The 24tH
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the 24th. I make a motion to table.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes removal and replacement of stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a
new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal
of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA
requires Site Plan review and approval;
A public hearing was advertised and the application was scheduled and/or tabled on the
following dates: 2010-1/26, 3/23, 5/20, 6/15, 8/17, 10/19, 12121; 2011-3/15, 5/20, 6/21 tabled to
9/27/11 & 11/17/11;
Therefore, let it be resolved,
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the January 24, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-If it please the Board, the Secretary has suggested that we move up
Lafontaine's Ice Cream and Dennis & Nancy Defayette, and then do Hospitality Syracuse after
those. Is there any objection?
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are the applicant's ready, Lafontaine Ice Cream?
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2011 SEAR TYPE II LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL, LLC
AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE
THEME PARK ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1133 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 440 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR
ADDITIONAL SERVICE WINDOW AND PREP AREA. EXPANSION OF USE AND
PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-11; SP 62-07, SP 23-07, SP 21-96, SP 74-89; AV
122-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT
SIZE 8.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-3 SECTION 179-9
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think the Planning Board's familiar with this. You had this on Tuesday.
It's a 440 square foot expansion, two portions. One is a prep area. One is a service window
area. I have received the calcs for this, and this went to the Zoning Board last night. It was
approved without any conditions, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, for the record, Jon Lapper, Dennis Lafontaine and Tom Nace. As
Keith just reported, it took five minutes at the Zoning Board, which is always nice after they got
your recommendation and everyone saw this as a simple project. You had left us with the
instructions to clarify the parking, and Tom can talk about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-I physically went out and counted the delineated parking spaces on the asphalt and
there are 48 of them existing. We're going to lose two for handicap spaces up front. So we'll
have 36 on the asphalt, and then there's a large area, a crushed stone area, that is used for
overflow parking, probably accommodate 30 cars.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm sorry, there's 48 existing?
MR. NACE-Forty-eight existing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-We're going to lose two, so that's 46.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought I heard you say 36.
MR. NACE-I misspoke, sorry.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay.
MR. NACE-And then approximately 30 spaces out on the gravel for overflow parking.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-So that's wholly adequate. So what you've done, have you revised the plan so
that the handicap spots are denoted on there?
MR. NACE-We will do that on the final plans.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and since there are no comments, I will
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And with that, I will entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the condition is that the applicant will provided amended drawings to
incorporate two handicap parking spaces. Will that do it?
MR. OBORNE-That's correct.
MR. KREBS-And the waivers.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion to approve.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 71-2011 LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL LLC
Tax Map ID 295.12-1-3
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a 440 sq. ft. expansion of existing structure for additional service window
and prep area. Expansion of use and proposed site improvements requires Planning Board
review and approval.
The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/15/11; the ZBA approved the
variance requests on 11/16/11;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2011 LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL, LLC,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
5) Waiver requests granted: landscaping, topography, drainage & lighting plans; and
6) This is approved with the following condition:
1. That the applicant will provide amended drawings to incorporate two handicap
parking spaces.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
DENNIS LAFONTAINE
MR. LAFONTAINE-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-You're welcome. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 72-2011 SEAR TYPE II DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-
WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 29 REARDON ROAD EXT APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 140 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY HOME. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 70-11;
BP 11-375, BP 03-553 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC
WETLANDS, CEA LOT SIZE 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-40 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Again, this was seen before this Board on Tuesday. This is a 140 square foot
expansion to their laundry room, and the reason that it's before you, as discussed on Tuesday,
is that it's an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. The Zoning Board did approve
this last night with no conditions. There's not a lot of moving parts to this plan. They have a
compliant wastewater system, and shoreline buffering is in pretty good shape, to be honest with
you, and the reason that that note is in there is because it's basically a boilerplate, it's boilerplate
language at this point. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Dennis Defayette, and we've changed nothing
since Wednesday night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Tuesday. Last night was Zoning Board.
MR. HUTCHINS-Tuesday night. I'm sorry. The Zoning Board approved the variances as
presented. So we're back to you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. The shoreline issue was the only outstanding issue and we didn't think it
was a big one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-1 see no takers, and there were no written comments.
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing, noting that
there were no comments received.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is Type 11 SEQRA, so no further SEQRA review is necessary. I'll
entertain a motion for approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion to approve.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #72-2011 DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE
Tax Map ID 289.7-1-40
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 140 square foot addition to existing single family home.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/15/11; the ZBA approved the variance
requests on 11/16/11;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2011 DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff; this is approved without conditions.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans;
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2011 SEAR TYPE II HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE AGENT(S) BARTLETT
PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; BOHLER ENG. OWNER(S) FRANK PARILLO ZONING
CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 199 & 203 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. TACO BELL. RESTAURANT AND/OR
NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 53-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 LOT
SIZE 4.62, 0.31 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2,3 SECTION 179-9
JON LAPPER & JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this application was tabled to this date on October 18, 2011 with the
conditions listed below. All the conditions have been met and are reviewable at this time. Site
Plan 54-2011 for Hospitality Syracuse, Taco Bell. Requested action: Site Plan Review for a
restaurant. The location is 199 & 203 Corinth Road. Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive.
This is a Type II SEQRA. However, there has been a SEQRA form submitted. If the Planning
Board wishes to do that, you're not precluded at all. Warren County Planning Board on
8/10/2011 issued a No County Impact with a stipulation. The stipulation talked about the
location of the driveway, and as such the applicant will respond to that also, and has responded
to that with the traffic study. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800
sq. ft. Taco Bell on a leased portion of property adjacent to the Super 8 Motel and Exit 18 of the
Northway. The main parcel is 6.58 acres is size and the proposal calls for 1.29 acres of leased
area to accommodate the project. Access to an existing Single Family Dwelling is proposed off
of the main access road and said road will terminate and stub-out approximately 340 feet from
Corinth Road. Two internal to the property vehicular access points are proposed off of the main
access and a right turn only lane for east bound traffic onto Corinth Road is provide as well as a
cut through to the main access road for west and east bound traffic. What follows is basically
talking about parking, and some of the site work that is proposed. I would like to also talk about
the signage. The signage did receive a variance for amount of wall signs. That has been
approved by the Zoning Board. However, the freestanding sign is going to be installed as a
compliant sign at this point. I'll go to Staff comments. The applicant has proposed a future inter-
connect to the Motel lands to the southeast in the event that the remaining lands are built out.
Further to that, the main access road is designed to serve future development with the potential
to access Big Bay Road in order to utilize signalization at Corinth Road. What follows is soils.
Site Plan Review follows also. The applicant has done a pretty good job on answering the
questions and taking care of any issues that we have. Obviously they did take care of the
issues of the tabling resolution with the inclusion of a new landscaping plan, and it is an
enhanced landscaping plan. They have also provided updated lighting plan. Quite frankly I feel
it's too hot, but obviously the Board will have to deal with that issue, and Chazen comments are
attached, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Gillespie from Bohler Engineering. When we
were here last month, there were two issues that you sent us home with to add substantial
vegetation on the west side of the building, and then to change the two fixtures on the east side
of the building. When we looked at the lighting, it was determined that the areas where the light
was brightest was in the center of the parcel, but there was very little spillage off the site, and it
was just that area by the motel which needed to be toned down. We submitted a revised plan
that I think accomplished all of that. So we're here to answer any questions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up to questions, comments from the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Walk us through the lighting plan, please, because you actually added fixtures,
even though the plan has changed, you've added some fixtures.
MR. GILLESPIE-Jim Gillespie from Bohler. From our last submission, we hadn't added any
fixtures. We added fixtures from the first revision, which was the comment was that the lighting
was too intense to comply with regulations. So we had gone from 400 watts to 200 watts. When
we did that, what happens is you get some dead spots. So along that access road, it required
two more lights to get some safe lighting along that road. So that's why we went from 15 fixtures
to 17 fixtures.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it possible to change the wattage on those fixtures down a little bit more, to
make it more compliant?
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. I mean, any time we put together a lighting plan, we're trying to balance
aesthetics and then safety. So, you know, we were able to go from 400 to 200 and still maintain
safety with a couple of more fixtures. We were able to reduce the two light poles from 200 to
150 watts near Motel 8 because we had additional lights for the drive thru Taco Bell near the
building. We really would prefer not to go any lower than this, just to, you know, we've looked at
it a number of times, and just from a safety standpoint we would prefer to stick with this plan if
we could, at this time.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. LAPPER-If you look at the photometric plan, except for where the driveways are, it's 0.0,
0.2, 0.1, 0.3. It's really, at the property line, and I'm talking about in front, it's really small, and
it's 1.1, 1.4, 1.8, along the side, and eventually there's a driveway that'll access another
commercial use at some point. So, for fast food it's pretty low. The only, the higher area, as we
were saying, is in the center, and that doesn't affect anybody, right in the middle of the parking
lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it might not effect anybody, but the glow, I mean, yes, in our Town you
have to have downcast fixtures, but when it's too bright, (lost words) and so that's one of the
reasons why the Code is as low as it is. We've had this discussion before about the applicant
wanting a safe site, but yet our Code also, even though the lighting standards are lower than you
are proposing, it still provides a safe site. So we have to try to find some middle ground here.
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, I mean, I understand your concerns, and again, you know, typically we
would propose a 400 watt fixture. Almost every commercial site that we do is 400 watts. Two
hundred, you know, we were able to use some different type of fixtures. If you look at this
luminar schedule, it was quite a challenge to provide adequate and safe distribution with that
200 watts. We had to use some forward throw fixtures and some different types of fixtures that,
for each type of area, that distribute the light in a different way, and again, you know, along that
roadway we had to add a couple of more fixtures. If we reduce the wattage again, we really
don't want to, you know, have to add fixtures. That's not our intent. I think we found a plan here
that is balanced, that distributes the light well. It doesn't have, obviously there's, certain spots
are more illumination than others, and then there's some dead spots, but it's pretty balanced, it's
a pretty balanced plan. It doesn't overflow onto the properties. The fixtures are recessed,
shoebox down lit fixtures, and they're shielded. So we're, you know, reducing glare and that
effect and I don't think you're going to find anything that's unusual, given the surrounding area,
that's going to be too bright or outside of what you're used to for a commercial use.
MRS. STEFFAN-What does the rest of the Board think?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I've got a question. On your older plan, I'm looking like just on the front,
just for a question. You start off with 5.6, 5.3, 5.3, 4.9. I'm looking at the newer ones were 4.3,
7.5, 7.5, you know, but then the spillage is still the same out. So the light actually increased in
the front walkway there. Did you change the fixtures on that or?
MR. GILLESPIE-We didn't. They may, I'm not sure if that plan was, if anything was updated. I
know a lot of times when we re-do these plans, the grid falls in a different spot. That's what
happens, a lot of times, every time we make a revision or we adjust something and then they re-
calculate it, sometimes the grid falls in a different spot.
MR. LAPPER-Under a light.
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, you might find, and when we move a light, sometimes the light from one
light and the other overlap, so you might get a higher intensity.
MR. MAGOWAN-This is right on the front of the building.
MR. GILLESPIE-Well, there is a pole. I know that one of these poles was moved. So you might
be getting overlap from one pole, which is mixing with the foot candles from one of the wall
lights. There's a lot of factors.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that area is where you're going to have pedestrians walking up to the
sidewalk.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, I understand that, and I didn't have a problem with the lighting on the
last month, but what, you know, like confuses me now is that I'm looking at the new lighting with
the lesser wattage, and I'm looking at, it looks like we have higher numbers on the newer model
than we had on the older one, and now.
MR. GILLESPIE-It's either a grid point or it's overlap from one of the other lights, or it's quite
possible there was an error. One of the fixtures might not have been put on there properly in the
last lighting plan. I do know that this plan is very accurate. We've gone through it quite
intensely here to try to get, you know, what the Board wanted.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you convinced that you've got enough lighting coming around the back
and going through that corridor there?
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, we're comfortable.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because in these types of commercial establishments, I don't have to tell
you, that's a dangerous point, all ages, any horseplay generally takes place back there and you
want to be able to see it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Also coming over from the motel, too.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you want that lit.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Especially if you're going to use security cameras down the line.
MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, we're comfortable with it, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I'm not, I don't have a problem with too much light. I just want to
make sure that you've got enough.
MR. KREBS-Particularly in the wintertime when it's dark early, people come here to eat. You
have ice conditions, you want to be able to see. You want to be able to have enough light to be
safe. That's my feeling.
MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, you know, what you're saying with that statement is that
our Town Code is not sufficient, because it's in excess of our Town Code.
MR. KREBS-Well, in many cases I don't think it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it's the Town Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-As I said last time, many times I've walked through the Wal-Mart parking lot and it's
really been dark.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, Motel 8 you can't even see in the dark because there's no lights at all
over there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it too dark, or is it just darker than you're used to? It's a matter of degrees.
It's what's acceptable and what's not. If people get mugged in a Wal-Mart parking lot, so, you
know, it's like.
MR. KREBS-I'm thinking more about in the wintertime when there's ice there, if you can't see
the difference between the macadam and the ice, you can have somebody injured badly. It's
purely a matter of light. I mean, I don't think Monty's Liquor is really worried about that extra
light. I don't think that the tv place next door is particularly worried about that light. I'd rather
worry about the people having sufficient light to walk through the parking lot and not back into
somebody and not slip on ice. With a little more light, okay, it's a commercial district. That's my
feeling.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy with the spill out as low on the outside of the property. That's what I
like, more light, you've got more in the center concentrated with the majority of the traffic and the
flow and the people are going to be, and the spill out is, you know, you're back down to the
zeros on the property line.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I also would like to remind the Planning Board members, you know, that if
you consider this, you know, for this time of year, we're looking at lighting, dry pavement. We've
got downcast lighting it's required. Anything, wet pavement, snow, all these lights have
reflective properties, and the other thing, the intent of the Code of the Town is to keep a dark sky
so you can look up and see the stars. That's what the intent of the Code means. That's part of
the Comp Plan. Zoning was as a result of our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which we spent a
lot of time on. So I'm bringing it up. It's obviously our decision, but those are the, kind of the
history of why we are where we are.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you don't go to a Taco Bell restaurant to look at the stars. There's a
lot of places around there you can look at the stars, but in that parking lot it's got to be safe.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it's got to be safe, but you don't have to be able to read a newspaper in the
parking lot.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's nothing wrong with that.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I know that area. I know it's very dark, you know, at night, you know,
traveling that road many times. It's just a dark area, and, you know, like I said, with the people
coming over from the Super 8, you know, people maybe going to the competitor across the
street, wanting to come over, because I know it's a big attraction. I don't have any problems
with the light.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the landscaping is phenomenal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, concerns? Seeing how there's no additional
comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board? Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is
for interested persons to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to
address the Board to state their name for the record. We do tape the meeting. So please
speak clearly into the microphone. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes, and I would just
ask that any comments or questions be addressed to the Board. Good evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
FLORENCE GOEDERT
MRS. GOEDERT-Good evening. My name is Florence Goedert. I reside at 469 Big Bay Road,
and I know I spoke here the last time regarding this new business. My concerns are still the
same, although since I was here last time I stopped by and looked at the blueprints and I have
some additional concerns. At some point an exit/entrance road is going to be made on Big Bay
Road, and from what I can see, the entrance appears as though it is going to be right across the
street from mine or my neighbor's home, and we're concerned about dealing with more traffic
and having to deal with people's headlights shining in our bedrooms, in our living rooms, and
with the noise that's going to come along with the traffic. I mean, we already have cars going
down the road booming their stereos. I'm also, you know, if I had my choice, I mean, I wouldn't
have a place of business over there that's open 24 hours, because we're concerned about the
type of people that it's going to be attracting in the middle of the night there, and the additional
noise that's going to come along with that as well, and also during the winter months, you know,
what hours snow plowing is going to take effect, and, I mean, because we're already awakened
in the night from alarms constantly going off across the street at Curtis Lumber, and plows
coming in there at three or four o'clock in the morning. You hear their scraping plows and they
have loud beeping noise on their plows as they're backing up and changing directions, and this
is going on at three, four o'clock in the morning. I realize Mr. Krebs, I hope I pronounced that
right, early said this is a commercial district. It may be a commercial district, but there's still a lot
of residents that live in that area and we need to be taken into consideration as well. We pay
taxes just like everybody else. We already have people that throw garbage in our yards, people
that are coming from McDonalds and Stewarts and such, and now we're just going to have
additional trash thrown in our yards. I mean, I know myself and my neighbor, you know, we try
to keep our homes up and well looking for the neighborhood, and we just have these concerns,
and I hope that this is all taken into consideration. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. KREBS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No one else wants to address the Board this evening? Okay.
Do you have any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 do have public comment, yes. "To Whom It May Concern: I am sending this
correspondence regarding the above-referenced matter to express my concerns on the
construction of a Taco Bell on Corinth Road, Queensbury, NY 12804. They are as follows: 1.
Ingress and Egress - It is my understanding eventually the Egress will be on Big Bay Road. How
many feet from the Corinth Road will this be located? Not more than 300 feet from the traffic
light at the intersection would be best for myself and the residents directly across from Curtis
Lumber. Presently it usually takes at least five (5) minutes to get out of my driveway which is
approximately 500 feet South of Corinth Road. There is property just to the North of mine which
is in disrepair and no-one has resided there for a number of years. Is Egress directly across
from the North boundary of that property a possibility? 2. Will there be a buffer of trees at least
six (6) feet high between Big Bay Road and Taco Bell property as there was when Curtis
Lumber was constructed? This would be beneficial in obstructing lights from traffic Egress in that
area; thus eliminating lights from shining directly into my residence. 3. At what time of day will
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
parking lot maintenance be conducted? This includes snow plowing in the winter. Will it be
attended to no later than ten (10) o'clock pm and no earlier than 7 am? 4. Will tractor trailers and
tour buses be allowed to park overnight? 5. 1 am also concerned with additional litter on Big
Bay Road. At present I am daily picking up litter from Stewart's and McDonald's and cigarette
butts - usually thrown out of vehicles going to Curtis Lumber. I have been a resident and
taxpayer at 471 Big Bay Road, Queensbury, NY since 1884. 1 maintain my property in an
orderly fashion and expect to continue to live here. I realize the Town is growing and the
properties off Exit 18 are attracting new businesses because of the proximity to the Northway.
Industrial growth is an essential part of community development I am sending this letter and
asking you to share my concerns with the Board Members and ask them to review and address
aforesaid concerns. Hopefully this will help to shed some light on possible future problems,
thereby alleviating . - them before they occur. Thanking you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully, Lorraine Troy 471 Big Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804" That's the only public
comment I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-We showed that entrance/exit onto Big Bay Road, not for this phase of the
project, but to show that there is a plan for when the rest of the site gets developed that that
would be the obvious place to be able to use the traffic light for left turns. So they certainly have
nothing to worry about now. It's not on the plan. We're not building it. We didn't seek approval
for that, and the letter writer was correct. In terms of the buffer, there would be required a buffer
along the west, east side of Big Bay Road. They're on the west side, because that would be
where the zone change line is, and beyond that, at the time that we come back to do another
project on this site, I'm thinking a case where you have an exit road when there's a residence on
the other side. Right up here when we did Surrey Field for The Michaels Group that was the
case where the only place to put the road was across from somebody's living room, and in that
case we did a berm and some evergreens on the neighbor's property, and that's the kind of
thing that could be taken into account next time. I mean, certainly whatever the project is, they'll
be able to justify that, you know, to deal with the traffic light issue, but it's sort of Catch-22 if you
want to get the cars to the traffic light, that's the way that they have to go, but it's not a part of
this project now. It's just there as an intended future plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know where the access would be?
MR. LAPPER-This property is owned by Frank Parillo and he only owns a small piece that has
access on Big Bay because there's a residence piece at the corner that he's been trying to
purchase for years and hasn't been able to. So there's really only probably across from their
house is the only place right now that he owns that would allow that access.
MR. OBORNE-1 would also add that he does own those properties fronting on Big Bay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-In the back, though, not.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, right where my arrow is right here. These are all Frank's, just for edification.
MR. MAGOWAN-So there's a possibility that the access road could go far enough down where it
would come out in between the two houses and not shining from looking at it, so the headlights
aren't directly in anybody's.
MR. OBORNE-That's true, too. I mean, you could also build the road so it sits on the curb.
There are many different things that you can do.
MR. KREBS-Plus the fact that that's not really part of what we're reviewing tonight.
MR. OBORNE-But potentially obviously you're looking at what could potentially be in the future.
MR. KREBS-Right, but there would be another Site Plan Review required at that time.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm assuming that there'll be sufficient trash receptacles. Is there a Code for a
fast food restaurant like this? One of the comments that the neighbors had was that there's
trash that, you know, either folks are throwing out of their car or that's blowing from these sites,
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
like we've got parking regulations, we have dumpster regulations. We don't have anything
about trash, do we?
MR. KREBS-Well, being a Rotarian and having spent three hours last Saturday morning picking
up trash along Aviation Road, I can tell you people throw anything and everything out of their
car, and I don't know how we correct that problem. It's an irresponsibility. Why they can't take it
to Stewarts and dump it in the, I don't know, but it was four huge trash bags, and we did from
West Mountain to 87.
MRS. STEFFAN-I've adopted my road. I have the same problem.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We do the same thing on 9L twice a year for the fire department, and it's
unbelievable. Probably, in a mile in a half probably came up with 20 bags. I mean, and it's
everything from beer cans to some other things you don't even want to talk about, but there is a
highway, State highway, County highway rule about throwing things out of your car, but you're
not going to be able to stop some guy that throws a cigarette out of the car. It's going to happen,
and, you know, but that's just life, and I think the service clubs, there are a lot of them in this
Town that clean up the roads. I think we're very fortunate to have them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments, concerns? What's the Board's feeling on
SEQRA? It is a Type II action but they did submit a Long Form.
MR. OBORNE-If the Planning Board feels that there is any environmental issues on this
property, it may be prudent to do that. If you don't, it is a Type II SEQRA. It's less than 4,000
square feet, and it doesn't qualify for that level of environmental review, per the regulations.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-In the Staff Notes, Keith, it talks about the applicant's requested a Type C
Buffer waiver, even though in the beginning it says no waivers.
MR. OBORNE-That was with the existing house that's on the leased lot, because the road is
coming through. There's really, if you look at, there's really two lots associated with this, and the
house where the hand is up here, it's required because it's a residential use, that a Type C
Buffer should be offered.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-It was because of that that you asked us last time to add the landscaping.
MRS. STEFFAN-The landscaping around the retention pond.
MR. LAPPER-And that's a rental house that the owner owns and will at some point stop renting
and demolish for commercial development.
MRS. STEFFAN-So you are asking for a Type C Buffer waiver.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments, concerns? Is the Board comfortable closing the
public hearing?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And will entertain a motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-So everybody's okay with that lighting plan?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-All righty, then. How about the engineering comments?
MR. HUNSINGER-There are outstanding comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. There are things that if the applicant doesn't do they may be subject to
further Site Plan Review.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. LAPPER-This is pretty much a signoff letter.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. Okay. So everybody's okay?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, as long as they address the outstanding issues?
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Some of it has to be done at construction. So if you want to make that a
condition, that's fine.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You'll just have to get a signoff, and if there's anything that comes up
(lost words). Okay. I'll make a motion to approve.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #54-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE
Tax Map ID 309.13-2-2, 3
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. Taco Bell. Restaurant and/or new commercial
use in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/23, 10/18 & 11/17/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
6) Waiver requests granted: The applicant has requested an internal Type C Buffer waiver
and the Planning Board grants that;
7) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
8) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
9) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any
site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
10) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
11) This is approved with the following conditions.
a) That the applicant will obtain an engineering signoff.
b) That the applicant will make a plan notation indicating that the general contractor
shall be responsible for locating and marking utilities and wastewater.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Just a quick point of clarification. This is a signoff letter, but it's really, they're
asking for this deep test pits before construction. So I think that this can get signed off by Staff
that it's done.
MR. OBORNE-We'll handle that aspect of it. Sean's basically stating in the letter that upon
completion of this, we don't take any exception to it.
MR. LAPPER-That's great. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 76-2011 SEAR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK
AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS & LEMERY GREISLER LLC OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING RC-RECREATION COMMERCIAL LC-42A-LAND CONSERVATION 42
ACRES LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A WATER SLIDE
COMPLEX TO BE CALLED THE ALPINE FREEFALLS. NEW AMUSEMENT ATTRACTIONS
IN AN RC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI
WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20
SECTION 179-9
BOB HOLMES & CHARLES DUMAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 76-2011, Great Escape Theme Park. Requested action is Site Plan
Review for a new amusement attraction. Location is 1172 State Route 9. Existing zoning is
Recreation Commercial and Land Conservation 42 acres. SEQRA Status is this is under the
auspices of a previous EIS or Environmental Impact Statement. The Warren County Planning
Board, on 11/9/11 issued a No County Impact. Engineering review has been completed.
Project Description: Applicant proposes a 68 foot tall water slide complex to be called the Alpine
Freefalls. The ride consists of one (1) six story drop speed slide and four (4) mat racer slides.
The site access is controlled by a dedicated queuing area and can only be accessed from the
southeast. Please refer to applicant's narrative dated October 17th for additional information.
Please note that the project is up for site plan review and is under the auspices of the Final
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) dated July 11, 2005. New amusement
attractions in an RC zone require Planning Board review and approval. What follows is review.
There, again, is the ubiquitous test pit issues. I don't believe Sean has an issue with looking at
this once the construction starts. That's been sort of the path we've been going down recently.
Also, there are some issues that maybe the Planning Board's not aware of that it is understood
that during the site visit, that the existing iron fence adjacent to the wave pool will be relocated in
to the general area of the existing chain link fence. I'm not sure, I wasn't on the site visit with
you that Saturday and I'm sure that the applicant discussed that with you, and I'm just looking for
some general clarification on queuing, and additional comments. There are two outstanding
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
items from past projects that should be certified and closed out at this point in time. They are as
follows: A. As built plans or an engineer certification letter for the electrical substation located
along Round Pond Road. B. Landscaping associated with the approved roadside berm as part
of Phase 1 of the Warehouse project. We would like closed out as part of this project. Staff also
feels that an independent, arbitrary, and unbiased sound evaluation should be considered in the
future. This obviously is up to the Planning Board, and this project has a total height of 68 feet
and it is within and located within the 175 foot height zone as per the FGEIS. Fire Marshal
comments are attached, TCE comments are attached. What you have before you in a handout
is from Dante Engineering is the subsurface compaction test that the Fire Marshal required. The
Fire Marshal is satisfied with that and along with that is a picture of that also, and I believe that is
really all the concerns that we have at this point, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the
record.
MR. HOLMES-Sure. My name is Bob Holmes. I'm with Jarrett Engineers. I'm joined by
Charles Dumas from Lemery Greisler, Brian Martineau, Safety Manager for The Great Escape,
and Ray Schroder, business analyst and special projects facilitator for The Great Escape. Good
evening. Thank you for hearing us this evening. As you've all seen before, just a quick
rundown. This is a new slide that's being proposed by The Great Escape. This tower is to
consist of five slides. Four of them are to be kind of side by side racer slides, and one will be a
drop speed slide. As Keith correctly pointed out, the overall height of the structure is to be no
more than 68 feet. From the FGEIS, we are located in a 175 foot zone. So we aren't even
coming close to approaching that height threshold, and just a general note, actually the Comet
rollercoaster, the 80 foot tower at the end where this tower is to be located is actually taller. So
it's several feet higher. Mr. Chairman, at your discretion, I do have just a quick response letter
that we've prepared. I would like to provide it to the Board, if you're willing to receive it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you summarize it for us, verbally?
MR. HOLMES-We can. I do have copies for each of you if you wish to have that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? I mean, typically we don't accept new
information, which is.
MR. HOLMES-1 don't know if I'd call it new information. It's pretty much clarifications of the
comments that we've received from Staff and the engineer.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-Why don't you just read through it, and if we are satisfied with that, we could do
a conditional approval, or, you know, if all the comments were satisfied.
MR. HOLMES-Okay. That's fine. I guess one of the questions we did have is the comment to
start out, just following from Staff comments, they did ask us to, which we did not provide the
witnessing of the Town Engineer for the subsurface investigation. The only, the concern we
have with that is their standard they're asking us to apply to is not, we do not believe is
applicable to the Site Plan Review. Chapter 136 specifically deals with wastewater. We're only
being concerned with our foundation plans which ultimately go for a building code and for our
stormwater which falls under Chapter 147. That being said, if the engineer wishes to visit the
site while we're under construction, we certainly can make those provisions.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HOLMES-Keith did point out there, just some clarification. The iron fence that we had
described to you during your site visit, we are making clarifications on our plans that calls that
out a little bit better. Our intention is, provided we're successful in completing this this evening
with the Board, we will providing a revised SWPPP and just some minor modifications, revisions
to our design drawings that we do have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HOLMES-Just an answer there, the access to the ride will occur from the, it's going to be to
the south. There's an existing walkway that goes up towards the Comet rollercoaster from the
wave pool area. The guests and patrons will enter and exit the ride from that same location.
The process of moving the fence over is to incorporate the entire new waterslide complex into
the Splashwater Kingdom water park, in an effort, because the water park only operates during
daylight hours, an evening operation for the park, the water park needs to be, access needs to
be controlled and isolated so we don't have any undo access to the property. One comment
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
that the Staff did raise is we do have a few species listed on our landscape plan that does not
necessarily show up on the recommended list that the Town has put out. None of these species
are invasive by any means. Our reason for doing that is it matches a lot of existing landscaping
that we have in this area of the park. Plus it would allow us to re-use a lot of the existing
landscaping that we have temporarily transplanted, just before the winter months there, so that
can be re-utilized.
MRS. STEFFAN-Which you showed us during our site plan visit.
MR. HOLMES-Yes. You obviously saw that there was some disturbance there, and that was the
whole reason, rationale for that. Just getting down here, the certification for the electrical
substation, I was the engineer of record on that one. I went looking through my list of stuff. I
didn't find it, but we'll provide a certification letter for that.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. That will be contingent upon this approval, just to make sure you know
that.
MR. HOLMES-So, in other words, write it soon. Okay. Then the issue of the landscaping on the
roadside berm, that was initially planted. Unfortunately we had a high mortality rate of the
plantings on the berm. Staff has agreed, Great Escape staff has agreed that that would be re-
planted, but the one request we have is we would plant that in the Spring of 2012.
MR. HUNSINGER-Have you had much experience with plantings on berms?
MR. HOLMES-You've got to be careful with it. Some of it is, probably some of the soils should
be amended so it will hold water moisture, moisture a little bit better. That's something I figured I
would ultimately plan, I would discuss with the landscaper that's on staff with The Great Escape.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because it seems to be more often than not there's a high mortality rate of
the plants that are on berms.
MR. HOLM ES-Especially given the type, we have some well drained soils that, certainly in the
park, and you see it elsewhere obviously in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HOLMES-1 believe we can make some reasonable modifications to allow them. Once they
get established, I believe they should be fine.
MR. DUMAS-I'll address the next one, which had to do with the suggestion in the Staff
comments that sound monitoring in the future be done on an arbitrary, unbiased basis, and I'm a
little puzzled by that kind of comment because the GEIS Findings established a protocol for
monitoring at three receptor locations, and that's been assiduously done since 2001. The
results have been provided and analyzed, most recently by O'Brien and Geer. That's a very
credible outfit. They're nationwide. They've got over 850 scientists, engineers. They've got a
dozen locations here in New York and provide these kinds of services. There's no relationship
between The Great Escape or Six Flags and O'Brien and Geer, and I'm not really sure what the
genesis of that is, but there's a protocol established in the GEIS that's been followed. It's been
reported, and the results are well below the thresholds that are established. So I'm not sure that
it's appropriate or warranted to re-visit that.
MR. OBORNE-Can I respond?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. This is, it's not an indictment of The Great Escape, nor their client at all.
It's not an indictment of anything. It's more of an observation on process. You have an entity,
through the GEIS, and I don't dispute that whatsoever. They're required to do an evaluation on
themselves. That's the genesis of that comment. That's all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. DUMAS-Well, again, there was a protocol established in 2001 for this very reason, and it's
been followed, reported appropriately. Just because The Great Escape is paying the freight for
it doesn't mean that there's a bias to the results. I mean, if the Town would like to pay for it, then
we could use a different consultant if you'd like, but I think, I don't see where it would be
warranted to go back and do this.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-While we're on the subject of the GEIS, where do you stand with the
additional thresholds that would trigger the additional traffic improvements?
MR. DUMAS-We're well below that. Golly, I don't have the exact figures, but they were provided
in the narrative that was supplied with the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that.
MR. DUMAS-Yes, and they're well below the thresholds. I believe it was a million two was the
threshold, and I think the most recent readings were well below a million.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, the only complaints that we ever hear about traffic and
congestion is not the result of The Great Escape. It's the other parking lots where people are
crossing the street and not using the pedestrian bridge. Those are the only complaints that we
hear anymore, and I think, you know, most of the traffic improvements that have been
implemented have really resolved the issues there.
MR. DUMAS-Yes, I think, you know, the pedestrian bridge I think is a help, and I think the other
measures that were implemented, what was it in 2004, were very helpful as well.
MR. HOLMES-Yes. I'll just bring to your attention, if you want to read it, on the initial cover letter
that went with the application, Page Three of Six, we have some references at the bottom of the
page. It's a footnote.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I didn't see the numbers. I read the body and didn't refer to the
specific.
MR. HOLMES-Those numbers there they talk about, I mean, their traffic, the threshold limit for
traffic is in the neighborhood of 1100 vehicles per hour. We're below the thousand mark at this
moment.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, in terms of the traffic, we don't have year to year comparisons here. Is it
going down, is it going up, has it stabilized? Do you have a sense at all?
MR. HOLMES-Right now I don't have the exact numbers with me. Over the past couple of
years, the numbers have actually been somewhat stable, with a slight decline. With that being
said, the sampling that's done at the time, next year it may show it wavers a little bit in the other
direction, but it is the case, we aren't at that threshold limit or within the range of that threshold
limit right now.
MR. DUMAS-And importantly, the present application doesn't contemplate any additional traffic
flow. It's simply an augmentation of the existing facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I figured since you're here I'll ask the questions. Give you the
opportunity to address them.
MR. SIPP-Under that same protocol, you had sound, and you give very little information except
in the very general form, but how much has the sound increased? There were three or four
stations, I believe.
MR. HOLMES-There are three stations, and I can give you, if I can put my hands on it real quick
here, over the past couple of years, typically it's the case that what was established in the
Findings was, in 2001, a five decibel increase over existing would trigger that threshold to
require further mitigations, and right now, just using the Years of 2009, 2010, 2011, we're
wavering in that range of only an increase of three decibels at this point over the previous.
MR. DUMAS-Yes, we had, the three receptor locations were Glen Lake, Twicwood and
Courthouse Estates, and in 2001, we had a 36, an L90 average number of 36 at Glen Lake, 41
at Twicwood, and 43 at Courthouse, and the most recent.
MR. HOLMES-Yes, the most recent for Twicwood were at 44. So there's a three decibel
increase over the 41, and Glen Lake, that number doesn't look quite right. We're showing it,
Glen Lake, we're showing it being at 44, but I don't remember exactly what you got there, those
numbers, but on average we're right around a three decibel increase at this point, and if we start
getting in those thresholds, also bear in mind, it triggers further study on the part of The Great
Escape. It may very well be found at that time that some of that noise increase is not
attributable to The Great Escape or their properties. It could be from elsewhere. So that would
require the further investigation at that time.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SIPP-And I don't know if these things are supposed to be published, but I haven't seen one
in a long time.
MR. HOLMES-Keith, do you have those?
MR. OBORNE-We have a file in our office that actually is two file drawers that is dedicated to
The Great Escape and we have gotten copies every year of the sound evaluation.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Brian, when we were up there, we were talking about Mike Palmer's
concern about cutting off access to the rollercoaster. Did you get that straightened out? Do you
have the aerial up there to check it out?
BRIAN MARTINEAU
MR. MARTINEAU-Yes. We actually brought aerial up and we actually drove it around it around.
We found a couple of, a tight spot of getting it in, which the picture that he handed to you, that I
(lost words) my truck in it, that's where we actually widened it to make it easier for the tower to
come through.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the other one he wanted a hydrant moved.
MR. MARTINEAU-And that's where the hydrant is to move it, yes. We agreed on the spot where
to move it. It's got to be moved if we do the ride.
MR. HOLMES-We do show a hydrant re-location on the current plans. Part of the negotiation, it
may not be exactly in that location. We may move it to the other side of the access road, but
that's going to be kind of a little bit of flexibility we'll have, we'll deal with as far as construction
goes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. He said relocate to the access road from the end gate.
MR. HOLMES-Yes.
MR. MARTINEAU-1 actually met with Gary Stillman this morning to actually go through and
show him what we have done already for the walk through so he can turn the stuff in.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So long as you can to the Comet.
MR. MARTINEAU-We can definitely get there. I mean, we can put the truck right down in front
of it, no problem. It just made it a lot easier. There's even a gate that we're actually going to
move over more just to make it a better swing, easier turn there. So you don't have to worry
about it, they're rushing in, make sure they have easy access. Believe me, if I need them, I want
them there. I don't want anything holding them back.
MR. HOLMES-Yes, and that revision of the gate is going to be reflected on the updated plans
we'll provide to Staff at this point. There are several technical questions or issues that were
raised by the engineer. We've pretty much gone through and addressed those. Just one I kind
of wanted to bring to your attention. Chazen had indicated they at least raised a concern were
we accounting for drainage from any upland areas, and fortunately we're dealing with a flat site
in our location. The Comet rollercoaster itself actually cuts off a lot of that slope to the east of
us. So we're really dealing only with that area. Kind of running down here again. Some of them
they were just asking us to revise some language in the SWPPP, which we're making that
revision accordingly. Again, we're running down. Here's one question I would like some insight
from the Board, if you'd be willing to share that with us, and that's with regards to the SWPPP.
There's some language that's required for compliance with the New York State DEC Stormwater
regulations, and as far as the signoff goes from cultural resources, archeological, historic sites,
and threatened and endangered species, a lot of times, for a virgin project that comes to you, we
would go through OPRHP to get signoffs from the State, as far as cultural resources, and then
from DEC on the issue of threatened and endangered species. In this instance, we're
referencing the GEIS that was completed in 2001, that basically states that in our areas we are
not dealing with, or would be disturbing any cultural resources or threatened and endangered
species, and we've proposed some language in our letter that what we would include as far as
that description in the SWPPP, and I would just like to, if the Board would be willing to
understand and accept that, we would follow on that premise.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we went through this a little bit one of the last times that you had
a project where the Town Engineer wasn't the engineer on record when we went through the
EIS. So there was a, you know, sort of a learning curve to bring them up to speed on some of
those details.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HOLMES-Actually you're now using the same firm. The staff has changed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. That's right.
MR. HOLMES-Because Chazen was reviewing it on your behalf at that time.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I remember that in the other prior, I mean, that certainly makes sense
with what you just described, unless anyone else has questions or concerns about it.
MR. HOLMES-Again, there's more of these items. That was kind of the biggest one I wanted to
bring to your attention. There's some other concerns as far as litter control during construction.
We've made language corrections in the SWPPP to address those issues. Then the Fire
Marshal comments, I think, it sounds like we've got the signoff now, and what it really is was the
whole issue of the picture we're talking about there. We filled in the loading dock so to widen
out the access to the Comet and to the new ride area, and that's really the quick rundown.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Additional questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-So if they've satisfied the Fire Marshal, and if we can obtain an engineering
signoff, it just seems like there aren't any other outstanding issues.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, I can corroborate. Having a discussion with Mike Palmer today, he
is satisfied. He's not overjoyed, but he's satisfied with the (lost word) to the lot, and will say he's
overjoyed with the lengths that The Great Escape has gone through to accommodate him, and
as far as the engineering goes, yes, it's a lot of, what looks like updating the SWPPP and issues
like that. I can't disagree. Now the test pits, that's a different story. Chapter 136, we don't need
to go down this road again, but you know how I feel about it. Regardless of that, there is
provision in Chapter 136 that describes how a test pit is to be completed, and how it's to be
witnessed, and that is what we go by. So just for the record, we'll just leave it at that. So, to
answer your question, I think the engineering is not a huge issue. The Fire Marshal's been
taken care of.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? We
have at least one commenter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LORRAINE STEIN
MS. STEIN-My name is Lorraine Stein, 86 Ash Drive, Lake George, NY, and that's on Glen
Lake. My husband, unfortunately, was not able to attend tonight. So he apologizes. So this is a
statement on both of our behalves. Our major concern with this proposed ride is noise. This is
a concern because noise from the Park generated in the area where this ride will be added
continues to be a problem. During the 2011 season we called Great Escape six times to report
unreasonable noise generated from Park operations. There are two issues: sounds directly
generated from the new ride and the cumulative effect of noise with the addition of the new ride.
The following questions for Applicant and this Board need to be adequately addressed before
this application is approved: (1) Will there be other objects attached to or installed in conjunction
with this ride that will generate noise such as speakers that play music, advertisements or
speakers used for PA announcements or by a ride attendant giving instructions? If so, have
these been considered in the potential noise impact? (2) Are there any sound studies or sound
specs related to this ride, and/or related to any apparatus/equipment added in conjunction with
this ride, in the application? Per the October 17, 2011 Jarrett Engineers letter under section B.
Sounds it states "The Attraction is not expected to generate significant noise." Where is the
quantitative data to support this? Further it states "Therefore, we can be reasonably certain that
the Attraction will not result in a material deviation from the sound levels indicated in the 2011
sound study." Again, where is the supporting quantitative data? Since we are reasonably sure it
will due to the area of the Park that the ride's going to be installed. (3) Have there been any
studies included in this application about the cumulative effects of noise with the addition of this
ride? According to this application, the 2011 sound measurements indicate there has been an
increase in noise generated by Park operations at Glen Lake and Courthouse Estates, therefore
indicating that the cumulative noise from the Park is increasing. This is a major concern. (4) Has
the Town received the Great Escape's annual sound studies and if so has the Town assessed
them, and why is this information not part of the application so the public can have access and it
be adequately reviewed? (5) Does the Great Escape have any plans or policies to diminish
noise from the Park at this time or in the future? Finally... (6) Will the Board stipulate that if noise
is generated by this ride, and/or any equipment or other apparatus, etc. installed, that the ride be
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
shut down until the noise can be eliminated or mitigated to the satisfaction of the affected
neighbors? For the context of this concern, we want to reiterate that before Six Flags purchased
the Park there were no noise problems. We predate Six Flags and our neighborhood was well
established before any amusement park's existence. Since Six Flags, there has been a steady
increase in noise from rides, piped music, live shows: amplified advertisements and
announcements, and most recently live bands. We have grown to tolerate this general din of
noise, but it is aggravating and it has negatively affected our lives. However, there are too many
times when the noise levels are intolerable. While this year Park management has been
responsive and lowered the volume when requested, these calls should not need to be made;
more importantly, the Great Escape's ability to lower the volumes clearly demonstrates that they
have the means to control their sound. Regarding the Park's required sound studies: it needs to
be noted that sound readings have never been taken during times of intolerable noise events.
We know this because one of the sound measurement sites is our deck. Again, according to this
application, the 2011 sound measurements indicate there has been an increase in noise
generated by Park operations at Glen Lake and Courthouse Estates. (See footnote 2 on pg 3 of
Jarrett letter 10/17/11 "For example, intermittent increases in the background sound level as a
result of sound at the Park were elevated above the L90 by up to 3 dBA at Courthouse Estates
and up to 1 dBA at Glen Lake Shore"), therefore indicating that cumulative noise from the Park
is increasing. Again, major concerns, since the studies performed are self-serving. Thank you
for your time, and do you have any questions?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-The last ride that went in I believe was the Sasquatch. Was that the ride?
MS. STEIN-Sasquatch was one of the last rides, but The Wiggles was the one that was a huge
problem, the Wiggles theater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember you were one of the neighbors talking about that.
MS. STEIN-And right now, as far as I know, they've added bands at that location, I believe, and
that's been a big problem this past summer, and that's all in that general location as to where
this ride is going.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know when we did our walk around we didn't think that it would generate
much noise because it's a water ride.
MS. STEIN-Right, but we don't know, are they adding anything on to it? That's, you know,
generally speaking, they put speakers up and they're piping music and everything else when
people are standing in line.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MS. STEIN-And you're talking at six feet up, or six stories up, not six feet, six stories up, and to
me it's a big concern because we hear, that area is generating a significant amount of noise,
and I'm very concerned because there are sound studies, granted and their sound studies are
not done when this noise occurs. So their sound studies already indicate there's been a
significant increase in the noise from the Park.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MS. STEIN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other letter that was just handed out, do we want to hear that read into
the record, since we all have a copy, we can just read it as well.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He can read it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I read it, and it is part of the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you've got one. I have another one here that you don't have.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have another one.
MR. OBORNE-Do you have one from Ken and Mandy Diffenbach?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, she handed us that.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. OBORNE-You don't want that read into the record?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if Keith had it, we only got it tonight. I think Keith should read it into the
record.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you should read it into the record.
MR. OBORNE-Are you okay with that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-1 can read both these into the record?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-This is from Ken and Mandy Diffenbach, and I apologize if I'm butchering your
last name. "We unfortunately will be out of town the day of the public meeting in regards to the
proposed new water slide complex referred to as "alpine freefalls". We would like our concerns
considered before the decision is made in regards to this project. We have attended many
planning board meetings in the past when there has been a request for additional rides added to
the Great Escape theme park with our main concern being noise. Over the last couple of years
we have seen an increase in the level of noise heard coming from the park, mainly load speaker
amplification or speakers including an increase in music from shows and the start of"concerts in
the park". We have called on several occasions and complained resulting in some resolution but
it is short lived and occurs again either the next day or within the next few days. We understand
there is a sound study that is performed every year and without knowing when the service will be
done we can tell when it will be performed, as we will not hear anything coming from the park for
days. Then all of a sudden we see the person doing the sound study. We do not feel this is an
accurate portrayal of the sound being emitted from the park since this study is paid for by the
Great Escape and is well aware when the study is being performed. We would like to see an
unannounced independent sound study be performed each year chosen by the town and the
Great Escape billed for this unbiased study. If the results obtained in the past are accurate the
Great Escape should not have an issue with an independent sound study. It is also noted that in
the current application for this ride there is no mention of speakers or any type of amplification.
We hope that this is accurate and there are none planned to be added, as we believe it would
severely increase the sound level in our neighborhood which the great escape currently has
issues maintaining an acceptable level for more then a day or two at a time. At a previous
meeting past issues that the surrounding neighbors had with the Great escape was discussed
and it has been argued by the Great Escape that the Great Escape was around before some of
the neighborhoods. That may be true for some, but not all. The Town board must keep in mind
when the park was first opened as Story town the size of the rides did not even compare to what
the park has evolved into today. The rides are much larger and noisier today then ever before in
it's history. This change has impacted the surrounding neighborhoods dramatically which we
feel the town board needs to consider before considering any new application for additional
rides. We certainly hope the town will review our concerns regarding the increased noise level
and it's impact on the surrounding neighborhoods into consideration before acting on and
approving this, application. Sincerely, Ken & Mandy Dieffenbach" The second one is dated
today, to Queensbury Planning Board from John Whalen, 794 State Route 149, Subject: Great
Escape Alpine Freefalls "As the owner of 40 acres of property in the immediate vicinity of the
Great Escape Theme Park, I am opposed to their proposed construction of 5 new, high, water
slides. My concern is the addition of 5 new sources of rider scream's close to the Park's
boundary line, resulting in additional noise to neighbor's outside the Park. John Whalen" And
that's it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I think there were a few issues that the neighbors had
expressed, if you could address, you know, whether or not PA systems will be used or speakers
or.
MR. HOLMES-The answer is there is going to be no PA's or speakers as part of this ride. There
will be telephone communications from the top of the tower to the bottom, but nothing that would
be over a loudspeaker.
MR. SIPP-What about screaming?
MR. DUMAS-That'll be prohibited. No sounds of joy.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SIPP-1 should correct myself here. I haven't read the bottom of Page Three. What you're
saying is there's a three decibel increase at Courthouse Estates, and maybe it's because the jail
makes so much noise over there. There's been a lot of complaints about the jail air conditioning
system, which has a very distinct hum starting up and shutting down, but 1, myself, would say
that I think there's less noise at The Great Escape than there has been in the past, but just a one
or two decibel increase is quite a bit, because that's figured on a logarithmic scale, and that's 10
times, each time it goes up one decibel. Now, your three decibel increase should be really
heard. I would agree. I think this should be done by a private organization and not you people.
There was a time, 10 years ago, when Chris was on the Board, the Chairman was on the Board
at that time. I remember standing almost directly in front of him and speaking about the decibel
levels.
MR. TRAVER-You have a contractor that is performing these sound studies periodically for you
to meet the requirement of the GEIS, correct?
MR. HOLMES-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-And that's done once a year?
MR. HOLMES-Based on the Findings that's performed once a year during the season of the
Park, in which they, during that time they're going to come in and do sound studies while the
Park is closed. They will do a week day study, and they do a weekend study. The only
information that the Park gets is we know it's in the season. The Park receives a phone call
from their consultant, O'Brien and Geer, saying, hey, we're gearing up to do it, and we'll send
you the bill when it's done. We don't, the Park staff does not have any control over when they
arrive, when they don't arrive.
MR. DUMAS-But part of the protocol is to make sure that it's taken under appropriate
environmental conditions, for example, wind will affect sound. So they pay attention to that, and
other, you know, precipitation changes sound. Time of day. So those are all taken into account.
It's interesting, I'm looking at the September 21, 2011 report that was provided by O'Brien and
Geer, and interestingly, when the Park is closed, the levels are at, and in some cases below,
when the Park is operating. So this would indicate to me that there's no material bleed of
decibel level between when the Park is operating and when the Park is closed.
MR. TRAVER-So you are notified in advance by them when these studies are being conducted?
MR. HOLMES-They say that, what, they give us like a several week window saying, okay,
number one, do we have approval to proceed with the study, yes, you do, and sometime within
the next month, six weeks, they come out and do it, unannounced to The Great Escape.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you do have advanced notice, but it could be any time within, you say,
a month. So you don't get a call that morning or something or the day before?
MR. HOLMES-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-If that report was generated in September, when did the, when were the
studies done?
MR. DUMAS-During the season in August, I believe.
MR. MARTINEAU-They normally try to do July or August, our busiest time, so they can get the
most accurate, when we have the most people.
MR. HOLMES-I'm just quickly looking at some of the field sheets that were done. I'm just
looking here, August 6t", August 5t". So it looks like it was the first, for 2011 it occurred the first
week of August.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's that, the Syracuse group that does it?
MR. DUMAS-Well, it's a nationwide outfit, but they have offices in Albany. They have three,
actually, in Syracuse, Buffalo.
MR. MARTINEAU-The Syracuse one is the one that I call if I need a copy of a report or
something. They come from Syracuse, and then they come and do it and then they go back and
we find out the following week we'll get notice when we get a report.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we have neighbors who have issues. So there has to be some
explanation.
MR. DUMAS-Well, Mr. Magowan, you're a neighbor. You commented during our walk around,
right?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, my pool's right up there on the edge of the screen, you see that little
round thing in the backyard. I've gotten closer, and I grew up right off of, the next street up from
Twicwood, on Greenwood Lane, so I actually overlook Glen Lake. I did buy my house, you
know, three years ago we did look at it at the July 5t", one of the busier times. They actually had
two cars on The Great Escape. I will say there are days it seems to be noisier, and like I said, it
is wind, you know, a lot of other calculations. Have I ever called in? No. The only thing I would
ask is, I stated on our walk through, is, you know, maybe a little change in the music every now
and then, so it's not the same music every day, but, you know, I can't complain with the happy
noise of, I do hear the clicking of the rollercoaster. I do hear it going around, and I do hear the
screams, and I think it's a tunnel type effect that you have on the slide, which is going to be
generating more noise, probably pushing toward our neighborhood there. I've talked it over with
our neighbors, and, you know, like I said, Lorraine and everybody else's place has been
established a lot longer. Our neighborhood is really eight years old or so. It's not really that old.
So we knew, you know, coming in, that we'd have fun park in, you know, the backyard. So, but
noise level, yes, there are days, like I say, but to me, it's, you know, I bought into it and I knew it
was there. So it hasn't driven me crazy yet, and I just actually took down a whole bunch of trees
in my backyard and opened it up even more. So, now I have a greater view of Great Escape
and more lawn to mow.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that's a reality of amusement parks. I've been in quite a few, in fact
not too far away from where the Comet originally was, I could hear the clicking of it, but if you
live near an amusement park, you're going to hear some noise. That's a fact of life.
MR. TRAVER-I can remember when we were doing the walk through, I was thinking that
actually the height of the slide might block some of the noise from part of the Park, from the
back, and also that the sound of the water might have kind of a white noise effect, and it would,
not lower the volume, but it would.
MR. HOLMES-1 think the other thing to keep in mind is some of these are tubed. So any noise
coming from those would be directed, I think, downward.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not going to get much noise in there, but you're going to hear,
some of the kids are going to scream obviously, that's why they have the ride.
MR. KREBS-But isn't the Comet closer to the exterior of the property than this is anyway?
MR. HOLMES-It is.
MR. KREBS-And that pre-exists.
MR. MAGOWAN-But Ash Drive and all that is on the backside. So is there something possibly
some form of screening that you could have on the tower that wouldn't affect any of the
engineering for wind shears, but maybe as a sound absorber.
MR. HOLMES-My gut reaction to that is I'm not sure how practical that could be. The angle of
the noise, I would tend to agree with you, Mr. Magowan, would probably channel more, most of
it I would anticipate going up, when you're not inside the tube, because we've got, it's kind of like
it looks like a carpet ride a little bit where the tubes exit, and that's where we'd be directing that
kind of in an upward direction. The speed slide would be more directed more towards your
neighborhood, but, yes, in many respects, the flowing of the water does create kind of a white
noise balance to it. That doesn't mean that we're going to mitigate any kind of increase or
anything of that nature, but we do not anticipate an increase because of surrounding, the
surrounding rise that we already have.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, that makes me want to ask the question, what is the
threshold? Because I don't know that. It's been seven years since I've read the GEIS for The
Great Escape.
MR. DUMAS-1 don't have that in front of me right now.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-So I don't know what the threshold is. What happens when it goes up to a
certain decibel level? What is the mitigation or the remediation?
MR. HOLMES-Well, I mean, the mitigation measures, that's a whole other scenario at this point,
but the threshold level was, I believe it's a five decibel increase over the level set in the 2001
Findings, and we're wavering in that three range at the moment.
MR. SIPP-1 think what affects the sound most is the wind. Where you get a south wind and
Courthouse gets it, and you get a northwest wind and Twicwood's going to get it. So the noise
is tied to which direction you've got your wind blowing. Before you people came, Charlie Wood
had a band marching the street into the picnic shelter at that time, and if the wind was blowing
out of the south, we got all the music. So, that is not a problem anymore, but some of your
loudspeakers are a problem, but, there again, I don't think I (lost words) as loud, loud enough to
understand what's going on, I think. I know that there's somebody speaking over it, but I don't
get the gist of what they're saying.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a possibility of maybe adding more speakers and being able to turn
down the volume so you're not trying to, you know, it's kind of like an overflow of a bright light,
you know, if you put in lower wattage and less poles, it would be less noise.
MR. HOLMES-Well, I'm not sure that we're there yet. The GEIS established a protocol and
established the levels. The studies have indicated that we're within those tolerances. So I don't
know that we're there yet, and, you know, the GEIS was a lengthy and expensive undertaking
on the part of The Great Escape to sort of get by this kind of issue. As long as the tolerances
haven't been exceeded, traffic, noise, height, lights and so forth, then we're really just talking
about Site Plan Review.
MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you're saying we have a cap at five. Right now you're hovering at
three.
MR. HOLMES-In the three range, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I want to do is bring the discussion back to the proposed ride. I
mean, you've said that there's not going to be any amplified noise. I mean, you're not adding
anything that you feel would increase the noise levels as a result of this ride.
MR. HOLMES-Correct. Any of the mechanical equipment's actually going to be below ground.
MR. HUNSINGER-Isn't there some that's going to be in that existing building that's there as
well?
MR. HOLMES-The existing wave pool building where the filter system is, the new filter system
for the ride feature water will be located in that building, and that's below ground.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would like to just comment on the ride itself. Staff doesn't have really any
concerns with the ride itself when it comes to noise, to be honest with you. It is, again, to
reiterate, it's not an indictment at all of that, of The Great Escape, nor the company that provides
that service of noise evaluation. It has to do with the process, that's all. To tie it to this may be a
stretch, but one of my intentions was to bring it to the Planning Board's attention, as is my wont
with all of my reviews, and just to come full circle, the ride, in my estimation, really will have no
bearing whatsoever on the sound. We did front end, when we sat down at our pre-submission
meeting, are there going to be speakers, and off the bat, no. So, I mean, there was some
attenuation forethought taking place.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess since we're kind of talking about the big picture, the big
question, what's the Iifespan of the EIS? It's now 10 years old.
MR. HOLMES-It was updated in '04.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It was updated, yes.
MR. OBORNE-And with the update to Sasquatch, that would be tied to that. This approval gets
tied to that. So it's basically, I don't like to use this term, it's a living document. It really is. If the
Planning Board wishes to, and it's not even a re-open. It's just you add a supplement to it. You
just keep supplementing to it over time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I mean, the only two issues that continuously come, I shouldn't
even say continuously, that come up when there's a new ride proposed, is traffic and noise. So I
don't know, at what point do you say, you know, well the current methodology that's being used
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
needs to be changed or updated or augmented, whatever term you want to use or, you know, I
asked the question about the traffic counts. I mean, quite frankly I don't think traffic is an issue
there anymore, but that's just my own opinion.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. They've done a great job on mitigation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that mitigation measures have really solved the majority of the
issues that were there, but that doesn't mean that you don't take a look at it and say, well,
maybe, you know, there's some other issues that need to be, you know, some, you know, some
periphery issues that need to be addressed.
MR. OBORNE-1 will say the only real traffic issue that I see is making a left out of Round Pond
Road onto Route 9. Sometimes that can be an issue, but it's short lived. The Level of Service is
probably a C at that point, or a B, and again, I'm not a traffic engineer, but they do have a turn
lane in there which makes it a lot easier.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So, I mean, it's not horrible. Is it perfect? No, but it has not reached the level of,
to trip anything in the EIS.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and in the middle of the summer it's very difficult, during the morning
times, on the weekends, because you've got the Exit 20 backed up. You've got people backed
up in the queue along Route 9, and then they have to make a left hand turn into the parking lot
because they want the preferred $20 parking, which is on the street side, or the handicap
parking on the street side, and so that causes folks to have to cut through the northbound traffic
to go over. So in the morning, on the weekends, it does cause a back up, but is it impossible?
It's inconvenient for a little while, but it's not impossible.
MR. HOLMES-We actually see a lot of stacking of traffic originating at Exit 20, whether it's the
northbound interchange or the southbound interchange, and we've seen, it's not uncommon to
see that stacked down south of the pedestrian bridge.
MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely.
MR. SIPP-That traffic light that we paid for, I had to get that in, the citizens paid for, has done a
lot of good on that corner.
MR. HOLMES-You're talking there at the corner of Glen Lake Road?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the bridge is a good thing, too, because you've got a lot less
accidents there.
MR. HOLMES-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's still a number of accidents at the intersection he was talking about.
You can look those reports up.
MR. SIPP-We had a women killed, going up 15 years ago.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But even in the last couple of years, there's quite a few accidents there.
MR. SIPP-If we could get the people not to cross Route 9.
MR. MARTINEAU-We try so hard. We put up additional signs. We even tried, you know, telling
the people to use, but they just kind of blow us off, and I'll walk where I want.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Your biggest problem is the fly by night parking lots. If you could stop that,
or if we'd have stopped that, or whoever, then we wouldn't have a safety issue.
MR. MARTINEAU-They actually back up the traffic, too. They'll sit there waiting to collect the
money, and they'll have two or three cars in line.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They entice people to run across the street.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that is the problem there.
MR. HOLMES-We do view that as more of a Town issue than a Great Escape issue.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is a Town issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we created it. We created that situation.
MR. MARTINEAU-And one of the efforts the Great Escape, if you recall, I mean, we digress
here a little bit, but three years ago, we asked for a whole bunch of new fencing along Route 9,
which that's gone a long way of controlling pedestrian access.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that was a good idea. Despite that neighbor didn't like it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who is now parking cars.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's correct. Right.
MR. HOLMES-Coming back to the discussion about the GEIS and the concern that you
expressed, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm not expressing concern. Just raising the questions for discussion.
MR. HOLMES-The idea of the GEIS, of course, was to allow the Park to add and subtract rides
on a site review basis by establishing the thresholds.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HOLMES-And if they were exceeded, then to require mitigation, and, you know, there's
express things as to what the Park would be required to do if the thresholds were exceeded.
Anecdotally, I think that you're going to probably get complaints from people. The Park supplied
me with some information before coming here, with regards to the Sasquatch ride. There were
three complaints this year, all addressed by the Park. So, you know, I think the Park tries to
deal responsibly with it. They're trying to keep the Park relevant and up to date by adding new
rides and I think the purpose of the EIS is being served by allowing minor modifications.
Obviously, if there were to be something on the magnitude of the indoor water park, you have to
come back and take a look at the fact that that's a material improvement that would require
some updating of the GEIS methodologies involved, but, you know, I think right now it's serving
its purpose. It's allowing the Park to bring something fresh, to keep it relevant to the consuming
public, and to continue the economic productivity that it has for the County.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to add, I'm a huge proponent of that process that we did, the EIS
process, and we talked about it Tuesday night, in fact, with another applicant, using The Great
Escape as an example, but, you know, I think I'd be derelict if, while we had you at the table, we
didn't talk about some of these issues. It has been 10 years, and, you know, as much as I'm a
proponent of that process, that doesn't mean that it can't be improved upon. So that's really
kind of the spirit that I brought up those comments. Anything else from the Board? Is the Board
comfortable in moving forward?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel that there's any threshold issue to re-open the EIS
process?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MR. TRAVER-Not at this point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then we'll entertain a motion for approval, if we're satisfied with the
information presented.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion to approve.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #76-2011 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC
Tax Map ID 288-20.1-20
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a water slide complex to be called the Alpine Freefalls. New amusement
attractions in an RC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76-2011 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Previous EIS;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
5) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
6) This is approved with the following conditions:
a) That the applicant will obtain engineering signoff.
b) That prior to project commencement, the applicant will have to have their test pits
witnessed.
c) That the applicant will need to address items from past projects that should be
certified and closed out at this point in time, and that would be:
1. To provide as built plans or an engineer certification letter for the electrical
substation located along Round Pond Road. That should be accomplished by
November 30, 2011.
2. That the landscaping associated with the approved roadside berm as part of
Phase One of the warehouse project needs to be planted or re-planted by the
Spring of 2012, specifically by May 30, 2012.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. DUMAS-Could I just have a point of clarification?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. DUMAS-Relative to the condition of engineering approval, that would engineering matters,
and not matters pertaining to the SEQRA and things of that nature?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the engineering issues, the Chazen letter, and you have a response
letter. You just have to make sure that the engineer signs off.
MR. HOLMES-Yes. The only question with regards to that is they raised the issue over the
cultural resources and threatened and endangered species. As the Board, do you agree that
that has been previously settled by the existing GEIS?
MR. HUNSINGER-That's a good point to clarify.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't think the Board's in a position to even enter into that discussion, to be
honest with you. We'll handle that at the Staff level.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And for the record, we will pursue and use the EIS to satisfy that requirement.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's a document, probably, the engineer didn't have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-And as with any, if there's an issue that can't be resolved, you can always
come back to the Board for clarification.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the motion stands.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. HOLMES-Thank you.
MR. MARTINEAU-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BEAR POND RANCH, LLC; FRENCH
MOUNTAIN BEAR POND, LLC AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR, BARTLETT, PONTIFF
STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING LC-10A-LAND CONSERVATION 10 ACRES TAX LOCATION OFF STATE ROUTE
149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,450 LINEAR FOOT ZIP LINE
EMANATING ON LANDS IN QUEENSBURY AND TERMINATING ON LANDS IN LAKE
GEORGE; TOTAL ELEVATION DROP OF APPROXIMATELY 770 FT. PROPOSED.
OUTDOOR RECREATION USES IN A LC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-06, SP 15-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING
11/9/2011 LOT SIZE 74.18 & 169 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-l-77, 13 SECTION 179-9
JON LAPPER & MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 77-2011. This is for Bear Pond Ranch, LLC. This is Site Plan
Review for an outdoor recreation use in the LC zone. This is, location is off State Route 149.
Again, the existing zoning is Land Conservation 10 acres. SEQRA status is Unlisted for this
subject here. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line
emanating on lands in Queensbury and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation
drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed. Zip line to be accessed by previously installed logging
roads as described under parcel history. Staff comments: It is noted in the narrative dated
October 17, 2011 that the statement "Due to the fact that there is minimal disturbance in
Queensbury we do not believe Stormwater Regulations are applicable". Although staff
somewhat agrees with this statement, disturbance may be greater than expected with the
likelihood of blasting and subsequent stockpiling anticipated. Further, road bed preparation will
need to be accomplished to accommodate truck traffic associated with the project. The
Planning Board should require additional information including detailed construction sequencing
and existing infrastructure upgrades. Upgrades would include submittal of existing and
proposed stormwater controls for the access road. It is noticed that additional road work has
been performed by the applicant without proper review. Further to this, what are the plans for
the movement of patrons to the launch site? What follows is soils, and I think your trip up the
mountain, you pretty much got a flavor for what the soils are doing up there. We're talking about
ledge intrusions and the like, and what follows is Staff comments, and I think my only real issues
is access, the access road, and potential for blasting. I would appreciate clarification on the
blasting aspect, if at all. I'm not sure. I am picking that up based on the profiles of the footers in
the application itself, and the location that there is a certain level that they need to be in, and
with the knowledge that there's ledge pretty much on the whole site, there's no groundwater
issues here obviously, but clarification on that would be fabulous. Also, visuals are really not
represented well with this application, and again, the applicant has provided Office of Parks
Recreation and Historic Preservation sign offs and endangered species, and just to come
around full circle with the endangered species, this has to do with the rattlesnake den, what was
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
it, 1932 when it was last reported I believe, and that will always perpetually come up over time,
when projects on French Mountain come up, and Fire Marshal and Town consultant engineer
comments are attached. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper with co-counsel Mike O'Connor and Tom
Hutchins, project engineer. This is a procedurally interesting project because it's partly in
Queensbury and partly in Lake George, and we did attend the Planning Board meeting on
Tuesday night, before I rushed back to your Planning Board meeting to introduce this in Lake
George. The project, in total, is essentially a way to try and make Wild West Ranch a little bit
more viable, a little bit more relevant. It's pretty quiet, what's there now, and you probably know
that they had the Last of the Mohicans show this summer which was successful, not a huge
crowd, but a successful project, and in general they're trying to increase the ability of the bottom,
for the Lake George part of the project, to handle more people for festivals, for some small
concerts, and like the show that they had, make the restaurant more popular, increase the
parking, and there's a stormwater plan associated with the new impervious surface in the Lake
George part. On Queensbury, it's a way to do what we all consider a green tourist project. I
know that you've already looked at the West Mountain zip line, and this is the same idea, with
one tower at the top, four lines going down the mountain. In this case, because there's the
existing logging road, it seemed that the best way to design this was to put the platform and the
one tower as close as possible to that existing road so that it wouldn't have to be any
disturbance. It wasn't so much a way to avoid having to do a stormwater plan, as a way to avoid
disturbance and just keep everything the way it is. Mike did have Dave Wick from Soil and
Water Conservation District go up and take a look at the road and, in terms of whether it was
disturbed and whether it could handle the traffic, which is small vehicles, and we have a letter
that we just recently got from him saying that he was very comfortable with it, with the size of the
road, the ability of the road to handle this. We know that there are going to be visibility issues,
and in talking to Keith, he asked us to prepare a Visual EAF addendum which we, even though
this is an Unlisted action which we did, we submitted that to Lake George. It was done after the
submission deadline for Queensbury. Tom's done photo simulations. The basic point on
visibility is that, which was in the cover letter, that the pole itself, the tower will be not as tall as
the trees behind it. I know you were all up there. We'll paint it black, camouflage, whatever this
Board ultimately determines, but you won't see that against the skyline because of the trees
being behind it and taller. So what's really being built there is just this one platform and the four
wires, and we're not saying that it's going to be an invisible project, but we're saying that it's so
far from where receptors are that it's really not going to be very visible, and we'll certainly spend
time talking about that, but it's a way to take advantage of the fact that that road is there and get
tourists up there, and hopefully this will be a successful tourist attraction for Lake George and for
Queensbury. So, that said, by way of introduction, when we went to Lake George, they passed
a resolution seeking Lead Agency status. This doesn't have to have a coordinated review. This
can be, because it's Unlisted, each town could do their own independent review. It seemed to
us that it was smarter and safer for one of the towns to do a coordinated review to look at the
impacts of the entire project, but, you know, that's where they came out, and if you decide to do
it differently, we'll abide by however you want to handle it, but that's the discussion that we had
with them, and they passed a resolution seeking Lead Agency status, and if you agree with that,
they've scheduled a public hearing for next month on SEQRA to get started. We're not trying to
push this through quickly. We're just trying to work through it, and, you know, whatever it takes
is fine, but, for Ralph, he needs to make more use of the property, mostly at the bottom, and this
is the whole plan, in terms of laying everything out for SEQRA, this is everything that he's got on
the table. Most of it happens at the bottom, but he thinks that the zip line is going to be pretty
exciting, and hopefully existing tourists will come more often than they're coming now to use
that. So, you tell us how you'd like to proceed. We could have Tom go through, in terms of
where the existing road is, how it's going to work, exactly where the facilities are. It's pretty
simple. It's pretty straightforward, but we could go through that if you'd like and answer any
questions.
MR. KREBS-Tom already took us for a ride on the side of the mountain. So I think we pretty
much already know where the road is and.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only comments I'd make, for the purpose of your record, is that there is no
planned blasting for this. So the Staff comments with regard to that, I would answer them in that
manner. The preferred way of anchoring this tower that's at the top of the, or just short of the
top of the mountain, is to dig down to hard rock and then drill and pin it. That makes it a better
anchor, and when we talk about the tower up there, we talk about 34.5 feet set into the trees, a
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
background of trees, on the Queensbury side, or back end of the tower, as opposed to the Lake
George side, which would be the exposed side. We will then come down to the road with the
wires, and the wires go directly to the base, but across the road, on the Lake George side, will
be a platform from which the riders will begin their dissent. So they're two small pieces of
construction that are done up there. One is the tower, which is above the road, and then on the
lower side of the road, the Lake George side of the road, is the platform from which the riders
get into their harnesses and then go down, and as Jon said, they've tried to make everything so
that there'd be the least disturbance up there. I think the total area of disturbance is 10,100 feet,
about a quarter of an acre, and that allowed, that was a conservative estimate based upon what
we thought we'd need for construction. The area toward Lake George will have some trees cut,
and maybe I'm getting into detail, if you've already seen that or not, we've got the plans. We
know of no additional roadwork. We know that there's a history on this site. There was a
settlement agreement that was signed by the Town Board and the Macchio family and their
entities, and that agreement has two points I would make. One, it said that neither party
admitted that they had done any wrong, neither the Town, in its attempt to make enforcement, or
require permits, which was challenged, or the Macchio's in doing the roadwork that was done.
Both parties said they simply wanted to move forward, and a second point of that agreement
was they adopted a plan that gave a road plan that was acceptable to the Town, supervised by
Wick, as far as the actual installation of it, and that has all been accomplished. Since that work
was done, there's no additional roadwork that's been done, except for ordinary maintenance,
and it has been maintained, and the stormwater that came with that road, those facilities have
also been maintained on a regular basis by the Macchio family.
MR. LAPPER-1 think at this point we should point out, because you were up there, you can see
that that, since we're talking about the road, how much it's filled in from what the original cut that
was done by the loggers, that it's really now like a 12 foot wide road in most places, just over the
last few years, and obviously there's nothing that is being proposed now that would disturb that,
so that the sides of the road are going to continue to grow, and it's just the gravel drive
approximately 12 feet wide.
MR. O'CONNOR-The last point I'd make is that, again, to Staff comments, there is no proposed
additional roadwork. That's why we also had Dave Wick go up and make an inspection of it, and
I think you have his report, that he was satisfied with the road in its present condition. He
thought it was in the best shape, that everything had grown back to the widths that the Town had
wanted, and that he was satisfied that it would support proposed traffic that we would have for
this facility that we hope to construct. So there is no blasting. There would be no storage of
shot rock. There will be no additional roadwork, other than ordinary maintenance, and there has
been no work since the agreement that was reached with the Town, which provided lengthy
detail as to how the road would then be maintained or finished, and that's the way it was done,
and everything, all the banks would be stabilized and what not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, from my point of view, the greatest visual impact, I believe, is
in the Town of Queensbury. So, you know, from my point of view, I think that, you know,
Queensbury should have Lead Agency, but that's my perspective. The other thing that I'm
concerned about, and I understand the Macchio's need to enhance their property and that kind
of thing, they own the property, but the thing that I'm concerned about, and I'm pleased that you
are providing a Visual EAF addendum, because I think that that's important. Because one of the
reasons why people come here, this is a tourist area, and one of the reasons why folks come
here, from like Metropolitan areas, for example, is to come to the mountains, and I have a great
concern about development on mountainsides, even though this is a recreational use. We
approved one in our Town at the ski resort at West Mountain, but we thought that it was an
amusement use, you know, on a recreational property, and it was a good fit. In this particular
situation, you're looking at running a zip line, and, you know, in my mind, I've tried to visualize it
in camouflage, you know, you can do lots of things with paint, and how it would disappear on the
mountainside, and I don't see it disappearing on the mountainside, and so I see the mountain
with a big scar on it, a permanent scar, if this goes in, and so, you know, it's not that I don't think
it's a good idea. It is an amusement area, and it's a fun thing to do, but at the same time, I'm
very concerned, because one of the reasons why people come here is to see the beautiful
mountainsides, and if we put something like this on it, that you can see from the Northway, I
don't know whether it's the right thing to do. That's my opinion.
MR. LAPPER-1 think our response is to talk about, in detail, about just what trees, to minimize
what has to be cut, exactly where it is, what the perspectives are, how it phases away from what
you look at when you look at the rock face, that it's not on the rock face. So, I mean, I don't think
that anything that you've said, Gretchen, is inappropriate. It's just that we need to get into some
of the details and talk about it, talk about design, and make sure what's proposed is the best
way to do it.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Because some of the cross sections indicate that it's going to be above tree
line, like in the lower portions. I'm not talking about the higher portions, and when we did our
drive around, I asked specifically the agents for the applicant, you know, are you sure that this is
going to be below the height of land, when you look at a mountain, and you've got the tree line
at the top of the mountain, I wanted to be sure that this would be below the tree line at the top of
the mountain, because the last thing I would ever want to see is somebody to have to cut a
notch out of the top of a mountain to put something like this in.
MR. LAPPER-We'll go through all that because you're right to ask that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, if it's going to be above tree line, as the line comes down and
tries to intersect with, you know, the base lodge, you know, if it stands so far over the tree line,
then I don't know how it wouldn't stand out. So I have some concerns about that. That's why I
think that the EAF will be a very good thing for us.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think there's 400 feet, if I recall, of clearing from the platform.
MR. LAPPER-That's right.
MR. TRAVER-Before the wire goes above the tree line. So, 400 feet is not an insignificant
distance. Although it's not terribly wide, either, as I recall.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thirty-two to forty feet. We needed 32 feet. We need 32 feet for the four
cables, and we've said 40 feet to be conservative, because it's always going to be a little bit
rough.
MR. TRAVER-And with regards to the 400 feet, I know that that needs to be, certainly all the
larger trees need to be completely cleared from that area. Over time there might be some
growth that would return underneath. Obviously it would have to be maintained.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it would be probably at least 20 years before it would be significant enough
to make a difference.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly right. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-We've said that we would leave the undergrowth and only take out the trees
that would provide a problem.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we certainly are amenable to talking about even putting in more
undergrowth at a level that, you know, it's not going to be the same height as the other trees, but
it would provide the coloring of the other trees, and when we talked to the Lake George Planning
Board, they were suggesting that we put trees behind the upper tower, so that we are sure that
we don't create an opening in the sky behind it. I mean, this is a T type tower. It's not four
towers that go up.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we were very amenable to that.
MR. OBORNE-But that's the anchor tower, though.
MR. O'CONNOR-The anchor tower.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, you know, and that's certainly one of my greatest concerns, that the
ridgeline is protected.
MR. O'CONNOR-The ridgeline, I can tell you, will be protected. There's no way that you aren't,
from some places, going to be able to see the four cables, as they do daylight and they do go
down the side of the hill, but they're going to look like transmission cables.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What color are the cables?
MR. O'CONNOR-Stainless steel.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. KREBS-But, you know, as I look at it, you know, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but
when I stood there on the mountain and looked across, I see Prospect Mountain where they
have cut out part of the mountain, to make a parking lot at the top of the mountain, and that's a
major attraction to bring people to the area.
MRS. STEFFAN-So that they can look at Lake George.
MR. KREBS-So they can look at Lake George. Exactly. So what I'm saying is that sometimes
when you change motif, it improves the opportunity for people to come and see the lake. I
generally don't want people clearing, but I can see eventually that maybe people, even if they
don't want to go on the zip line, would love to go up in a little automobile and go to the top of the
mountain and get to see what we saw.
MR. LAPPER-No chickens. If they get up there, they've got to go down. No chickens.
MR. O'CONNOR-Exactly. There's not a return ticket.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was actually one of my questions is how many, well, a couple of
questions. How many gators will they use? And how many trips do you anticipate in a day? Do
you have any idea?
MR. HUTCHINS-Four to five vehicles at a peak time has been the number of discussion.
MR. LAPPER-That hold four passengers, approximately.
MR. HUTCHINS-That hold, yes, four passengers.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's actually one of my concerns as well, and I know it's not part of this
application that's before us, but having snow mobiled through that, on that trail and through that
area, and having ridden up, when we did our site visit, one of my concerns is that the plan in the
application, with the gators and so on to transport people up there is going to end up being
insufficient, in terms of the number of riders per hour, and therefore there's going to be a
compelling, the applicant is going to feel compelled to improve upon the passenger
transportation system, if you will, to get people up there more easily or quicker or whatever. I
think if, in my own mind, and again, visiting the site, if the circumstances were different, I would
think it would be a better solution would be to have like a chairlift or something to take people
up, rather than a long and bumpy ride up this so far unimproved road.
MR. LAPPER-Part of the answer to that is that it takes a while for the harness to travel back up.
So it's just not happening that fast that you're just putting them on and zipping down, you know.
You come down and then the harness has to go up. So it just, it doesn't accommodate that
many people an hour.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other thought, too, is that by bringing them up by vehicle, it's less visibility.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And if you brought them up in a chairlift setting, on a retrieval system where
they went back up.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd have to have towers.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, no, I don't think you need towers the way that this is built, I'm told, but it
would be a slow process. They don't, they're going to come down that line in approximately a
minute, a little bit more than a minute. They reach speeds up to 50 miles an hour, or can reach
speeds up to 50 miles an hour depending upon weight, but to go up the mountain, those people
would be very visible. The guy wearing the red jacket, the guy wearing the, whatever.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, a chairlift and a zip line are two different theories. I mean, we say towers
because every ski resort I have, unless you went with a, like a gondola, which, you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will have the developer for the ride here, okay, and he can explain that to
you, but my understanding is that there is a second vehicle that is with the other (lost word) that
can bring the people back up, but it's a cable system. They don't install towers.
MR. HUTCHINS-What I think Mike's referring to, there is a version of this ride that they build that
you start at the bottom and you strap up and they take you up on the same zip line, and then let
you go. So he's not referring to a separate chairlift, and I think you folks were.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. MAGOWAN-All right.
MR. HUTCHINS-But there is a version of this where you start on a bottom pole up and come
down.
MR. SIPP-Is this going to be a year round, in other words you're going to operate in the
wintertime also?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. Most likely no.
MR. SIPP-You're going to cut them off when?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you can't get up the mountain.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think, too, that it's an open air ride, and it wouldn't be too comfortable.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it would be too cold on your face.
MR. SIPP-So if you're into a wet season, Spring or Fall, on that road, you're going to have an
awful lot of erosion. Those ditches that are in there now are not going to hold it.
MR. O'CONNOR-We were on the road, immediately after the hurricane storm came through,
and all that stormwater held up. I was.
MR. SIPP-For one vehicle.
MR. O'CONNOR-It hasn't digressed at all since then, and there've been a number of vehicles
that have been up there.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but not at that time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay. The ride is weather dependent, and there are certain restrictions
as to when you can put people on it, from a safety point of view, and we can get that explained
to you probably in detail. The Department of Labor, we understand, supervises these things,
and they have certain standards as to when you shut down and don't shut down. So, you're not
going to have people up there during a storm.
MR. SIPP-1 don't care about the people. What I'm concerned about is the road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if we don't have to have people up there, we aren't going to have
anybody on the road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but I think what you mean, Don, is just that's not.
MR. SIPP-Are you going to operate after a large thundershower?
MR. O'CONNOR-The roads are going to need regular maintenance as it presently does.
MR. SIPP-You don't have much soil to work with up there. That's why you don't have any huge
trees. In an uncut forest, for the past 100 years, they get to a certain height, about 40 feet, and
they start to die off because they can't get enough food to sustain, out of that thin soil. Now,
when you cut these trees on the top, where you have to cut them because the cable is below the
tree line, you're going to have to fill in with something that's going to hold the soil in that area,
and on the road also.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're very amenable to do that, below the area where you're talking about, in
that path that we cut. We don't want to get in there and have any significant soil disturbance.
The plan is to have the trees cut without heavy equipment, so that there is no disturbance.
MR. SIPP-That's easy to do, but we still don't have that much soil to put anything in there,
except that wild growing juniper or something, you know, to keep it down below the cables.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're amenable to that.
MR. SIPP-You're still going to see it. There's no way you're going to camouflage that part of it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that to scale? Because I think you said the line is 3400 feet, or 3450?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And only 400 feet of it's in Queensbury?
MR. TRAVER-No, 400 feet is the tree cutting.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of the line, total line, how much is in Queensbury and how much is in Lake
George?
MR. MAGOWAN-About half of it.
MR. TRAVER-About a third.
MR. HUTCHINS-Twelve hundred feet in Queensbury, of 3400.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-That pink line is 1200 feet?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I can understand why Lake George wants to be the Lead Agency. I
can understand that. I don't have a problem with it, either.
MR. O'CONNOR-And they've started the process and asked that it be coordinated review, and
this is very similar to your property that you had with McPhillips. I'm sure they're aware of that
decision, so they cite those reasons why they think that the review should be done in Lake
George, and I don't think there's much that distinguishes this from that, to be honest with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that was a log landing, though. That was a little bit, we could debate
that.
MR. O'CONNOR-As I said, all traffic, you know, and the sanitary facilities, actually more of the
road is in Lake George than is in Queensbury, the access road.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it starts in Lake George and it ends in Lake George.
MR. LAPPER-Because really it's the parking lot and the stormwater part that's really more of the
disturbance, that's all down at the bottom.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, that's Lake George's problem.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the visual is in Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the visual is in Queensbury.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that's a big deal to us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you might be standing in Lake George when you see it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You won't see it from Queensbury because you'll be on the other side of
the mountain.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's very little surrounding Queensbury where you're going to see this.
MRS. STEFFAN-Gurney Lane.
MR. O'CONNOR-Gurney Lane is behind it. Gurney Lane is to the south of it.
MRS. STEFFAN-What's the Lake George side of Gurney Lane, where it switches?
MR. LAPPER-Goggins.
MRS. STEFFAN-Goggins Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have to get APA approvals?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. LAPPER-We've submitted for a non-jurisdictional letter. We expect it'll be non-
jurisdictional.
MR. OBORNE-That needs to be part also of the SEQRA aspect of it, as far as it being an
involved or interested agency. So, I mean, that's typical.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not if they give that non-jurisdictional.
MR. OBORNE-If they give that NJ, you're good. Obviously.
MR. O'CONNOR-And if they take jurisdiction, there will be no (lost word).
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-It would just be the APA process.
MR. LAPPER-Which is like a superseder.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess the question that I have is if the Town of Lake George is the
Lead Agent, I mean, you already heard probably the most significant concern we have is the
visual impacts, you know, how much of a say or discussion we would have in any mitigation of
those visual impacts.
MR. LAPPER-Well, part of it is SEQRA, and part of it is Site Plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan.
MR. LAPPER-So you still have, we know that we have to settle up with you and make this as,
the best visual that we can and talk about mitigation in Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But the SEQRA would be one SEQRA, and the simple answer is, as an involved
agency, if they're Lead Agency, you would send them a letter saying here are the issues we
want to make sure that are covered.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now, in terms of the visual impact, have you identified locations where you'll
have, where you'll be able to see the?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Keith had asked us, and we prepared and we submitted to Lake George, I
don't know if that was included in what you got from them, a visual impact assessment with
photo renderings.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, we didn't get that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I sent you a letter yesterday.
MR. OBORNE-Yesterday?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-No, I haven't received that.
MR. LAPPER-You might not have gotten it yet.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have a copy of the letter.
MR. LAPPER-We measured, you know, four miles from Prospect Mountain. We did identify
where you could look at it, the distance from the Northway are all on that form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, because when we were up there, I mean, clearly there were
sections of the Northway that will have a visual line of sight. Clearly there's sections of Route 9
you'll be able to see it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Clearly there's a house you can see.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No kidding.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The biggest house around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is in the Town of Lake George.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. Unfortunately.
MR. LAPPER-The design was to try and mitigate visual impacts, and we know that, you know,
that's what we have to work out with you.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just remember how visible the road was when it was cut, this so called
logging road. I remember how visible that was, and that was cut in the woods. This will be on
top of and then cut in the woods. So, it will definitely have visual impact.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have much less ground or much, yes, you will have much less
ground disturbance in this. The ground disturbance where they did the cuts for the, before they
had them stabilized and re-grown, I think is the visible part that you had. There's two different
parts of that road system where they actually took the logs directly down the hill. They planted
evergreens, and you saw the growth on those evergreens. They've been there three years or
something like that, and all of that brush along the side of the roads was part of their planting.
So you can repair, and they did repair what was there.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I agree. I mean, that was done because you were going perpendicular
to the grade, and that needed to be changed, but certainly at the top of the mountain, I mean,
it's, there's very little soil, so, but there are species that will grow, and, you know, camouflage is
always a good thing, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-The only direct view you have is almost from their property, when you talk
about views from the Northway, you're going to be looking sideways at the hill for the most part.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's a fairly narrow cut.
MR. O'CONNOR-But you're also going to be looking at it from a side. You're not going to be
looking at it dead on.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but what I'm saying is the narrower that gap, the.
MRS. STEFFAN-You see the whole thing.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly.
MR. OBORNE-Leaves do fall off trees, though. Not to be rude, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-The pictures we submitted are winter pictures.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that's good.
MR. O'CONNOR-Some are winter, okay, Mr. Lapper. Some are winter, some are summer.
MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, I have a question. The height of the platform, take off platform from that
to the ground, I see you have the safety catch net for take off and that. What is the height of that
platform from there to the ground? I see the elevation to the top of the pier, but.
MR. HUTCHINS-The next sheet might, it's roughly 15 feet, because we're maintaining 15 feet
from platform to clear.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm asking what we can do to make that maybe look like a ledge instead of a
pier. Because we have, I mean, like I said, if you're going to clear this and then you're going to
come up, we're all worried about the tower, but you're also going to see the face of this because
there's four lines. So that platform is.
MR. HUTCH INS-Seventeen feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just 17 feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-16'6", 17.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUTCHINS-From 1305. See, if you go all the way to the left there's an elevation sketch.
It's 1305 from grade there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-One and a half stories.
MR. MAGOWAN-The width of the platform is 37 feet, correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-You look on the next page. So what I'm saying is, you know, you're cutting the
40 foot swaths, so we've got a platform that's 37 foot. What can we do that, since we're going to
be clear cutting, you know, or not clear cutting, removing the taller trees to make the zip line,
what can we do to blend all that in, you know, with a low growing shrub, but to fill in that face
underneath the catch net and that, you know, maybe with fiberglass rock or something. Make it
look like a ledge or something, so it would hide it more.
MR. HUTCHINS-We could address everything on the platform below the, at that exposed face, a
number of ways, with camouflage netting.
MR. MAGOWAN-Only thing with netting is it's eventually going to deteriorate and fall down.
What I'm trying to do is, you know, to make it blend in with the, you know, when we looked
down, say, we could do this, you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-You could take, eight, ten foot shrubs and put them in front of that platform,
establish something like a planter so that they would have adequate soil to sustain themselves,
and that would be something that you would be able to, you know, by landscaping, keep it a
level that's not going to interfere with anything, but you could take out half of that easily or better
than half of that, 17 feet, with something decent that would look green, and if the platform itself is
black, you stand down on the Macchio ranch and we've got a pretty good idea of where this is
going to be on the mountain, and my eyesight's not the best in the world, but you have trouble
picking out something and say, okay, that's 36 feet or that's 32 feet, and I know what it is. If you
were above the tree line, then you've got to flag that you're looking at, but you keep everything
above the tree line, and it's very difficult on that face. You've got 3,000 feet that you're looking
at with just your eyesight, and you're trying to get into this narrow width. There's a couple of
trees up there, and it's probably an example of when you, if you go back out to the sight, there
are a couple of trees up there that probably have a branch width in excess of 40 feet, and you try
and figure out that tree, from that site down there, and without binoculars or something of that
nature, it's very difficult, but we understand what you're talking about. We don't want to have
something that's going to be visible.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I agree with you, and I can see that, because I was there on the visit and
we did look. This is my concern. You have to have mountainside. You come across, you're
looking at an angle, and all of a sudden it dips down, like this, and then it goes lower, you know.
It's not like we're, it's not like you're cutting it back at a W" an bringing it down. It's going to
come over and then drop down and then be low underneath. So my attitude is what can we do
to visually make that blend in so maybe it looks like a rock ledge or something that, you know, it
belonged there. That's all I was trying to.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would suggest we do plantings, and we could work up a planting plan, and
we've got to see exactly, I don't think we need the clearance on the cables, and this we've got to
talk to Sean, the fellow that designed this thing. I don't think we need the same clearance on the
cables on the south side of the road which just go back to the anchor, as we do on the north side
of the road. So we can even do something there, so that you don't have that visibility. I don't
think, when you say you have to come down, you're still going to have the trees behind the
upper part that are going to stay there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, no, I was, I did see that, I know the trees, and you've suggested, or Lake
George did, planting more trees behind it. I think that's an excellent idea, to fill that in, and that
will close that gap a little bit more, but like I said, still, I, you know, with my eye, that's what I see,
the tree line coming down, cut down, and then the low shrub and the platform. So the more we
can blend that platform and the low-lying shrub in altogether to make it look like the natural land
is all I'd.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have a problem with that.
MR. OBORNE-Would you want to see something from the applicant in a facsimile or some type
of rendering that shows something along those lines? I mean, that's certainly something you
can ask for to belay your fears.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that would be good, because I, you know, I've looked at it many times
now from the Northway. Unless I stop on the Northway, I can't pick out the exact spot. What I'm
going to be able to see is reflection, light reflecting off the cables. That will lead my eye to it, but,
driving along the Northway at 50 miles an hour, which nobody does, there's no way in hell you're
going to pick that spot out. It's just not going to happen.
MRS. STEFFAN-Both northbound and southbound? You won't be able to see it northbound or
southbound?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You won't be able to see it either way, and I've been up that mountain for
forest fires, and I thought I knew, when I was up with you guys, I thought I knew exactly where it
was. I can see that rock up there, that's over to the side, yes, I can see that, but I would venture
an opinion that the only thing I'm going to be able to see is the light reflecting off the cables.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it'll stand out more than you believe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if you can do a simulation of it, a video simulation like we did for the
Traveler's building, you could probably show us that.
MR. SIPP-1 mean, you've got a notch that you've got 40 feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but there's a lot of notches up there, too. I mean, if you look at it
when you're that far back.
MR. MAGOWAN-But they're natural notches.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-They weren't man made notches.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, and that's why, see, to your point here, if you make, if that
view looks natural and that looks behind it, you're going to have a hard time trying to see, you
won't even see it.
MR. SIPP-It'll blend, but you don't want the erosion that it's going to cause.
MR. MAGOWAN-And you mentioned bringing in soil and stuff like that, you know, if we bring in
soil and, you know, it's all rock, what's going to hold that back? So, you know, do we water jets
and some trees out of stainless steel and paint them, you know, low ones that don't grow.
MR. O'CONNOR-Frankenpines?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, not like a Frankenpine, but, you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-We think we can come up with plantings.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 think we can come up with a plan to show natural screening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Go to Lowe's and buy artificial Christmas trees.
MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't say it right maybe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the rendering that we're looking for, the rendering of the project, is it color,
what is it, what is it to show?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they did a video simulation is what they did. Did any of you guys see
that? You did.
MR. LAPPER-That was expensive and involved and.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it was.
MR. LAPPER-Not that it can't be done, but maybe we'll start out with.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, maybe it's not necessary to do it, but something on that order.
MR. OBORNE-Can you start with a static simulation, a simulation at this point?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't know that we need video, but I think it would be helpful to have visual
renderings at different distances at different seasons, and I think showing the project as it would
appear right after construction. I've seen renderings that show, I can remember a commercial
property where we got some visual renderings given to us, and it turned out that they were
hypothetical visuals of what it would look like 10 years after the construction was over. I think
we need to see what the greatest amount of visual impact would be, which would be right after
construction.
MR. MAGOWAN-And going on the theory of lights, too, hours of operations. Dusk to dawn?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don't want to operate in the dark. This is scary enough.
MR. MAGOWAN-There's some thrill seekers out there that might want to do it in the dark, with a
helmet light.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but not the insurance company.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-It hasn't been specifically laid out, but you asked, somebody asked on the
Planning Board whether it would be year round. I'm assuming it's like a seasonal, like Memorial
Day to Fall?
MR. O'CONNOR-We believe it's seasonal, weather dependent.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-We'll have the designer here to talk about that in detail.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, we also discussed that on our site visit, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-I'm assuming, you did mention colors, and you talked about, I know that we
talked about that a little bit when we while we were up there, but are you proposing any color
schemes? You mentioned camouflage or whatever, but earth tones.
MR. LAPPER-Someone suggested black or camouflage, but we'll really leave that open to
suggestion. I know that it's scheduled for a public hearing, but I think you guys can't do anything
until after there's a SEQRA determination, and usually when there's a coordinated review, it
comes to you, without a public hearing, just so, someone has to make that determination about
Lead Agency, and then it has to go to SEQRA before it can come back and be considered,
because there has to be a SEQRA determination.
MR. OBORNE-We'll discuss that here in a little bit, because one scenario could acknowledge
tonight. So I don't know what the Board's going to do.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a copy of the Lake George letter. Do you have that yet?
MR. OBORNE-1 have not gotten that, no. I was told all they set was the public hearing today.
That's all that I was told, but that wasn't from Rob. That was from the secretary.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they lay out, that's signed by the Chairman of their Board.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll read it, how's that, and then I'll give it to you, for the record.
MR. OBORNE-That would be fabulous. I appreciate it.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's addressed to the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Office.
"Gentlemen: Please be advised that the Lake George Planning Board has undertaken SEQRA
Review for the Site Plan Application filed in the Town of Lake George and the Town of
Queensbury for the above tax parcel." Which are listed. "At its regular meeting of November
15, 2011, the Lake George Planning Board determined the proposed action was "Unlisted" and
that a Coordinated SEQRA should be conducted. The Lake George Planning Board further
adopted a resolution that it seeks to be Lead Agency. The basis for the request of status of Lead
Agency was: All traffic will impact Lake George only. All visual impacts, if any, will impact Lake
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
George only. All requirements for parking and sanitary facilities will impact Lake George only.
Existing access roads are predominantly in Lake George. Disturbance areas in Queensbury in
minimum. Please consider this Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency by Lake George. Please
respond within the required 30 day time period as soon as possible. The Lake George Planning
Board, anticipating your response, has scheduled a Public Hearing for December 6, 2011.
Sincerely, Keith Hanchett, Planning Board Chairman" I think it would be pretty easy to argue
some of the comments that they make. I mean, you know, traffic certainly won't impact Lake
George only. If you're driving up Route 9, you're going to go through Queensbury to get to Lake
George, but that's okay.
MR. OBORNE-I think that's probably relegated to the site itself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the visual impacts, I do not agree with that statement at all.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm with you on that one. The visual I think is more us than them.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Visual's the only one you can really argue. There is visual impact from
Queensbury, but that's the only place you can see it from, in my opinion. I can't see it from Lake
George.
MR. TRAVER-And the greatest disturbance is in the Town of Queensbury as well.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. That's what I said, there's visual impact.
MR. TRAVER-So our choices are either to also seek Lead Agency status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-To accept, to acknowledge them as Lead Agency status, right, those are our only
two choices?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Well, no, you have other choices also. You can also do an uncoordinated
review. I've run that through Counsel. They don't want you to do that. I want you to do that, but
they don't want you to do that. So I suggest that you don't do that, and obviously you can
acknowledge Lead Agency, and with that NJ letter from the APA, that 30 day clock would stop
pretty quickly, to be honest with you. You do have a crack at it, obviously, with Site Plan
Review. You have that. So obviously you're going to have to figure out, the Board's going to
have to figure out if they, does this reach the level where you want to be Lead Agency? Keep in
mind that that will now have to go to the DEC Commissioner and that'll slow the project down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Which is not the intent of SEQRA. So there are some things that you do have to
(lost word), but I'd also remind the Board that you do have a public hearing tonight, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, aside from the issue that's created by having it go to the Commissioner, I do
think we should be Lead Agency. I think we have the greatest impact, without a doubt, and also
the greatest long term impact because of the effects of the tree cutting, the 400 feet of tree
cutting. I mean, the impact in Lake George, they're going to have a tower and some associated
installations at the base, but that's in an existing developed area. The area in Queensbury, it
currently is undeveloped, other than the pre-existing, nonconforming road, and so now we're
taking 400 feet of trees and cutting them down, and putting a platform, and we don't expect
there to be a need for blasting, but.
MR. OBORNE-Well, obviously that's a decision the Board will have to make.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. How do other members feel on the Lead Agency?
MR. LAPPER-What they were talking about, just very quickly, was that because it's a whole big
parking lot and stormwater facilities, and the festival area. So they weren't just looking at the
mountain. They were looking at everything that's going to be done, with bulldozers on the Lake
George side, that's what they were talking about, but of course, yes, zip flyer is just part of it, but
of course it's your call and we'll abide by whatever you decide.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and they're concerned with those things because they're in their town.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Would you see this from the outlets? You know how when you're at the outlets
when you're coming up Route 9 and you're at the outlets?
MR. LAPPER-No, it's on the other side of the mountain.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it's on the front side of the mountain.
MR. TRAVER-It's on more of the northern side.
MR. LAPPER-It faces Lake George.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I know, I was up there, but I just.
MR. HUTCHINS-You can see the mountain from the outlet, but this is on the other side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's more toward the northerly face.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, right.
MR. O'CONNOR-I honestly think that, I think the Town line is just before the Teepees.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and if you sat on Route 9 at the teepee's, you've got to look back over
your shoulder to see where this is going to be. I don't know if there are many properties at all
that are in the Town of Queensbury that are going to have a sight of this.
MR. LAPPER-Because it faces north.
MR. O'CONNOR-It faces north. Even the property that is immediately behind this, up on the top
of the mountain, will probably not have a sight of this. There's 200 some feet to the property line
behind us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some people on Bloody Pond Road might see it.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's Lake George.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, most of it is, yes, you're right. All of it is, you're right.
MR. O'CONNOR-All of it's Lake George. That was the issue with the McPhillips thing. You
argued about visibility there, and they said it'll be visible, but it will be visible to the people in
Lake George. I mean all the photos that we have from the pier down by the, what's the park
there that the pier's?
MRS. STEFFAN-Shepherd's Park?
MR. O'CONNOR-Shepherd's Park. We got it from there. We got it from the intersection of 9N
and 9L. We've got it from the Northway. All of those sites, which are the areas where it's most
visible, most likely to be visible, are all in the Town of Lake George. That's why it was placed on
the side of the mountain and not at the ridge of the mountain, to avoid that issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I feel comfortable with Lake George as the Lead Agent, because I
think the concern for Queensbury is, or even though we talk about visibility, for us it comes down
to site plan, because the site plan are the issues that we need to deal with in Queensbury.
MR. SIPP-1 think we've got to protect ourselves, because that portion of the mountain may not
be visible to us, but I think it's a prime state of erosion possibilities that are going to make it
visible to us, even though it may be in the Town of Lake George, it's going to be visible from
Route 9 and the Northway. If you don't do anything with that road, or, well.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The road's there now. They're not going to do anything with it, with or
without the plan.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you get a washout through there, they're going to have to do something.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, Don, the question then becomes, in order to address those
concerns, as the Town of Queensbury, do we need to be Lead Agency? And I'm not, although I
think our being Lead Agency is warranted, I don't think it's required because as the Chairman
pointed out, the site plan aspect of it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. Also the Town has the agreement on that road. So, not us.
MR. TRAVER-The road as it stands today.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-As it stands today.
MR. OBORNE-In Queensbury.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-In Queensbury. That's correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe what we could do is open the public hearing and see if there's
members of the public that want to speak. Are there any written comments, Keith?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. OBORNE-There are, but that representative is here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience that wants to address the Board
on this project this evening? Okay. We have at least one person. I don't know if you were here
a few minutes ago when I introduced the other public hearing. If you could just state your name
for the record and address your comments to the Board.
DAVID KING
MR. KING-Yes. Hello. My name is David King. I'm President and CEO of Lake George RV
Park here in Queensbury. My family has owned and operated that facility for over 45 years. We
own over 250 acres directly adjacent to the properties where this project is proposed. We're
huge advocates of tourism. We bring over six to seven thousand families here a year, and have
traditionally for over four decades. So when a project comes up that can help enhance the
tourism experience of our guests to this region, we're traditionally advocates, people that want to
back this. So my concerns of this project obviously are the location proposed for this. We talk a
lot about the visual impacts. Not many people are visually impacted from 200 feet from their
property line, except me. The applicant indicates there shouldn't be much visual impact from
guests that use my mountain trails. Now we've maintained hiking trails up this mountain, too,
since the park was built in 1966. This is one of the features that we market as part of the
camping experience in our facility. Our guests leave our park over our bike trail, which adjoins
the Warren County Bike Trail, and from there they access the trail head just north of the Colonel
William Monument, and they follow a well marked, well cleaned, well maintained trail up to the
top of the mountain. There's probably few property owners that spend as much time nurturing
the natural aesthetic of that mountain than our facility has over the last 45 years. When a cell
tower was proposed here about 15 years ago, I was not opposed to bringing the technology to
the mountain, you know, offering those new services to our guests, but I was concerned about
the visual and aesthetic impact to this natural environmental corridor. I am forever in view of
that cell tower. You can't be in my facility without seeing the entire tower from a good portion of
my facility. There are no other residents in the Town of Queensbury the way my property was
affected, and the over 6,000 families that visit this region every year were affected. So when we
come up on another project that we say, well, it's not going to affect many people in
Queensbury, well, that may be true. You might not see it from the outlet center and you may
only see a small cut through from the Northway, but for the hundreds of families that make that
hike up the mountain, we have to be mindful of how that affects their experience, which is part of
the experience we've marketed. Now I wish the Macchio's well with their endeavors, but I
question, too, is a zip line attraction consistent with the theme of the operation. I'm in the
business, too. So we have a lot of attractions in our facility. Playgrounds and bike trails and
swimming pools and trolley buses and indoor theaters and all of that, and it's very consistent
with the resort experience we offer. We have Adirondack Extreme. We have a West Mountain
proposed property. Bromley Mountain does an excellent job of that. All those sites, the impact
is very different there, because they're already being used for those recreational purposes, you
know, they're specifically designed for that use. I'm mostly concerned about changing the
character of the mountain. We talk about visual impact, but we haven't talked at all about
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
audible impact. Now if you've ridden the zip line, it makes some noise. It's an odd noise. It's
not a noise you normally experience in nature. It's not unpleasant, necessarily, but if you had 20
riders an hour going down there all day, you're going to hear this zzz, zzz sound, which is going
to impact a hiker's experience in the woods, that might be listening for birds, that might be trying
to bond with the natural environment. So I am concerned about that. Gators, too, typically
aren't the quietest transportation vehicles. I use them on my property for landscaping. We can't
even operate them in the park before 9 a.m. in the morning because guests sleeping with young
children won't have it. So, I have some experience with these vehicles. They do make noise.
The noise carries. The erosion issues are a concern because if you're running that many
gators, four to five vehicles an hour all day long, even though they're going to maintain the road,
that would be a concern as well. So there are a lot of concerns here. My biggest thing is we
need to have a visual impact. We need to look at how this tower is going to look from my
property line. We're only 150 to 200 feet away, but, you know, from what I, 1 know the property
pretty well. It's going to be visible. No question about it. If you take a hike up the mountain, you
walk to the rock face where you can see the park from, and that's what a lot of the guests want
to do. They want to go up to the top. They want to look to the south. They want to see the
campground they stay in. Then they want to look towards the north to Prospect and see the
view. They don't want to see a structure. A structure, no matter what we do to surround it by
trees, no matter what we do to camouflage it or paint it, I'm reminded this past September
Hurricane Irene came through this area. It took over 120 trees down in our property. I have
places where I would have never thought I'd see a building or another structure, that I can see
now, because of the domino effect of that storm. When one big oak tree came down and it
leveled 40 other trees, a structure that may not be visible from the design of this project, after a
horrendous storm, could be visible forever from every direction. So we have to be mindful that
we're working in a territory on a mountain where there's never, ever been a commercial
operation like this. There's no precedent on this mountain, where the southernmost of the
Adirondack mountains, we call it the gateway to the Adirondacks, in our marketing. So the
expectation of a guest coming to this region is to, you're at the foothills of the Adirondacks, the
Adirondacks being this wilderness preserve, not necessarily a commercially developed area,
and we don't have a lot of gondola rides. We don't have a lot of ski resorts in our area. The
most intrusive development is on Prospect where there is a highway, as you mention, and that is
a great attraction, but let's not forget that that mountain itself, in its existing state, as a place to
recreate on foot, without any commercial manmade development is an attraction as well, and as
time goes on, that attraction actually becomes more special, because as more development
occurs around us, it's the preserved areas that become truly for the generations forward the
most special attractions, those that we preserve for nature. So I do have concerns, and I would
ask the Board that they make efforts for the applicant to provide visual impact drawings from our
property line as well, because it's said as though there wouldn't be much, but I think there could
be significant impact there. Management oversight is another big thing here, because it's
remote and there's no other operation at the top of the mountain. Trash and unsupervised
visitors to this area, there'll be a curiosity factor here. There'll be people that don't want to ride
the zip line, but just want to kind of check it out, want to go up and watch the people ride down.
It's very difficult to monitor as a property owner on that mountain, you know, non-authorized use.
I believe this operation will create a very, a lot of curiosity by people that live in the region and
other visitors that'll just want to go up there to just see what it is. With that, there could be a lot
of extra trash. There could be a lot of other negative impacts. I worry about other forest fires,
other things that could happen if we have this new use on the mountain. It's just a concern I
have. It could be monitored, but it would take a lot of man power and a lot of people to monitor
and assure that that is maintained properly to avoid those risks. Thank you for your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Sir, excuse me. I had a question. You heard our discussions about the whole
SEQRA review process, and can you just clarify for the record the impacts on the property that
you're talking about, your property. Is that in the Town of Queensbury or the Town of Lake
George?
MR. KING-It's in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. KING-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
KATHY BOZONY
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony, office of the Lake George Water Keeper. Chris
has actually, Chris Navitsky, the Water Keeper, has actually reviewed this file, and I'm just going
to share some of the comments that were submitted. A lot of them have to do with the
stormwater on the road that was put in for the logging operation. The existing road has never
been reviewed, Site Plan Reviews for this proposed use. The issues that are raised regarding
the construction and use of this existing logging road proposed for construction use with the
current Site Plan application since 2006. Logging road violated the original condition of
approval granted on September 20, 2005 by the Town of Lake George Planning Board, which
was to have Warren County Soil and Water flag the buffer areas prior to any timber harvesting
and for a 20 foot buffer was to have been provided. In fact, road construction operations were
conducted in and through the stream meant to be protected. It was stated in a February 17,
2006 correspondence from Tom Jarrett, Professional Engineer, to the Town of Lake George
Planning Board that the "old trail/road is being upgraded to a forest road ..." On April 4, 2006,
Mr. Michael O'Connor, representing the applicant, stated to the Town of Lake George Planning
Board "The road was put in to facilitate the logging operation." Also does not appear that the
proposed road ever received adequate review by the Town of Queensbury due to violations,
Stop Work Orders issued and subsequent legal actions. Clearly, the intent of the road has
always been stated to be for logging and has never received proper Site Plan Review for
anything but a logging road. If a change in use from silvicultural activities to commercial use is
proposed, this must require a site plan review for the road including detailed stormwater
management plan from pre-developed conditions. Compliance with previous conditions of
approval must be verified. The Town of Lake George Planning Board amended the original Site
Plan Review Application with a condition "that the area delineated on the plan submitted be
revegetated to the satisfaction of Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District" on April
4, 2006. This was in an attempt to provide a buffer on the existing stream and to correct a
violation of the project, and we haven't seen any proof that this was actually done to satisfaction.
A Jurisdictional Inquiry has been sent to the Adirondack Park Agency, which we just heard
tonight, for the proposed project as well as compliance with the existing APA Permit (Permit 97-
25). The APA issued a permit for the commercial use and tourist attraction known as "Wild Wild
West". This permit contained conditions that may restrict some of the proposed activities of the
current proposal including: Condition 3. No construction of building or structures and no new
land use or development as defined in Section 802(28) of the Adirondack Park Agency Act
which is not expressly authorized by the permit ... shall be undertaken without an additional
Agency Permit. Condition 7., which doesn't necessarily have to do with Queensbury, but No
vegetation may be cut, culled, trimmed, pruned or otherwise removed or disturbed north in the
forested buffer and west of the four new corral areas, and Condition 9. Parking shall be
accommodated on-site and shall not exceed 232 vehicle capacity shown on the plans. The
plans indicate approximately 800 parking spaces proposed with all these additions to the site
and the majority in the Town of Lake George. The applicant must coordinate the proposal with
the APA and comply with the existing permit for the proposed use, which will be the first sight as
people enter the Adirondack Park from the south. Stormwater management should be submitted
for all improvements associated with the proposed use on this road. Again, compared to pre-
existing conditions since a major stormwater management plan has never been available for
public review and comment. The Planning Board should carefully review the visual assessment
for the proposed use. Development and disturbance activities at the site have already altered
the existing tree line and ridgeline. A notch is visible from the Northway as well as the existing
road that is constructed straight up the mountainside. That's Chris' comments, and you do have
a copy of that as well. One of my questions is, I believe I heard that there was 10,100 square
foot of disturbance that was being proposed, and from discussions it looked like 400 feet was
being cut, 32 to 40 feet wide, that's 16,000 square feet. So I'm not sure where the 10,000, and
then my other concern is I guess I visually don't know what happens after that 400 feet, between
the 400 feet all the way to the total of the 3450 feet of the line. What happens? Are there trees
that are being removed, or are you literally 100 feet in the air above those treetops? So there
will be no cutting of any kind between, you know, the 400 and to the bottom of the line? That's
the case? Okay.
MR. TRAVER-As proposed.
MS. BOZONY-That's what was my concern. Thank you. I appreciate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. OBORNE-Kathy, did you receive my e-mail from this morning?
MS. BOZONY-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MS. BOZONY-The concern is from the Lake George Park, not the water shed, necessarily.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll conclude the public hearing for this evening. Were there any
other written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-There are no other written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you get a copy of the Water Keeper letter?
MR. OBORNE-1 did. It's in the file.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have not gotten a copy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPP ER-Honestly, we hadn't contemplated the walking trails on Dave King's property at
the top, and that's something that whether plantings or, you know, I mean, we just didn't think
about that there would be hikers that that might not want to see what you might be able to see
for 250 feet of the tower, but that's certainly something that can be looked into when we do our,
you know, rendering, and if it turns out that the buffer or the boundary between the two
properties needs to be augmented, I mean, there's nothing that the applicant's not willing to do
to, you know, that's reasonable to try and address visual issues.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-It just never dawned on us.
MR. O'CONNOR-The tower that we're talking about, too, and just so we don't get too far away
from what the actual application is, is a T tower, and as I understand it, the height of the bar that
goes across is three feet, and the pole is three feet in diameter, too, and that's what we hook the
cables into. You're not talking about a 36 foot massive structure or like one of these erector set
type cell tower. So it's not going to be that difficult, if we have some, to try and camouflage that.
So I'd just make that point. The other point I would make I guess is that maybe Kathy is not
aware, we're aware of the APA permit and the conditions of it. I think there are two permits in
play. One is 1995-25 and 1997-299, and then they were amended. Both of those were
amended in 1997, and all they did was make it 1997-299A and 25A. That's what the APA does.
Those permits did not involve the land in the Town of Queensbury. They were for permits
involving the lands of Beadland. The parcels that we have in the Town of Queensbury were
parcels that were purchased by the Macchio family, and I don't have the date right in front of me,
I think in 1965, '67. They were purchased from old John Stranahan. So they're not necessarily
part of that project. The other thing is, the, and I'm not sure why, but if they're not aware of it,
the actual settlement agreement between the Town and the Macchio families was signed after
the work was principally substantially completed, and at that point, the Town Board went and
inspects the work, and with the guidance from David Wick at the time signed off on it, saying that
this is how it would be settled, subject to the final supervision David Wick. That did take place.
Recently when we were on a site visit with Keith, I think it was with Keith and with Craig, he
asked when was the last time that Wick was up there, and I said I didn't know. So I called him
and asked him to go do another inspection, and that's why you have this report. You should
have that in the packet that came to you. So I think all those issues are old issues, particularly
based on his report that he thinks that the road will support what we propose to do. The
difference in Kathy's confusion as to the square footage, the 10,100 square feet, and Tom can
correct me on this, is the area of disturbance or the soil disturbance or possible soil disturbance.
All of it's not going to be disturbed, but that's where that launch pad's going to go, that little area,
and the anchor tower. The 16,000 square feet is not going to be disturbed. There's going to be
a cutting in that area, but the ground and the root system is going to be left in place. It'll be done
without heavy equipment so we don't grind up everything and cause erosion and what not. So, I
think it's just a matter of understanding the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the decision that the Planning Board needs to make this evening is
how we want to approach SEQRA. Then obviously after that then we would table this, pending
resolution of the Lead Agency status.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would prefer to have coordinated review, because we don't want to get
involved with arguments about segmentation.
MR. OBORNE-1 echo that. I mean, the uncoordinated review, in my estimation, is off the table,
unless the Planning Board wants to resurrect it.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think your counsel has rendered an opinion that once an agency has
asked for coordinated review, another involved agency can't do uncoordinated review.
MR. OBORNE-Well, there's no legal precedent for it as well.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, his feeling of interpretation and intent.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So the question boils down to whether we want to contest Lead Agency status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think from what was presented by the applicant, what we know of the
plans, and we had additional public comment, I still feel, and even perhaps more strongly, that
the greatest disturbance is within the Town of Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-But unless other people feel, saying that, I also acknowledge that not being Lead
Agency does not mean that we have no control over development.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Obviously we have Site Plan and so on, but I do think, to me, absent the decision
already by, the resolution already passed by Lake George, it makes more sense for us to be
Lead Agents.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other members?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-A coordinated review, isn't that easier?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it would be a coordinated review, but there has to be a Lead Agency.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, who's going to be Lead Agency?
MR. OBORNE-That is the nature of.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's the issue, yes.
MR. OBORNE-And it's a decision that DEC makes, the Commissioner specifically.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-You can put your input, you know, typically when you do your response, and if
you consent to Lead Agency, you then lay out your concerns that you want them to specifically
address in their SEQRA review, and then there's nothing that prevents you from having people
attend their public hearings and knowing fully well what's going on and being involved.
MR. OBORNE-And conversely, Lake George can do the same thing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think Lake George is relying upon the McPhillips case, but I don't want
to get involved with a delay here.
MR. OBORNE-We don't want to open that one up again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-The McPhillips case is what I'm talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's an awfully lot of similarities between the two, I think, you know.
Other members want to comment? Would you like to make a motion, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-Would I like to make a motion?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'll make a motion.
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP # 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH
Tax Map ID 278.-l-77, 13
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on lands in Queensbury
and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed.
Outdoor recreation uses in a LC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD APPLY FOR LEAD
AGENCY STATUS IN A COORDINATED REVIEW SITE PLAN 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH,
LLC / FRENCH MOUNTAIN BEAR POND RANCH, LLC, Introduced by Stephen Traver who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp
NOES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. HUNSINGER-So it's four to three.
MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board is now seeking Lead Agency status.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we need to identify the reasons for why we should be the Lead
Agent?
MR. OBORNE-If you wish to. Certainly that could be generated and sent on to you or actually,
you voted in the negative. I think Steve may want to issue that, because he's the one that
started the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'd be happy to sign the letter, now that the Board has taken the
motion, I certainly have no problem signing the letter.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I can work on some draft language and send that around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When do we need to get that out?
MR. OBORNE-ASAP. Because you want to have the courtesy of giving that to the Planning
Board in Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but when you say ASAP, is that tomorrow, is it 10 days, is it a week?
What would be? Certainly before their December 6th hearing.
MR. OBORNE-I would say before Thanksgiving if at all possible.
MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. Yes, I mean, I'll start working on something in the morning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. It shouldn't be that bad. It shouldn't be that involved.
MR. TRAVER-Just outlining basically what I said in the minutes about the balance of the
impacts essentially being in the Town of Queensbury. Okay. I will work on something ASAP
and try to, I'll get a draft out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you, Mr. Oborne, possibly tomorrow.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Fabulous.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if anyone has comments they want to add, feel free to submit them.
MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. Send me an e-mail.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. OBORNE-It looks like obviously we're going to have to table the application to a specific
date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And I would ask that in the conditions of that tabling that Pages, Sheets Three,
Four and Six be updated to denote how this is being pinned to the rocks. As it stands, they're
showing footings that are three, four feet below the ground.
MR. TRAVER-And that would answer the concern raised about blasting.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly. That would take that off the table.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know if we can do that at this point, folks. We will have to have
construction type engineering to determine that. We can give you a typically pinning, but we
wouldn't be able to give you a site specific construction detail. It would be something that we
would give to Dave Hatin.
MR. TRAVER-Although, even if blasting ended up being required, it would be minimal I would
think.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We can give a paragraph describing what's going to happen, what the
investigation's going to be in the spot.
MR. TRAVER-And it might be wise to cover both conditions.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we can write that up.
MR. OBORNE-A typical'y fine. Eventually you're going to have to do something.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And we're certainly going to want that at Site Plan, I would imagine.
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, because that would be a very technical issue that this Board wouldn't
really be able to address.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well our engineer would.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Just for the record, so you understand, we agree that it should be coordinated
review, that that's the smartest way to go, and we don't have an opinion as to which Board it
should be, it's just a matter of, if it has to be determined by the DEC Commissioner,
unfortunately, that's just a time element.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Which we have no control over, but just that the answer for us is that, and we put
it in the cover letter, that coordinated review is the right answer for this project.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have an opinion about the amount of impacts in the relative Town?
MR. LAPPER-1 guess I did read the McPhillips decision, and the issues there. It's where you
can see it from, and they're going to say that they can see it from Lake George, and you really
can't see it from Queensbury.
MR. TRAVER-You're talking visual impact only. I'm talking about.
MR. LAPPER-And the other aspects are just that most of the project, although it's not on top of
the mountain, most of the project happens in Lake George. So I think that's what they were
saying to us, that the square footage of most of what's going to happen is in the Town.
MR. TRAVER-1 understand what they're saying. I'm asking what you're saying.
MR. LAPPER-We just want it to get settled.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Actually speaking, most of the square footage, most of the factual, if you do
mathematical comparisons are, even for the road and the zip flyer, are in the Town of Lake
George.
MR. TRAVER-1 thought the road wasn't going to be disturbed?
MR. O'CONNOR-The road is not going to be disturbed. That seems to be one of your concerns.
The access road is mostly in the Town of Lake George.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-The existing road.
MR. TRAVER-I'm talking about the impact. If the existing road isn't going to be disturbed, then
what additional impact is the long road in Lake George going to have on this project?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just going to what comments have been made. I don't think there are any
impacts on that. The only impact that you're talking about is the 10,100 square feet around the
tower, which even David Wick.
MR. TRAVER-Which is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. O'CONNOR-Which is in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-As opposed to the disturbance for the zip line, which is larger in the Town of
Lake George. The landing zone is probably twice that size, if not three times that size, and
that's new construction in the Town of Lake George.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you want that condition in, or do we just table it?
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me?
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you want that condition in the tabling motion?
MR. OBORNE-1 would like some sort of, at this point they're not going to be able to do all the
geotechnical work. I understand that, but if you can get a clarification on the pinning or some
type of boilerplate, that would be fine at this point.
MR. LAPPER-We shouldn't be tabled to a date at this point, I think, because you can't determine
how long it's going to take to determine who's going to do the SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-It should be pending outcome of the SEQRA determination.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was going to ask you, previously the DEC Commissioner ruled fairly
quickly.
MR. OBORNE-He did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, it was within 30 or 45 days.
MR. OBORNE-But we all have to get our stuff together. We have to send it out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, including my letter describing the argument.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Specifically that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-There's certain protocols you have to go through.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. O'CONNOR-There's a procedure set forth in SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably Lake George because they made the initial motion, and they initiated
the SEQRA coordination, will send a notice to you, or send it to DEC with a copy of notice to
you, that you have 10 days to respond from that input.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there are certain protocols that must be followed.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, as I said, I'll try to get a draft together, you know, ASAP.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, did I hear you say we should not table this to a date certain?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct. It should be pending the outcome of the SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Because by then, we'll know what to do at that point, how to place this, even if
it's after a deadline date, okay. The applicant should, obviously, depending upon the amount of
conditions that you're going to impose at this point, they're going to need to get going on that,
regardless. Now, it's, you can table it to a specific date, in anticipation of that being resolved,
and also in anticipation of actually going forward with the review. So, if you care to, either way, I
don't think it's a big deal, to be honest with you, if you do it pending SEQRA, pending the
outcome of SEQRA. Is that clear?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if it's not a big deal, why don't we just, why don't we leave it open, you
know, until we get clarification. Then hopefully, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, that'll happen
soon.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Although I think I would feel more comfortable having a specific date. I
mean, at that date we either table it because SEQRA hasn't been resolved, or we would have an
update.
MR. TRAVER-And actually, that's a good point, because the date that we would table it to would
be beyond the period when DEC would render a decision.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 would imagine.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point.
MR. OBORNE-Go for the first meeting in January? Which would be the 17tH
MRS. STEFFAN-The 17tH
MR. HUNSINGER-The 17tH
MR. OBORNE-Does that work for the applicant, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-That's fine, and if it turns out it has to get tabled again.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me, you're timetable and your meeting dates are different than Lake
George.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-So I don't want to fall into the same sequence that, say the Commissioner
says Lake George should be the Lead Agent. You should then get your concerns and
comments off to Lake George, so that they can begin the process. I think you're better off doing
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
it to a shorter period of time, some date in December, with an idea that hopefully we'd get it by
then. If we don't, we table it, but if we want to keep the thing moving.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you've missed the application deadline for November 15t". You missed
the deadline for any December meetings.
MR. TRAVER-I mean, January's the earliest we can do it anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-That's the next deadline.
MR. OBORNE-That's why the first meeting in January is.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-When's your first meeting in January?
MR. OBORNE-The 17tH
MR. O'CONNOR-So that's going to be the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do they meet the night after that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-They meet the night after that, I think.
MR. LAPPER-The first Tuesday.
MR. O'CONNOR-They meet the first Tuesday of January. So that throws us into the first
Tuesday of February.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we meet the third Tuesday in January.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm presuming, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm presuming DEC's going to say Lake
George is the Lead Agency. They're then going to need to get their comments back to Lake
George, which they haven't submitted at that point, before Lake George can take SEQRA
action. Although I guess if DEC says they're the Lead Agency, they just, they go forward without
your.
MR. TRAVER-Well, one scenario might be that if we get word of a decision that's not favorable
to us from DEC, we could have a workshop or a special meeting just to do our comments. That
wouldn't take terribly long to get them to Lake George.
MR. HUNSINGER-If we did a special meeting, we'd just have to warn it.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the only way we can schedule a special meeting is by vote of the Board
at a regular meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, as soon as we get a response, we'll make that decision.
MR. OBORNE-I think your only option is the first meeting in January, to be honest with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do, too.
MR. OBORNE-Regardless. I wouldn't overcomplicate it, to be honest with you.
MR. LAPPER-We could set it and see what happens.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-Our record so far is only four meetings in a month, remember.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I'm well aware of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We're ready. The condition is pending the outcome of the SEQRA
status, and, you know, applicant can address Staff Notes and engineering comments.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MRS. STEFFAN-The other comments that came up were to provide renderings of the visual
impact seasonally. That's one of the things that I've written down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, you wanted Sheets Three, Four and Six to be updated with how the
pins?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, on the mechanisms for attachment to the mountain, the footings.
MR. HUNSINGER-The anchors, yes.
MR. OBORNE-The anchors. That's fine.
MR. MAGOWAN-Pinning it, anchoring it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll put forth a motion.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC
Tax Map ID 278.-l-77, 13
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to construct a 3,450 linear foot zip line emanating on lands in Queensbury
and terminating on lands in Lake George; total elevation drop of approximately 770 ft. proposed.
Outdoor recreation uses in a LC zone require Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/2011;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC; FRENCH
MOUNTAIN BEAR POND, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the January 17, 2012 Planning Board meeting Pending outcome of SEQRA
determination. We have a couple of conditions on that tabling motion:
1. So that the applicant can also address Staff Notes and engineering comments.
2. So that the applicant can also provide renderings of the projects and its visual impacts
seasonally.
3. We would also like the applicant to update Sheets Three, Four and Six regarding how
the pins will anchor the structure to the mountain.
4. So that the applicant can also provide the APA's non-jurisdictional letter.
Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We'll be back eventually.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll see you again soon. Any other business?
MR. OBORNE-1 do. I have a couple of things I'd like to discuss.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-First thing is, on Tuesday we discussed that Soil and Water is providing training.
That e-mail should have gone out today from Craig to you guys. So check your e-mails, if
you're interested in that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2011)
MR. OBORNE-Also it is very difficult for Maria to transcribe her notes when there's sidebar
conversations going on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It's very difficult for her, and I have to deal with her on a regular basis, and I don't
like a difficult Maria, and that's all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else?
MRS. STEFFAN-I also would offer that I think that, for our December meetings, that we should
probably assign motions to each one of the Planning Board members for each one of the items
on the agenda, so that everyone will have an opportunity to construct motions, because we have
two meetings, we only have a few meetings left.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not going to be there?
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. My appointment is up at the end of the year and I will not be seeking
re-appointment.
MR. HUNSINGER-We will miss you. You commented earlier that it looks like we might only
have one meeting in December?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is setting up to be a pretty light agenda for December, for both the Zoning
and Planning Boards.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. OBORNE-And Staff is glad to accommodate everybody's social calendars.
MR. HUNSINGER-Including your own.
MR. OBORNE-Including my own. Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Does someone want to make a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER
17, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen
Traver:
Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
53