Application JARRETT Engineers, PLLC Civil&Environmental Engineering
Transmitted via email/Hand Delivered
December 15, 2017
Steve Jackoski, Zoning Board Chairman
Stephen Traver, Planning Board Chairman
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury NY 12804
Re: Proposed `Johnny Rockets Deck'
Application for Site Plan/Area Variance Review
By HWP Development,LLC
Dear Chairman Jackoski, Chairman Traver,Zoning Board and Planning Board Members,
In conjunction with its parent company, Six Flags, Inc., HWP Development, LLC ("Great Escape
Lodge &Water Park"as well as the Johnny Rockets Restaurant or the"Applicant")hereby seeks site
plan review for the construction of a new exterior seating deck to be added to the Johnny Rockets
Restaurant. HWP seeks this approval in order to provide guests/patrons the option of seasonal al
fresco dining.
Also enclosed please find two checks in the amount of$100.00 each,representing the fee for the site
plan and area variance applications.
I. General Proiect Description
HWP wishes to expand the dining experience for all Johnny Rockets-Great Escape Lodge guests and
patrons by offering new seasonal al fresco dining on a new partially covered deck. The proposed
76' x 30' deck is to be located on the south side of the Johnny Rockets restaurant to the southwest
(left)of the Johnny Rockets main entrance. An area approximately 36' x 30' is to be covered with a
roof(the"Deck").
The Applicant anticipates a nominal increase in impervious ground cover(2,280± sf)as a result of
the construction of the Deck.
II. SEQR/Site Plan Review Requirements
On July 11, 2001,the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, as lead agency,adopted a Final General
Environmental Impact Statement("FGEIS")and Findings Statement(the "2001 Findings"),that
considered the general direction of future development at the Great Escape Theme Park(the "Park").
The FGEIS and 2001 Findings were then further supplemented and amended by a Supplemental
Generic Environmental Impact Statement("SGEIS")and Supplemental Findings Statement(the
"2004 Findings")-
Queensbury Planning/Zoning Board December 15,2017
Re: Johnny Rockets Deck
The HWP Development, LLC property is 10.73 acres in size. The Johnny Rockets restaurant
building was original constructed in 1949. The restaurant building was previously home to the
`Coach House' restaurant. The Great Escape Lodge &Waterpark portion of the existing
development was constructed in 2005/2006 and is presently zoned Cl (Commercial Intensive).
The 2001 Findings (as supplemented by the 2004 Findings)adopted developmental impact
thresholds for various significant environmental factors. As long as these thresholds are not
exceeded by proposed new development,the 2001 Findings held that a State Environmental Quality
Review Act or"SEQRA"review is not required. Instead,the Board must approve new attractions
and facilities on the HWP Development property on the basis of site plan review and area variance
approval, if required,provided that they are consistent with the impact assessment and thresholds
generically adopted in the respective findings statements.
A. Traffic
The 2001 Findings refer to a traffic study detailed in the FGEIS which states that"traffic impacts will
occur as traffic associated with the growth in the Park's attendance increases." See p. 9 of the 2001
Findings. The FGEIS sets forth"Improvement"measures designed to handle increased traffic,
measures which are tied to attendance level thresholds. See pp.4-18 and 4-19. In other words,when
attendance at the Park reaches specific levels,various mitigation measures could be required.
However,the 2004 Findings ultimately dictated that traffic counts,as opposed to Park attendance,
would be the trigger for traffic-related mitigation measures. Traffic counts, as identified in biennial
(SP# 63-2015)traffic reports performed by Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP ("CME"),would
determine whether Six Flags must implement mitigation measures. Conversely,the construction of
rides, attractions and facilities would not directly dictate mitigation measures. As set forth by CME
in its August 2017 report, "Phase 3 improvements are required when the combined volume of traffic
in the southbound through lane and the eastbound right-turn lane at either [the US Route 9/I-87 Exit
20 Northbound Ramp or US Route 9/Gurney Lane(County Road 23)] intersections reaches the
traffic threshold listed in the ... Findings Statement."'
Because existing 2017 traffic volumes fell well below the Phase 3 threshold for both weekday and
weekend peak hours, Great Escape has not yet crossed the threshold wherein the FGEIS called for
the implementation of the next phase of mitigation measures.
Great Escape has always been proactive in implementing measures designed to effectively manage
and direct traffic. When and if additional mitigation measures are dictated, Great Escape will
certainly see them through to completion. There should be minimal, if any, additional vehicular
traffic generated by the addition of the Deck by virtue of the fact that the majority of patrons served
by this enhancement to the restaurant will already be at the park or guests of the Lodge. Therefore,
no additional mitigation measures will be required, and currently existing parking lots will be well
suited to handle parking needs.
'According to the 2004 Findings(p.8), the relevant threshold for Phase 3 mitigation measures is"[w]hen combined traffic volumes reach 1,320
or 1,368 during weekday AM peak hour and 1,454 or 1,404 at the Saturday AM peak hour,respectively at the US Route 9/Exit 20 and US Route
9/Gurney Lane intersections." Per Creighton Manning,existing 2017 volumes are 825 and 790 for weekday AM peak hour at US Route 9/Exit
20 and US Route 9/Gurney Lane intersections respectively,and 757 and 872 for Saturday AM peak hour for Route 9/Exit 20 and Route 9/Gurney
Lane respectively. Phase 3 measures include,but are not limited to,widening the eastbound approach of the I-87 Exit 20 northbound off-ramp,
widening the west side of US Route 9 in order to create a second southbound through lane from Exit 20 to Gurney Lane,and constructing a four-
leg intersection at Round Pond Road and US Route 9 by constructing the southern piece of the new ring road. See 2004 Findings Section D(2)at
p.7 for a complete discussion of the timing of mitigation measures,and description of those measures.
Page 2 of 6
Queensbury Planning/Zoning Board December 15,2017
Re: Johnny Rockets Deck
B. ParkinE
At this time,patrons of Johnny Rockets predominantly consist of guests of the Great Escape
Lodge &Waterpark as well as day guests to the Six Flags Great Escape Theme park. Based on
analysis by staff,patronage to the Johnny Rockets restaurant during peak seasonal operations,
consists of approximately 50%± Lodge&Waterpark guests,40%± Great Escape Theme Park guests
and 10%±"off the street"guests. On the HWP Development property there are presently a total of
302 parking spaces, 230 parking spaces in the main Lodge&Waterpark parking lot, 72 parking
spaces in the Johnny Rockets parking lot. On other Six Flags owned properties on the west side of
Route 9 there are presently 1,400±parking spaces used primarily for parking for guests to the Great
Escape Theme Park. As part of the 2004 SGEIS Since the construction of the Lodge&Waterpark it
has been common practice to utilize the Great Escape Theme Park parking lots as needed.
Parking Calculations Queensbury Standards
The applicant proposes to have a maximum of seating for 120 people on the Deck. It is
anticipated that a maximum of 6 new employees will be added to serve the Deck. With the
addition of wait staff,the total operational occupancy of the Deck would be 126 persons.
The accounting of parking is to be as follows:
50%±are guests of the Lodge&Water Park: 60 persons
40%±are guests of The Great Escape Theme Park: 48 persons
10%±are `off the street' guests: 12 persons
New employees(wait staff for the Deck) 6 persons
Total: 126 persons
Guests visiting Johnny Rocket's from the Lodge&Waterpark and The Great Escape Theme Park are
provided parking in either the main Lodge parking lot or the Great Escape parking lot respectively.
Accordingly,additional parking for these guests will not be necessary.
The present Queensbury standard for parking in the Cl zone is 1 parking space per 4 guests and 1
parking space per 2 employees. Therefore,based on those metrics to serve 12 new `off the street'
guests and 6 new employees/shift(wait staff), a total of 6 new parking spaces to serve the new Deck
would be required(3 parking spaces for guest& 3 parking spaces for employees).
Based on this relatively small requirement for 6 new parking spaces, it is submitted that providing the
additional parking spaces for the Deck is not necessary. Given the existing 1,700±parking spaces
available between the HWP Development property and the Great Escape parking lots the need for
providing 6 additional parking spaces would not be necessary,for which we hereby request a waiver
for such additional parking.
C. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
At the time of final approval of the Hotel&Waterpark the HWP Development property was zoned
`Highway Commercial— IA'. Subsequently,the zoning for the HWP Development property then
changed to `Highway Commercial—Intensive' and then most recently changed to its current zoning
classification of`Commercial Intensive'. At the time of permitting and construction of the Hotel&
Waterpark no maximum FAR requirements existed. The most recent zoning change to `Commercial
Intensive' established a 0.3 FAR requirement for property development.
Page 3 of 6
Queensbury Planning/Zoning Board December 15,2017
Re: Johnny Rockets Deck
At this time the HWP Development property would now be considered pre-existing nonconforming
use with respect to FAR,having an FAR of 0.575.
For the development of the proposed Deck an area variance for FAR is being sought, from the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), for a nominal increase in FAR of 0.005 resulting in a post
construction FAR of 0.580.
D. Si2na2e
As part of the addition of the Deck, signage associated with the Johnny Rockets Logo is to be
updated. The size, shape and configuration of the existing street sign and building marquee sign are
to remain unchanged. Only the existing Johnny Rockets logo panels are to be refitted with an
updated logo of the same size and dimension. The updated signs are to be backlit with LED lights
instead of the current neon lighting. See the design drawings for the configuration of the updated
signs.
E. Sound
The 2001 Findings state that"[w]hen a new ride or attraction (facility)is proposed on Six Flags
properties,the Planning Board shall review its sound characteristics. Any facility or attraction that
will result in an increase of the L90 by 5 DBA or more above baseline at one of the three [residential
receptor] monitoring locations shall be subject to additional environmental review." See Section
5(g)(7). The 2017 sound study performed by O'Brien and Gere indicates that generally, sound level
ranges were similar to those measured in 2015 &2016 at the required community locations.2
The Deck is not expected to generate any significant additional noise. Any noise generation from the
Deck will be negligible (i.e.: dining conversation,background music and occasional musical
performances). The location of the Deck as well as the partial roof cover will likely mitigate any
nominal increase in noise elevations. The projection of noise as a result of typical dining usage and
music would be towards the main Great Escape parking lot and Route 9. The closest residential
receptor point, in the likely direction of sound projection,would be the northern portion of the
Twicwood Estates development. This distance would be greater than 0.6 miles to the south southeast
of the Johnny Rockets Restaurant and the Deck location. The 2017 sound study indicates that no
audible noise from the Six Flags properties ("Park")was noted during the weekday and weekend
measurements. The addition of the Deck is predicted not to violate the permitted sound thresholds let
alone contribute any discernible noise above existing levels documented in the 2017 sound study.
Six Flags will continue to comply with Section 5(g)(6)of the 2001 Findings which requires that
annual noise monitoring be conducted at the three residential receptor locations detailed therein.
F. Stormwater
2 For example,background L90 sound levels as a result of sound at the Park were within or below the range of sound levels measured in 2015&
2016 at Courthouse Estates,at Glen Lake Shore,and Twicwood Estates. Weekend nighttime(while the park is closed)L90 measurements were
found to be within or below the range of sound levels measured in 2015&2016 as well. September 8,2017 O'Brien&Gere Annual Community
Sound Survey-2017.
Page 4 of 6
Queensbury Planning/Zoning Board December 15,2017
Re: Johnny Rockets Deck
Section 5(c)(4) of the 2001 Findings refer to, and summarize, Great Escape's proposed
implementation of a stormwater management system. In the Findings,the Planning Board expresses
its concern with the protection of the Glen Lake Fen's water quality, and goes on to set forth certain
mitigation measures to ensure the protection of the environment and water quality.
The Applicant anticipates a 2,280± square foot increase of impervious cover in the project area as
part of the development associated with the Deck. The Six Flags properties have long since
exceeded the one (1) acre of disturbance threshold requiring compliance with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) - Phase II stormwater regulations and Town of Queensbury local stormwater regulations.
The proposed post-construction stormwater control system has been sized to mitigate runoff from the
50-yr storm per requirements of the town of Queensbury stormwater design standards. Any runoff
that occurs as a result of storm events in excess of a 50-yr storm will be allowed to discharge to an
existing drainage structure immediately to the southwest of the restaurant main entrance.
This 2,280± square foot increase represents a nominal increase in impervious area to the HWP
Development 10.73 acre parcel area.
G. Wastewater
Existing wastewater connection will be utilized to convey any additional wastewater flow to the town
of Queensbury municipal sewer system.
H. Soils, Geology and Topography; Ecology
Because the land where the Deck is proposed has been previously developed,the proposed
redevelopment will not disturb any existing woodlands. Only limited areas of existing lawn and
landscaping will be impacted,with similar proposed landscaping to augment any lost vegetation will
be provided. No disruption of any animal or plant species is expected,nor will there be any impact
to open space, agricultural, forest or mineral resources.
In accordance with 2001 Findings Section 5(b)(3), Great Escape will provide the Planning Board
with a detailed landscape planting plan during site plan review.
III. Waiver Requests
Exterior Lighting
The applicant wishes to request an exterior lighting waiver. No exterior area lighting is proposed as
part of this application other than some small accent lighting will be provided to the interior of the
Deck to provide a nominal amount of lighting for seating and egress from the Deck.
Parking
As discussed above (Sect. II-B)only 6 new parking spaces would be required based upon the current
town of Queensbury parking requirements for the Cl zone. With 1,700±parking spaces available
between the Lodge &Waterpark, Johnny Rockets and The Great Escape parking lots we believe this
is more than sufficient to accommodate the required 6 new parking spaces for the Deck.
IV. Required Approvals and Attachments
Page 5 of 6
Queensbury Planning/Zoning Board December 15,2017
Re: Johnny Rockets Deck
Great Escape anticipates that governmental approvals required for the proposed deck will be Site
Plan Review,Area Variance Review and a Building Permit from the Town of Queensbury.
To assist in your review,the following are inclusive of this submission:
1. Cover Letter
2. Zoning Denial Letter
3. Application Fee(s): Site Plan ($100.00) and Variance ($100.00)
4. Site Plan Application w/questions/answers
5. ZBA Application w/questions/answers
6. (4)Full size and(26) 11x17 drawings(1-8) entitled"Proposed Johnny Rockets Deck six
Flags—Great Escape Lodge"
All drawings revision `A' dated 12/13/2017
7. Deed
8. Survey—HWP Development Property
9. 2017 O'Brien& Gere Sound Study
10. 2017 Creighton Manning Traffic Study
Please feel free to contact us at(518) 792-2907 if you have any questions or comments regarding the
above or attached. Thank you for your consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
JARRETT Engineers, PLLC
2017.12.15
10:23:22 -05'00'
Robert U. Holmes 11,P.E.
Project Manager
Ecopies: Eric Gilbert—Great Escape
Casey Klingbeil—Great Escape Lodge &Waterpark
Charles Dumas, Esq.—Lemery Greisler, LLC
F:\DataFile\2001 Project Files\Grt Esc Proj\01-054 Great Escape Venues\01-054.60 Johnny Rockets Deck\Work Docs\01054.60 17xxxx SP\Srce
Files\01054.60 171215 Fnl Cvr Ltr.doc
Page 6 of 6
4LTOW' OF QUEE SBU Y
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-5902
December 12,2017
HWP Development, LLC
89 Six Flags Drive
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: Johnny Rockets—Outdoor Seating- Deck
89 Six Flags Drive
Tax Map Parcel. 295.8-1-5
Dear Mr. Gilbert-
] am writing you with regards to my review of the above-referenced project and to document the
recent oanvi�T5ations between you and )aura Moore of my office.
Upon my review i find that your proposal will require an Area Variance and Site Plan Review
prior to the commencement of the project. Specifically, an Area Variance is required as your plan
is for the construction of a 2,280 sq. ft, deck which will result in a violation of the Floor Area
Ratio(FAIL) requirements for the Commercial Intensive(CI) zoning district. Site Plan Revi-w is
required for the additional seating area/site improvements.
1 understand that yoti may be compiling the necessary applications. This letter serves as the
required denial letter for the processing of your application packages_ Please note our established
submittal deadlines when completing your application papers.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding your application, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Sincerely,
ov�)
Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator
B1sh
Cc: Bob Holrnes, Jarrett Engineering, PLL
1._1 raig Brown12017 LatterslDenlaI I IWP Devclopment for JohTiay Rockets 12_8_17_doc
" Horne of Natural Beaisfy _ A Good Pince to Live "
Area Variance [ZBAapproved: September 212016]
Town of Queensbury Area Variance Application
REVIEW PROCESS:
1) Required Pre-Submission meeting with staff to determine general completeness of application materials to be held no later
than 1 week prior to deadline day. Call(518)761-8238 or(518)761-8265 for an appointment.
2) Determination of application completeness.All necessary information must be provided and appropriate fee(s)paid for
consideration for placement on an agenda for that month.
3) Incomplete Mlications will not be considered for placement on any agenda until all missing information has been suplied.
4) Submittal to the Warren County Planning Board,if applicable.
5) Zoning Board meetings,generally the third and fourth Wednesday of each month. You will be advised in writing as to which
meeting to attend.
6) Following the meeting,you will be provided with a copy of the resolution stating the Board's decision on your application.
If your application was approved,the next likely step is a Building Permit.Final plans/drawings must be provided for the
next phase of review. If your application was denied your project cannot proceed as submitted.
DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED:(HARD COPY&ELECTRONIC)
1 original and 14 copies of the completed application package to include:
Completed Application: pages 1-9 completed,signed&dated
Pre-Submission Meeting Notes: signed by staff
Denial Letter: from the Zoning Administrator
Survev.
Current Survey: survey map depicting current conditions—sign,stamped,date by surveyor
Proposed Conditions Map: The proposed conditions map must be based on a current survey and may by prepared
by Surveyor,Professional Engineer(Civil)or a Registered Architect.
Area/Sign Applications: must provide a final as-built survey depicting all site conditions and
improvements
Survey Waiver: Applicant may request a waiver from the survey pre and post requirements.
Copy of Deed
Fee: $50 residential; $100 commercial
ZONING STAFF&CONTACT INFORMATION:
Craig Brown,Zoning Administrator craigbkgueensburv.net
Laura Moore,Land Use Planner lmoore gueensbury.net
Sue Hemingway,Office Specialist sueh @queensbM.net (518)761-8238
Visit our website at www.queensbury.net for further information and forms.
Page 00
Area Variance [ZBAapproved: September 212016]
General Information
295.8-1-5
Tax Parcel ID Number:
Commercial Intensive
Zoning District:
Detailed Description of Project [include current&proposed use]:
Hote 1/waterpark/re staurant
Current Use:
Hote 1/waterpark/re staurant
Proposed Use:
89 Six Flags Drive
Location of Project:
Applicant Name: HWP Development,LLC Mailing Address 89 Six Flags Drive
Home Phone City, State,Zip
Queensbury,NY 12804
Work Phone 518-792-3500 Cell Phone
E-Mail: egilbert@sftp.com FAX No.
Agent's Name: JARRETT Engineers,PLLC Mailing Address 12 East Washington St.
Home Phone City, State,Zip Glens Falls,NY 12801
Work Phone 518-792-2907 Cell Phone
E-mail bholmes@jarrettengineers.com FAX No.
Owner's Name HWP Development,LLC Mailing Address PO Box 543185,Dallas,TX 75354
Home Phone City, State,Zip
Work Phone Cell Phone
E-mail egilbert@sftp.com FAX No.
Pagel
Area.Variance [ZBAapproved: September 212016]
Site Development Data
Area/Type Existing sq.ft. Proposed Total sq.ft.
Additions .ft.
A. Building footprint 88,345 sf N/A 88,345 sf
B. Detached Garage N/A N/A N/A
C. Accessory Structure(s) N/A N/A N/A
D. Paved,gravel or other hard surfaced area 184,852 sf N/A 184,852 sf
E. Porches/Decks N/A 2,280 sf 2,280 sf
F. Other N/A N/A N/A
G. Total Non-Permeable [Add A-F] 273,197 sf 2,280 sf
(Deck area) 275,477 sf
H. Parcel Area [43,560 sq. ft./acre] 467,362 sf 467,362 sf 467,362 sf
1. Percentage of Impermeable Area of Site [I=G/H] 58.46% 0.49% 58.95%
Setback Requirements
Area Required Existing Proposed
Front Yard [1] (Rt. g) 75' N/A(lodge)
o ge
165'5"(Proposed Deck)
Front Yard [2] (1-87) 100'(Sect: 179-7-050.B.1.a) 8'3"�sides)ge) 8'3" (slides) 3
328' (Deck)
Shoreline 75' N/A N/A
Side Yard [1] 20'min 114'4"(water park) (water par
119'4" (proposed deck)
Side Yard [2] 20'min 324'(Iodge) 324'(Iodge)
Rear Yard [1] 25' N/A N/A
Rear Yard [2] 25' N/A N/A
Travel Corridor 75' 7616" 7616"
Height [maximum] 40' 67'** 67'
Permeability 30% 41.54% 41.05%
Number of parking spaces 6 Additional HVVFJ eve . 3U2 HWP Devel. 302
Great Esc. 1400± Great Esc. 1400±
* Side Yard [1] 20' min 138' (Johnny Rockets) 120'6" (new deck)
**Variance previously received for a building height of 67' Page 2
Area.Variance [ZBAapproved: September 212016]
Additional Project Information
1. Will the proposal require a Septic Variance from the Town Board of Health? No
2. If the parcel has previous approvals,list application number(s): SP#:4-2004/AV#23-2004
3. Does this project require coverage under the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES)Permit
Program? —Yes/X No
4. Estimated project duration: Start Date: Feb 2018 End Date: Feb 2019
5. Estimated total cost of project: 150,000.00±
6. Total area of land disturbance for project: 3,000±sf
Floor Area Ratio Worksheet
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) -- The relationship of building size to lot size, derived by dividing the total building floor
area by the lot size in square feet,yielding a percentage.
Zoning District Symbol Floor Area Ratio [FAR]
Waterfront Residential WR 0.22
Commercial Moderate/Commercial CM/Cl 0.3
Intensive
A. The combined area of all square footage,as measure from exterior walls of all structures on the property,including all
floors of the structures, garages, basements and attics with more than five (5) feet of ceiling height and covered
porches. Building square footage does not include: Open deck, docks and that portion of covered docks extending
over water and one storage shed of one hundred twenty (120) square feet or less. Any additional sheds will be
included.(See "FLOOR AREA RATIO").
B. Commercial or industrial: the total area in square feet as measured from the exterior of the outside walls of a building
or structure, and when applicable,the sum total of all floor areas of the principal and accessory buildings or structures
on the project site.
Parcel Area 467,362 sq. ft.
Existing Floor Area 268,853 sq. ft. [see above definition]
Proposed Additional Floor Area 2,280 sq. ft.
Proposed Total Floor Area 271,133 sq. ft.
Total Allowable Floor Area 140,209 (Area x 0� [see above table]
Page 3
Area Variance [ZBAapproved: September 212016]
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance
Requesting relief from SECTION: 179-3-040.B(3)(b)[I1]
Need relief from the requirement(s)listed below which can not be met by the project as proposed.
[Check all that apply] ❑ Setback ❑Buffer Zone ❑Lot Width ENOther Floor Area Ratio_
The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. Please complete them; use additional sheets if
needed.
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby property will be created by the granting of this area variance?
See Attached.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant
to pursue, other than an area variance?
See Attached.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial?
See Attached
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district?
See Attached.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created?
See Attached.
Page 4
Stephen Jackoski, Chairman and ZBA Members December 14, 2017
Re: Johnny Rockets Deck—Area Variance (FAR)
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE
Requesting relief from SECTION: 179-3-040.B(3)(b)[111
Need relief from the requirement(s)listed below which can not be met by the project as Proposed.
[Check all that apply] ❑Setback ❑Buffer Zone ❑Lot Width ❑x Other Floor Area Ratio
The following questions reflect the criteria for granting this type of variance. Please complete them;use additional
sheets if necessary.
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
property will be created by the granting of this area variance?
It is our belief that no undesirable change of character or detriment to nearby properties will occur as part of
this project. The proposed deck is envisioned to provide expanded dining options and experiences for all
Johnny Rocket guests by offering seasonal alfresco dining. The deck would be complimentary to other
recreational, dining and tourist accommodations in the nearby vicinity of the HWP Development(Johnny
Rocket's)property.
Present development on the HWP property is pre-existing nonconforming with regards to floor area ratio
(FAR). At the time of original development, the HWPproperty was zoned'Highway Commercial-IA'with no
maximum FAR requirement After two subsequent zoning changes,the property is now zoned 'Commercial
Intensive'with a maximum FAR requirement of 0.3. Currently the property has an existing FAR of 0.575.
Construction of the proposed partially covered 2,280 sf deck would result in a nominal increase of 0.005,for a
total of 0.580 for a post-construction FAR.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the application to
pursue,other than an area variance?
It is our belief that there is no other practical solution to accommodate seasonal alfresco dining, at Johnny
Rocket's, under a partially covered deck without the need for an area variance
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial?
It is our belief that the variance request is minor in nature. Construction of the proposed deck would result in
only a 0.005 increase in FAR (from 0.575 to 0.580).
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district?
The proposed location of the deck is likely to have no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood The location of the proposed deck is in area ofprior disturbance and
development Stormwater controls,for the deck, will be provided to handle runoff from a 50 yr storm event
Only minimal exterior accent lighting is proposed at this time The accent lighting is necessary to provide a
minimum light for dining and egress from the deck
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created?
No; under the zoning classification at the time of development of the Lodge& Waterpark, limits on the FAR
did not exist.
Area Variance [ZBAapproved: September 212016]
Section 179-14-030—Application materials
Application materials and site plan drawing is to include sufficient information for the Board to review and provide a decision. The
applicant is to provide a site plan drawing(s)—a survey showing existing conditions,a proposed conditions map(see page 00 for
specific criteria)and include any other attachments that address A-D as applicable to the proposed project.
A. General Shown on Sheet#
1 Title,Name,Address of applicant&person responsible for preparation of drawing ALL SHEETS
2 Deed SEPARATE
3 North arrow,Tax Map ID,date prepared and scale [minimum: 1 inch=40 feet] COVER
4 Boundaries of the property plotted to scale,zoning boundary COVER
5 Principal structures,accessory structures with exterior dimensions COVER/C1
6 Site improvements incl. outdoor storage areas,driveways,parking areas,etc.: existing& C1/C3
proposed
7 Setbacks for all structures and improvements: existing&proposed C2
8 Elevations and floor plans of all proposed and affected structures C2
B. Water& Sewer Shown on Sheet#
1 Project sewage disposal facilities,design details,construction details,flow rates, and number of N/A
bedrooms proposed
2 Water supply [i.e.well] & septic on adjoining lots with separation distances to existing or N/A
proposed on-site water supply and septic
3 Separation distances for proposed sewage disposal system to well and water bodies N/A
4 Existing public or private water supply [well,lake,etc.]. Method of securing public or private N/A
water,location,design and construction of water supply including daily water usage
5 Percolation test location and results Cl
C. Parking/Permeable Areas Shown on Sheet#
1 Number of spaces required for project including calculations and justification: existing& N/A
proposed
2 No. of existing parking spaces,number to be removed,number to maintain and type of surfacing C2
material [e.g.,gravel,paved]
3 Provision for pedestrian and handicap access and parking: existing&proposed C2
4 Design details of ingress,egress,loading areas and cutting: existing&proposed N/A
5 Location and character of green areas [existing and proposed],modification to green area,buffer C4
zone to remain undisturbed
6 Li htin , location and design of all existing and proposed outdoor lighting COVER
D. Additional Site Development and Miscellaneous Shown on Sheet#
1 On-site &adjacent watercourses, streams,rivers,lake and wetlands N/A
2 Utility/energy distribution system [gas,electric,solar,telephone]: existing&proposed N/A
3 Location,design and construction details of all existing and proposed site improvements ALL SHEETS
including: drains,culverts,retaining walls,fences,fire &emergency zones and hydrants,etc.
4 Square footage of bldg. area proposed for office,manufacturing,retail sales or other commercial C2
activities: existing&proposed
5 Signage: Location, size,type,design and setback: existing&proposed C1/C2
6 Waiver Request: provide letter with application requesting any waivers: please reference N/A
specific items
7 Commercial/Industrial Development requires submission of Landscaping, Stormwater C3
Management,Grading&Lighting Plans
8 Identification of Federal, State or County permits required for the project together with a record SP REVIEW
of application for all necessary permits
Page 5
Area Variance [ZBAapproved: September 21 2016]
Pre-Submission Conference Form/Section 179-9-040
1. Applicant Name: Johnny Rockets
2. Tax Map ID 295.8-1-5 Location: 89 Six Flags Drive
3. Zoning Classification CI
4. Reason for Review: Addition of a new deck to Johnny Rockets Restaurant
5. Zoning Section#:
6. Pre-Submission Meeting Notes: Provided Outstanding; Please provide by
Deed V/
General Information complete
Site Development Data Complete
Setback Requirements Complete
Additional Project Information Complete -7
FAR addressed
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance
Checklist items addressed
Environmental Form completed itvi
Signature Page completed r/
�a v zvn k r
��- U _e f n, K'-7 S_ 6nd 10 wng-
S 70St
', f ajjrb r G
Staff Representative: 46t�_M
Applicant/Agent: Date:
Page 6
Area Variance [ZBA approved: September 21 2016]
This page includes the 1.) Authorization to Act as Agent Form: 2.)Engineering Fee Disclosure; 3.) Authorization for Site Visits; 4
Other Permit Responsibilities; 5.)Official Meeting Disclosure and 6.)Agreement to provide documentation required.
OWNER's AGENT FORM: Complete the following if the OWNER of the property is not the same as the applicant:
Owner: HWP Development, LLC
Designates: JARRETT Engineers,PLLC as Agent regarding the following:
Variance X Site Plan_ Subdivision_
For Tax Map No.:295, n -5, _� Deed Reference: Book 1425 Page 104 Date
OWNER SIGNATURE: DATE:
APPLICANT'S AGENT FORM: Compl e the following if the APPLICANT is unable to attend the
in g or wishes to be represented by another party:
Owner: HWP Development,LLC
Designates: JARRETT Engineers,PLLC as Agent regarding the following:
Variance X Site Pla 7�',SubdivisionFor Tax Map No.:295. 1- Deed Reference: Book 1425 page 104 Date
OWNER SIGNATURE: DATE:
2. ENGINEERING 4E DISCLOS : Applications may be referred to the Town consulting engineer for review of septic
design, storm drainage, e mined by the Zoning or Planning Department. Fees for engineering review services will be
charged directly to the applicant. Fees for engineering review will not exceed$ 1,000 without notification to the applicant.
3.) AUTHORIZATION FOR SITE VISITS: By signing this page and submitting the application materials attached herein, the
Owner, Applicant, and his/her/their agent(s)hereby authorize the Zoning Board or Planning Board and Town Staff to enter the subject
properties for the purpose of reviewing the application submitted.
4.) OTHER PERMIT RESPONSIBILITIES: Other permits may be required for construction or alteration activity subsequent to
approval by the Zoning Board or Planning Board. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain any additional permits.
5.) OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES DISCLOSURE: It is the practice of the Community Development Department to have a
designated stenographer tape record the proceedings of meetings resulting from application, and minutes transcribed from those tapes
constitutes the official record of all proceedings.
6.) AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED: I, the undersigned, have thoroughly read and understand
the instructions for submission and agree to the submission requirements, I acknowledge no construction activities shall be
commenced prior to issuance of a valid permit. I certify that the application, plans and supporting materials are a true and complete
statement/description of the existing conditions and the work proposed, and that all work will be performed in accordance with the
approved plans and in conformance with local zoning regulations. I acknowledge that prior to occupying the facilities proposed, I or
my agents, will obtain a certificate of occupancy as necessary. I also understand that I/we may be required to provide an as-built
survey by a licensed land surveyor of all newly constructed facilities prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
I hav read an agree to the above.
2vfZ
S}g [Ap lieant] Print Name [Applicant] Date signed
Robert U.Holmes II,P.E. 12/7/17
i nat Agent] Print Name [Agent] Date signed
Page 7
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part l -Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses
become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully
respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful
to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1 -Project and Sponsor Information
Great Escape Lodge&Water Park
Name of Action or Project:
Johnny Rockets Restaurant/Sports Lounge Proposed Deck
Project Location(describe,and attach a location map):
89 Six Flags Drive,Queensbury,NY 12804
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
Construction of a proposed deck for additional seating and to provide space for occasional live music.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 518-792-3500
HWP Development, LLC E-Mail:
egilbert@sfpt.com
Address:
89 Six Flags Drive
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Queensbury NY 12804
1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that F7
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES
If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ ❑✓
3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 10.73 acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0.069 acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 366±acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action.
❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial [Z]Commercial ❑Residential(suburban)
❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Aquatic El Other(specify):
❑Parkland
Page 1 of 3
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A
a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑✓ ❑
b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑✓ ❑
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES
landscape? ❑ ❑✓
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes,identify:Name:Rush Pond, Name:Glen Lake,Reason:Unique pond&wetland of undisturbed beauty, Eleason: ene i o human health,natural setting, gency: ueens ury, own of, a e: - a e:
89
8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES
❑✓ ❑
b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑
c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? ❑ ❑✓
9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies:
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water: ❑✓ ❑
11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ❑✓ ❑
12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES
Places? ❑✓ ❑
b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? ❑ ✓❑
13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑
b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑✓ ❑
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
❑Shoreline ❑Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional
❑ Wetland ❑Urban m Suburban
15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES
by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑✓ ❑
16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES
14
17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes,
a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? NO E]YES ❑ ❑✓
b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systemsrunoff and storm drains)?
If Yes,briefly describe: NO W]YES
Stormwater controls will be provided for deck expansion, but overflow will connect to existing stormwater controls.
Page 2 of 3
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES
water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain purpose and size: ❑ ❑
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES
solid waste management facility?
If Yes,describe: X❑ ❑
20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe: F
I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE
Applicantlsponsor n e: `d C ` f — (PS'.�` t1 W( ✓�Id(-�Oate:
Signature:
PRINT FARM Page 3 of 3
EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, November 13, 2017 11:44 AM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
*w' project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
y Gtien assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are
answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF
question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a
substitute for agency determinations.
h1 oirtrc7l
y Toronto
.!Prj5 f k11p.�1,. krxh2Jar
Ruch P�11d 4 1 wl 1
' '�#rawrderice
: Esti, H EReLorme, U:SGS, .` ClG"/d�ld
p, INCREr41Erltp NRCan, Es L. pon
` I r l
ETI, EsriChina ong g),Esri Svrs s: rl,
HERE,
� .�Pitts41r4h
E9 i(Thailend), Mapmylndia, NGCC, Is Columbus DeL n*=AgtI5 ,Inter ma p,
GQ U43pimntributars;andthe GlS IN CREk-lENTF. NRCsn,Esri
Use< ity clnnaG
ET 1, Esri Ch ins (Hong
Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental Yes
Area]
Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental Name:Rush Pond, Name:Glen Lake, Reason:Unique pond &wetland of
Area - Identify] undisturbed beauty, Reason:Benefit to human health, natural setting,
Agency:Queensbury, Town of, Date:3-16-87, Date:11-30-89
Part 1 /Question 12a [National Register of No
Historic Places]
Part 1 /Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes
Part 1 /Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and
Regulated Waterbodies] waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
Part 1 /Question 15 [Threatened or No
Endangered Animal]
Part 1 /Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
Part 1 /Question 20 [Remediation Site] No
Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project:
Date:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 -Impact Assessment
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency.
Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by
the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by
the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No,or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning ❑ ❑
regulations?
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ❑ ❑
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? ❑ ❑
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the El 1:1establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or El 1:1affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate El 1:1reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing: ❑ ❑
a.public/private water supplies?
b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? ❑ ❑
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, ❑ ❑
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, ❑ ❑
waterbodies,groundwater, air quality,flora and fauna)?
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage ❑ ❑
problems?
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? ❑ ❑
PRINT FORM Pagel of2
Agency Use Only[If applicable]
Project:
Date:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 Determination of Significance
For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a
particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please
complete Part 3.Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that
have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency
determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring,duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-
term,long-term and cumulative impacts.
❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Name of Lead Agency Date
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT FORM Page of
WARREN COUNTY
PAMELA J. VOGEL --.
COUNTY CLWUM!!'-- 3441TPA000124i'4
E.' X220
Lake George, NY 12845 ¢ry
so zoo?000i za3s
Instrument Number: 2007-00012339
As
Recorded On: December 11,2007 Deed Commercial
Parties: WARREN AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IDA
To
HWP DEVELOPMENT LLC Billable Pages: 5
Recorded By: LEMERY GREISLER Num Of Pages: 6
Comment:
* Examined and Charged as Follows: **
Deed Commerclal 40.00 Cover Page 5.00 RP-5217 Commercial 165.00
TP-584 5.00
Recording Charge: 215.00
Consideration
Amount Amount RS#/CS#
Transfer Tax 0.00 0.00 TT 1175 Basic 0.00
QUEENSBURY Special Additional 0.00
Additional 0,00 Transfer 0.00
Tax Charge: 0.00
RECORDED
County Clerks Office
Dec 11x2007 03:34P
Pamela J. Vogel
Varren County Clerk
**THIS PAGE IS PART OF THE INSTRUMENT"*
I hereby certify that the within and foregoing was recorded in the Clerk's Office For: WARREN COUNTY, NY
File Information: Record and Return To:
Document Number: 2007-00012339 LEMERY GREISLER
Receipt Number: 56173 50 BEAVER ST
Recorded Date/Time: December 11, 2007 03:39:24P ATTN CHARLES B DUMAS
Book-Val/Pg: Bk-RP VI-3441 Pg-220 ALBANY NY 12207
Cashier/Station: S Deak / Cash Station 3
- i- <r,ordlReturn to,
r ; niwy Greisier LLC
i~ic:
DOCUMENT; 00012339
VOLUME: 3441 PAGE: 222
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises granted by this Bargain and Sale Deed unto the
Grantee and his assigns forever.
AND THE GRANTOR COVENANTS as follows:
FIRST: That the Grantor has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been
encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid.
SECOND: That this conveyance is made subject to the trust fund provisions of section thirteen of
the lien law.
IN WITNESS OF THIS CONVEYANCE,Grantor has executed this BARGAIN AND SALE
DEED on the deed date stated above.
IN PRESENCE OF COUNTIES OF WARREN AND WASHINGTON
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
L.S.
Y• t )
Thomas L.Hoy>r a Chairman
STATE OF NEW YORK )
} ss..
COUNTY OF WARREN )
On the 97 day of November in the year 2007,before me,the undersigned,personally appeared
Thomas L.Hoy,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed
the same in his capacity,and that by his signature on the instrument,the individual,or the person upon
behalf of which the individual acted, executed the in t.
Notary Pu ?AELA J.BURNS
Notary Public,State of New York
No.4703197
Qualified in warn u
nty
Commission Expires `7-aO� __
DOCUMENTS 00012339
VOLUME: 3441 PAGE: 223
Schedule"A"Descri tion
All that piece or parcel of land,together with the buildings and improvements thereon,located in
the Town of Queensbury,Warren County,New York,and more particularly bounded and described as
follows:
Those premises lying west of N.Y.-U.S.Route 9,east of Interstate Route 502-3-2.1,and described
as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe driven in the ground on the westerly side of N.Y.-U.S. Route 9,
which iron pipe islocated at a point formed by the intersection of the westerly margin of N.Y.-U.S. Route
9,the southeasterly corner of the premises herein described and the northeasterly corner of the parcel of
land conveyed by Charles R.Wood to Meadow Run Development Corporation(476/308);running thence
south 18° 22'east 52.53 feet to an iron pipe;running thence south 7° 3'east 25.44 feet to an iron pipe;
running thence south 46° 12'west 85.59 feet through a metal fence post and thence along a wiremesh
fence to another metal fence post;running thence north 44°28'west 25.41 feet to an iron pipe;running
thence south 661 52'west 160.28 feet to an iron pipe;running thence south 11°47'east 21.60 feet to an
iron pipe,which iron pipe lies easterly of a well driven in the ground and westerly of a one-story frame
dormitory;running thence south 831 57'west 251.73 feet to an iron pipe in the easterly side of said
Interstate 502-3-2.1;running thence north 33°47'west 254.64 feet to a triangular concrete monument;
running thence north 31" 18'west 398.05 feet to lands now or formerly of David J. Kenny(676/540);
running thence along the said lands of Kenny North 80° 14'East,a distance of 250.53' to an iron pipe;
thence along the lands now or formerly of Attractions Land,Inc. (635/444)North 801 14'East a distance
of 127.92 feet to the westerly margin of N.Y.-U.S. Route 9;thence along the westerly margin of N.Y.-
U.S. Route 9 the following two courses and distances: South 43°49'East 69.97 feet to a concrete
monument and South 48° 33'East 508.00 feet to the point and place of beginning.
i
Schedule"B"Description
PARCEL I
All that certain parcel of land,together with improvements thereon, situate in the Town of
Queensbury,Warren County,New York,located on the westerly side of N.Y.-U.S.Route#9,and
approximately 2000 feet southerly of Glen Lake Road,in said Town and which parcel is bounded and
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the westerly bounds of Route#9,and which point is the southeast
corner of those premises,conveyed by Robert D. Holtz,by Will,to Phyllis Holtz and recorded on August
11, 1972,in Book 555 of Deeds at page 287 and which point of beginning is also the northeast comer of
those premises conveyed by Charles R. Wood to Meadow Run Development Corp.by Deed dated May
15, 1966 and recorded in Book 476 of Deeds at page 308;running THENCE South-52 degrees-09-
minutes-East,along the westerly bounds of Route#9,for a distance of 201.00 feet to an angle point
therein;THENCE South-46-degrees-56-minutes-East,for a distance of 115.12 feet;THENCE the
following 3 courses and distances along a boundary line,as set forth in a Boundary Agreement,dated
Dec. 3, 1996,between Storytown USA, Inc. and Meadow Run Development Corp. and which Agreement
is recorded in Book 1002 of Deeds at Page 179,
Viz: 1 .South-47-degrees-06-minutes-West, 515.41 feet;
DOCUMENT- 00012339
VOLUME= 3441 WAGE- 224
2.North-42-degrees-54-minutes-West,92.07 feet;
3. South-69-degrees-28-minutes-West, 80.94 feet,to the easterly line of Interstate Route#87,
a/k/a The "Northway";
Said 3 courses, as described in the above mentioned "Agreement" are related to the Magnetic Meridian,
whereas the bearings in this description are related to the True North meridian;running THENCE North-
33-degrees-09-minutes-West along said Northway,for a distance of 194.60 feet to a concrete monument
marking an angle point in said Northway line: THENCE North-33-degrees-l3-minutes-West,along said
Northway for a distance of 144.90 feet to the southwest corner of said lands of Holtz: THENCE the
following 7 courses and distances along the southerly line of said lands of Holtz:
Viz: 1.North-83-degrees-57-minutes-East,-251.73 feet;
2.North-11-degrees-47-minutes-West,-21.60 feet;
3.North-66-degrees-52-minutes-East,- 160.28 feet;
4. South-44-degrees-28-minutes-East,-25.41 feet;
5.North-46-degrees-12-minutes-East,- 85.59 feet;
6.North-7-degrees-03-minutes-West,-25.44 feet;
7.North-l8-degrees-22-minutes-West,-52.53 feet to the place of beginning.
Lg9)
PARCEL 2
ALL that certain parcel of land,together with improvements thereon,situate in the Town of
Queensbury,Warren County,New York,located westerly of New York U.S. Route 9 and bounded and
described as follows:
Commencing at a point where the northerly boundary of the former William Griffen Farm meets
the southwesterly boundary of N.Y.-U.S. Route 9 and running thence westerly along the northerly bounds
of the former Griffen Farm 128 feet more or less to the southeast corner of lands now or formerly owned
by David Kenny;thence running northerly along said lands of Kenny a distance of 192 feet more or less
to a point in the southwesterly bounds of said Route 9;thence running southeasterly along the bounds of
said Route 9 a distance of 220 feet more or less to the point or place of beginning.
Cc4?. WHICH PREMISES ARE MORE MODERNLYDES CRLBED AS FOLLOWS:
Schedule°C"
Perimeter Descriution
All that tract or parcel of land situate in the Town of Queensbury,Warren County,New York
bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of N.Y.S. Route 9 at the point of intersection formed by
the lands herein described on the northwest and the lands now or formerly of the Great Escape Theme
Park, LLC(1021/283)on the southeast;thence along the northwesterly line of said lands of Great Escape
Theme Park,LLC the following three courses and distances:
DOCUMENT-: 00012339
VOLUME: 34--4x1 PAGE: 225
S 460 50'32"W,515.41 feet to a point;
N 43° 09' 28"W,92.07 feet to a point;
S 690 12' 32"W, 80.94 feet to a point;
thence along the easterly line of Interstate Route 87,a/k/a"The Northway",the following four courses:
N 340 17' 16"W, 195.56 feet to a point;
N 320 16'47"W, 143.99 feet to a point;
N 33° 56' 04"W, 254.18 feet to a point;
N 310 18' 20"W, 397.28 feet to a 3-corner concrete monument found;
thence along the southerly line of lands now or formerly of Great Escape Theme Park,LLC(1116/47)N
800 14' 53"E 250.53 feet to a 3/4" iron pipe found and N 09134' 07"W, 191.73 feet to a 3/a" iron pipe
found; thence along the westerly line of said N.Y.S.Route 9,the following three courses:
S 43° 18' 26" E,299.69 feet to a 4" square concrete monument found;
S 480 35' 38"E, 506.41 feet to a point;
S 540 00'47" E,203.98 feet to a point;
S 470 11' 28" E, 115.12 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 10.757 acres of land.
All distances are level and all bearings are based on Magnetic North 1999.
TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT to all enforceable covenants, easements,restrictions,and
conditions of record.
Being the same premises described in a deed from HWP Development,LLC to The Counties of
Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency dated December 28,2004 and recorded in the
Warren County Clerk's Office on January 27,2005 in Book 1429 of Deeds at Page 104.
TOGETHER WITH a permanent easement for vehicular ingress and egress from N.Y.S.
Route 9 across the adjacent lands now or formerly of Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
(1118/289, 1116/47, 1021/283, and 1118/292) to the above-described premises, pursuant
to that certain Reciprocal Easement Agreement dated September 4, 2007, by and among
Counties of Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency, HWP Development, LLC
and Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, recorded in the.Warren County Clerk's Office on
September 12, 2007 in Book 3373 of Deeds at page 300.
09C I There's a woy
September 8,2017
Mr.Eric Gilbert,President
The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom
PO.Box 511
Lake George, NY 12804
RE: Annual Community Sound Survey-2017
The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom
FILE: 14257/66402
Dear Mr.Gilbert:
O'Brien&Gere is pleased to provide this report of the 2017 community sound level survey for The Great Escape
and Splashwater Kingdom[Park]in Queensbury,New York.The purpose of the survey is to provide annual
sound monitoring as required in the Park's 2001 approval for expansion.Survey methodology and results are
presented below.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology was consistent with sound surveys conducted For the Park for the past several seasons.A-
weighted and octave band sound level measurements were conducted at four locations surrounding the Park.
The locations are presented in Figure 1 and identified below:
Courthouse Estates(ML-N),
Twicwood Estates(ML-S),
Glen Lake Shore near the driveway entrance to 86 Ash Drive(ML-AD),and
Great Escape West-Park parking lot west of Route 9 and south of Martha's(ML-PL).
Three of the monitoring sites were located in the community surrounding the Park,ML-N was located on the
corner of Hawthorne Road and Northwood Drive,and characterizes private residences in the Courthouse
Estates community north of the Park.ML-S was located on a cul-de-sac at the end of Greenwood Lane,and
characterizes private residences in the Twicwood community south of the Park.ML-AD was located next to the
driveway entrance to a private residence adjacent to the southwest shore of Glen Lake,and characterizes
residences along the shoreline of Glen Lake.Please note that ML-AQ was relocated approximately 230 feet
northwest of the M L-AD monitoring location used through 2011 since the property owners no longer allow
access to their property.The fourth site,ML-PL,was located in a Great Escape parking lot between Route 9 and
Interstate 87(I-87),southwest of the Park,and characterizes sound levels along Route 9 west of the Park.
'im z�
At each of the four monitoring locations,sound levels were measured during the following three scenarios: 1)
Park operating,weekday(August 11);2) Park closed(August 12,morning);and 3)Park operating,weekend
(August 12).For each scenario,sound levels were measured for a 20-minute period using a portable Type 1
sound level meter(analyzer)with integral 1/3 octave band filter.The analyzer measured A-weighted and 1/3
octave band sound levels at a rate of 32 samples per second,and automatically stored time-averaged data into
memory.During each measurement period,notes were made onto field forms documenting weather conditions,
intrusive noise sources,and traffic,as applicable.All measurements were conducted while winds were calm to
light(<5 mph)and there was no rain.
RESULTS
Results of the sound survey are presented in Table 1 and field observations are summarized in Table 2.Field
data forms are in Attachment 1,and copies of calibration certificates are in Attachment 2.As indicated in Table
1,near-continuous (background)sound levels(LRo)at the three community monitoring locations ranged from
40 to 46 dBA while the Park was open and from 40 to 45 dBA while the Park was closed.Energy-average sound
levels(Le,)at the community monitoring locations ranged from 45 to 55 dBA during the day when the Park was
open,and from 45 to 50 dBA when the Park was closed.
Notes on Park sound that was audible during measurements when the Park was open indicate the following:
Courthouse Estates-The Park was audible(coaster sounds)at tunes during both the weekday measurement
and weekend measurement at a maximum of 1 to 2 dBA above the average background sound level.
Twicwood Estates-The Park was not audible during either weekday or weekend measurements
Glen Lake-The Park was audible(ride sounds)at times during the weekday measurement and weekend
measurement at a maximum of 1 to 4 dBA above the average background sound level.
A tabulated comparison of 2017 background sound levels with 2015 and 2016 results is presented in Table A.
Table A, Background Sound Level Summary-2013 to 2017
Background Sound Level(1.90 in dBA) _
Sound Park Open Park Closed
Measurement
Location(ED) Weekday Weekend Weekends
2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2417 2015 2016 2017
Courthouse_Estates(ML-N) 41 49 42 43 44 45 49 55 45
Twicwood(ML-5) _ 40 46 42 41 41 44 43 46 _43_
Glen Lake(ML-AD) 37 43 40 38 39 41 45 53 40
Community Average 39 46 41 41 41 44 46 51 43
Great Escape West(ML-PL) 52 53 51 52 51 52 45 52 49
Sound levels measured on a Friday evening after the Park closed in 2015 and 2016,and on a Saturday ma Ing before the Park opened in 2017.
Overall,2017 background community sound levels during Park operation were within the range of sound levels
measured from 2015 to 2015.When the Park was closed,average background sound levels in 2017 For the three
community monitoring locations were 3 to S dBA below the average levels measured in 2015 and 2016,which is
due in part to less insect noise during 2017 morning measurements as compared with the evening
measurements in 2015 and 2016.
At ML-PL,background and energy-average sound levels were higher than at the community monitoring
locations due to the location's closer proximity to the Park,Route 9,and Interstate.Compared with
measurements from last two years,the 2017 background sound levels at ML-PL were within same the range as
the sound levels measured at ML-PL from 2015 to 2016.
tlBG I THERE'S A WAY
2017 ALL RhGHrS RES%R•:t0 , 2
September 8,2017 I.I[;reat-Escape.14257\66402 Grealescape-
Sau117a[slRepoi Lt113257_6640?_summary report.dorx
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you these services.If you have any questions regarding this report,
please contact Scott Manchester at(315)956-6410 or at
Very truly yours,
O'BRlEN&GERE ENGINEERS,INC,
Scott C.Manchester
Project Manager
Attachments: Table 1-Sound Level Measurement Results
Table 2-Sound Survey Observations Summary
Figure 1-Community Sound Survey Locations
Attachment 1-Field Data Forms
Attachment 2-Calibration Certificates
OBG I THERE'S A WAY t 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3
September 8,2U 17 I;Wrest-Escape.Sa257'1d6402.Greatescape•
r1i SoulDocslRepotts114257_E6402_summary repor1.doc%
oat THERE'S n WAY
_ LO v m uz n Ln cD co Ln
[til N N N N N N N N N N N
s
n co m rD n co co d cr7 a 1-
" N N N M N N N N M M M
{
10 N [7] C7 CD co I {
co co co M N M M N N N N %t co
C7 It
co 0
i
Cn7 C'O7 0 CMJ camo A r"'t v cto }
Ell Q n CS7 CO C7 eY CO [O d It
C'7 I Cl) m m co m 0 tY
- n m m 0 00 C7 00 Co w t r.
Cl) Cl) P7 C7 M d' cn m co I � 't
d vcQ IS7 Ij]
rn nER m {• n n o cacn o
't v -;r v v V � v u7 In
0
in v m In LO v d v ,
LC) O C7 li7 [n LD CA LY] CD tit N 117
y U 'n n 't d V V �k V lO 117 117
' y
.! 'f o N V C] r? CC CO LD ct N LO
y n co Ln k!7 In cD cD w cD cD CD coo
m {- m m co N tr N In m 00 r
w LO In v Nf LO w cp Ln Ln 117 rn
� 4J
Gl Q n co n w cD co c4 n cD {-- It 00 Q
Ein LO In v v It v in 117 u7 °
GJ &A 0 N
L F m n C7 d It [D N N d co y
lV � � L[7 � a � � V cfl LL7 W) w
L Nt It a � VM• d � Q LO CNf1 •
� H 'D
C] C7 �t CO C, O N CC
-� C7 O C7 C7 117 O 0 0 0 C1 0 C,
0 o
= N N N N N N N N N N N N =
a
D `
LI1 vni M v M a cry Q a M q COw m y a
CV CV n N CA N 02 00 N _ ° .�
q
Cl-
ca. o Q Q SZ SZ
CS1 Z31 ¢] CA C3] L71 61 C37 O1 p N
7 7 3 3 7 7 7 C} m 7 7) m 3 D �
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O [U C
N T N T N N N c-4 Q N �
a
O C
Ile: LS1 O7 OI Y 61 Y " C v
C13 = -leQ) N C CU N C ID N = w N C1 NF
Q7 N N d Q] O Q7 N m L .L N
7
m ar cm cm
.(fl S 0 .(C [6 0 .� o roh N D1
D 0 O s ❑ O s ❑ O �e O o � E b)
Y C6 X ..Y fG -s[ Y ro Y Y fn 3C E 'E 7 N
d n a 0. a d 0. 0 cn
en v m E J a
N _ _ [4 J
p NZ O NUJ co W Q 0 V1J n
v
Q1a O z
_ 7311�3 � � LL 07
Table 2.Sound Survey Observations Summary
Monitoring Major Background Sound Increases of
Location Sound Sources Sound Sources'
Vehicle traffic: Glen Lake Rd.: Park ride sound Faintly audible
Courthouse Estates Glen Lake Rd.traffic; 5 per minute during some fulls in Glen Lake
Glen Lake Rd.:25 29 dBA
(ME-N] Distant traffic to west. Northwood Dr.: Rd.traffic[n o observable
!Northwood Drive.:3-29 dBA 2 in 20 minutes increase in sound level]
_
Twlcwood Estates Distant traffic to southwest; Greenwood Ln.:
(ML-S) Birds
Distant traffic:up to 6 dBA Park sound not audible.
None
watercraft[Jet ski);2-3 dBA
Glen Lake Shore Traffic to south and west; Voices on lake:2 dBA Ash Drive: ark sound audible at times
[ML-AD] Birds crickets Ash Drive traffic:up to 25 dBA 3 in 20 minutes (coaster/ride)
Park ride sounds:2-4 dBA
Route 9 Traffic:4.6 dBA Park sound:Greexed Lightnin
Great Escape West Route 9 and 1.87 traffic; Route 9: coaster and rider cheers;
Park ride sounds:5.7 dBA
(ML-PL) Park sound(intermittent) 14 per minute Sasquatch:air release;Park
Park music:1 dBA music
i 11
- - — Glen Lake Rd.:
Courthouse Estates Distant traffic to West; Vehicle traffic: 2 per minute
[ML-N] Route 4 at times
Glen Lake Rd.:12-14 dBA Northwood Dr.: None—Park closed
Northwood Drive.:11-15 dBA
3 in 20 minutes
Twicwood Estates Traffic to south-southwest; Distant traffic:4 dBA Greenwood Ln.:
None—Park closed
(ML-S) Birds and leaves Bird:5 dBA None
Glen Lake Shore Distant traffic to southwest; Ash Drive traffic:25.28 dB Ash Drive: None—Park closed
(ML-AD) Birds Bird:5 dBA 4 in 20 mknutes
Great Escape West 1-87 traffic; Route 9 traffic*4-13 dBA Route 9:
Route 9 traffic; None—Park closed
(ML-PL) Leaves:1-2 dBA 8 per minute
Leaves and birds at times
Ran■.
Vehicle traffic:
Northwood Dr.:12-15 dBA Glen Lake Rd.:
Courthouse Estates Birds; Glen Lake Rd.:7-12 dBA 6 per minute Park coaster sound audible
during lulls in Glenn Lake Rd.
(ML-N) Glen Lake Rd.traffic Birds:4.7 dBA Northwood Dr.: traffic
Voices to north:5 dBA 2 in 20 minutes
Coaster Sound:7-2 d8A
rwicwaod Estates Traffic to south-southwest; total traffic:6-9 dBA Greenwood Ln.:
[ML-S] Birds and leaves Vacuum cleaner at residence to 2 in 20 minutes Park sound not audible.
south:3 dBA(1114 minutes)
Local traffic.5-24 dBA
Glen Lake Shore Traffic to west; Coaster sound 1-2 dBA Ash Drive: Park sound audible at times
{ML-ADJ Birds and leaves Const ructlon banging at residence 1 In 20 minutes (coaster)
[south of 86 Ash Dr.:n21 dBA
Route 9 traffic; Park sound—Greexed Lightnin
Great Escape West Route 9: and coaster to its south;rider
Park sound(intermittent) Park ride sounds: 5-7 dBA
(ML-PL) 17 per minute cheers,coaster sound,and air
1-87 traffic release
Sound levels represent decibels above the average background sound level for the period(Leu)
is�Grnt-Eu�pe.16257�65�o2-GrerteSCape-Seu�DCs�ftevorts�7•We 2.0o
0813 1 THERE'S A WAY PAGE t
06G THERE'S A WAY
` �`6�;. r i�' ��•� ~fie
r •
of �
r-
4 d'°u�l� aunty Club.R'd
40
.-
�'ar91
". �D p u
F GU ,b J�1�4• - .
w
CL f
A�18 d, i xYM 4
J..8
vi
Fav Ln-
G)
C3
x: -2 L;
a o
LR
] 4. :R
r, t c o
PCL XL Error
Subsystem0
Error : InputReadError
Operator : E n d P a g e
Position : 33135
ENGINEERS Creigton
PLANNERS August 29, 2017
SURVEYORS 4W Manning
Mr. Eric Gilbert
The Great Escape
P.O. Box 511
Lake George Road
Lake George, NY 12845
RE: 2017 Biennial Traffic Counts, US Route 9,Town of Queensbury,The
Great Escape GEIS, CM Project No. 112-158
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
The Findings Statement for the Great Escape Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) included a traffic monitoring plan, which was modified to every
two years in 2016, the last report being in 2015. The traffic monitoring plan requires
that traffic counts be collected during the morning peak hours of the generator
on a typical Tuesday and Saturday in August at the following intersections:
• US Route 9/1-87 Exit 20 Northbound Ramps
• US Route 9/Gurney Lane (County Road 23)
Creighton Manning (CM) conducted intersection turning movement counts on
Saturday, August 12, 2015, and Tuesday, August 1, 2017, from 9:30 a.m.to
11:30 a.m. at the above intersections. The peak hour counts are shown on
Figure 1. The GEIS indicates that the Great Escape is responsible for conducting
annual traffic counts to determine if the implementation of phased traffic
improvements is warranted based on traffic volume thresholds. Phase 3
improvements are required when the combined volume of traffic in the
southbound through lane and the eastbound right-turn lane at either of the
above intersections reaches the traffic threshold listed in the GEIS Findings
Statement. A comparison between existing 2017 traffic volumes and Phase 3
volume thresholds is provided in the following table.
Comparison of Traffic Counts and GEIS Thresholds
During the August Peak Hour of the Great Escape
Tuesday Entering Peak Hour Saturday Entering Peak Hour
Intersection Phase 3 Existing 2017 Phase 3 Existing 2017
Threshold Volumes Threshold Volumes
US Rt.9/1-87 Exit 20 1,320 825 1,454 757
NB Ramps
US Rt.9/Gurney Ln 1,368 790 1,404 872
2 Winners Circ e,
Albany,Nv 1220,
518.446.0396 (Pf
513.446.0397 I'i
w,,v,v.cmellp.com
Mr.Eric Gilbert
August 29,2017
Page 2 of 2
The combined existing traffic volumes in the southbound through lane and the
eastbound right-turn lane at the two subject intersections do not meet Phase 3
volume thresholds during the weekday and Saturday peak hours of the
generator. This analysis indicates that the Great Escape is not currently
required to implement Phase 3 traffic improvements as stated in the GEIS.
Please call if you have any questions regarding the traffic count data.
Respectfully submitted,
Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP
A� -/"' '
Kenneth Wersted, P.E., PTOE
Associate
Attachments
Cc: Charles Dumas, Lemery Greisler, LLC
Kevin Franke, The LA Group
Ron Montesi—Town of Queensbury
X:\Old Projects\2012\112-158 GE Annual Traffic Mon ito ring\docu ments\traffic monitor 2017.docx
9 9
m
EXIT 20 EXIT 20
NB RAMP 298 sI, t NB RAMP 388--t * T
212 Nm 163--, cno
rM r�
m
� H
O O
w Of
33 WARREN CO. 2m 15 WARREN CO.
calx--rm 21 MUNICIPAL au�ico f-6 MUNICIPAL
J21GURNEY LN ,j ,x--47 CENTER 23 GURNEY LN 1 + 3 CENTER
10 202 t I
303-, m a 3392 a
WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK HOUR
2017 PEAK HOUR ` rei0ton
TRAFFIC VOLUMES . ,
THE GREAT ESCAPE EXPANSION , G1nnInC
WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK
PROJECT: 112-158 DATE: 6/17 aFIGURE: 1